Robin Scroggs is a professor of Professor of Biblical Theology at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. He is the author of numerous books of biblical scholarship, including Jews, Greeks, and Christians (1976) and New Testament and Homosexuality (1983).

1. The Bible opposes homosexuality and is definitive for what the church should think and do about it. Here the Bible stands as the objective revelation of God's eternal will. The judgments in Leviticus and in the New Testament make it completely clear that God is opposed to homosexuality. Within this broad category there are a number of variations, often quite subtle, which cannot be explored here. In all variations, however, the conclusion is the same: Homosexual activity is sinful and church members who practice homosexuality must be called to repentance. Ordination to the professional ministry is not permissible. As one statement expresses it, "Therefore, in accordance with God's word as found in Paul and Leviticus, the church should plainly label all homosexual behavior as sin. " Or even more sharply put: "At its core, homosexuality is rebellion against God's authority and established order, and idolatry of the worst variety."

2. The Bible opposes homosexuality, but it is just one sin among many. There is no jusification for singling it out as more serious than other sins castigated in The Bible,because of which ordination is not denied. Among those who maintain this position, the point is frequently made that there are extremely few references to homosexuality in the pages of the Bible. Furthermore, the statements in Leviticus, 1 Corinthians and I Timothy attach this sin to numerous others. This is even true of Romans 1, where after the attack on homosexuality Paul makes his most extensive list of vices, which, interestingly enough, itself makes no mention of homosexuality.

Proponents of this view do not want to avoid saying that homosexuality is a sin. They do seem, however, to wish to relativize the apparently unique significance given to this one sin by proponents of view 1. The stricture in Leviticus, for example, is contained in a list of sins of forms of incest, child sacrifice, intercourse with a menstruating woman, and bestiality. The list in 1 Corinthians includes adulterers, thieves, the greedy, and drunkards. 1 Timothy lists, among others, liars and perjurers. By what logic is homosexuality lifted out from among these other sins? "In none of the passages is homosexuality as such singled out as a special kind of sin." Not everyone, it is pointed out, would consider intercourse with a menstruating woman a sin of any sort. Denominations have not (yet) sought to determine which candidates for ordination are greedy and to exclude from ordination all such thought to be. Homosexuals should, perhaps, be called to repentance, but only within the broad context of the church's condemnation of all sin. Adherents to this view do not necessarily espouse ordination for homosexual persons; but the logic of their argument does leave them that option."

3. The Bible opposes homosexuality but the specific injunctions must be placed in the larger biblical context of the theology of creation, sin, judgement, and grace.Here the argument in its logical form is that the prohibitions about homosexuality should not be isolated from the basic theological affirmations which are central to the Judeo-Christian tradition. This functions similarly to a hermeneutical principle used by Luther, among others, and can be called the "analogy of faith." According to this principle, the heart of the Bible is its central message(s)--however the interpreter decides what is central. This primary gospel is then used as a principle to evaluate other more specific or less essential parts of Scripture. If these parts are consonant with the central message, they can be accepted; if not, they may be ignored or judged inferior to the primary revelation. Specific application of this argument can take several different directions and has been used both by opponents and proponents of the acceptance of homosexuals within the church and its ecclesiastical structures.

(a) The argument from biblical narrations of creation. In this case the Genesis narration of the creation into male and female, with the joining of the two in sexual union, is said to portray God's intention for the relationship of male and female. This is the positive statement about heterosexuality in Scripture which complements and puts into perspective the injunctions against any sort of deviation from that intent (as in Leviticus and Romans). As the document adopted by the UPC General Assembly in 1978 states: "As we examine the whole framework of teaching bearing upon our sexuality from Genesis onward, we find that homosexuality is a contradiction of God's wise and beautiful pattern for human sexual relationships.... It is a confusion of sexual roles that mirrors the tragic inversion in which men and women , worship the creature instead of the Creator."

(b) The argument from the principle of love. There is, of course, no theologian who fails to appeal to the norm of love in the Christian tradition, love from God and love to and from the neighbor. There is probably no denominational statement on homosexuality, of whatever view, which does not appeal in one way or another to the importance of love and loving. Nevertheless, this appeal is particularly useful to those who take a moderating or so-called liberal view toward homosexuals in the church. A clear example can be found in the UCC study report, although the reader must keep in mind that the report is addressing all issues of sexuality. The initiating sentence in the section on the New Testament reads: "'God is love' is the central affirmation of biblical faith which forms the context in which all Scripture must be interpreted." This norm is then applied to biblical judgments on homosexuality. "It would be a mistake merely to transplant isolated statements out of the context of the New Testament in the modern world and thus twist their meanings to fit situations quite different from those to which they were originally addressed. Christians can and should take basic biblical convictions and use them as resources for discovering and cultivating those human relationships which affirm life and love, support persons and edify wholesome human relationships." Thus the believer is free and called to responsibility to make an independent judgment about what counts as "human relationships which affirm life and love." In the name of the Bible, the Bible can be critiqued."

4. The Bible opposes homosexuality but is so time-and culture-bound that its injunctions may and should be discarded if other considerations suggest better alternatives. Other considerations might, of course, include arguments from the analogy of faith (position 3) but they may also come from contemporary theological, psychological, or sociological reflections. If Leviticus and Paul are addressing situations so foreign to our own times, there is no reason to apply those judgments as determinative in our own situation. The observation might be made that homosexual relationships can be shown to be as helpful and caring to the participants as heterosexual. If that should seem to be the case, the biblical injunctions should not influence our decisions.

When outlining possible options that could be taken by Presbyterians, the UPC Task Force described one option as follows. "Sexual orientation does not itself determine a person's capacity for love, beauty, and joy. Sexual orientation does not itself define one's relationship to God. A homosexuality that issues in faithful, tender, respectful, hopeful, and mutually fulfilling acts is an instrument of love, beauty, and joy. As such it is moral."

Even this brief sketch of positions shows that people can agree about the meaning of biblical statements and yet differ widely as to how they should be applied to the contemporary debate. Obviously what is at issue, then, is not interpretation of the Bible per se (i.e., exegesis), but extrabiblical theological judgments about the authority of Scripture (i.e., hermeneutics). It may be that differences at this level are the ultimate source of tensions about the proper use of Scripture in the debate. That it may be possible for people with such different theological perspectives to agree on the proper role of the Bible in the debate is a hope, at least, to which I shall return at the end of the book.

	Excerpted with permission from The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate by Robin Scroggs (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 7-11.