Gay vs. Greed - Taking the Bible Seriously

Here is a quote from a conservative Christian radio host regarding the hot-button issue of LGBT inclusion:

“Without a doubt, this issue will become a great dividing line in the Church, and I for one welcome it, since it points to a much deeper divide in our approach to God, His Word, and the people He wants to redeem. Ultimately, it will separate those who put God first and ask, "How can I fulfill His desires?" from those who put themselves first and ask, "How can He fulfill my desires?" (Although some will take extreme offense to this statement, if you analyze the major "gay Christian" arguments, they often boil down to this perspective.)”

I have highlighted several different areas we will return to.

But first a story.

The setting: A balcony at night. A dear friend and I are smoking Black and Milds. I had just returned from the Peace Corps and he was visiting from Central America, where he lives and does humanitarian work. He is taller than I am (so you can accurately picture the scene). We are talking about being back in the States. He is leaving the next day to go back home. Both him and I came from pretty conservative Christian backgrounds. We both have a deep and abiding concern for the poor. And we both want very badly to live a life that shows that concern and makes a real impact on that front; we want to fight the losing battle.

He looks at me and says, “Tonight, at the bar, I spent the same amount of money on drinks that could feed a family for a week back home.” I don't remember hearing any particular emotion in his delivery. He said it just like a fact. It was a fact.

Another fact: There are 31,102 verses in the Bible. And only six or seven mention homosexuality. Well… actually… not really. “Homosexuality” is an English word and the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Also when we say or read “homosexuality,” the idea of what that means to us is much different than what same-sex relations looked like in the first century or before.

I don't want to get too esoteric but there is a hidden charge (although increasingly explicit as per the quote above) that those of us who are for LGBT inclusion don’t take the Bible seriously. This is false. This is very false. I believe in LGBT inclusion precisely BECAUSE of the Bible, not despite it. I have read hundreds of pages of scholastic work on the issue from all different sides and have studied the issue. My opinion on this is well-informed and not taken lightly. Those who simply read the word “homosexuality” and think that means the same thing back when it was written as it does now are the ones not taking the Bible seriously. So, let’s talk about what the Bible says about “homosexuality.” (Prepare yourself; it’s about to get a little technical.)

Scripture on Gay

Here are two verses in the New Testament that are quoted ad nauseum in order to “prove” that being gay (or engaging in the gay lifestyle) is a sin.

------

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Corinthians 6:9 (I included verse 10 although it is often omitted.)

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. – 1 Timothy 1:9-11 

------

I have highlighted two English words, one in orange and one in blue. The New Testament transcripts were written in Greek, therefore, must be translated into English. In translating the words, it is helpful for us as laypeople (neither linguistics nor Biblical scholars) to see both how this word was translated throughout history as well as how it was used in other extant sources from that time. So let’s do that.

The original Greek word that we see translated (NRSV) as “male prostitutes” is malakos. It is translated in other versions of the Bible as: effeminate, sexually immoral, homosexuals, homosexual offenders, homosexual perversions, those who practice homosexuality, men who lie with males, and corrupt.

This word is actually used three times in the New Testament and many other places outside of the Bible. It means “soft” – as it is used the other two times in the New Testament to refer to clothing. In other non-biblical locations it is used to describe delicate food or the lightness of a breeze. In moral contexts, it was often understood as “soft,” such as “laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, the feminine.” (source : Martin)

This is where the history of the translation of that word gets a bit hairy. For centuries (from at least the 15^th century, perhaps before, until the 1960s), this word malakos was translated as “effeminate.” Then, without reason or explicit logic, the English translation took a turn to start describing the word as “homosexual” or some variant of other sexual immorality.

This concept, “effeminate,” is often boiled down to the act of being penetrated, which is a gross over-simplification. As I said, the word was used quite often in historical literature and it is much more indicative of the horrifying misogyny of the time period. Femininity was something to be avoided in a general sense, not just sexually. While women were “penetrable,” the word was more often used to describe someone as lazy, worthless, weak, or as a coward. In fact, it was used to describe men who loved women TOO much (what we might describe today as “whipped”), even when compared to those who had homosexual relations (because to be “whipped” by another man is less emasculating than to that of a woman).

The second word I have highlighted – translated (NRSV) as “sodomites” – is arsenokoitos. Other translations have it: sexual perverts, boy prostitutes, catamites, male prostitutes, homosexual prostitutes, lechers against kind, use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it.

This word is far more complex and difficult than the last word. Malakos was used quite often and was even used elsewhere in the Bible. However, these two instances, in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, are some of the only remaining documents that use arsenokoitos from that time period, making its translation even that much more imprecise. However there are a few documents that use this term, albeit a bit later, that help us surmise some kind of context in which this word was used within an ancient context.

Judging from the context of these later documents, arsenokoitos did have some kind of meaning in the Greco-Roman world that is more specific than simply “homosexual penetration.” It is found in several “vice lists” (a common rhetorical tool of the time) but it is in the section of economic and exploitive vices/sins, not the overtly sexual lists. Philological and biblical scholars will admit that no one can know exactly what the word meant, but based on the contexts in which it is found, it refers to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (perhaps including homosexual sex but not limited to that). This could include: “rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort.” As Biblical scholar Dale Martin of Yale University wonders: “Why some scholars are certain [arsenokoitos] refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary” shows that “ideology has been more important than philology.” (source : Martin)

There is also a broader problem that EVEN IF we could absolutely determine that translating these words to mean “homosexuality” is justified, the meaning of that word in the 1^st century or before is undeniably different than the meaning of that word today. The Oxford Classical Dictionary tries to unravel this problem in the opening of its section on homosexuality:

“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”

Further complicating our translation problems, both of the word itself and the concept as a whole, are the moral differences between homosexual activity in each historical context. Homosexuality in our modern period has taken a comparable form to heterosexuality – love, intimacy, marriage, and raising a family. While in the past, homosexuality might have prominently included behavior like pederasty, cults, temple prostitution, orgies, rape, etc. While there is evidence of committed homosexual love in the ancient period, it most certainly was not the norm. In the end, the significant differences to our understanding of personal identity, sexual expression, and the norms of intimate relationships are so dramatic that to make complete analogical comparisons without disclaimer would be disingenuous and populism of the worst kind.

Scripture on Greed

In keeping with the theme from my last blog, I believe modern Christians have forgotten the prominence “greed” plays in the Bible and have relaxed our moral consciences from the sacrificial lifestyle Jesus calls us to.

Performing some kind of word study on “greed” in the Bible is an entirely different animal. For one, the instances that the word “greed” comes up are much too frequent to go through. Secondly, greed in the Bible is encased in a much larger theme than simply a sinful action or motive. The Bible is very explicit throughout its entire canon that the responsibilities and duties we have towards ensuring a dignified existence for our neighbors, especially the poorest, is paramount. The Bible includes examples, and even edicts, of the world’s most radical social policy in scheduled debt forgiveness, manumission of debt-slaves, open food policy, and “common purse” communities.

Nevertheless, I do want to touch on a few of the important points that our spiritual ancestors made through the Bible regarding greed and our duties to the poor.

The Greek word used most often in the Christian canon for “greed” is pleonexia, which literally can be broken down to mean “have more.” This doesn’t necessarily imply its exact meaning but it is clear (through usage) that the meaning did connote some kind of covetousness – therefore some kind of wrongful desire.

The problem that most people get hung up on is how desire is determined as wrongful? What constitutes greed or covetousness? Is it simply wanting more than you have? Wanting more than you need? Wanting an extravagant amount more than needed? Coveting what others have? Coveting more in order to be like others? Does it incorporate neglect of the needs of others? Where does need end and greed begin? These are difficult questions and there is plenty of room for every individual to struggle deep within their own conscience.

Greed is not just about one’s possessions – as if there is some threshold that one crosses. “Once I own X cars, I become greedy.” Or “My watch only cost $X, so I am not greedy.” Or “I only make $X per year, which is modest. I make enough to be comfortable and that is fine. God has blessed me.”

None of us exist outside of a context. As much as we don’t like the sound of it, the morality of our actions is often times (nearly always I would suggest) relative to the circumstances around us and the intent carried in those actions. This is how a poor widow can be praised for tithing a penny while a rich preacher can be castigated despite giving largely.

We have white-washed the very difficult teachings Jesus gives regarding possessions, wealth, and riches. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” (Luke 6:24). “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. … Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 19:20-24). “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth… For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. … No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matt. 6:19, 21, 24). Yet, even those words seem light compared to the teachings on the importance (even the ETERNAL importance) of helping the poor.

In Matthew 25, Jesus paints a picture of the eternal judgment of all people. The fundamental criteria that is used to determine eternal punishment or eternal reward is entirely based on their treatment of the poor and marginalized. Jesus even goes so far as to say that our treatment of those people equates our treatment of God!

In Luke 12, Jesus describes a rich young fool whose crops have a banner year. The man says to himself, “I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.” Seems reasonable. God responds by calling him a fool and taking his life from him that night! Jesus warns, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.”

Jesus isn't alone. His apostles carried the tradition of strong teaching on our duties to the poor. In James 2, the author explains the importance of love and mercy in being a disciple of Christ and concludes: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” The author asks rhetorically if faith is sufficient for salvation? That hope is dead if we lack the compassion and will to help those in need.

In 1 John, the author makes a similarly bold statement when discussing the importance of love. “We know love by this, that [Jesus] laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?” Jesus’ sacrifice is how we know we are supposed to make sure people don't die of starvation, exposure, or curable diseases. It would seem that if we refuse this, the love of God does not exist in us.

Strong words. Really strong. Especially considering the extremely rich state of Christians in the world and the vast amount of poverty-related death and suffering that still exists. We have over-spiritualized the good news of the Kingdom of God. We have forgotten the answer to the question, “Can faith save you?” Or the reason why the King in Jesus’ parable tells the goats “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

For centuries, maybe even millennia, Christians have practiced very clever hermeneutic dancing to avoid conviction on these very difficult teachings. And to be fair, some of that might have merit – some of these teachings need thoughtful exegesis especially in our globalized modern context (much like homosexuality). My point in all this is not to imply that everyone must mimic Mother Teresa in order to be a Christian (although I think if even a few of us had the strength to do so, the world would be better for it).

My point is to show that the problem of greed and neglecting the poor is very important to the writers of the Bible. They spend a substantial portion of text on the subject and they use very demanding and extreme language to convey its significance – much of which we brush away. And to top it all off, some of the more conservative of my faith have redirected our attention from the very ubiquitous and life-endangering problems of greed and poverty to a very dubious, contextual, and briefly touched on subject that barely affects anyone’s life: homosexuality.

This kind of misdirection is not only disingenuous to the Bible and the forbearers of the faith, it has potentially redirected positive energy and work that would have helped ease human suffering and prevent premature death into exclusivity and negativity that maligns individuals as unholy and eternally damned.

Beyond the Scripture

That quote from above, here it is again with my highlights: “Without a doubt, this issue will become a great dividing line in the Church, and I for one welcome it, since it points to a much deeper divide in our approach to God, His Word, and the people He wants to redeem. Ultimately, it will separate those who put God first and ask, "How can I fulfill His desires?" from those who put themselves first and ask, "How can He fulfill my desires?" (Although some will take extreme offense to this statement, if you analyze the major "gay Christian" arguments, they often boil down to this perspective.)”

I agree that there is a pretty stark divide amongst modern Christians. And I agree it does involve our approach to God, the Bible, and “the people he wants to redeem.” But I don't think it has anything to do with putting God first or “my desires” vs. “his desires.” It mostly has to do with self-awareness, thoughtful insight into the human condition, and an inclusive vs. exclusive viewpoint.

Return to the story about my friend above. He and I are both committed to the cause of affirming the basic humanity of the poor and alleviating their suffering. He and I have read the teachings of Jesus and his apostles concerning greed and wealth and have made life-altering decisions because of them. Yet we still find ourselves smoking on the porch after a night of drinking with friends, realizing how much money we spent. We get swallowed by the world around us. What is a luxury to most of the world is difficult for us to imagine living without. Despite being committed, we still fail to live up to the expectations set before us. We miss the mark. We are sinners, even at our best.

I worry that those who focus on homosexuality instead of the weightier issues of greed and poverty do so because they lack this fundamental insight. To be forced to come face-to-face with our own greed – our own sin – is much more difficult than pointing out that of other people. Telling other people to repent of their homosexuality is much easier than sacrificing our material wealth, comfort, and security.

Ultimately, I think God wants to redeem everyone. I think some people resist that redemption, Christians included (maybe more than others). Our desires are for our own comfort and ease. We tell our soul, “relax, eat, drink, be merry.” Our desires are for security, both spiritual and material. Our desires are to feel morally superior to those different than us, and to feel morally justified when confronted by something that makes us feel icky. We don't want to include those who are different than us. We don't want to be uncomfortable.

But Jesus’ desires seem different. He tells us to invite the beggar to dinner; to give the place of honor to the poor; to be a servant to all; to give mercy and love as freely as he did and does.

Because God wants to redeem everyone, that includes me, chief among sinners.

Until we can all say that phrase with equal conviction and humility, we will always be stalled from seeing the vision of the Kingdom that Jesus painted. We need to get past the six historically complicated verses about “homosexuality” and see that they are inconsequential compared to the threat poverty and human suffering pose to the human soul. We need to come to terms with the idea that EVEN IF modern homosexuality is sinful, it is no more sinful than our own greed and neglect of the poor. We need to get over our “ick factor” and really reflect on whether or not our discrimination and rejection of those different than us comes anywhere close to the sacrifices Jesus calls us to.

Christian ethics is not about perfect history or philology. Christian ethics is about determining the meaning of love. It is about continuing the ministry of Jesus and, by the grace of God alone, being a part of the Kingdom of God.