Further elaboration on Leviticus 18:22

I always find it interesting when Christians use Leviticus 18:22 as a basis for their condemnation of homosexuality. (It says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.") I imagine that they have seen that verse in print so many times under a heading in the church newsletter that reads something like, "Ammunition for Water Cooler Discussions About the Gays," that it has become second nature to whip it out in a rapid fire discussion. And the people who use it usually attempt to let the verse speak for itself, like, "See, it says right here! Homosexuality is an abomination." As if this verse somehow encompasses the Gospel and contains all that needs to be said.

But if you want to use Leviticus as a sword in the war on homosexuality, you must also use it to campaign against:

1. Eating oysters on the half shell. (Leviticus 11:9-12) Anything living in the sea that did not have fins or scales was considered detestable. Where are the "God hates fags AND oysters" signs?

2. Letting laundry get mildewy. (Leviticus 13:47-52) If an article of clothing happened to get a spot of mildew, a priest had to be notified and material had to be isolated for 7 days. If the mildew had spread after that period, the clothing was declared unclean and had to be burned. Is anybody monitoring the dry cleaning industry?

3. Over-farming. (Leviticus 19:9-10) When harvesting a crop, a farmer could not go over his field a second time in search of things that may have been missed during the initial harvest. And it was forbidden to reap all the way to the edge of the field. There had to be leftovers for the poor and alien. At the very least, are farmers today leaving some grain at the Goodwill drop box?

4. Wearing a cotton/polyester blend. My personal favorite. (Leviticus 19:19) A shirt was acceptable as 100% Cotton, but it became unacceptable once the purity became compromised with polyester or perhaps the dreaded spandex. Next time someone throws Leviticus 18:22 at you, ask to see the tag of the shirt they are wearing. If that happens to be 100% Cotton, check the jacket.

There are many other condemnable offenses according to the Levitical Code. The point is, if you hold fast to one piece of The Law, you have to take ownership of the whole thing.

James 2:10 (NIV) says:“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." This is precisely why Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone” (John 8:7).

If you judge or condemn someone, you may as well be doing a song and dance under a spotlight saying, “Look at me God!” because the same criteria you use to judge others will also be turned on you. It has already been established that no one can keep the Law, so in essence, by judging and condemning us, fundamentalist Christians are renouncing the idea that God’s grace through Jesus’ death on the cross is sufficient, instead opening up a big can of worms (The Law) that should have remained nailed to the cross.

And what's more, Leviticus 18:22 does not even sufficiently condemn homosexuality. It does culturally forbid male to male intercourse, although it is nearly always twisted to become a blanket statement against lesbians as well. And they accuse us of twisting. But male to male intercourse was seen as an unclean thing in the eyes of the culture, and as I mentioned in a previous blog (April 18th) , that specific act was a blending of two things not understood by the majority of society. Much in the same way oysters were not understood I suppose, but we understand the merits of oysters now. And most of us in this millenium have a comprehensive understanding of homosexual orientation. Homosexual orientation is the umbrella around someone who is both homoemotional and homosexual by nature; that is, both emotionally attracted and physically attracted to someone of the same sex. The sum of homosexual orientation is not addressed here or anywhere else in the Bible.

I'm sure Leviticus 18:22 will continue to be drawn like a sword and aimed at the homosexual masses. It's a short verse after all and it easily floats to the top of the brain. But perhaps someday we will be able to put the weapons down and approach one another with our gifts, and not the things we fear and consider to be a threat.

At our 20Something meeting this week we talked about the spiritual gifts that God has unleashed in the homosexual community. We have gifts of prayer, of healing, of faith, of wisdom, and the list goes on. And collectively--whether others deny us or not--we are part of the Christian body. To wield the sword and fearfully cut off part of one's own body is suicide. Or at the very least, it serves to decrease one's own scope and function and results in a permanent handicap. But then, God is fully capable of healing us, not of any alleged disease or affliction, but of our own insecurity.

Response to common objections from the right

This is a glimpse of an email dialogue that began after this person left a series of fundamentalist-based posts on the message board. After I sent this response, immediate dialogue ceased.

Hi XXXXXX –

I know you’re busy, me too. Thanks for writing back so late last night and for writing with such depth and passion. I have so much to say in response that may have to break this up and save some for next time. Please write back again with further thoughts. I have to commend you, because it has been my primary experience that those who disagree with me usually don’t want to know what’s going on in the inner recesses of my brain, and instead usually cease with the dialogue after a short, one-sided rant. Thanks for continuing to correspond.

You keep saying (or including verses that say) that I need to read the Bible for myself and ask the Spirit to indwell me. I can assure you that I do read the Bible, I do pray, and the Spirit does indwell me, and I am still certain that homosexuality is not wrong in God’s eyes. This is something that you and I will likely never agree upon. You continue to say things like, “There is simply no other way to interpret this” or “The Bible clearly states,” and I take issue with that. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of twisting the Bible to make it say what I want it to say, because I am not doing that at all. There are two ways to interpret the Bible – a liberal way and a conservative way – and I happen to interpret the Bible liberally while you interpret it conservatively. That’s okay. I’m not threatened by your opinion and you shouldn’t be threatened by mine. We just have two different ways of seeing this issue, and that’s okay. God still loves us and will continue to teach us both.

I’m not going to use the Bible to justify my position and alleviate my fears. I will explain what I believe the Bible says, but I am not going to let it be my sole source of validation. I will rely on the living God for that. That being said, here’s my response to the Biblical principles you brought up in the last couple of emails. I hope I don’t forget to mention any.

I said Leviticus 18:22 cannot be used to condemn homosexuality because it addresses the culture at the time it was written—a culture within which separateness meant cleanliness, hence the restrictions upon touching the skin of a dead pig, wearing only pure fabrics and not blending cotton and spandex as we do today, etc.—and homosexuality was a blending of two things not understood by the majority of society. This verse refers to a select few homosexual acts which may or may not have been performed by homosexual people, and it says nothing about homosexual orientation in which two same sex partners naturally become attracted to one another, begin a courtship, and commit to one another. I asked why Leviticus is still used to condemn homosexuality, but not to condemn people who wear cotton/polyester blends. You responded by saying this holiness code in Leviticus was written for the Israelites and not for us (the Gentiles) and that is why we as a society no longer subscribe to the theory that it is wrong to wear two different fabrics or touch the skin of a dead pig, etc. It seems you admit that parts of the Bible were written specifically for the culture at the time and that we cannot automatically apply those same rules and regulations in today’s society. Why do you suppose fundamentalists continue to condemn homosexuality with Leviticus 18:22?

You said God uses the word “abomination” in conjunction with homosexuality to show the wickedness of this particular sin. The word “abomination” is a translation of the word “toevah” which could also be translated as uncleanness, dirtiness, or impurity. Another Hebrew term could have been used in place of toevah, and that is “zimbah.” (This is something Daniel Helminiak talks about in his book, What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality.) Zimbah means not what is wrong for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. Zimbah would have been a much harsher and condemning choice of words, and it would have carried the meaning that you suggest. So the word abomination as it refers to homosexual acts in this instance, simply means “unclean.” As I mentioned before, society during the time of Leviticus was all about cleanliness. Everything had to be cut and dried with no overlap, and homosexuality was a blending of two things not understood by the majority of society at that time. And besides, homosexuality is a word invented by modern psychologists, and did not exist at the time the Bible was written. It has since been added to modern Biblical translations, which may or may not capture the literal meaning of the original authors.

You imply that several verses in Romans 1 can also be used to condemn homosexuality. God has certainly turned groups of people over to Satan for physical affliction in the past, but that’s because these people were not intent on serving God. God destroyed Sodom for the sin of inhospitality (not homosexuality as some suggest), and God can certainly address wickedness with modern groups who have turned from God. But I am intent on serving God, just as my homosexual partner is, and just as the thousands of homosexual worshippers in our church are. We are listening to God and drawing nearer to God every day. The people in Romans 1:26-32 that God “gave over to their shameful lusts” were not likely praying, studying, going to church every week, or as intent on serving God as we are. We have not turned away from God. We are walking toward God. The Bible says these people in Romans “served the wrong things” so God gave them over to their “shameful lusts.” My partner and I are not serving the wrong things. We tithe, we serve God by volunteering at our church, we help our families emotionally, physically, and financially, we work hard at our jobs, and we exhibit faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love.

These people in Romans also “abandoned the natural for the unnatural.” We have certainly not abandoned the natural! For us, abandoning the natural would mean sleeping with a man. That would go against every natural fiber in our being. The thought disgusts me. Why would you be happier if I married a man and had a sexual relationship with him? I would be miserable. I don’t understand why that would result in more peace in your life. I would be less able to freely offer my gifts to the world because that dark cloud would remain over me constantly, and I would be as out of place as an apple in a strawberry patch. As it is I am happy and focused on God, and therefore able to freely offer my gifts to the world. And I am not living opposite this passage in Romans because I am not abandoning what comes naturally.

You also alluded to the idea that homosexuality is actually the punishment for humanity’s rejection of God (I think you were a continuing with Romans 1:26-32). Usually punishment is a bad thing. Homosexuality is a blessing. It allows me to love another person more deeply than I ever though possible, and it draws me nearer to God every day as we read the Bible, study, and pray together as a couple. And homosexuality is truth for me. Living a lie would be the punishment, with devastating consequences. You also mentioned it was the pagans who rejected God in this passage, or those with pagan practices. We are not pagan.

You also seem to think that—as a homosexual—I am rebelling against God’s will for my life. I can assure you that I am not. In fact, I am responding to God’s call to help others who struggle to reconcile homosexuality and Christianity. You’ve mentioned before that I am “promoting” homosexuality. No. It’s not natural and therefore okay for everyone to jump willy nilly into homosexuality like it’s some great new discovery and suddenly all the rage. I don’t think it is God’s will for the entire world to be gay. I can “promote” the radio station that I work for and by doing so my intention would be to get every living, breathing thing to listen. I am not promoting homosexuality. I am simply sharing the truth that I have discovered, that it is okay for homosexual people to remain as they are and still have an intimate, covenant relationship with God. I hope that others who might relate to my experience can become inspired by it and grow closer to God on their own. The fact that you think I am promoting homosexuality is evidence of your fear that it may take over the world. It’s not contagious. I’m just trying to help those who have been hurt by that type of judgment and condemnation.

About conviction, I have said several times that I have not been convicted that homosexuality is wrong and you seem to believe me when I tell you the Spirit is alive inside me, yet you make the assumption that I am somehow pushing the Spirit away as it “gnaws at my insides” and as I continue to do whatever I want to do. Not true. I am following the Spirit, which has led me to put up the website, write one book and begin another, co-lead a group of 20somethings, and love my same-sex partner with all my heart. There is nothing but love, compassion, and strength “gnawing at my insides.” Peace is the undercurrent.

I referred to the fact that Jesus did not mention homosexuality at all during his earthly ministry and you responded by saying how ridiculous an argument that was. You said God and Jesus are one, and if God addressed it then Jesus addressed it. Wow. Then why was it necessary for Jesus to walk the earth and minister to us at all, if everything had already been said in the Old Testament? It seems to me that Jesus addressed all sorts of things that would become essential in our walk with God. He certainly addressed divorce, even saying that if a person divorced another for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness and entered into a second marriage, both partners were committing adultery. You mentioned that you have been divorced and are remarried. I will stop short of accusing you of sin because it’s not my place to judge your situation. But Jesus did address this issue and many others that apply to our culture, yet no mention of homosexuality. I guess he wanted to leave the door open for this type of discussion. It just seems to me that if it were that big of deal, the eleventh commandment would have read, “Thou shalt not enter into a loving, committed, marriage relationship with a same-sex partner.” Jesus said nothing. He did spend an awful lot of time in the margins though; that is, with the outcasts, or people like me. He got upset with the Pharisees and other pious figures who thought they had it all figured out.

I’m sorry that you are so disgusted with some of the posts of support on my message board. These supporters simply subscribe to a more liberal philosophy than you do, and it’s unlikely that you will ever agree with them. That’s okay. I said before that I would like to continue the dialogue with you not so we can work hard on changing one another’s minds therefore gaining an inflated sense of ourselves for claiming that we are right and the other wrong, but so we can gain greater understanding, and therefore greater depth in our knowledge and opinion. I hope the lines of communication continue to be open. If you disagree with me, it will only help me grow and mature in my faith.

My partner and I had a holy union in October, 2002. I’ve always said, “God trumps Dubya,” because I believe God is greater than an urging of the President or an act of Congress, and now my partner and I are wed in God’s eyes. A piece of paper does not validate a marriage. It may afford a couple certain civil rights in this state or that, but it is not proof of God’s automatic presence or approval. I don’t suppose you believe that my marriage covenant with my partner is valid. But the truth exists, whether one person believes it or not. God is alive in our relationship, and therefore the relationship grows stronger and bears more fruit by the day. We have peace, joy, gentleness, kindness, and—most importantly—love. And isn’t that the point?

Hope to hear from you again soon.

Sincerely,
Jen Austin