What the Bible Really, Really Says
About Homosexuality:
A Critique of the lecture "What the Bible Really Says
About Homosexuality" given by Daniel Helminiak at Auburn University, May 1996
Stan Reeves
Associate Professor
Electrical & Computer Engineering
In one sense I am heartened to see a discussion of what the Bible
says about homosexuality, even if the conclusions are opposite to
the traditional Christian understanding that I hold. It gives us
some common ground for discussing the issue, and it raises the
possibility that the traditional Christian can demonstrate
his/her perspective that homosexual acts are sinful. Furthermore,
even if you choose to reject the traditional Christian view,
either because of an alternative interpretation of Scripture or
because you reject the authority of Scripture, you may come away
with a better appreciation for why the Christian cannot in good
conscience approve a homosexual lifestyle.
In another sense this discussion concerns me greatly. First, it
is altogether too easy to "explain away" passages that condemn
behavior that we've already made up our minds to do. Paul
himself warned about this tendency when he said, "For the time
will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead,
to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to
myths" (2Tim 4:3-4). (If we are to engage in a discussion of
biblical themes from within a biblical framework, then certainly
we should take seriously the biblical warnings about the
potential pitfalls.) Second, a discussion like this leads those
unfamiliar with the debate to conclude that traditional
Christians must either be ignorant or unfamiliar with the
sophisticated interpretation provided by Dr. Helminiak. These
concerns motivate me to respond publicly to Dr. Helminiak's
lecture.
ON INTERPRETATION
Helminiak differentiates between a fundamentalist method of
interpretation and a historical-critical approach. He claims
that a fundamentalist method has yielded (erroneously) the
traditional view that Rom 1 condemns homosexual acts. While
the fundamentalist method may
be a tendency among some conservative Protestants in the pew, I
know of no conservative Protestant scholar who would advocate
such a simple-minded approach. Conservatives are active in
linguistic, historical, and archeological research with the
motive of understanding the Bible better. This activity would be
inexplicable apart from a commitment to the historical-critical
method.
Helminiak makes the dubious claim that with the historical-
critical method one can objectively determine the meaning of
the text.[1] While the
historical-critical method is superior
to the fundamentalist method, it is not fool-proof.
Helminiak's claim understates the
effects of presuppositions that are brought to the text.
Presuppositions are absolutely essential, but wrong ones will
lead to wrong interpretations. In fact, even those who have the
same basic presuppositions will sometimes disagree on a passage.
An interesting case in point relates to the very passage that
Helminiak discussed in his lecture -- Rom 1. Recently, a
homosexual Dutch scholar, Pim Pronk, published a book entitled
Against Nature: Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding
Homosexuality, where he analyzes the biblical data concerning
homosexual acts. He concludes that for the authors of Scripture
homosexual acts are sin. He evades the application of this
conclusion by retreating into a subjectivist view of the
authority of Scripture. What is striking, however, is that his
conclusions concerning the meaning of the text are exactly
opposite to those of Helminiak. And no one would question
Pronk's commitment to the historical-critical method.
An interesting side point on this is that both Pronk's book and
Helminiak's book are endorsed by John Shelby Spong, the liberal
Episcopalian bishop whose writings have also attacked the
traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality. One
wonders what exactly Spong was endorsing about these books. Was
he endorsing the view that Scripture condemns homosexual acts but
that this condemnation doesn't apply to us (Pronk's view)? Or
was he endorsing the view that Scripture applies to us but does
not condemn homosexual acts (Helminiak's view)? One gets the
feeling that Spong's only concern is that nobody be condemned for
committing homosexual acts; it doesn't seem to matter how one
arrives at this conclusion. This perfectly illustrates my
concern for those who have already made up their minds what
they're going to do despite any evidence to the contrary.
ON ROMANS 1
Helminiak wisely limited his lecture to a few manageable topics,
including a discussion of the most difficult passage for his view
-- Rom 1:26-27. In his presentation, he addressed this
passage under three headings, and I will respond with the same.
Before proceeding, however, I think it is important to point out
that Helminiak agrees that this passage is addressing generic
male-male sex, without restricting Paul's meaning to
"promiscuous" or "prostitutional" gay sex. In this he implicitly
affirms one of the points of the traditional interpretation, in
contrast to other attempts to avoid Paul's condemnation of gay
sex.
The Vocabulary Paul Uses
Helminiak rightly points out that many if not all of the terms
used in the passage have no necessary ethical connotation --
"impurity", "dishonored" (v. 24), "degrading passions",
"unnatural"[2] (v. 26),
"lust" (or "desire"), "indecent acts" (or
"shameful deeds"), "penalty", and "error" (v. 27). To support
his point, he shows how Paul used these terms in other contexts
in a non-ethical manner. One does not have to be a Greek scholar
to verify this. However, the use of these words in a non-ethical
context does not prove that they are always used non-ethically.
Most of these words are used in some place in
Scripture with an unequivocal ethical connotation, which can
easily be verified in ten minutes with a good
concordance[3]. Greek
words are no different from English words in that they usually
have a fairly general meaning that may take on different nuances
depending on the context. I may say that my performance on a
test was "shameful", meaning only that I performed poorly. On
the other hand, I may say that losing my temper and punching
someone in the face was "shameful", meaning that I acted
sinfully. Thus, the choice of words in this passage does not of
itself prove anything for either side. The one possible
exception to this is the word "error". In every didactic New
Testament usage of this word, it is invariably applied to those
who are on the road to destruction. This should at least give
pause to the dismissal of the ethical interpretation of this
section.[4]
In spite of the fact that these words may not carry an inherent
ethical connotation, Helminiak cannot dispute that they carry a
very negative one. His response to this is that they refer to
social acceptability or general expectation. In the social
context of the day, committing a homosexual act would have been
considered socially unacceptable -- something akin to eating
boogers in our culture -- but certainly not having any ethical
import. Paul is drawing on this commonly held viewpoint as a
rhetorical device to bait the Jews in his audience.
The problem with this view is that it completely ignores the
message of the immediate context. Paul is not talking here about
how either the Romans or the Jews viewed homosexuality. He is
talking about the judgment of God on those who did not see fit
to retain the knowledge of God. Helminiak has blinded himself
with the trees (the words) and cannot see the forest (the overall
connection of these words in Paul's flow of thought).
The Structure of the Passage
Helminiak sees a sharp delineation between the acts described
before v. 27 and after v. 27. That is how he dodges the
obviously ethically loaded words in vv. 28ff. He distinguishes
between "dirty" or socially unacceptable behavior (vv. 24-27) and
real wrong-doing (vv. 28-32). I freely grant that there is a
progression in this passage from a discussion of sexual sin to a
more general discussion of other sins. However, that does not
imply that the first category can be written off as socially
unacceptable behavior while all the real sin is saved for the
second category. Paul may very well have started with homosexual
acts because of the relative prevalence among the Gentiles, but
this starting point still serves to advance his basic thesis that
the Gentiles are under the judgment of God for their sin.
The Overall Argument of Romans
It is true that the first chapter of Romans is a rhetorical ploy.
Paul goes after the Gentiles and their blatant, outward sins
first. Then, just as the Jews are feeling rather smug, he tells
them that they are under God's judgment themselves for doing the
same things. They have acted as their own judges by condemning
the same sins in the Gentiles that they themselves have
committed. But Paul never turns around and says that some of
these things really weren't sins! His whole point is to shut the
mouths of us all -- Jews and Gentiles, homosexuals and
heterosexuals -- with no excuse before God. Then in later
chapters, he goes on to unfold the mind-boggling mercy of God in
Christ.
This section of Romans begins in v. 18, where it says that "God's
wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness." It seems evident that God's wrath is not being
kindled over the first-century equivalent of eating boogers! His
wrath is due to real sin, which is unfolded in detail in the
following verses through v. 32. Paul argues that the Gentiles
chose to pervert their knowledge of God by exchanging that which
is unnatural (the worship of creatures) for that which is natural
(the worship of the Creator). Therefore, God "gave them up" to
this evil direction, by allowing them to exchange their own
natural function for that which is unnatural, as a judgment
against them. A candid reading of this passage shows that in
Paul's thought, one perversion leads to another, all of which are
thoroughly evil.
ON THE CENTURION AND HIS SLAVE
Helminiak claims that there is evidence that Jesus encountered a
man in a homosexual relationship, and he commended him for his
faith without condemning his relationship. He finds this in the
account of the centurion who requested that Jesus heal his slave
boy, who was "dear" to him. In light of the common practice of
that day of keeping a homosexual slave lover, Helminiak believes
that this is a probable interpretation of the centurion's
relationship with his slave.
All that really need be said here is that the data is so scant
that it offers little evidence one way or the other. However,
this argument is so outrageously selective that it cannot pass
without note. First, does this not argue as well for the
legitimacy of man-boy love? Certainly, the "boy" could've been
old enough to be considered a man by our standards, but there is
no evidence to this effect. If we take the term "boy" at face
value, it certainly does provide an argument for man-boy love on
the assumption that this was a homosexual relationship. While
Helminiak might reject this construction, I see nothing to stop
the NAMBLA crowd from using it with as much justification as
Helminiak has.
Second, we also observe without any guesswork at all that this
centurion was a slave-owner. Yet we read of no condemnation by
Jesus of his ownership of another human being! Does this not
argue even more strongly for the legitimacy of slavery than for
homosexual relations? In light of this consideration, surely we
must suspend our judgment regarding the implications of what
Jesus did not say in the passage!
Paul does not hesitate to call homosexual acts sin. Neither does
he hesitate to say that where sin abounds the grace of God
abounds all the more. Christ came not only to take away the
guilt of our sin but also its power and corruption. That doesn't
mean instantaneous deliverance from all impulses to sin, but it
does mean that for those who trust Christ, God is committed to
changing us one step at a time into people who reflect Christ's
character. My recommendation is that you put down Dr.
Helminiak's book and instead sit down to a thorough, open-eyed,
and open-minded reading of the book of
Romans.[5]