Homosexuality and Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Categories: Pages needing expert attention | Uncategorized pages needing expert attention | Wikipedia external links cleanup | LGBT religious organizations | Christian law | Christian philosophy | Christian viewpoints | Homosexuality and Christianity | Christianity-related controversies
Christian leaders have written about male-male sexual activities since the first decades of Christianity; female-female sexual behaviour was essentially ignored.[1] Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful, and most interpretations of the Bible condemn certain male-male sexual acts. However, in the past century some theologians and Christian religious groups have espoused a wide variety of beliefs and practices towards homosexuals, including the establishment of some 'open and accepting' congregations that actively support LGBT members. Historically, most Christian churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful. This position is today held by most Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic, Orthodox Churches and Evangelical Protestant Churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention. However, some churches interpret biblical passages differently and believe that homosexuality can be morally acceptable. This approach has been taken by a number of denominations, notably the United Church of Canada, liberal congregations within the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, and Friends General Conference. A new denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church, has also come into existence specifically to serve the Christian GLBT community. In addition, the Episcopal Church in the USA currently teaches that homosexuality is not a sin and ordained openly gay bishop Gene Robinson. This stance is controversial in the greater Anglican Communion. Some of the more conservative African provinces in the Communion have called for the American Episcopal Church to withdraw from the Communion, although several provinces of the Communion in the Western World (such as the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the Church of England) have stances on homosexuality similar to the American branch of the church. The American church, however, is the only province that has actually ordained an openly gay bishop. For more information on the various positions within the Anglican Communion on homosexuality, see Homosexuality and Anglicanism. Other Christian denominations are actively debating the issue and have not reached a consensus either way; some of the most significant of these include the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The Bible and homosexualityA number of passages from both the Old and New Testament of the Bible are commonly used in the debate over homosexuality including Genesis 19:4-29, Leviticus 18 and 21, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Jude 1:7. The arguments over these passages have centered on the extent to which these passages are still relevant; whether the Bible has any authority in commenting on social behavior since there is no proof of its authorship by a Supreme Being; whether they refer only to certain sexual acts or to homosexual orientation; the modern scientific understanding of sexual orientation as contrasted to the Biblical conception, and how the verses should be interpreted, understood and applied. History of Christianity and homosexualityThe early Christian Church, the medieval western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches and, later, the Protestant churches have traditionally been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations, namely, "man lying with man as one lies with a woman" and men "burning with lust toward one another." Where the Roman Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture and larged indebted to Thomas Aquinas, the Protestant view is based more directly upon scripture. Certain scriptures within the Bible, as in Leviticus, declare same-sex sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination", although the word "abomination" is also used in Leviticus to describe the eating of shellfish.[2] In the Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul describes “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [burning] in their lust one toward another” as a consequence or cause of the sin of idolatry. Denunciation of homosexuality is also seen in surviving early Christian writings; such as in the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo, and in doctrinal sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions — for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men.” Many prominent Christian theologins have been critical of homosexuality throughout the religion's history. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality as the worst of all sexual sins, and Hildegard of Bingen's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, condemned sexual relations between women as "perverted forms." In the 20th and 21st century, a few historians and theologians have challenged the traditional understanding and argue that passages have been mistranslated or that they do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.”[3] Modern theological interpretations
Image:TroyPerry2006-09-17.JPG
Rev. Troy Perry preaching in 2006 at a Metropolitan Community Church. The MCC was founded in the gay and lesbian community.
Some arguments about the meaning and morality of “homosexuality” hinge on the fact that the term homosexual and the conceptualization of homosexuality as an enduring relationship similar to a heterosexual relationship, rather than only sexual activity with someone of the same sex, is development within the 19th century.[4] Apart from this, many of the debates among Christians have roots in questions about the sources of authority different Christians believe represent God's purest or most definitive message. More generally: which kinds of arguments should be persuasive to Christians, and which do not possess the weight necessary to determine opinions and policies. Such is also the case with the issues related to the morality and inclusion of LGBT persons in Christian life. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianities regard Sacred Tradition and Ecumenical councils as co-authoritative with scripture, and the ordinary Magisterium is authoritative in Catholic theology [2]. Methodism derives doctrine from the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which consists of an evaluation of the synthesis of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. [3] There are also differing positions about how great a role is played by continuing revelation (see Cessationism and Secular theology). In conservative strains of Protestant Christianity, Scripture is understood to be the only truly definitive authority (a position called Sola Scriptura). Exegesis, or the reasoned study of the text to discover its own meaning, is the central concern for believers in Sola Scriptura. The classic formulation of Sola Scriptura regards "good and necessary deduction" from Scripture as authoritative; what these deductions might be is a frequent subject of controversy. [4] [5] [6] Liberal Christians tend to regard the Bible as the record of human doings, composed of humans encountering the Divine within their specific historical context. They often interpret passages of the Bible as being less a record of actual events, but rather stories illustrating how to live ethically and authentically in relation to God. Some such Christians might, for instance, see Christ's death and resurrection in terms not of actual physical reanimation, but in terms of the good news of Jesus' teaching: that God's children are no longer slaves to the power of death. A liberal Christian might regard the Gospel of Matthew's insistence of Jesus' virgin birth not as an actual fact, but as a jibe by the author at the Roman Emperor, who claimed to be a god and who also claimed to have been born of a virgin.[5] Alternately, they might note stories of the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a much-needed position to be taken with the Gospel's Jewish audience, lest that audience infer that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, therefore making Jesus ineligible for the title Messiah, a primary claim which Christians had to protect in order to be taken seriously by Jews. Modern gay activist Justin R. Cannon promotes what he calls "Inclusive Orthodoxy." He explains on his ministry website: "Inclusive Orthodoxy is the belief that the Church can and must be inclusive of lgbt individuals without sacrificing the Gospel and the Apostolic teachings of the Christian faith."[7] Cannon's ministry takes a unique approach quite distinct from modern liberal Christians. His ministry affirms the divine inspiration of the Bible, the authority of Tradition, and claims "...that there is a place within the full life and ministry of the Christian Church for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians, both those who are called to lifelong celibacy and those who are partnered."[8] Cannon's views, however, contradicts the teachings and traditions of Christian churches that claim to be orthodox (meaning that claim to expound the "true beliefs" of Christianity) including Eastern Orthodoxy (see Eastern Orthodox view of sin), Roman Catholicism and most branches of Protestantism. Some professional exegetes consider the Bible, to a greater or lesser degree, to be a document of its time (see form criticism). While they may hold the document as sacred, and most certainly as central to Christianity, they are also aware of the historical and cultural context in which it was originally written through archaeological and form critical study. Some scholars feel that in addition to its spiritual components, portions of the text merely reflect the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing, and their cultural sensibilities. The influence of such persons may reflect a heightened spiritual consciousness, or may simply represent people attempting to explain the world as best they could given the tools of the time. Such scholars purport that passages in scripture related to slavery, war, genocide, female marginalization, and homosexuality may not necessarily be about God's wishes, but rather about the predominant culture's opinions at the time of the passage's writing. Choice and free will
The existence and nature of free will is a topic in philosophy of mind and theology. Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is at odds with free will, while compatibilism holds the two are not contradictory. Compatibilists such as Hobbes generally claim that a person acts freely only in the case where the person willed the act and the person could (hypothetically) have done otherwise if the person had decided to; what matters, Hobbes believed, is that choices are the results of desires and preferences, and are not overridden by force. (See Compatibilism and incompatibilism.) [9] [10] In the history of theology, debates about the issue have happened between Augustine and Pelagius[11], Martin Luther and Erasmus, and the Calvinists and Arminians [12] [13]. At the Councils of Orange, Western Christianity officially adopted a form of compatibilist determinism known as original sin, according to which the sin of Adam and Eve has corrupted the whole human race such that humans are unable to refrain from sin, yet remain accountable, and cannot even desire holiness apart from Divine intervention. However, belief in free will remains popular and many even regard free will as a basic doctrine of Christianity. Among those who assert that homosexual behaviour is incompatible with Christianity, the question of how voluntary homosexual behaviour is, and what voluntariness might mean in this context, is a central concern in considering its morality. The Catholic Church regards homosexual sex itself as sinful, not homosexual attraction, which is considered as a temptation to sin [14]. The ex-gay movement believes that homosexual orientation is also a choice, or changeable, and claims cases of people who have ceased to be homosexual [15]. Long-term studies conducted by the American Psychiatric Association have observed that sexual orientation is not chosen (although there are a minority of psychologists in the employ of Exodus Ministries and Focus on the Family who take an opposite view; see Robert Skinner), and many if not most homosexuals state that they do not choose to be homosexually oriented[16]. PFOX(Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays), claims changes in sexual orientation are possible and that the existence of ex-gays proves homosexuality can be overcome. The American Psychological Association states that such therapy "is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions".[6] The American Psychiatric Association states: "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."[7] Positions of specific denominationsThe many Christian denominations vary in their position on homosexuality, from seeing it as sinful, through being divided on the issue, to seeing it as morally acceptable. Among those that see it as sinful, there is further variance regarding whether it is just homosexual acts that are sinful, or homosexual orientation as well. Even within a denomination, individuals and groups can hold different views, as in the conflict over the gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. These disagreements concern, in some cases, the translations of certain terms, or the meaning and context of some passages. Within the remainder of this article, those who claim early Christianity denounced homosexuality are called conservative Christians, and likewise those who claim the opposite are called liberal Christians. Liberal Christian viewLiberal Christians believe that Biblical passages have been mistranslated or that these passages do not refer to homosexuality. Some also believe early Christians accepted homosexuality. Liberal Christian scholars, like conservative Christian scholars, accept earlier versions of the Bible in Hebrew or Greek. However within these early Bibles there are many terms that liberals have interpreted differently than previous generations of scholars. They are concerned with copying errors, forgery, and of biases among the translators of later Bibles. They consider some verses such as those supporting slavery [17] or the inferior treatment of women[8] not being valid today, and against the will of God present in the context of the Bible, and they cite these issues when arguing for a change in theological views on sodomy to what they claim is an earlier view. They differentiate among various sexual practices, treating rape, prostitution, or temple sex rituals as immoral and those within committed relationships as positive regardless of sexual orientation. They view certain verses, which they believe refer only to homosexual rape, as not relevant to consensual homosexual relationships. Some believe that same-sex relationships were practiced by a number of early Christians[9] as well as Biblical figures such as Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, and Daniel and Ashpenaz.[10] One disputed example is located in Ruth 1:14: "Ruth clave unto her", where the Hebrew word translated as clave is identical to the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24. Another example is of David and Jonathan at 1 Samuel 18:21, which the King James Version translates as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain", where "twain" means "two", in a reference to a proposed marriage between David and one of Saul’s two daughters. However the fact that the words "the one of" are shown in italics indicates that they are an interpolation by the translators. Thus a more literal translation would be "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain", which some claim to be a reference to what they believe to have been David’s prior marriage with Saul’s son Jonathan. Many of those who claim the early church did not condemn homosexuality mention the fact that Jonathan was the son of King Saul in Israel and that after the relationship with David, King Saul then made David the next King instead of his own son. However, the Biblical text states that this was done by the prophet, Samuel (I Sam 16:13). 
The late Yale University Church historian John Boswell believed the rite of adelphopoiesis ISBN 0-679-75164-5 may have been such a documented religiously-sanctioned same-sex union. That rite was entered into by two Christian martyrs, the Roman soldiers Saints Sergius and Bacchus; Boswell believed this, and the saints' icon at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai which includes some imagery suggestive of a wedding, supports his theory. Lending some credence to the view that the earlier church was more tolerant of homosexuality is the fact that widespread persecutions of homosexuals and other minorities did not begin before the 12th century. Boswell cited various translations and laws of the time period enacted to persecute minorities; in his essay “The Church and the Homosexual”[11] he attributed Christianity’s denunciations of homosexuality after the twelfth century to rising intolerance in Europe reflected in the laws enacted during the period to restrict women's’ rights, and expelling Jews and Muslims from Christian lands. Archbishop Ralph of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orléans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II.[12] Writings of later time periods deploring homosexuality are discounted by many liberal Christians. They ascertain that such opinions were formed upon flawed Biblical translations caused by human error or personal bias of translators. Many claim that wording in verses denouncing homosexuality was created after the twelfth century A.D. and reflect the society at the time, not the word of God. Conservative Christian viewImage:Sodoma - Merian.jpg
A depiction of the destruction of Sodom.
Conservative Christians argue that there were denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions. In response to the claim that such passages have been mistranslated due to certain obscure words whose meanings are unclear, conservatives point out that many passages use commonplace words whose meanings are well-known, such as the passage from the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men", or St. Cyprian's denunciation of "men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men". They are critical of the views that early Christians and Biblical figures had same-sex relationships. Conservatives claim that neither the Bible nor ancient Jewish law records such unions and that the term "son-in-law" at the heart of the Jonathan and David dispute could be used symbolically rather than literally. Many who share the view that early Christians deplored homosexuality cite a translation of St. Aristides blaming the Greco-Roman heritage for what he believed to be corrupting early Christianity as illustrated in one of his quotes:
In response to claims that even the medieval Church tolerated homosexuality, conservatives Christians cite documents such as the "Summa Theologiae", the chief summary of doctrine in that era, which states the official position on sodomy in passages denouncing "copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female" (ST: II:II: Q154: Art.11). Likewise, Christians of the time period, such as Thomas Aquinas, denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality as the worst of all sexual sins writing, "After this bestiality comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed." St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, related visions from God which contain quotes stating: "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight", and "a man who sins with another man as with a woman, sins bitterly against God and against the union with which God united male and female", and similar quotes in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms". Conservatives point out that such passages use commonplace terms which are neither obscure nor in dispute. In response to those such as John Boswell, who claimed that the medieval Church did not condemn or prosecute people for sodomy until the 12th century, conservatives would point out that there are many doctrinal sources prior to that which do condemn sodomy, and Boswell's citation of harsher penalties from the 12th century onward reflects a general trend with regard to all ecclesiastic punishments, which gradually increased in severity over time for all offenses (though this does not explain how homosexuality was less harshly punished than e.g. hunting in the same time period). In response to those who say that the Bible and early/medieval saints condemned sodomy only due to a misconception that homosexual relationships could not be stable and committed, conservatives point out that revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's visions quote God as condemning sodomy both in same-sex relationships and also when sodomy is practiced by a husband and wife, explaining that this is not the form of sex which He had ordained - meaning that the issue here is not "commitment", but rather God's purpose for sex. ISBN 0-8091-3130-7 They would also point out that the Bible and other revealed sources are based on direct revelations from God Himself rather than human opinion, and are therefore not subject to misconceptions. In response to liberals who allege that an anti-sodomy viewpoint was based on flawed translations made in the 12th century, conservatives point out that the standard Biblical translation which was used throughout that period - both before, during, and after the 12th century - was the ancient Vulgate version by St. Jerome, written in the 5th century, meaning that the translation in question was of very ancient origin. They also point out that views denouncing sodomy go back to the early Church, as noted farther above. Early Teachings on Homosexuality Conservative Christian scholars believe that the original texts must be translated by abiding by the standard definitions of ancient words as defined both by previous generations of scholars and by the people who lived close to the time periods in which the original languages were in active use, such as the early Church Fathers and ancient Christian writers (see examples of their interpretations above). Conservative scholars reject attempts by liberals to redefine terms or to question passages which are expressed in plain language. Many conservatives accept the sources from the mystic-saints which both confirm the plain, literal meaning of Biblical verses but also provide clarification on any vague points, arguing that one must examine the entire body of revealed doctrine to resolve any ambiguities that may exist. Activism against Christian policiesSome Christian groups have been the target of protests by gay rights groups such as ACT UP, OutRage! and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence because of practices they consider oppressive towards LGBT people. See also
Footnotes
References
External links
fr:Homosexualité dans le christianisme it:Omosessualità e Cristianesimo nl:Christendom en homoseksualiteit |
