HOMOSEXUAL HERMENEUTICS AND ITS DEADLY IMPLICATIONS: A PASTORAL REFLECTION

Another theologian, Bruce Williams, also contends that the Leviticus text cannot be used to prohibit homosexuality in the church. He writes:

Pro-gay reinterpreters have sought to refer the Levitical proscription to the Mosaic cultic ordinances superceded by the New Testament, or to the religious belief and practices of Israel's pagan neighbors, or to the use of homosexual contact as a means of degrading a male adversary (i.e., by treating him as a woman), or to the infertility of homosexual relations in light of Israel's need to increase its population. It is also claimed that the condemnations assume deliberate perversion by men whose inclinations are ordinarily homosexual.34

Thus many pro-homosexual interpreters believe Leviticus to have no relevance for the church today. They argue that the text was wrapped in the pagan fertility cults of the time and remains an anachronism of Jewish culture, which was often considered taboo. Also, homosexuality was not condemned by Jewish priests because of the nature of homosexuality itself. Rather, its close relationship to pagan idolatry made it objectionable; and it was never rejected, in and of itself. Lastly, as many of the Levitical laws have been "done away with" by the early church, so too have these laws.35

In essence when one examines the cultural and temporal context of these passages, there are too many discrepancies for their argument to be valid. The premise of these arguments lies with one single presupposition: Leviticus does not speak to the church of today. Such a message is a mere circumvention, opposing the stark reality that the book of Leviticus is a part of the canon, and therefore, must not be ignored on the basis of hermeneutical expedience. While it is true that there was a holiness code that was required of the people, it must be remembered that that code was established to protect God's covenant people from the evil of idolatrous worship. The isolation of homosexuality as simply a part of idol worship without having any implications today is treacherously erroneous. Richard Lovelace asserts:

The practices listed in these chapters include incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, spiritism, and cursing one's parents. One act is mentioned which from our perspective has only a cultic or symbolic significance -intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period -but homosexuality is mentioned in the immediate context of adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice. Unless modern readers are prepared to say that most of the acts on this list are wrong only in the Canaanite and Egyptian context and could be right today, their argument for the exemption for homosexuality is weak.36

Sadly this has actually taken place. An Episcopal biblical scholar named William Countryman has gone to the extreme of following Lovelace's logic:

In his book Dirt, Greed, and Sex, [he] adopts a biblical theology that allows homosexual practice. Fortunately, he has the courage to admit that his method of interpretation also makes prostitution and sex with animals legitimate options for Christians (as long as such acts are done in love).37