GAYS & LESBIANS ARE PERSONS TOO!

A Position Paper submitted to the Filipino American Evangelical UCC
By Leomyr L. de Jesus
May 9, 2004

Contents
I.      Introduction
II.      Homosexual Acts: A Historical Perspective
III.     The Problem of Biblical Interpretation and Translation
IV.    Old Testament Perspective on Homosexual Acts
Sodom and Gomorrah
Prohibition of the Homosexual Act
V.     New Testament Perspective of Homosexual Acts
The Epistle to Rome
The First Epistle to the Corinthians
VI.    Homosexuality in the Christian world
VII. “Suffering Must Become Love”
VIII. Gays and Lesbians are persons, too!
APPENDIX: Principal Authors Cited

I.          Introduction

The premise of this paper is based on an understanding that Filipino American Evangelical UCC is open to persons who are “Christians” regardless of their sexual preferences. This premise takes the stand that we cannot condemn “gays and lesbians” but affirm them as persons. As persons, they are also judged by their misdeeds or unethical actions just like others.
The discussion will consider the historical and biblical perspectives about homosexuality, as well as clarify the issue as it is confronted today. It is hoped that this will help the reader journey into the historical context of the issue and guide them to a decision why such persons are to be affirmed and accepted in the church. This premise is the reason for the paper, if the reader already thinks otherwise, this serves as an invitation to understand some historical perspectives about the issue and reflect on its influence on Christians today. 

This paper will examine the historical context of “homosexual acts”, tracing its understanding from ancient times to the present in as brief and as concise as possible. The chronology will follow the Biblical history (Old and New Testament) moving on through Christian history. The focus on the “act” itself is intended to help facilitate the understanding and clarification of the issue of homosexuality. By focusing on the act itself, it hopes to suspend judgment until the conclusion of the paper.
The object of this process is to make the reader reconsider if it is justified, and indeed faithful, to use the Biblical perspectives to condemn “gays and lesbians.”

For some, subscribing to the premise above will entail a change of perspectives in how we look at life and history in general, and how we perceive the Holy Scriptures and the language it uses in particular. Perceptions about human beings, sexuality, and morality as well as about holiness, righteousness and justice will inevitably be affected. Some perceptions may be radically challenged, affecting the individual’s psychological, emotional, and theological (faith) state. As persons, we have grown and developed over the years according to what we learned in schools, our readings, our listening to sermons and teachings in church, as well as from our own personal experiences. We will have then developed, adopted, or assimilated principles, beliefs, worldviews, and values that are close to our hearts and our minds. This becomes our present context and orientation, which can be very different from others, as well as different from other historical contexts and orientations.
However, it is hoped that by reading on, the reader is giving oneself the opportunity to have an objective, yet compassionate, look at the issue as well as its historical roots, and perhaps in the process have a liberating and enlightening experience. It is well to remember the adage:

“Everything in life that we really accept undergoes a change.
So suffering must become love.”  Katherine Mansfield (1888–1923)

II.        Homosexual Acts: A Historical Perspective

The term “homosexuality” is a modern term applied to persons whose sexual preferences are for the same gender. The term has become a derogatory label signifying a general and perceived disapproval of such practice. Yet, studies of ancient writings (Egyptian, Assyrian, Mediterranean, Greek, Roman literature) reveal that the practice of male-male sexual relations existed in ancient civilizations.

“Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male—not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the ancient Mediterranean. Nevertheless this assumption that the difference in status between the dominant penetrator and the submissive penetratee was essential to all sexual behavior is prevalent in most sources from at least the Egyptian empires of the Second Millennium BCE all the way through the late Roman Empire and beyond.”

Where slavery was a way of life, the master or slave owner had all the right to treat their slaves the way they wanted, including having sex with a male slave. Prisoners of war were worst off. Being penetrated from behind confirmed their defeat. The penetrator proclaims his strength, power and victory over the vanquished and the conquered. Such practices were not condemned but applauded. What was condemned, however, was when a male had sexual relations with another male of the same status, for it was considered an insult to the status of latter. It implied a violent sexual assault, or rape, against the fellow citizen. If proven guilty, the initiator was punished by castration. The victim is disgraced and dishonored.

In a patriarchal (male dominated) society, the power to dominate others often becomes a symbol of great status. Kings and Princes were expected to be the “penetrators” of the conquered. It was normal for such men of status to perform homosexual acts on their minions to proclaim their virility and power. Those who submit to being “penetrated” admit to a status of servitude and weakness. As in the case of those victimized by the whims of such “powerful” men, many of them could not reclaim their honor. These victims resign themselves to a life of disgrace and dishonor. Most, if not all, become part of a growing profession of male prostitutes because of this practice.

Homosexual acts in the ancient world were generally done by men – the strong over the weak, the powerful over the meek, and the master over the slave. Today we can condemn such actions as acts of injustices, as exploitative and oppressive. With that historical perspective, one will realize that perpetrators of homosexual acts, even before Biblical times, did not pertain to people that we classify today as “homosexuals.” The equivalent perpetrators of today would be those males who rape men or abuse boys, as well as women and girls who were often fair game. Women were always of a lower status than the men of these ancient societies and often were treated no better than slaves.

III.       The Problem of Biblical Interpretation and Translation

Awareness of this ancient historical context should cast a different light on the arguments that use the Scripture to condemn homosexuality today. We must remember that the Bible did not come into being in English. The Old Testament was written in ancient Aramaic from which the Hebrew language originated. A translation from one language to another has its problems. Much of the basis of condemning homosexuality today rest on the literal interpretation and translation of the Old Testament as read in the English language. Meanings in the ancient context can be misinterpreted in the act of translation and interpretation itself is dictated very much by the orientation and context of the interpreter.

By way of example, as well as a starting point in the Old Testament perspective, are the words we use to distinguish man and woman. The term “male and female” in Genesis 1:27b actually got their meaning from the perspective of the sexual act. The word “male” in ancient Hebrew is “zaw-kawr” meaning to mark or remembered, that is, a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex). The term “female” in ancient Hebrew is “nek-ay-baw” from the sexual form whose primitive root word is from “naw-kab”  which means to puncture, literally to perforate (with more or less violence) or figuratively to specify, designate, libel (appoint, blaspheme, bore, curse, express, with holes, name, pierce, strike through). If one was to apply a strict translation of the Hebrew equivalent for male and female, in the sense that “females” are identified as “males who are weaker than [or do not have] the mark of a male,” it carries with it the ancient perspective “females” are a disgrace to the male “mark.” In other words the ancient patriarchal perspective is saying women are only worth “penetrating.”

Today, we do not think of the female as sex objects – to be “penetrated” and “punctured.” It is a grave insult to the modern woman. Today we understand the word “woman” or “female” as persons of the same status as men or males, but of a different biological make-up. However, the ancient patriarchal perspective continues to be applied today when weak and effeminate males are branded as homosexuals in a derogatory way – that they are like females.

In Genesis 2:22, we find a second version of the creation of man and woman. It also has the same problem. The Hebrew word for man is “eesh”meaning an individual or a male person. The Hebrew word for woman is “ish-shaw,” which is the “feminine” form of man “eesh.” Literally translating it would mean that the “woman” was a “man” with feminine qualities. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries point out, by way of explaining the difficulty of translating, that both Hebrew words for man and woman are “unexpressed” in the English language.

The point here is that translating from one language to another has its difficulties. One can imagine how translators must have struggled to come up with a decision based on their sexual orientation and preference. As mentioned, meanings in the ancient language cannot be exactly translated into another language. Interpretation itself is dictated very much by the orientation and context of the interpreter and the task of translation will always be open to modification, which will impact later translations and interpretations as well. Even in the English language, we may continue to use the same words, but their meanings can change in time.

IV.       Old Testament Perspective on Homosexual Acts

Sodom and Gomorrah

The homosexual act (male-male sex relations) first appears in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapters 18-19). It described a city whose cultural and social practices accepted homosexual acts as normal and desirable. The men of Sodom wanted to “know” Lot’s guests, described as angels who are typically understood as men. The ancient Hebrew word “yaw-dah,” which means “to have sex” is translated in English as “to know.” The intention of the men of Sodom to have sex with Lot’s foreigner guests was to disgrace Lot’s house, as well as exploit the guests. Lot himself was a foreigner to Sodom. The story goes that all the men of Sodom, to the last man, young and old, wanted to have a piece of Lot’s guest. This suggests that all its citizens practiced “homosexual acts,” and where out to exploit and oppress Lot and his guests. In contemporary translation, these men could have been lecherous thugs or gangs who were out terrorizing foreigners passing through their corrupted city. The story explains that both cities were destroyed because of their sinfulness.

The question that springs to mind is this: is the homosexual act the only sin that caused the destruction of both cities?
Now the “sin” of Sodom and Gomorrah became a model for prophets to warn Israel against receiving God’s wrath.  Isaiah chapter 1 is a classic example. It similarly describes the wickedness of the city of Judah, comparing it with Sodom and Gomorrah. Judah had degenerated into wickedness and evil, whose sacrifice and offerings of incense God finds to be abominable (Isaiah 1:13). However, the prophet Isaiah, in verses 16-17, lists down what God really wants: “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” These words show that Judah must have been doing the opposite of what God wants. The list is actually calling for social and economic justice; therefore, Isaiah was accusing Judah of injustice, oppression and exploitation of the weak and the helpless.

Homosexual acts are not explicitly listed in Isaiah. However, we can imply that according to the context of ancient practice, the homosexual act by Isaiah’s time was itself considered a specific act of injustice, oppression and exploitation. Comparing Judah with Sodom and Gomorrah imputes the same “sin.” The homosexual act was therefore representative of the wickedness and evil, describing the unjust, oppressive and exploitative nature of all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Prohibition of the Homosexual Act

The prohibition of the homosexual act then appears in Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” and in 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

The book of Leviticus came into being after Israel’s Exodus from the land of ancient Egypt. It is a collection of laws about the conduct of a chosen people. Its primary aim was to be a guide on how to live a life under one God and different from the common practices of other existing ancient societies. The chapters mentioned are part of what is known as the “Holiness Code.” In them, we find specific instructions about sexual practices. These instructions were explicitly contrasting against the sexual practices of the Egyptians, the Canaanites (Lev. 8:2-5) as well as those of the Ammonites who worship Molech (Lev. 20:2). Disobedience to the instructions will bring tragedy to Israel. Here, the survival of a community was the principal reason to stop sexual and religious practices that were considered abominations (disgusting and loathsome), and therefore offenders have to be punished. Chapters 18 and 20 give a long list of such abominable practices that can cause “the land to vomit” the people (Lev. 18:28 and 20:22). The homosexual act is just one of them.

It should be pointed out, too, that the Holiness code does not only admonish the people but also encourages the people to uphold a piety that respects, loves, and have compassion for others (Lev. 19), especially the weak and the helpless. It explicitly gives instructions for the treatment of strangers and aliens (Lev. 19:33-34) , which is reminiscent of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this way, the homosexual act in Leviticus can be understood in the same context as in Isaiah in his use of “Sodom and Gomorrah.” That is, the homosexual act in ancient practice is an act of oppression and exploitation by males over the weak and helpless.

Leviticus is proclaiming in general that no one should exploit nor oppress other persons (male or female), specifically through the homosexual act, no matter what their status in society. This is a radical break from the ancient practices. Obedience to this Holiness Code was tantamount to a change in perspective about power, strength, and status – moving towards that of love, compassion and justice.

After 1500 years since the Exodus of the Israelites and the establishment of the Pentateuch, of which Leviticus and its Holiness code are a part of, Israel should have remained a strong and mighty nation as promised by God. However, the prophetic writings testify otherwise. The people of Israel remained weak and wishy-washy, as human nature tend to be. They continued to do all sorts of sins, and most probably practiced homosexual acts as well.

V.        New Testament Perspective of Homosexual Acts

The New Testament times, set in an era of domination by the Roman Empire, was no different in its sexual practices. The Roman civilization had assimilated many cultural beliefs and practices of other conquered nations, particularly those of the Greeks. They too were comfortable with homosexual acts. It was normal for Roman citizens to have male lovers. The orientation of the dominant and submissive partners remained a normal practice where lovers were usually below the status of the dominant male.

Interestingly, the Gospels are particularly silent about the question of homosexual acts.  Except in Matthew 10:15, where Jesus is shown sending his disciples on their mission, he alludes to Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction in his instructions. This time, however, he was explicitly instructing his disciples with regards to Israelite towns (Matthew 10:5)! He explicitly says that such towns that do not accept his Gospel will suffer a much more terrible fate than Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus does not say that such towns will be guilty of homosexuality. Instead, he points to a far graver sin – the rejection of the Gospel.

In Luke 17:28, Jesus also refers to a Sodom-like fate to many people in relation to the coming of God’s Kingdom. Likewise, it does not tell us anything about homosexuality. Most probably, he also refers to the consequence of people rejecting the Gospel even in that future time when the establishment of God’s Kingdom is imminent. These do not speak directly about homosexuality, but points to a significantly far graver “sin” – the rejection of the Good News of God.

It is in the Pauline letters that we encounter direct references to homosexual acts. These are the much-touted letters to the Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians. Paul had a dual citizenship. He was an Israelite and a Roman citizen. He was also a Pharisee! This meant that he was a scholar of the Hebrew tradition as well as educated in the Roman school of thought.

The Epistle to Rome

The early Christian church had a big problem when all sorts of gentiles (non-Jews) began joining the church. They also brought with them various lifestyles and practices that they thought were normal before becoming Christian. Many could have been thieves, criminals, as well as male and female prostitutes (victims of sexual oppression and exploitation) or fugitives from ménage a trios. Jewish Christians became “disgusted” with these new converts. Paul had to establish some norms to put things in order in the young Church of Rome. He now had to set a new “holiness code” for the early Christian Church of Rome.

Romans chapter 1 to 3 gives us a clear understanding of the huge problem that the early Christian Church in Rome was experiencing. Conflicting cultures and practices were clamoring for primacy. The Jews were insisting that gentiles be circumcised, while gentiles were insisting that their customary practices be made acceptable. How do you settle this? Paul probably based his thoughts on the Old Testament decrees, no doubt with much prayers and meditation, but realized that he cannot quote directly from it to avoid offending the gentiles. Paul, for sure, knew gentiles practiced homosexuality. How will he write to them such that they will not reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Reading the Letter to the Romans from chapter 1 through chapter 3 ought to show us his inspiration and genius that kept the Church of Rome together, preventing it from collapsing under the weight of such conflicting issues. To do this, Paul starts out with a prayer of thanksgiving, particularly pointing out his indebtedness to the “Greeks and to barbarians and to the wise and the foolish” (1:14), probably to placate their anger.  Then he emphasizes the essence of the Gospel as faith in God. It is the way to salvation, and that through faith, righteousness is revealed. (1:16-17) In two short sentences, he repudiates all the conflicting positions! He then proceeds to remind everyone of all his or her guilt and shortcomings (1:18-32). By referring to a people “who knew God,” both in nature and in written decrees, but who nevertheless rejected God and who suffered the consequences of wickedness and evil, Paul succeeded in describing the history of the Jews as well as the calamitous experiences of the gentiles. Verses 24-25 were scathing criticisms of the gentiles while verses 28-32 were harsh indictments of the Jewish historical penchant for backsliding. He was telling them that both the Jews and gentiles had the same burden of sinfulness, wantonness, and depravity, and that they all deserved to die. Then he hammers home these accusations in the light of God’s righteousness that even the Jewish covenant of circumcision is not enough for salvation (Chapter 2)! He goes on to quote the prophets to conclude that nobody, Jew or Gentile, is righteous enough (chapter 3). It is by faith in God as shown through Jesus that will lead to righteousness and salvation. Jesus Christ is God’s act of grace to humanity, for humanity is unable to overcome their sin by themselves.

It would be easy to lift Romans 1:27 to condemn homosexuality today, but the reading of chapters 1 to 3 shows us that it was not intended to condemn the people for it, but to challenge them to move on to what was promised by the Gospel. Because of God’s grace, Paul was pointing to the possibility granted to everyone towards salvation. Paul was condemning the homosexual act as it was practiced in his day. Paul was not condemning the person.
It should also be pointed out that homosexuality was only one among the many “sins” that he listed. Interestingly, he adopts a concept in his attempt to address sexual immorality. This is the concept of “natural intercourse” (I Romans 1:26-27)
Naturally, the question that arises will be this: what did Paul mean by “natural intercourse” and what would “unnatural” mean otherwise?

We must remember that the Roman Empire had retained the understanding and practice of sexual relations to be between two persons of “unequal” status, a social and cultural practice that prevailed up to that time. Husbands and wives do not have equal status therefore it was natural. It was also considered “natural and legal” to have intercourse between masters and slaves, whether male or female. It was also “natural and legal” to have sex with mistresses, lovers and prostitutes, be they male or female. Those considered illegal sexual relations (although some cultures might accept them as normal) were between parents and children (incest) as well as between males of equal status like between male friends. Those considered unnatural were sexual acts that gave woman a “dominant role,” intercourse with animals or with a human corpse.

Homosexual acts in the context of ancient sexual practices are condemned by Paul. Yet his logic is based on the premise that homosexuality is also a result of rejecting God (v. 26) . He would be consistent with the Old Testament perspective (i.e. Leviticus and Isaiah) that condemnation of homosexual practices is justified because he perceives them as acts of injustice, exploitation and oppression , which are contrary to what God desires.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians

Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, again deals with sexual immorality, along with other church issues. He tackles sexual immorality beginning with Chapter 5 through 6, and formulates solutions in chapter 7. These three chapters, if read as a whole, will show Paul’s struggle to resolve the interweaving issues of sexual immorality with social and cultural customs of his day. This struggle has produced the most beautiful articulation regarding attitudes towards the whole human body , in which he was specifically addressing uncontrolled sexual passions. He challenges the people to consider their bodies as “a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). With this new perspective, the exhortation is to control such consuming passions manifested in fornication (1 Cor. 6:18) because it defiles the body.

Paul provides a solution (even calling it a “concession” in Romans 7:6) in how to curb this uncontrolled passion in the next chapter. He was realistic enough to recognize that not all can control the sexual passions (Romans 7:7). His solution was the institution of monogamous marriage. In addition, he explains in proceeding verses why monogamous marriage can help save the couple. He also provides options and instructions for widowers, virgins, singles, and where either husband or wife is an unbeliever. These articulations inevitably shaped the Christian sexual ethics in the next centuries, firmly establishing the institution of monogamous marriage and at the same time the encouragement to practice celibacy, as well as chastity.
Again, it is easy to use 1 Cor. 6:9 to condemn gays and lesbians with it. However, the intention of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, if read from chapters 5-7 instead of focusing on a single verse, was to find solutions to stop the sexual immoralities within the Church. He was very specific about his letter addressing the members within the church (5:6-11), claiming that those outside the church were not within his jurisdiction but that of God’s (5:12-13).

Paul does condemn the homosexual act within the church. The male prostitute and sodomite in 1 Cor. 6:9 will indeed not inherit the Kingdom of God, except that through Jesus they are washed, sanctified, and justified (v. 11). This is an exhortation to stop being a male prostitute and a sodomite. A sodomite was a temple male prostitute that participates in pagan or heathen rituals involving the homosexual act. Continuing to be a sodomite in this sense is rejecting God and engaging in idolatry. Paul’s exhortation therefore called for the cessation of participating in heathen and pagan rituals. Instead, he encourages them to offer their bodies to glorify God. He understood that the homosexual act, in ancient practice, was tantamount to a rejection of God for it encouraged exploitation and oppression.

VI.       Homosexuality in the Christian world

Following the conversion of the Roman Empire into Christianity, the resulting Roman Catholic Church that inherited and propagated the Christian principles was largely responsible in shaping the sexual ethics in the Christian world for the next 1500 years. The primary figure considered to have contributed much to its shaping is Augustine of Hippo around the 4th and 5th century AD, and further developed by Thomas Aquinas around 1300 AD.

Dr. Bernadette Brooten gives a very interesting analysis and critique of why Augustine’s sexual ethics are grossly inconsistent. She goes on to prove this by showing how his categories of sexual ethics was a faulty attempt at assimilating Christian teachings with the prevailing ancient social-cultural system of the Graeco-Roman world. Augustine had adopted a categorization made by Artemidoros who documented the system of erotic relations as practiced around the year 20 AD. This was the categorization of sexual acts as natural, illegal and unnatural mentioned in the previous sections. Although Augustine made his own refinements to suit his “Christian” orientation, the ancient practice of social and cultural hierarchy remained embedded in the categorizations. Brooten also points out that this faulty categorization was compounded by the attempts of Thomas Aquinas who came up with a new ranking of sexual sins. For the next 700 years, this categories and rankings of sexual sins had been ingrained in the Christian World.

Brooten concludes that such inconsistencies are evidenced by present actions (and inaction) of the Church towards contemporary sexual issues. She points out that its sexual ethics is misguided and based on ancient perspectives:
The Roman Catholic hierarchy's interventions in politics show similarly misguided, but ancient priorities. The hierarchy teaches Roman Catholics to oppose contraception, abortion, and sexual love between consenting adults of the same sex, and it vigorously attempts to influence public policy on these points. Catholic officials vocally oppose abortion, even in the case of rape or incest; work internationally to restrict access to contraception; and speak out against lesbian, gay, and bisexual civil rights. But the bishops do not urge Catholic legislators to enact rape statutes more beneficial to victims or to extend the statutes of limitations for rape or incest. The bishops do not exhort their priests to preach against sexual abuse or wife battering. And the Vatican has not made ending the sexual trafficking in women and girls a top moral priority.

Many of the Christian churches maintain that they are against homosexuality, but we find that most of their perspectives reveal the same ancient cultural and social values that promote hierarchies of domination and submission. It is indeed a big question mark in hearing about the church being against “homosexuality,” yet many of its priests, or even church leaders, are found to have sexually abused young boys.

VII. “Suffering Must Become Love”

We can learn from our historical journey that the homosexual act had been a “normal” and “accepted” practice throughout the centuries, perhaps ever since human beings came into being. The ancient social and cultural structures valued strength, power, and authority. Such structures promoted the injustices, manifested in sexual exploitation and oppression in others, of which the homosexual act (a dominant male sexually exploiting a submissive male) became an accepted symbolic act.
However, in our journey through the Bible, we find that the homosexual act began to be condemned because it was abominable and abhorrent. It was abominable and abhorrent not because a person loves another person of the same sex, but because it was an act of injustice. As an injustice, it was a willful act of a dominant person to sexually exploit and oppress a weaker person. The Pentateuch (the Holiness code in particular) as well as the prophets of the Old Testament began proclaiming a God of justice who wanted love and compassion for everyone. The chosen people were given the task to proclaim this. They failed.

Then Jesus Christ came into the world, God incarnate, to reveal to all how justice, love and compassion are to be fulfilled. Christianity, as a movement inspired by God’s Spirit, began to change the world. It began to tear down the social and cultural structures that promoted exploitation and oppression. A new world order was introduced.
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth;
for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,
and the sea was no more. (Revelations 1:21)

This new world order is now characterized by equality and freedom whose foundations are Jesus Christ’s teachings of justice, love and compassion. Yet, the churches that grew out of the Christian movement continue to struggle between the social and cultural values of the ancient world and that of the new world. The values of freedom and equality continue to evolve and change in this new world order ushered in through Jesus Christ. Why do you think we have an old covenant and a new covenant in our Bible? The New Testament testifies about the changes from the Old Testament. Paul, a scholar of the Old Testament, was fully aware that “everything in life that we really accept undergoes a change. So suffering must become love.”

VIII. Gays and Lesbians are persons, too!

With that perspective and context, we can focus on the question of how we, as Evangelical Christians, ought to view homosexuality.

Homosexual acts that are exploitative and oppressive must continue to be condemned in the same way that rape, child abuse, and prostitution are exploitative and oppressive.

However, we affirm that gays and lesbians are persons, too.

We understand that “gays and lesbians” refer to persons who have emotional affinities and preferences for others of the same gender and sex.

We believe that the Biblical references about them tell of an injustice perpetrated by an oppressive and exploitative social and cultural structure that needed to be changed. History has shown that they are often marginalized and condemned as weak and a disgrace. We believe that they are persons whose heritage (whether through genes or social conditioning) may be of those countless generations who experienced the oppressive and exploitative homosexual acts that had marginalize and brought them endless suffering. It is but the Christian response to affirm them as persons, to love them as God’s children, and to understand them as individuals with the same rights and opportunities that people are given in a world governed and shaped by God’s justice, love and compassion. The Christian ethos do not condemned them for their affinities.

Gay and lesbian relations in the context of equality and freedom and in the name of justice, love and compassion, is different from homosexual acts that are exploitative and oppressive. In the Christian ethos, it demands and requires an understanding and respect in the same way as sexual relations among married consenting adults are understood and respected. In the same context, gay and lesbian couples have the right to privacy as well as heterosexual couples have the same right.

The Christian ethos also subscribes to the exhortation of Paul that each person glorify God with their lives and their bodies. Paul’s encouragement to those who cannot control the consuming passions by themselves to find a partner – in the same spirit as the institution of monogamous marriage – should be seriously considered. It is for the same reasons that as “one” they may have the opportunity to glorify God together.

Amen.

APPENDIX: Principal Authors Cited

BERNADETTE BROOTEN, Kraft-Hiatt Professor of Christian Studies, supervises graduate work in the areas of New Testament, Second Temple Judaism, early Christian literature, Hellenistic Judaism, and other branches of ancient Post-Biblical Judaism. She co-directs (with Prof. Reuven Kimelman) the doctoral and postdoctoral Brandeis Seminar on Early Judaism and Christianity, which includes research in Rabbinic literature, early Jewish liturgy and various aspects of early Christianity. She has written Women Leaders in The Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Scholars Press, 1982) and Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (University of Chicago Press, 1996). In addition, she has published articles on Paul and the Jewish Law, Jewish epigraphy, papyrological and literary evidence for Jewish women's power to initiate divorce in antiquity, and on various topics of ancient Jewish and early Christian women's history. Professor Brooten is a recent recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, and a Ford Foundation grant on sexual ethics and religious traditions.

DALE MARTIN is a professor and chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Yale University. He specializes in New Testament and Christian origins, including attention to social and cultural history of the Greco-Roman world. Before joining the Yale faculty in 1999, he taught at Rhodes College and Duke University. His books include Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity and The Corinthian Body. He has recently completed the manuscript for a forthcoming study on ancient superstition. Martin has published several articles on topics related to the ancient family, gender and sexuality in the ancient world, and ideology of modern biblical scholarship. He is now working on issues related to gender, sexuality, and biblical interpretation, including an analysis of contemporary interpretation theory and its relationship to current uses of the Bible.

MARYANN TOLBERT is George H. Atkinson Professor of Biblical Studies and executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry at the Pacific School of Religion. Her writings on the gospel of Mark, including Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective, have established her as a leading voice in the interpretation of the New Testament. Her research also focuses on feminist hermeneutics and social location. She is co-editor of Reading from this Place, Volume 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States, Reading from this Place, Volume 2: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective, and Teaching the Bible: the Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy.