Writings from Rabbi Glickman

“Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

That was Jerry Seinfeld’s politically correct refrain on homosexuality, but the Methodist Church disagrees with him. Evidently, the church thinks there really is something wrong with homosexual behavior. When Rev. Marc Williams recently “outed” himself as gay, church authorities chose not to reappoint him to his pulpit at the Woodland Methodist Church, in Seattle. In response, many religious voices joined in a chorus of support for the decision. “Rev. Williams, shame on you!” they shouted, “You are a minister of the Gospel - how can you possibly model a religious life when you so blatantly defy Biblical command? You are openly performing an abomination, and yet you call yourself a Christian? How dare you!”

Thankfully, not all voices in the religious world shared those sentiments. I, for one, applaud Rev. Williams for his courage. I have never met him, but it saddens me that a man’s sexual orientation can be cause for his removal from office, especially when he is as widely loved as Rev Williams seems to be.

But the significance of this decision extends far beyond Rev. Williams himself. In deciding as they did, the Methodist Church stated its view of homosexuality very clearly. Methodist policy is the church’s own business, of course, and ordinarily I, a non-Methodist, non-Christian, would refrain from weighing-in on an internal church issue. However, this decision was partly based what Christians call the “Old Testament” (We Jews call it the Torah, instead). Since this is our Bible, too, this rabbi feels compelled to throw in his two shekels.

The debate about the biblical view of homosexuality focuses on two verses from Leviticus, usually translated, “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination” (18:22), and “If a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely die; their bloodguilt is upon them” (20:23).”

Traditional Judaism, like other religions, has understood these verses for centuries as a blanket prohibition of homosexual behavior. Frankly, many of my colleagues and I part company with our tradition on this issue, because it is clear that the prohibition of homosexuality is based on a horrible misunderstanding and misuse of these verses.

· What About Lesbianism? For starters, the Bible prohibits only male homosexuality, and doesn’t even mention lesbianism. This is probably because male homosexual practice, unlike lesbianism, involves the “spilling of seed,” and the Bible is very concerned about seed-spilling. Yes, traditional Judaism forbids lesbian behavior, but with far less fervor than it devotes to male homosexuality.

· What are We Really Talking About? The Bible makes these prohibitions in chapters dominated by laws prohibiting idolatry. Thus, the real concern here may have been not homosexuality in general, but rather pagan religious rites that involved homosexual practice.

· What’s a To’evah? The “abomination” discussed in both of these passages is a translation of the Hebrew word, to’evah. However, as Richard Elliot Friedman noted in his recent Torah commentary, elsewhere to’evah refers not to something horribly disgusting, but to acts deemed unpleasant in certain times and places.

“Rude” may be better translation of to’evah. Thus, the Bible says men shouldn’t have sex with men because “it makes people around here uneasy these days.” It was forbidden, in other words, because it was impolite. However, now that we understand homosexuality more extensively, and now that it is far more accepted, one could argue that the prohibition should no longer be in effect.

· About Whom Was The Bible Speaking? There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was aware of a category of people who could be called “homosexual.” The text makes no explicit reference to exclusively homosexual individuals, there is no Gay Pride Day on the Israelite calendar, and ancient Israel did not have a special interest tribe devoted to gay rights. Instead, the Bible assumes that all of the Israelites were heterosexual.

Therefore, the text here is not speaking to gay men, saying, “Don’t do it.” The text is speaking to straight men, saying, “Don’t have sex with men, because you’re not attracted to men. ‘Laying’ with them would be unholy because it is promiscuous, and promiscuity demeans sex.”

The prohibition is of sex with the gender to which we are not attracted. Therefore, it would be just as sinful for a gay person to have “lay with” someone of the opposite sex as it would for a straight person to “lay” with someone of the same sex.

Although some may quibble over the details, together these arguments cast at least a reasonable doubt on the traditional understanding of these two biblical passages.

To me, however, what is most compelling is this: The notion that all homosexuality is a religious “abomination” is simply inconsistent with everything I know about religion. While I don’t know much for sure about God, my journey has led me to a few working conclusions. The God I know is compassionate; the God I know has us each turn out the way we are for a reason; the God I know values committed, monogamous relationships, and I can’t help but think that God would celebrate those relationships even when they are between two people of the same sex.

The Methodists are obviously free set their own policy. But if they use these two passages to justify an across-the-board rejection of homosexuality, then my response to them would be simple: You’re misreading the bible here, my friends; your conclusions are both wrongheaded and tragic; you should study further, and reconsider your position.

[back to top]