But the Bible... ..main page Christianity and Homosexuality By Dr. Alan Sheard In the discussions on sexuality it is important to be clear about what is going on. Critics of homosexuality want the existing ban on recognition of committed partnerships to be continued, and also the exclusion of homosexuals from the clergy. Advocates of homosexuals wish these restrictions to be removed, and of course they do not wish to see any equivalent restrictions on heterosexuals. This is an asymmetrical situation, one side wishing to restrict the other by force of law while accepting no such restrictions on themselves, which in any case are not proposed. It is a classic relationship between oppressors and oppressed. The attitude of aversion to homosexuality is a common one. Sexuality may be associated with bodily functions and smut in some people's minds, but this is a coincidental matter without any significance. All bodily functions, including excretory, are normal, necessary and healthy, as is sexuality. It may seem to be 'common sense' that homosexuality is wrong, but common sense alone is not a good guide to anything. It is common sense that the sun goes round the earth. Critics of homosexuality do not like being called homophobes. The word simply means a dislike of homosexuality and this exactly describes their situation. But it has deeper roots. Some people who are attracted to others of the same sex find that this causes them great anxiety, which they externalise and blame on other people. In the church, some celibate priests have a homosexual orientation, which they repress, but they condemn homosexuality in other people.1 Other innate minority characteristics, such as left-handedness or ginger hair, do not cause comparable anxiety or scapegoating. Clearly it is not the case that all homosexuals are saints and all heterosexuals are sinners. In trying to understand the world, Aristotle said that we should 'carve nature at the joints', meaning that we should look for the intrinsic divisions. In regard to ethics and morals the natural divisions are the presence or absence of love, patience, kindness, courtesy, generosity, forgiveness, truthfulness, and courage.2 These virtues occur equally in homosexuals as in heterosexuals. In statistical parlance homosexuality is not a significant discriminant, ie a group of homosexuals is just as likely to be moral as a group of heterosexuals. In particular, paedophilia is no more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. The evidence that it is, presented by the Christian Institute, the Daily Mail and the Sun, is no more than 'conjecture presented as fact' in the words of the Press Complaints Commission which has investigated this. One argument against homosexuality is that it is not natural. True, male and female fit together in a way that is natural and leads to procreation of children, and this is clearly right and proper. But we then get the implied syllogism:
The fallacy of course lies in the overlapping categories; procreation is not the only good thing. It is the Roman Catholic Church that regards this lack of childbearing as a criticism of homosexuals. It needs to be positively stated that it is false logic. There is also the question of inheritance and the 'gay gene'. The distribution of homosexuality in families is strongly suggestive of inheritance through a small number of genes of partial effect, as for other innate characteristics such as height and skin colour. No specific link of a particular gene has been made to sexuality, but very few such links have been discovered at all. It is the settled view of the psychological and psychiatric professions world-wide that sexual orientation is fixed at birth or very soon after, and long before puberty.3,4 Any attempt by these professionals to try to change a person's sexuality against their client's wishes would be likely to lead to disciplinary action by their regulatory bodies. The reputable medical and related journals no longer discuss the pros and cons of sexual orientation, regarding such discussion as irrelevant discrimination on a par with racial discrimination. It is of course true that some prominent people have changed their views about sexuality because of a better understanding of the Bible. Among them are eminent evangelical scholars such as the late Michael Vasey. And among Bible translators there is a widespread view that in the New Testament, the two Greek words that have been translated as homosexual may mean 'loose living' or 'prostitute'. The Revised English Bible is a mainstream published Bible, ratified by representatives of all the Christian denominations in the United Kingdom, written under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in this the word homosexual has been omitted from St Paul's letters altogether. The story of Sodom is not about sexuality; this leaves only the references to sexuality in the codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these codes may have been clear at the time they were written. But to us they are a confused mix of values relating to morality, religious practices, nationalist characteristics of Israel, and primitive ideas about purity and health.5 One such concept was of the pure forms of a man and a woman. This led to the prohibition of shaving in men, to avoid looking like a woman; also of cross-dressing, and of same-sex relationships. Other requirements of purity included the types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded shellfish; and purity of dress, which excluded any garments made with more than one type of yarn. Under the moral code there are strong and repeated injunctions against usury; so much so that Christian moneylenders were unusual for many centuries. It is extraordinary that there are people who ignore these Biblical prohibitions, except for the one about homosexuality. They shave, wear polycotton shirts, eat prawn cocktails and take out mortgages without any qualm, but criticise homosexuals because of the Bible. There is a name for this, and it is hypocrisy. Even if homosexuality were the only thing criticised in the Bible, we would have to take into account that the true nature of sexuality as a fixed characteristic has been understood for less than a hundred years, so could not have been known by the writers of the Bible. Furthermore, overpopulation of the planet is now such that by not having children, homosexuals are doing a service, which again is a situation radically different from that in Biblical times. And we should not forget our protestant heritage, which has always taught that the Bible alone is not sacrosanct, and should be seen in relation to tradition and the Holy Spirit. Footnotes
April 2002. This Briefing is not copyright. If reproduced please credit LGCM.Alan Sheard is a retired doctor and public health director. He and his wife, an Anglican Priest, are members of LGCM. |