Contrary to what many people have been taught there is nothing in the Bible which condemns people with a homosexual orientation having same gender relationships. In fact, did you know the word "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible at all in the original languages it was written in? This publication is called "Same Gender Sexual Behavior and the Scriptures" because the scriptural texts considered only deal with sexual behavior not with homosexual sexuality as a whole or homosexual orientation.
GENESIS 18-19 - Gentile inhospitality
JUDGES 19 - Hebrew inhospitality
DEUTERONOMY 23:17-18, I KINGS 14:24 AND I KINGS 15:12 - Temple prostitution
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13-14 - Ideal order of creation, foreign gods, and procreation
THE HOLINESS CODE OF LEVITICUS AND DEUTERONOMY
ROMANS 1: 24-27 - Self-righteousness
I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 - Malakoi in a list
I TIMOTHY 1: 8-11 - Arsenokoitai in a list
JUDE VERSE 7 - Respecting angels
GENESIS 18-19 - Gentile Inhospitality
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually condemns inhospitality and idolatry, not homosexuality. Read the story of ideal hospitality toward strangers exhibited by the founders of the Hebrew nation Sarah and Abraham in Genesis 18: 1-8. Compare this to how Gentiles treat strangers in Genesis 18 and 19. Are the Hebrews or the Gentiles to be commended for hospitality? What happens to those who are not hospitable? Was hospitality an important social issue among the Hebrew people? Compare their "hospitality ethic" to today's Western culture.
What does Ezekiel 16:49-50 have to say about the hospitality of Sodom? Read other Scriptural cross-references concerning the Gentile cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. As you read them remember the word "abomination" is not a euphemism for homosexuality. "Abomination" is a word almost exclusively connected with idolatry and can mean a variety of things: Deuteronomy 29:23 , Isaiah 1:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Lamentations 4:6, Amos 4:11, Zephaniah 2:9, Matthew 10:15 / Luke 10:12, Luke 17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude v.7, Revelation 11:8.
NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was same gender sexual relations. Even if one considers the story to be about a sexual matter the sex act to be considered would be rape. (It should also be remembered that rape is not strictly a sexual act in that it's main focus is domination, submission and humiliation.)
Jesus implied the issue was simply one of showing hospitality to strangers (Luke 10:12). It would seem that anyone whose prejudice causes them to be inhospitable is a practitioner of the sin of Sodom.
JUDGES 19 - Hebrew Inhospitality
Here is a story which parallels the Sodom account but this story is an example of extreme inhospitality among the "children of Israel", rather than the Gentiles. As in the Genesis account the house is surrounded by men and the host of the house offers women in the place of his guest and says "HUMBLE THEM..." (v. 19). This clearly shows the purpose of the attack was to humiliate and most probably to kill the stranger, not simply to satisfy sexual desire (20:5).
The guest finally puts his concubine outside and they humiliate him by raping and abusing her all night until she died. This act of inhospitality, committed by the Hebrew tribe of Benjamin, was an extreme violation of the Hebrew people's sacred ethic of hospitality; so much so that the other tribes united and went to war against the tribe of Benjamin. Today's Western culture has no such hospitality ethic and without taking Hebrew cultural context into account Western readers have difficulty understanding the original intent of Genesis 18-19 and Judges 19. They see Genesis 18-19 as being about same gender sex and ignore its parallel account in Judges 19.
Why the discrepancy? What Western ethic is being used to interpret these passages; perhaps one might call it the underlying ethic of "gender roles"?
If we decided not to ignore Judges 19 and use it the way Genesis 18-19 is often utilized in Western culture we could conclude that since a group of men raped and killed a woman all heterosexual sex acts should be condemned. Heterosexual sexual unions, or "gibeahy" would be made illegal and any heterosexuals asking for equal rights would be labeled "militant Gibeahites".
After careful study it seems obvious that neither Genesis 18-19 or Judges 19 were written as tools for condemnation toward homosexuals or heterosexuals. The major focus of these stories was the issue of hospitality.
DEUTERONOMY 23:17-18, I KINGS 14:24 AND I KINGS 15:12 - Temple Prostitution
These are passages about temple prostitutes, with an underlying concern about idolatry, not homosexuality. They all refer to a "qadesh" which means "holy one" or "someone set apart for a holy purpose". The clearest translation of this concept would simply be "temple or ritual prostitute".
For example, Deuteronomy 23:17 should be translated thusly: "There shall be no ritual prostitute of the daughters of Israel, or a ritual prostitute of the sons of Israel". Any translation which translates "qadesh" as "pervert" or "sodomite" is blatantly mistranslating. In fact, there seems to be no such word as "sodomite" in the original languages of the Bible, despite its frequent use in the King James Bible.
An excellent example of bias in translating the Bible can be found in the New King James version which translates "qadesh" in its male form as "perverted one" but translates its female form as "ritual harlot", both should be "ritual harlot" or "prostitute". What purpose could there be in this translation discrepancy?
These passages do not condemn homosexuality. They address the practice of religious prostitution in the worship of a foreign god. To interpret the use of male prostitutes in idol worship as a condemnation of all same gender sexual behavior would also mean that the use of female prostitutes by men condemns all opposite gender sexual behavior.
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13-14 - Ideal order of creation, foreign gods, and procreation
Cultural context is important in understanding this prohibition and many of the rules and regulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is clear the Hebrew people considered some people, animals and activities "clean" and "unclean" but often it is not clear why. For example why is an animal that chews cud but doesn't have cloven hooves "unclean"? (Lev. 11:6)
Ideal Order: One theory explaining many of these distinctions can be found in Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today by L. William Countryman, pp. 24-25. It presents the idea that there was in the Hebrew culture an ideal order of creation. Anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination.
For example a fish was the ideal sea creature. Anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins (as a fish did) was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) A bovine was the ideal cud chewing animal, hence anything that seemed to chew cud, but didn't have hooves, was unclean. (Lev. 11:6).
If this "ideal order of creation" was at work in the Hebrew culture then the male gender was obviously the ideal human. Male same gender acts would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with that of the ideal man, rendering the participants unclean; just as mixing fabrics (Lev. 19:19) or seeds (Lev. 19:19) or livestock (Lev. 19:19) was considered unclean.
Female Role: Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property (and in the case of Genesis 18-19 and Judges 19 disposable property). If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a man was treated like a woman. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament.
Foreign gods: Male same gender sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with worshipping foregin gods. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code seem to be connected with these practices. See 19:26-29 which prohibits practices such as having a jagged beard, tattooing yourself or shaving a bald spot on your head. In our culture these activities seem inoffensive but in the context of the Hebrew culture of that time these practices were apparently committed in the worship of foreign gods.
Procreation: Finally, one must consider the importance of procreation to a relatively small tribe of people surrounded by their enemies. Only sexual acts that were procreative were valued. This ethic is still largely at work in the Western culture though now it is irrational given the burgeoning human population.
The Holiness Code of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
Parts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are sometimes called "the Holiness Code" by some Christians. This "code" is no longer followed by the majority of Christians.
The ethic of "gender roles" seems to drive some Christians in their interpretation of the Bible. This is nowhere revealed more clearly than in the issue of same gender sexual behavior. The prohibition "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" is lifted up as an eternal truth while the many prohibitions surrounding it are completely ignored.
For example Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition of male same gender sexual behavior) having sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual cycle is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.
Leviticus 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.
Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.
Leviticus 19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.
Leviticus 19:19 also forbids sowing a field with mixed seed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.
Leviticus 11:7 forbids the eating of pigs yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!
Leviticus 11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares in this instance) because they don't have cloven hooves but they seem to chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit and don't seem to mind they don't have hooves.
Leviticus 11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!
Leviticus 23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.
Deuteronomy 22 implies that an engaged woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped in the city but no one heard her scream; both she and the rapist are to be put to death, yet no Christian church suggests this be a law regarding rape today.
It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church.
The New Covenant
The "Holiness Code" has been replaced by the "New Covenant" as exemplified in the following verses:
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."
More will be written about the implications of the New Covenant later. Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it seems inappropriate for some to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because they seem to support a particular bias.
ROMANS 1: 24-27 - Self-righteousness
The central message of Romans chapters 1-3 is often lost because some readers fixate on the verses referring in part to sexual activity in 1:24-27. In the first three chapters of Romans Paul is protesting against self-righteous pride. To illustrate his point he uses as an example the way Christian-Jews acted self-righteous toward the Gentile people.
Paul begins by describing the idolatrous practices of the Gentiles. He was not describing homosexuals in Romans 1, rather he was talking about Gentiles as a whole. The Gentiles worship idols with sexual practices some of which were apparently same gender. The Gentile mind was filled with "envy, murder, strife..." etc. Then Paul turns the tables upon the Christian-Jewish reader and states that all are in need of the unearned love of God (grace), Gentiles and Jews alike. One can speculate that the Christian-Jewish reader must have responded with great indignation - for they were "clean" while the Gentiles were "unclean". Yet Paul seems to be saying that their minds are just as full of "envy, murder, strife..." as the Gentile mind. "You have no excuse... whoever you are, when you judge another, for in passing judgment... you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, do the very same things." (Romans 2:1)
The situation is ironic today because these same "unclean" Gentiles now largely comprise the majority of Christian churches. Some of these Gentile-Christians who were only admitted into the Christian church through unearned grace now would deny that same grace to others. Yet Paul still proclaims the Gospel is for everyone (Romans 1:15).
"All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (Romans 3:23-24)
Yes, Paul had difficulty with same gender sexual behavior but can one simply disregard the cultural context in which he was writing? Is context important in understanding Paul's writing and how it is applied today? In this brochure there is a section on "women" in which several verses are cited which are used by some churches to subjugate women while other churches disregard them. For example read the following passage: "it is shameful for a woman to speak in church...the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." (I Cor. 14:35, 37) Some interpret this as God barring women from preaching, others say Paul was writing about a specific incident in the Corinthian churches that doesn't apply to all women for all time. (For further information on this topic see the "Women" section of this brochure.) Is context important? Yes!
Paul could not have known that there were people with same gender sexual orientation.; any more than the author of Revelation could be aware that the heart was not the seat of the intellect or the kidneys the seat of emotions, which is an example of the scientific understanding of that time (see the original text of Rev. 2:23). Without an understanding of the sexual orientation it is likely that Paul regarded these people using same gender sexual relations to worship as heterosexuals who were going contrary to the "natural" accepted practice of heterosexual intimate relations.
We also must consider whether Paul was referring to same gender sexual relations in the context of worshipping a foreign god (as the beginning of chapter one implies) or in a nonmutual context, such as involving pederasty or slaves. In any case, even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same gender acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns the entire homosexual people and their expressions of intimacy in every context based upon these verses.
The central message of Romans chapters 1-3 proclaims that God's Covenant of grace embraces all people; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile. In that same spirit we can proclaim that being a heterosexual does not make you better than a homosexual.
The late Rev. Sylvia Pennington, in her book But Lord, They're Gay, points out that once she thought that Romans 1: 29-32 described homosexuals (rather than Gentiles as a whole, which the context indicates) but when she finally met Christians with a homosexual orientation she knew that these people who worshipped Jesus Christ were not the people described in Romans 1:28-32 (who did not want to retain God in their knowledge) . The lesbians and gays Sylvia met impressed her as dear children of God who opened their hearts and minds to the presence and grace of Jesus Christ and received it.
I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 - Malakoi in a list
Pastors and laypersons often have to rely upon the authority of those who have written language dictionaries (called lexicons) explaining the meaning of words in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The authors of scriptural lexicons search for the meaning of a word within the Bible and also go outside of scripture, researching literature written around the same time.
In the verse we are concerned with we encounter a list and there is no context to define any of the words contained in that list. "Do not be deceived neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor 'malakoi', nor 'arsenokoitai', nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (I Cor. 6:9b-10).
A few years ago a young man once loudly proclaimed to this author "the word 'arsenokoitai' means 'homosexual'. It says so in lexicon after lexicon." The problem with such a statement is that it ignores the difficulty translators encounter with some Bible passages. The fact is sometimes they end up making educated "guesses", which then introduces the possibility that translators may apply current cultural understanding into the translation of such a passage.
This is clearly exhibited in the Revised Standard translation which applies the one English word "homosexual" to two Greek concepts "malakoi" and "arsenokotai" and erases the connotations they carried with them, applying current cultural connotations. The word "homosexual" was first coined in late 1800's by German psychologists and introduced into English in the beginning of the 1900's. (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 42) Today it has come to mean a person of the male or female gender who is sexually oriented toward someone of the same gender. Greek contained no such word - only words for same gender sexual acts . (Re:"arsenokoitai", see Boswell, pp 345-346.)
"Malakoi" is a very common Greek word. It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to "soft" clothing. In Matthew 4:23, 9:35, and 10:1 it connotes illness. The word then can mean soft, delicate, weakness or infirmity. Apparently textual context determines the exact intended meaning.
The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals, and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. So why do some people today interpret the word as "homosexual"?
"No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians." (See Boswell, page 107)
The translators of the RSV, the New English Bible and Today's English version write as if it is clear that the two words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" are to be put together and mean "homosexuals". Yet obviously there is no such certainty - and this uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the two words separate:
King James: "effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
New King James: "nor homosexuals nor sodomites"
New Revised Standard Version: "male prostitutes, sodomites"
New International Version: "nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders"
New Oxford: "male prostitutes, sodomites"
The Jerusalem Bible: "catamites, sodomites"
There is a theory that "malakoi" means a receptive male partner in same gender activity and that "arsenokoitai" refers to the male active partner. Many of the translators above seem to be taking that particular approach to the text. In other words they are saying "malakoi" means a receptive male prostitute and that "arsenokoitai" means his male customer. If this indeed is accurate a condemnation of male prostitutes and their male customers is a far cry from a condemnation of all homosexuals (just as a condemnation of heterosexual prostitution would not condemn all heterosexuals).
However, Dr. John Boswell states that there is no evidence to support this theory. (Boswell, p. 341) In fact there is no evidence that "malakoi" is even meant to be sexual in nature or taken in reference to "arsenokoitai".
Whatever future research may reveal, it is clear that "malakoi" currently can not simply be translated "homosexual" as if it applies to all people who have same gender sexual orientation.
"Arsenokoitai" is discussed in the next section as it is found here and in I Timothy 1:8-11.
I TIMOTHY 1: 8-11 - Arsenokoitai in a list
There are only two passages in the Bible where "arsenokoitai" is used, here and in I Corinthians 6:9. This leads to the difficulty mentioned earlier - determining the meaning of the word with little Biblical context. The word literally means "male-bed" or "of the male gender - bed", a more understandable translation might be "male copulator". It must be noted that even if the word is found to refer to same gender sexual behavior of some kind it can never be simply translated "homosexual" as this term in our culture refers to both female and male same gender sexual orientation whereas this word is exclusively a male word: "male-bed".
In both instances where Paul uses this word it is in a list, which gives little clue as to its intended meaning. Translators must go to literature outside of the Bible to see how the surrounding culture used the word. This presents a problem because, to date, Paul is the earliest author found to have used the word. (See The Bible and Homosexuality, Michael England, Chi Rho Press, 1991, p. 46; Boswell, p. 341) So translators must look at later citations to help them. Two or three hundred years after Paul used the word, "arsenokoitai" seems to refer to male prostitutes - although it is not clear if the prostitute provided services to men or women. (Boswell, pp 350-351) It probably had this meaning until the late fourth century after which it came to mean various things, including homosexual activity. (England, p. 46, and Boswell, page 353)
Dr. Boswell points out that there was a wealth of Greek terms that were used preceding and during the time of Paul which he could have used to indicate homosexual activity. "Arsenokoitai" never appeared among them. (Boswell, p. 345) Further, even early writers who were virulently opposed to homosexuality did not cite "arsenokoitai" as referring to same gender sexual activity.
Whether or not "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" were meant by Paul to refer to same gender sexual activity is purely speculation, as is the context in which these activities would have taken place (i.e., did the activities involve prostitution or nonmutual sexual relations?). In any case translations which render I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 as "homosexuals" or "sodomites" do so upon little or no textual evidence.
JUDE VERSE 7 - Respecting angels
A fascinating fact about this verse is that some scholars believe it may not refer to Genesis 18-19 but to a Jewish legend that the women of Sodom had sexual relations with angels (Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Derrick Sherwin Bailey, pp 11-16). It would not be unprecedented to believe that the author of Jude would refer to extrabiblical accounts as he does so in Jude 6 which references the apocryphal Enoch 7:1-10, Jude 9 referencing the apocryphal "Assumption of Moses" and Jude 14-15 which references Enoch 2.
However even if Jude 7 is a reference to the Genesis 18-19 account one can not assume that "strange flesh" means a "man going after a man". When interpreting one must look at the context and here we see that Jude is condemning a new teaching which did not honor angels. In verse 8 we see that the false teachers "set at naught the celestial powers, and speak evil of the angelic glories." In other words they were teaching something derogatory of the angels. The teachers were not keeping their proper domain of respect for the angels. So, it is pointed out that even the angels themselves were terribly punished because they did not keep their proper domain but instead left heaven because of their attraction to human women (Genesis 6:1-4). The angels were then "kept under darkness in eternal chains", again referencing the book of Enoch which states that the angels "have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women..." and so, Enoch goes on to tell us, the angelic leader Azazel was to be bound hand and foot and cast into darkness until the day of judgment.
Jude continues to reinforce the lesson by pointing out that humans who attempted to have sexual relations with the "strange flesh" of angels were destroyed. The phrase "strange flesh" in Jude 7 is in Greek "heteras sarkos" which literally means "different flesh". (Ref. The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, J.N.D. Kelly, p. 258, and The Letters of John and Jude, William Barclay, p. 187).
Jude's final example in verse 9, showing the need to respect angels, is taken from the apocryphal "Assumption of Moses" and points out that even Michael, who was an archangel, didn't dare to be disrespectful to another angelic being, even if that angelic being was the fallen angel Satan. How much more so should these teachers respect the angels and cease trying to lead the people of God astray like Balaam did? (Jude 11, Numbers 15)
The context indicates a translation of "strange" or "different" flesh as referring to angelic flesh and not the flesh of human males, hence this verse can not be used to condemn the male gay children of God.
IN CONCLUSION:
There is an extreme amount of prejudice and hatred directed toward gay people and it would seem that this has had an influence in the translations of the Bible. Words with uncertain meaning are translated as if there is no doubt that they refer to homosexuals. Words that quite obviously do not mean "homosexual" are blatantly mistranslated, as in the transformation of "male temple prostitute" into "sodomite" or "perverted one". The passion to condemn often drives some people to ignore the actual message of the passage they cite from and, tragically, even the New Covenant of grace in Jesus Christ is abandoned in favor of castigating others through the use of the Old Covenant.
It seems a violation of the basic beliefs of "conservative" theology or "fundamentalism" to use verses or words as blanket condemnations without regard as to why the verses/words were written in the first place; or without accurately reflecting the meaning of a word; or without admitting when the meaning of a word is unclear.
The fact of the matter is that there is no clear condemnation of people of homosexual orientation expressing their orientation anywhere in the Scriptures. The extreme ambiguity on the part of the few Scriptures concerned, coupled with the clear proclamation of the Gospel for all people gives gay and heterosexual Christians the freedom to believe that they affirmed and loved by God. Now, please take a moment and read the following section talking about God's ...
GOOD NEWS FOR ALL PEOPLE!
You, and all people, are created in God's image! (Gen. 1:27) You are special! (Ps 8:4-5) There is NOTHING that can separate you from the love of God. (Romans 8:39) WHOSOEVER believes has eternal life. (John 3:16, 6:51, Romans 1:16-17, 10:13) God is with you-challenging oppression and injustice! (Isaiah 42: 6-7, 58:6, Amos 5:24, Micah 6:8, Luke 4:18-22)
You are a part of the New Covenant! The New Covenant is one of grace (which means unearned love) in Jesus Christ. It is not concerned with gender roles or sexual orientation for in Christ there is "neither male nor female". (Gal. 3:28)
The New Covenant accepts even those who had formerly not been acceptable because of their sexual or reproductive status. You do not have to bear children in order to be included in God's family! (Isaiah 56:1-5, Matthew 19:12) The Old Covenant was very concerned about such things. Deuteronomy 23:1 would not allow castrated men to be a part of the Old Covenant yet in Acts 8 we are shown that the New Covenant sets that prohibition aside. The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized, accepted into the New Covenant, while still being a foreigner and a eunuch! God didn't have to change this person in order to love and accept them fully!
The New Covenant did away with distinctions of clean and unclean, which opened the door for ALL people to be a part of the New Covenant. (Acts 10) The Gentiles were treated by the Jews the way that many Christians of today treat homosexuals, yet God revealed to Peter that he had to set aside his prejudice and could no longer condemn and exclude others because they didn't fit into the rules of the Old Covenant.
God loves you and affirms the love of heterosexual and same-gender relationships! The same-gender relationship of David and Jonathan (II Samuel 1:26 - "Jonathan... your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.") is respected and honored.
God tells all people who have felt alienated because of the pain of prejudice and hatred, "in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near... You are no longer strangers, foreigners or aliens, but fellow citizens with all God's people." (Ephesians 2:11-22)
Finally, God reminds us that no matter what our orientation is, or what our beliefs are concerning homosexuality, we need to remember that "God is love". (I John 4). We need to follow the law of love:
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,
LOVE ONE ANOTHER!"
(Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:31, 33, Luke 10:27, John 15:12, 17, Romans 12:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)
This paper is provided as a service of the Metropolitan Community Church of Topeka, authors Rev. Jonathan Loppnow and Rev. Paul C. Evans. It may be reproduced freely as long as the entire text is reproduced and unaltered, all attributions are left intact and it is not sold for profit or included in a for-profit publication. Copyright 1/7/98
Posted 1/7/98