Faith in Response to Homosexuality

Faith in Response to Homosexuality

Winnie Varghese

Homophobia is the irrational or disproportionate fear of homosexual people or those perceived to be homosexual. This fear manifests itself in different forms, such as acts of discrimination, prejudice, and violence against such people. This discrimination is generated and sustained by the derogatory language of stigma.

In relation to other phobias, it is a socially constructed idea that homosexual persons are different from heterosexual persons in virtue of their actions or perceived actions. Homophobia creates a language and a social and theological defense of itself by demonizing homosexual persons.

Homophobia is not natural or normal. It is a generated ideology. Although experienced as a deeply held or immutable fact, it is not. It can be deconstructed for the good of society. 

Homophobia as the Violation of Human Rights

Homophobia—as in hate speech and discrimination—is a violation of human rights. The United Nations Organization observes May 17 as the International day against Homophobia and Transphobia so as to create awareness about laws that stigmatize and discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and to affirm their human rights.

Affirming the rights of LGBT people, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, observed: “When I raise these issues, some complain that I am pushing for ‘new rights’ or ‘special rights’ for lesbian, gay, bisexual, the right to freedom from discrimination. These and other rights are universal… enshrined in international law but denied to many of our fellow human simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. States must repeal discriminatory laws and bean discriminatory practices: punish violence and hatred…not love.”

It becomes a legal challenge when one person’s right to express one’s dislike of another person on the basis of race, national origin, gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation comes into conflict with that person’s right to live and work with dignity.

Religion and Homophobia

It is important for religious leaders and religious communities to lead the challenge in ending homophobia. All religious communities have liberative traditions. Society will eventually change with or without us. An anti-homophobic understanding will eventually emerge in society. India will change its understanding. We can already see that in society, particularly in the media.

As religious people, we risk being the repository for the most bigoted cultural values in society if we do not take cultural shifts seriously. Why? Because it is our responsibility as religious leaders to interpret our sacred texts and historical doctrines as and when new scientific and social understandings emerge.  This work of contextualization has to take place in every generation and in every place. If we neglect this, we will suffocate within the self-understanding of past generations. While our heritage offers wonderful gifts, contextualization is primary to the proclamation of the gospel. If we choose to ignore it, we will end up in communities in which we either hide our real lives or simply leave religion behind as irrelevant.    

The Bible and Homophobia   

The gospel message emphasizes freedom, as highlighted by Paul in Galatians 5, where Jesus embodies freedom from various forms of oppression, including illness and death. While the term “freedom” can be misused for exploitative purposes, it remains central to the Christian faith. Christians often struggle to discern what is truly of God versus what is evil, facing the challenge of confronting cultural and institutional oppressions, such as the marginalization of women and homophobia. The church often reflects cowardice in addressing these issues, as believers are called to take risks for the dignity of marginalized individuals. Ultimately, the life of faith involves acting on behalf of others rather than merely adhering to dogma.

Is Homophobia Abominable in the Bible?  

The Leviticus is the only biblical text that pronounces homosexual practices as abominable. There are many other abominations in Leviticus, most of which we happily ignore. We should question why we defend this Leviticus law and not others. According to laws in the Leviticus, instances such as the kidnapping of some 200 Nigerian girls in Chibok in 2014 to be sold off as wives of Boko Haram fighters is permissible. We bring our own prejudices to the text and look for a defense there. We should not confuse that with faith.

Sodom and Gomorrah is about sexual violence that is enacted upon strangers.  Patriarchy demanded that the rape of the head of the family would be the most effective conquest of that family, and the offenders are finally appeased by being allowed to rape the daughters of the house. The entire story is horrific, but it is not about homosexual acts. Again, why do we stop reading so early in the story, and why do we ignore so many other horrific practices around this text that condone violence and deception? We bring our own prejudice to the text and look for a defense.  

The interpretations of the words of Paul with reference to what is translated as homosexual acts are contested. The practices he condemns, which were widespread in the Roman Empire at the time, were very much like the practices of devadasis in India. Paul admonishes his communities in many letters against participating in sex for money, which was a regular part of the cult of the emperor. Or, his is a powerful critique of prostitution, sex trafficking, exploitation, and the perversity of the empire. We take mistranslations of it and make it about a private practice; it is simply a poor engagement of the text.

Same-sex relationships were known to exist in the time of Jesus and Paul. It was the highest ideal of relationships among men. Many Roman emperors had male lovers. There were terms to describe homosexuality in the time of Jesus and Paul, but neither of them uses those terms or makes any such comments. In their otherwise blistering critique of the empire, they do not mention the emperor’s male lovers. That should tell us something.

The Bible and Sexuality

The Song of Songs, more than any other text, celebrates the body in a story framed as God’s love for Israel. Anyone can place themselves in that story for a positive reading of human bodies and sexuality. Besides that, the Bible has a negative view of sexuality. In the Hebrew scripture, sexuality is often associated with power and procreation, but rarely with love. Jesus never mentions sexuality. He talks about marriage and divorce but not sexuality. The gospels are almost, but not quite, asexual.

Paul is very negative about sexuality even within marriage. The Bible is not a good source for a healthy view of the body. And Christianity is so deeply formed by Western notions of uprightness, which are being contested in the West. In this matter, the Indian culture, unlike many cultures, has a recorded memory of a healthier and less-controlling understanding of the body and sexuality and can be a tool for Indian Christians.

The Ideas of Marriage and Family

Marriage has traditionally been linked to inheritance rather than procreation, serving as a means of resource acquisition, especially for those without wealth.

After the Fall, there is no explicit mention in Genesis that marriage is necessary for legitimate procreation. Examples like Jacob’s marriages suggest property exchange rather than sacred union.

Thomas Aquinas aligns Christian theology with Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, asserting that the primary function of marriage is reproduction; women were viewed primarily as childbearers.

Hebrew scripture portrays families as large, multi-generational units for defense purposes. In the New Testament, Jesus and Paul critique traditional family structures, with Jesus emphasizing the need to leave familial ties to follow him, and Paul expressing disdain for marriage.

The gospels encourage the questioning of societal norms, revealing the church’s complicity with power and cultural values.

Although loving partnerships and the raising of children in supportive environments are positive aspects, they are not explicitly mandated in the biblical texts but have rather emerged from tradition.

Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are not biblical ideals. The church’s role in marriage is to reflect and support societal values, prompting self-criticism in evaluating these values against the gospel.

Doctrine of Original Sin and Human Sexuality

Genesis has two creation stories. In one, the original earth creature ha-adam is lonely and is sort of pulled apart from itself to create a man and a woman who enjoy the garden together.

The notion of original sin, a doctrine developed much later, begins with the first creatures disobeying God and then trying to hide. A closer look at the Hebrew text raises some questions: did woman come from man, or did they both come from the earth creature? The difference  is significant. In another version of the creation story, man and woman are created together. Did you notice that when you read it? What else are we missing?

It is interesting to note that when they disobey, God does not come thundering down to shout at them at that point. God waits until the appointed time, the damp of the early evening, a relief from the heat of the day, when he likes to talk with them, and they hide from him.  

I wonder whether the truth they could not handle—that was too great for them—was their own bodies. God was not ashamed of them. God created them with desire for one another. What if they had not hidden? Is shame the Fall that we struggle to stand up against even today?

If that is shame, if the story that frames our self-understanding as the first creation is that we cannot bear our physical reality and desire without shame, and we are cursed for it, we have a starting point to imagine ourselves and love ourselves as God has made us.

 Jesus creates us once again in contesting every kind of social norm of his time. Eating, drinking, touching, spitting, weeping, having his body nailed and broken—defying family norms and temple purity. Eating freely of the harvest when hungry. Asking for a drink when thirsty. Touching his disciples’ feet and sharing wine. His story is very much of the flesh and of relationship. It is almost frivolous at times. Indulgent. David and Solomon delight in their bodies. Miriam and Hannah sing and dance.

There are many biblical resources for an earthy, celebrative, restorative theology. It is our work to reclaim and reprioritize them.  

Indian Christian Response to Homophobia

In every issue of social justice, I think Christians should lead.

We follow a God who comes to us firmly on the margins among the people living there. I think faithful Christians cannot help themselves. We see the face of Jesus when we hear of struggles for human dignity. The life of prayer and the study of scripture make it inevitable. Those of us who do this work for only our salary or career are in the wrong business. The Christian life will seem false it we ourselves do not work of our salvation. To be saved is to see the world as God sees it. We will never quite do it, but we believe it is our truest desire.

Of course, we are not leading on most issues of social justice, so I think it means we need a renewal of our churches. The truth is that after social change has occurred, it is often the small remnant that is remembered later as a mighty force. May we be courageous.

(This is an edited version of the essay published in the handbook of BTESSC in 2014)

Rev. Winnie Varghese is the 12^th Dean of Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. Earlier, she served as Rector of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church at Atlanta in Georgia. An Asian-American Episcopalian priest, she serves on the Board of Directors of the Episcopal Service Corps and has been active in peace and justice work. She is also a board member of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship.