What the Bible Really, Really Says About Homosexuality:

A Critique of the lecture "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" given by Daniel Helminiak at Auburn University, May 1996

Stan Reeves
Associate Professor
Electrical & Computer Engineering

In one sense I am heartened to see a discussion of what the Bible says about homosexuality, even if the conclusions are opposite to the traditional Christian understanding that I hold. It gives us some common ground for discussing the issue, and it raises the possibility that the traditional Christian can demonstrate his/her perspective that homosexual acts are sinful. Furthermore, even if you choose to reject the traditional Christian view, either because of an alternative interpretation of Scripture or because you reject the authority of Scripture, you may come away with a better appreciation for why the Christian cannot in good conscience approve a homosexual lifestyle.

In another sense this discussion concerns me greatly. First, it is altogether too easy to "explain away" passages that condemn behavior that we've already made up our minds to do. Paul himself warned about this tendency when he said, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2Tim 4:3-4). (If we are to engage in a discussion of biblical themes from within a biblical framework, then certainly we should take seriously the biblical warnings about the potential pitfalls.) Second, a discussion like this leads those unfamiliar with the debate to conclude that traditional Christians must either be ignorant or unfamiliar with the sophisticated interpretation provided by Dr. Helminiak. These concerns motivate me to respond publicly to Dr. Helminiak's lecture.

ON INTERPRETATION

Helminiak differentiates between a fundamentalist method of interpretation and a historical-critical approach. He claims that a fundamentalist method has yielded (erroneously) the traditional view that Rom 1 condemns homosexual acts. While the fundamentalist method may be a tendency among some conservative Protestants in the pew, I know of no conservative Protestant scholar who would advocate such a simple-minded approach. Conservatives are active in linguistic, historical, and archeological research with the motive of understanding the Bible better. This activity would be inexplicable apart from a commitment to the historical-critical method.

Helminiak makes the dubious claim that with the historical- critical method one can objectively determine the meaning of the text.[1] While the historical-critical method is superior to the fundamentalist method, it is not fool-proof. Helminiak's claim understates the effects of presuppositions that are brought to the text. Presuppositions are absolutely essential, but wrong ones will lead to wrong interpretations. In fact, even those who have the same basic presuppositions will sometimes disagree on a passage. An interesting case in point relates to the very passage that Helminiak discussed in his lecture -- Rom 1. Recently, a homosexual Dutch scholar, Pim Pronk, published a book entitled Against Nature: Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality, where he analyzes the biblical data concerning homosexual acts. He concludes that for the authors of Scripture homosexual acts are sin. He evades the application of this conclusion by retreating into a subjectivist view of the authority of Scripture. What is striking, however, is that his conclusions concerning the meaning of the text are exactly opposite to those of Helminiak. And no one would question Pronk's commitment to the historical-critical method.

An interesting side point on this is that both Pronk's book and Helminiak's book are endorsed by John Shelby Spong, the liberal Episcopalian bishop whose writings have also attacked the traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality. One wonders what exactly Spong was endorsing about these books. Was he endorsing the view that Scripture condemns homosexual acts but that this condemnation doesn't apply to us (Pronk's view)? Or was he endorsing the view that Scripture applies to us but does not condemn homosexual acts (Helminiak's view)? One gets the feeling that Spong's only concern is that nobody be condemned for committing homosexual acts; it doesn't seem to matter how one arrives at this conclusion. This perfectly illustrates my concern for those who have already made up their minds what they're going to do despite any evidence to the contrary.

ON ROMANS 1

Helminiak wisely limited his lecture to a few manageable topics, including a discussion of the most difficult passage for his view -- Rom 1:26-27. In his presentation, he addressed this passage under three headings, and I will respond with the same. Before proceeding, however, I think it is important to point out that Helminiak agrees that this passage is addressing generic male-male sex, without restricting Paul's meaning to "promiscuous" or "prostitutional" gay sex. In this he implicitly affirms one of the points of the traditional interpretation, in contrast to other attempts to avoid Paul's condemnation of gay sex.

The Vocabulary Paul Uses

Helminiak rightly points out that many if not all of the terms used in the passage have no necessary ethical connotation -- "impurity", "dishonored" (v. 24), "degrading passions", "unnatural"[2] (v. 26), "lust" (or "desire"), "indecent acts" (or "shameful deeds"), "penalty", and "error" (v. 27). To support his point, he shows how Paul used these terms in other contexts in a non-ethical manner. One does not have to be a Greek scholar to verify this. However, the use of these words in a non-ethical context does not prove that they are always used non-ethically. Most of these words are used in some place in Scripture with an unequivocal ethical connotation, which can easily be verified in ten minutes with a good concordance[3]. Greek words are no different from English words in that they usually have a fairly general meaning that may take on different nuances depending on the context. I may say that my performance on a test was "shameful", meaning only that I performed poorly. On the other hand, I may say that losing my temper and punching someone in the face was "shameful", meaning that I acted sinfully. Thus, the choice of words in this passage does not of itself prove anything for either side. The one possible exception to this is the word "error". In every didactic New Testament usage of this word, it is invariably applied to those who are on the road to destruction. This should at least give pause to the dismissal of the ethical interpretation of this section.[4]

In spite of the fact that these words may not carry an inherent ethical connotation, Helminiak cannot dispute that they carry a very negative one. His response to this is that they refer to social acceptability or general expectation. In the social context of the day, committing a homosexual act would have been considered socially unacceptable -- something akin to eating boogers in our culture -- but certainly not having any ethical import. Paul is drawing on this commonly held viewpoint as a rhetorical device to bait the Jews in his audience.

The problem with this view is that it completely ignores the message of the immediate context. Paul is not talking here about how either the Romans or the Jews viewed homosexuality. He is talking about the judgment of God on those who did not see fit to retain the knowledge of God. Helminiak has blinded himself with the trees (the words) and cannot see the forest (the overall connection of these words in Paul's flow of thought).

The Structure of the Passage

Helminiak sees a sharp delineation between the acts described before v. 27 and after v. 27. That is how he dodges the obviously ethically loaded words in vv. 28ff. He distinguishes between "dirty" or socially unacceptable behavior (vv. 24-27) and real wrong-doing (vv. 28-32). I freely grant that there is a progression in this passage from a discussion of sexual sin to a more general discussion of other sins. However, that does not imply that the first category can be written off as socially unacceptable behavior while all the real sin is saved for the second category. Paul may very well have started with homosexual acts because of the relative prevalence among the Gentiles, but this starting point still serves to advance his basic thesis that the Gentiles are under the judgment of God for their sin.

The Overall Argument of Romans

It is true that the first chapter of Romans is a rhetorical ploy. Paul goes after the Gentiles and their blatant, outward sins first. Then, just as the Jews are feeling rather smug, he tells them that they are under God's judgment themselves for doing the same things. They have acted as their own judges by condemning the same sins in the Gentiles that they themselves have committed. But Paul never turns around and says that some of these things really weren't sins! His whole point is to shut the mouths of us all -- Jews and Gentiles, homosexuals and heterosexuals -- with no excuse before God. Then in later chapters, he goes on to unfold the mind-boggling mercy of God in Christ.

This section of Romans begins in v. 18, where it says that "God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness." It seems evident that God's wrath is not being kindled over the first-century equivalent of eating boogers! His wrath is due to real sin, which is unfolded in detail in the following verses through v. 32. Paul argues that the Gentiles chose to pervert their knowledge of God by exchanging that which is unnatural (the worship of creatures) for that which is natural (the worship of the Creator). Therefore, God "gave them up" to this evil direction, by allowing them to exchange their own natural function for that which is unnatural, as a judgment against them. A candid reading of this passage shows that in Paul's thought, one perversion leads to another, all of which are thoroughly evil.

ON THE CENTURION AND HIS SLAVE

Helminiak claims that there is evidence that Jesus encountered a man in a homosexual relationship, and he commended him for his faith without condemning his relationship. He finds this in the account of the centurion who requested that Jesus heal his slave boy, who was "dear" to him. In light of the common practice of that day of keeping a homosexual slave lover, Helminiak believes that this is a probable interpretation of the centurion's relationship with his slave.

All that really need be said here is that the data is so scant that it offers little evidence one way or the other. However, this argument is so outrageously selective that it cannot pass without note. First, does this not argue as well for the legitimacy of man-boy love? Certainly, the "boy" could've been old enough to be considered a man by our standards, but there is no evidence to this effect. If we take the term "boy" at face value, it certainly does provide an argument for man-boy love on the assumption that this was a homosexual relationship. While Helminiak might reject this construction, I see nothing to stop the NAMBLA crowd from using it with as much justification as Helminiak has.

Second, we also observe without any guesswork at all that this centurion was a slave-owner. Yet we read of no condemnation by Jesus of his ownership of another human being! Does this not argue even more strongly for the legitimacy of slavery than for homosexual relations? In light of this consideration, surely we must suspend our judgment regarding the implications of what Jesus did not say in the passage!


Paul does not hesitate to call homosexual acts sin. Neither does he hesitate to say that where sin abounds the grace of God abounds all the more. Christ came not only to take away the guilt of our sin but also its power and corruption. That doesn't mean instantaneous deliverance from all impulses to sin, but it does mean that for those who trust Christ, God is committed to changing us one step at a time into people who reflect Christ's character. My recommendation is that you put down Dr. Helminiak's book and instead sit down to a thorough, open-eyed, and open-minded reading of the book of Romans.[5]