Don’t read this if you’re not expecting some serious discussion of homoeroticism and the various attitudes toward it of different church bodies. Also, bear in mind that there is no one way that different Christians regard its moral value.
Homosexuality (a better word would really be homoeroticism) has existed since before the biblical record took its present forms.
There are a very few texts in the scriptural record that have been considered to apply to homoerotic activity. These are often taken out of context as blanket condemnations of sex between men, specifically. Unfortunately, in the interpretation of texts, not considering the context is the worst enemy of accurate understanding.
For example, Leviticus, chapter 20, refers to certain sexual acts of men with women. In the Judaic tradition, these texts are called “lying with women” (lying as in bed, not saying untruths). The often-cited verse in this passage refers to men lying with other men “according to lyings with women.” Taken out of context, this is interpreted by many as a condemnation of homoerotic acts between men. Now Jewish tradition regards these “lyings with women” as referring collectively to all the incestuous and other prohibitions between the sexes mentioned there. Taken in context, this would imply that what is objectionable for a man to do with particular women (sisters, aunts, etc.) is also objectionable to do with certain men (brothers, uncles, etc.). Not all sexual acts between men and women are proscribed; therefore, in the specific context, logic would dictate that not all sexual acts are proscribed between men.
Other texts that are taken to refer to homoerotic practices are in fact condemnations of temple prostitution among the neighbors of ancient Israel. Bear in mind that these services were exclusively available to men, and were provided in temples by both males and females. Why single out only the male temple prostitues for condemnation? The contexts clearly include both.
The problem at the root of the misapplication of these texts to all male homoerotic behavior is the failure to read these texts in their context, and failing to exclude “reading in” extraneous opinions not found in the texts themselves. Separating a verse from its context, commonly called “proof-texting,” removes its anchor to the whole scriptural record. As a technique of interpretation, it divorces the verse from evidence needed to understand it. It is not a technique for understanding, but originated in, and persists as a tool for polemic debating.
To understand this issue, look at the entire scriptural record. In the later, specifically Christian testament, the detailed legal requirements of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are seen as no longer binding on non-Jewish Christians. The spirit of the law is now understood as superior to the letter. Jesus rejects both the religious leaders of his day and the conventionally pious, not for their beliefs, but for their blindness and inaction in larger questions of justice for the poor and oppressed. He expresses this solidarity by associating with the marginalized, not to purify their morals, but to show he is on their side, and that they are more loved than the comfortable.
In the Gospels, homoerotic relationships seem not to be addressed at all, unless you see Jesus’ affection for his “beloved disciple” as homoerotic; but Jesus defends his this relationship to the disciples who question him about it. Jesus even compares the sin of Sodom to those towns that rejected his miracles and refused to extend hospitality to his disciples.
There are places in the scriptural record that appear to give comfort to homophobic types, but the overwhelming witness is to inclusion, acceptance of outcasts, judging one’s own life rather than the lives of others.
I have to reject the notion that the scriptures are a weapon to afflict those who have been cast out. “The Church” in many times and places has preferred the old narrow pieties and prejudices to bold acts of love for outcasts. It is a human institution, with human failings too. Yet the origins of its life and history call it to its true goal of love of neighbor, love that witnesses to justice, freedom, and respect for every human being.
