Although I can’t say that I agree with every one of the points made in Walter Wink’s essay “Homosexuality and the Bible” (there are many ways that he seems to be trying to rationalize religious intolerance towards homosexuals in order to make it seem less unreasonable), I was pleasantly surprised with the progressiveness of some of the statements he made. Towards the beginning of his text, immediately after he briefly explains the inaccuracy of using certain scriptural passages in support of the condemnation of homosexuality, Wink discusses texts from Leviticus that he believes to be “unequivocal condemnations.” Wink states:
Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn same-sex sexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You (masculine) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: 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." Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence, the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose ˜ in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation ˜ was considered tantamount to abortion or murder… One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.
While I’m not completely sold on the selected passages being “unequivocal condemnations,” considering how sticky translating the Old Testament can be, Wink does point towards them being irrelevant at this point in time and I appreciate this effort. I often find myself left extremely confused by conservative Christians’ attempts to apply Biblical text to modern life without leaving any room for interpretation, arguing for an exact and static reading of the Bible. Wink, although agreeing with the standard reading of the Leviticus text, implies that applying it to modern times may be erroneous when considering its context. As Wink says, the Old Testament was written in a time before the human reproductive system was accurately understood. When writing that a man should not “lie with a man as with a woman,” homosexuality was not the sin in mind; rather, the authors of Leviticus were treating any intercourse (or sexual activity resulting in the “spilling of semen”) for any non-procreative reason as an abomination. This, however, is not valid now in a time when a correct understanding of reproduction is readily available. People shouldn’t be using texts that were written based on false information about how babies are actually born to support any intolerance. Ultimately, if the Bible points more towards a condemnation of sex in general, then it seems illogical to condemn homosexuality so fiercely without applying the same level of scorn towards single mothers, divorcees, or any sort of non-procreative sex.
Wink points out another inconsistency when he discusses celibacy in the Catholic Church.
The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7, Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma", or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was — unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
Though many types of sex were considered blasphemous (prostitution, non-procreative sex, adultery, rape, etc.), proper, procreative sex is cited as must. True, someone using this guideline could argue for homosexuality as a sin. However, as Wink states, any unmarried individual should then also be considered a sinner. I find this point to be really interesting, as it’s a clear example of a religious group picking certain texts and ignoring others to support their own objectives. I might not go in the exact direction Wink did, saying that “a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically,” but I think that his point is a valid one: if one group is going to be judged using scripture as a fundamental supporting source, than everyone should be judged equally.
