Let's Ask George Gershwin31 January 2000
"They're writing songs of love,
But not for me.
A lucky star's above,
But not for me."
| IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?
Let's Ask George Gershwin 31 January 2000 |
"They're writing songs of love, But not for me. A lucky star's above, But not for me." |
|
If homosexuality were a sin, isn't it strange that it didn't make "The Top Ten?"Ten Commandments, that is. In case you haven't read them, don't bother looking for one that says, "Thou shalt not be gay." There isn't one. That alone should tell us something about God's priorities. Furthermore, Jesus Christ never said a word about it, other than one indirect reference in Matthew 19:11-12 -- and that reference was sympathetic, not hostile.
But one may rightly ask, "What does George Gershwin have to do with any of this?" Sorry to keep you in suspense -- but I'll get to that later.
If the Ten Commandments do not deal with homosexuality, then what of the other parts of the Bible which supposedly do condemn it? Let's start with the Old Testament.
For gay Christians who have been beaten over the head with Old Testament verses, it is vitally important that you understand two points. In addition to them no longer applying, some of them were wrongly understood to begin with. See my other essays on Sodom and Gomorrah and The Book of Leviticus for the truth about these verses.
On his website "Steps To Recovery From Bible Abuse," Dr. Rembert Truluck clearly demonstrates that the Bible verses we have come to think of as "anti-gay" have not only been pulled out of context -- some of them have been wrongly translated! I recommend Dr. Truluck's essay, "The Six Bible Passages" for further reading. Considering that the word "homosexual" did not even exist until the year 1892, any appearance of the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality" in a modern Bible translation should be a warning sign to the reader that something is terribly wrong.
While I have the utmost respect for Dr. Truluck's work, I depart from him to a degree here. For purposes of this essay, let's assume that the problem of incorrectly translated Bible verses doesn't exist. Let's just take at face value the words that are there. We can still disregard the Old Testament from the start. If you happen to be an Orthodox Jew, no offense, because I certainly have respect for all religions. But Leviticus, the O.T. book which gave us "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination," is none of my concern. My faith tells me that because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Old Testament Law does not apply to me.
In essence, then, gay Christians have only the verses of the New Testament to contend with. While all of the Epistle writers (Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John) refer at various times to acts of "immorality," sometimes specifically sexual in nature, only the Apostle Paul specifically mentions homosexuality as a "sin." Therefore, let's deal with Paul's opinions on this matter.
"Opinions?!" I just heard some one shout. "What do you mean opinions? We're talking about the Word of God!"
I'm sorry, but I do not happen to share that view. We're not talking about "The Word of God," but rather, "The words of Paul." Again, I must refer the reader to one of my previous essays, "The Word of God is NOT a Book" Nowhere in any of his Epistles does Paul make the claim that he is writing "The Words of God." Nowhere. The major prophets, for example Ezekiel and Daniel, clearly state that God gave them specific knowledge to share with humanity. But none of the epistle writers -- not Paul, Peter, John, James nor Jude -- ever makes such a claim. It is sheer recklessness to call the Epistles "The Literal Words of God" when the Epistles themselves do not say that's what they are.
However, I'm also willing to forego even that portion of my argument for purposes of this discussion. Instead, I will use Paul's own words to prove that homosexuality is not necessarily "a sin."
Let's look at one of Paul's most-quoted writings on this issue, his epistle to the Romans:
Pulled out of context, those two verses by themselves look awfully damning. But aren't you curious as to what made Paul say, "Because they do this?" Who are "they?" As the famous radio commentator Paul Harvey is fond of saying, we need to know "The Rest of the Story." Back up to the earlier verses in Romans which led Paul to make those statements, and the meaning becomes completely different:Romans 1:26-27: Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing.Wow! People who disobey their parents deserve death. That's mighty strict -- people who try to use the book of Romans as an anti-gay weapon should stop and consider what sort of condemnation they themselves might fall under from the same book. But let's not get sidetracked from the more important point -- I posed the question, who does Paul mean by "they?" Look at the beginning of that paragraph: "instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles." Worship birds and reptiles? I have never in my life met anyone who does this. "Full of murder?" "Hateful to God?" Paul was talking about some sort of weird, ancient pagan religions perhaps -- but he certainly wasn't talking about me.Romans 1:18-32: (excerpts) God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles. And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing. Because those people refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, he has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do. They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them.Now let's look at a later chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans -- one where he speaks of how God deals with the individual conscience:
Romans 14:2-5 (excerpts): Some people's faith allows them to eat anything, but the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables. The person who will eat anything is not to despise the one who doesn't; while the one who eats only vegetables is not to pass judgment on the one who will eat anything; for God has accepted that person. Who are you to judge the servants of someone else? Some people think that a certain day is more important than other days, while others think that all days are the same. We each should firmly make up our own minds.Read the two key sentences from that passage again: "Who are you to judge the servants of someone else?" and "We each should firmly make up our own minds." This is one instance where I completely agree with Paul. He clearly teaches first of all that one person's relationship with God is nobody else's business, and the instant one person calls another "sinful," he is himself committing the sin of hypocrisy. Paul is also teaching that God looks at each person's own character -- and what may be sinful for one person is not sinful for another. And don't get bogged down with literalism: Paul's logic is very good, and can be extrapolated to many other concepts besides simply what to eat, or on which day to worship.
For example: Is reading the book Gone With the Wind a sin? I certainly didn't feel sinful when I read it. But I suppose for someone who harbors great racial hatred, and for whom the book instills immense anger because it reminds him that the Confederacy lost the Civil War and slavery was abolished, for him, I can understand how reading it could be considered sinful.
Is going to the beach sinful? If you're a married man with a weakness for ogling other women, and you can't help but stare at every lovely female in a bikini and work yourself into a lather, then I suspect for you, it's sinful.
Is homosexuality a sin? If you are a heterosexual person, and took a notion to have a homosexual encounter as a form of cheap, libertine release, then for you, I suspect it probably would be. You would be doing something completely against your own nature -- and if you are married, then it would be compounded by the additional sin of adultery. But for a homosexual person, whose sexual desires are for the same sex, how can it be sinful? Especially if it is private and between consenting adults. Just for the sake of argument, even if... and I emphasize IF... it were sinful, "Who are you to judge the servants of someone else?" God is the judge of what constitutes sinfulness in another person -- not you.
At last, this brings us to the George Gershwin tune, for which his brother Ira wrote the lyrics:
Is homosexuality a sin? Maybe for you..... "But not for me."
CLICK HERE TO READ NEXT ESSAY
Return to menu of essays
Return to "V.E.'s" home page.
| www.TheViscount.com A Website Dedicated to Gay Equality |
| Read about the Google search engine “Miserable Failure” phenomenon; see it explained here. |
|
