You are on page 1of 16

ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND ATTITUDES

TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE PRESENT AFRICAN CONTEXT

J. Koech, Department of Philosophy, Religion & Theology, Moi University

Abstract

There is no unified approach amongst Christian theologians today on the interpretation of


the New Testament in relation to ethical decisions. This is especially true due to diverse
ethical perspectives and how they can be applied to the present contexts. It is important to
evaluate the various approaches adopted at present to the ethical dimension of the New
Testament. It is noteworthy that the scripture comprises the eternal as well as the culturally
conditioned aspects. A tension exists between what belongs to the world of the Bible and
what can be brought to the present, between what is transcultural and what is culturally
conditioned, between what is moral and what is cultural.Interpretation theory of Ricoeur and
Hauerwas plus inculturation hermeneutics are used in order to do justice to the twofold
polarity of the world of the New Testament and the world of today specially the African
context. Theissue of homosexuality is used as a test case on the approach. First, the scripture
is evaluated in relation to the ethical concerns. Second, an attempt is made to address how
this issue can be viewed from a Christian perspective in the African context.

Introduction

Ethics is generally defined as disciplined reflection concerning moral conduct and character.
SamualWajeKunhiyop connects ethics and morality by noting that “ethics and are …defined
as the definitions, principles and motivations for conduct and behavior”(2008, p. 4). Many
ethical options mostly conflicting including antinomianism, situationism, generalism,
unqualified absolutism, conflicting absolutism, graded absolutism among others have been
proposed on how to respond to ethical issuesin our contemporary world (Geisler, 2010).
Among the ethical issues that continue to pose controversy are abortion, infanticide and
euthanasia, biomedical issues, capital punishment, war, civil disobedience, ecology, animal
rights, marriage and divorce, sexual issues, and homosexuality. Christian approach requires
the use of the Bible in responding to ethical issues. It is acknowledged that ethics and the
Bible involves interpretation and contemporization. One of the greatest difficulties in trying
to use the New Testament (NT) in addressing ethical issues is the historical and cultural gaps
between then and now.The question many ask is, how can one surmount the gap between the
NT times and the present the world? Many perplexing ethical issues exist today which
demand answers from the Bible. The present work seeks to evaluate the existing models on
how to interpret NT views on ethics for the present contexts. Using the NT to make ethical
decisions for today is a debate that still goes on.

Methodology

The methodology used here is first to describe the kind of ethics present in the NT especially
as presented by Jesus and Paul. In the second place is the evaluation of existing ethical
models to show the applicability in today‟s context. The paper alsoassesses the challenges of
using the NT by Christians in making ethical decisions. In order to understand the meaning
of the NT, proper hermeneutical approach ought to be used. The best approach is that
proposed by Justin Ukpong(1995)which pays attention to the text in its historical context in
interaction with the reader (interpreter) in his/her context.Inculturation hermeneutics involves an
interpreterin a certain contextmaking meaning of atextusing a specific conceptual frameworkand
its procedure.This is especially relevant for the African context.

Overview of Ethics of the New Testament

The NT presents two main dimensions of ethics, that is, personal and social. The two
leading individuals on ethics in the NT are Jesus and Paul. The characteristics which
differentiate them from secular understanding just to name a few include: theological,
Christological, eschatological, and pneumatological.

The first important point to note here is that NT ethics is firmly based on the OT ethical
teaching. There is no suggestion that Jesus‟ ethical teaching began from scratch. His ethics
had its basis on the OT but he made modifications to them. Because the Ten
Commandments is at the center of the OTethical view, it implies that it is theological in
character (Wallace, 1998). Jesus summed them up into loving God and loving neighbour
(Mt. 22:37-39 = Mk. 12:30 = Lk. 10:27).

Jesus radicalized the OT law in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21ff.) by use of „it was
said‟ and „But I say‟ which focused attention on its inner nature. Jesus‟ ethics highlights his
acceptance of the authority of the OT but now highlighting his own authority by
re-interpreting it. This provides a connection the NT ethics and Christology.

Another dimension of NT ethics is the connection with eschatology (Wilder, 1950). If the
kingdom of God has already come in what is called realized eschatology, the ethical
standards of its members are positively influenced. The future aspect is significant for the
believer in the sense that the ethics of Jesus are perfectly fulfilled only in the future
consummation of the kingdom.

Another dimension to Jesus‟ ethics is its connection with NT pneumatology. The indwelling
Spirit enables the believer to attain the high ethical demands found in the teachings of Jesus.
Christian ethics are meaningless apart from the Christian community (the church). This is
the ecclesiastical aspect of NT ethics. NT ethics is also related to the redemptive mission of
Jesus.

According to Matera the gospel writers use different approaches to teach on ethics. Mark
for instance uses narrative rather than sermon to teach ethics. Matthew highlights
Jesus'steaching on the moral life in the Sermon on the Mount. In the synoptic gospels in
general the Kingdom of God is key in providing moral standard that contrasts that of the
prevailing world, while that of John‟s gospel it is Christology.
The ethics of Paul is best presented in the words of Donald Guthrie(1981, p. 913), “What
appears in bud in the ethics of Jesus appears in full flower in Paul.” Paul did not introduce
any new ethic but borrowed and build on the ethics of Jesus. Paul‟s ethics is geared towards
those who have become part of the new humanity in Christ (Drane, 1974, p.172). The
believers in Christ are empowered by the Spirit and thus able to live holy lives accompanied
by ethical living. In Paul‟s epistles before the ethical section he presents doctrine first. Paul‟s
ethics is non-legalistic and spirit-directed. He highlights love as the main motivation in the
Christian life (1 Cor. 13).

Models of Interpreting the Ethical Relevance of the New Testament for Today

In an attempt to relate the NT to ethical decisions for today,scholars havecome up with


diverse views. This has led to the evolution of several ethical models by the different
scholars. The problem of methodology is a subject that is still under scrutiny. Christians are
perplexed on how to anchor their ethical decisions on the Bible especially the NT.

The ethical models proposed by various scholars on the view of using the NT by Christians
in making ethical decisions for today include an ethics of laws model, an ethics of ideals
model, encounter with God model, and an ethics of relations and responses model(Hartin,1987,
1991). It is the concern of this paper is to evaluate each of the models showing their
relevance for today.

An ethics of laws model

According to the proponents of this model what the NT says is to be taken literally and
applied as it is in today‟s context. The NT comprises laws that are to be obeyed without
question. According to Longenecker (1984:2) God has given laws in form of
commandments and ordinances which have to be obeyed. These laws are found in both the
Old and New Testaments.

C.H. Dodd (1975) belongs to this school of thought. The view held here is that the
every detail of the various laws contained in the NT are imperative and must be
observed. Dodd draws a distinction between codes and precepts. Codes are supposed to
give detailed attention to every specific situation that may arise but preceptsgivesgeneral
direction to one‟s actions (Curran, 1984:181).

This approach seems to receive support from certain sections of the NTwhere statements are
given in a prescriptive manner. Jesus seems to ratify the Old Testament (OT) law (Mark
12:29-30 in quoting Deut. 6:45) and loving one‟s neighbour (Mark 12:31, quoting Lev.
19:18). Other examples include honoring parents (Mark 7:10; Mat. 15:4, in reference to Ex.
20:12 and 21:17) and the permanence of marriage (Mark 10:7-8; Mat. 19:5 in quoting Gen.
2:24). Matthew presents Jesus as the new Lawgiver (Mat. 5 - 7). Johns Gospel portrays
Jesus' teachings as commandments requiring obedience (John 13:34; 14:15; 14:21;
15:10,12). Guthrie (1981 p.894) notes that Jesus bases His authority on the OT as well as on
His own person in giving commandments. The Paul and Peter in their writingspaint
Christianity as giving a new „commandment‟ (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Peter 2:21).

The shortfalls of this model are twofold. Firstly, this perspective fails to take into
consideration the need to first understand the Scriptures within the historical and cultural
situations of their own time. Biblical exegesis demands that before one can understand the
text in the present the original context must be taken into account (Fee, 1993 p. 19). Without
knowing what the text meant, what it means will likely be missed (Yilbet, 2000). In Curran‟s
(1984:183) words:

Thus parts of Scripture cannot be wrenched from their original context and applied in
different historical and cultural situations without the possible danger of some
distortion. What might be a valid and true norm in biblical times might not be
adequate today. Thus one cannot without further refinement take biblical norms and
automatically see them as always obliging in different contexts of our historical
lives.

Appropriate interpretation is required to move from the original to the present context.
Secondly,the Bible is not first a law book but rather a message of salvation. It reveals the
good news of the liberation of humanity from the devil and all forces of enslavement either
spiritual, physical or social. There is a call to all to respond to the message of salvation
instead of looking at it as a book containing laws that demand obedience. As a loving
message it is to be responded to without coercion but rather freely and lovingly from the
heart. If the NT is seen as law book it misses out an important point, that of transformation of
hearts of humans. To Longenecker (1984 p. 3), “Such an approach does not create moral
beings, but only controls the worst features of non-moral behavior” (Longenecker, 1984:3).
Deontology is an ethical model similar to this model. It treats ethics in terms of duties and
obligations. Longenecker‟s (1984 p.3) assessment is significant;

In matters of personal morality where the biblical commands to love and honor are
taken seriously, a law-book approach to the New Testament may work out fairly
well, particularly when a person internalizes love and honor and develops new
attitudes. But a law-book approach apart from some accompanying body of tradition
(whether written or oral) seldom has much to say about social ethics, simply because
circumstances change so rapidly that codified laws are soon outdated. Jesus, for
example, said nothing specific about life in a geriatrics ward, or about collective
bargaining, or about genocide. And those who take the New Testament as an ethical
law-book find that they too have very little to say as Christians about such matters.

Overcoming cultural differences between the first century and the present is the goal of this approach.
However, sometimes the church comes up with a tradition that is also culturally determined. An
example of this is found in the Roman Catholic traditional teaching on sexual morality which operates
with concepts and thoughts from the past.

Principles Model
Another way of using the NT in ethical decisions is to see it as containing principles which
can be universally applied. I am distinguishing this from ideals ethical model because it
highlights principles from the laws and not merely seeing the laws as ideals which cannot be
attained. The general principles from the words, laws, teachings and accounts of the NT can
be drawn. Harnack in his recorded lectures (1899-1900) gives a befitting overview on the
difference between Jesus‟ view regarding the law and that of the Jews.

Andrew R. Osborn (1940) states that it is in the life of Jesus that one is to find the
authoritative principles which all human beingsare to emulate in their conduct. This
highlights the importance of principles drawn from Jesus‟ teaching. Jesus‟ message, as
Harnack saw it, can be summed up under three headings: “(1) the kingdom of God and its
coming; (2) God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul; and (3) the higher
righteousness and the commandment of love” (Longenecker, p.4). The Sermon on the
Mount is interpreted as providing a summary of moral principles and not the laying down of
rules and regulations for one‟s conduct. These principles can then beapplied to all cultures in
all contexts.

The strength of this model is its flexibility. It provides a way whereby NT norms can be
madefunctional to different situations. This applies to both personal morality as well as
social morality. While the biblical laws and precepts may not directly be universally applied
principlesdrawn from them remain unchanged because they are universal in nature. The duty
of the interpreter is to examine beneath the rules and regulations relating to particular ethical
issues in order to uncover the universal principles which could have elicited legislation.
Such principles can now be applied to the ethical issues of the present day contexts.

Shortfalls exist regarding this model especially because it depends on the skill and
sensitivity of specific interpreters. Two major problems have been noted. First, in the search
for universal principles it is all too easy to tum biblical theology into philosophy, with Jesus
Christ heard only as an echo a Greek philosopher such as Socrates. Second, Christian ethics
can easily be treated as merely one category of natural law, which is anthropocentric
whereas the NT is Theocentric and also Christocentric.

An ethics of ideals model


This ethical model presents a framework through which decisionsare made on the basis of
ideals that are seen to exist in the NT. The laws found in the NT and the rest of the Bible are
not be treated as obligatory on the Christian. But rather, behind these laws are ideals that
provide the direction towards which the believer‟s life is to follow. This is similar to
teleological approach in ethics which is goal oriented. Ethical actions are not to be measured
by what it has been attained or should be achieved but judged according to the goal towards
which the action strives. Murray (1957) summarizes:

The biblical ethic is that manner of life which is consonant with, and demanded by,
the biblical revelation. Our attention must be focused upon divine demand, not upon
human achievement, upon the revelation on of God‟s will for man, not upon human
standards of behaviour which are enunciated in the Bible for the creation, direction
and regulation of thought, life and behaviour consonant with the will of God.
One of the strengths of this model is that it places Jesus‟moral authority in the very centre of
consideration in ethical issues. The believer is not required to obeyevery small precept of the
NT. It is however doubtful that the NT message can be summed up into a neat law of ideals.
The eschatological perspective in the Bible which has been used to support this view
(Gustafson, 1984, p.162) has argued that the perspective of eschatology has tended to give
support to this direction. The model is applied to the Bible for instance the OTis said to look
forward to the fulfillment a future full of ideals. The NT also talks of the coming of the
kingdom of Godpartially in the present and its future full realization. One of the difficulties
of this model is the existence of divergent interpretive approaches to the meaning of
eschatology as presented in the NT.

Guthrie (1981, pp., 895-6) gives an overview on the eschatological view on ethics especially
on the tension between realized and the not-yet:

Under the theory of realized eschatology, the ethicsof Jesus becomes a vital part of
the immediate outworking of the kingdom.In its most extreme form, in which the
future coming of Jesus is explainedaway, the Christian gospel becomes so orientated
to the present that ethicsbecomes its most important feature. The neglect of future
hope resulted inthe social gospel movement during the early part of the twentieth
century.But its failure was due to the fact that neither personal ethics nor
socialinvolvement in a way consistent with the teaching of Jesus was
possiblewithout the spiritual dynamic which a future hope gives. ….It would seem,
therefore, if both future and present aspects are to be fully taken into account, that the
ethics of Jesus must be taken seriously in the present life, and must be seen as
perfectly fulfilled only in the future consummation of the kingdom. This will supply
for the ethical teaching the necessary dynamic.

Encounter with God model


This model emphasizes the personal relation with God which results in obedience to God
and not to some abstract principle. God‟s Spirit enlightens the scripture to the individual
while reading it. There is a rejection of mere legalism because such conduct is not good
enough. According to Brunner (1937, pp.82-83) obedient behavior based on relationship
with God is the goal of conduct. This is a result of obedient willto the free, sovereign will of God.
One is to be concerned with always doing what God wills at any particular moment.

Due to its existentialist tendencies this model is clearly weakened. The interpretation of the
scripture becomes extremely subjective.Because there is a rejection of laws and principles,
Christian ethics comes under the whims of individual person. Christianity has both
individualistic as well as communal aspects.

Relationality-response model
It is also called an ethics of relations and responses model or responsibility ethics (Hartin,
1987 p. 37). The foundation of this model is that God has acted in history by providing
salvation through the redemptive activity of Christ. The Christian then responds in action
and faithbased a living relationship.

The leading proponent was Gustafen (1965, p. 309-316) following Karl Barth‟s theology
who stated that the understanding of the Bible does not rest in the revelation of a morality but
in the revelation of a living God. God‟s revelation action called for a response from the
Christian. Repentance is the first step in this response to God‟s action.

The key point in this model is its emphasis on Christianity as a way of life resulting from
relationship with God. Jesus‟ call was to repentance implying a turning away from the old
type of existence to a new one. Christianity is then seen as being more than just a religion of
rules and laws but a way of life. The basis of this is a continual relationship with the person
of Jesus Christ.

This model has several strengths to it:


 It bridges the historical distance between the world of the NT and the present. Care
must be taken in trying to deal with the historical question.
 It regards NT as going beyond the question of morality. Ethics is done in the context
of theology.
 The call of the NT is beyond personal change but embraces Christ‟s salvation work
extended to others as well.
 The new type of Christianity is lived in vertical and horizontal relations, it is a
relationship between God and fellow humans. This has resulted from a response to
God‟s redemptive activity through Christ.

Challenges of Using the New Testamentin Christian Ethical Decisions


Christians generally appeal to the Bible as the main authority in making ethical decisions.
Challenges however exist concerning this position.Several problems can be noted in the
attempt to use the NT in ethics today.

1. The ethical problems not directly presented in the NT


The most glaring point is that we live in a world totally different from that of the NT. The
present situation raises ethical problems which were non-existent then and thus not
addressed in the NT. Some examples are discussed below.

First are the issues related to medical concerns. Many new scientific techniquesnot
envisaged in the NT times are now common place. These include the use of contraceptives,
artificial insemination by husband or donor, the possibilities of so-called test-tube babies,
abortion, genetic engineering and euthanasia just to name a few. There are no direct answers
from the NTtouching ethical problems resulting from such situations.

Second, there existnew structures in society especially types of states not envisioned in NT
times or just merely implied. The Bible talks about monarchy or empire or oligarchy and
how an individual was to relate to them. Monarchy in the OT especially that of Israel was
regarded as Theocratic. Democracy was non-existent and thus the question of the obedience
of the individual to such a state is not addressed. The NT does not even mention the
preferable type of state. The problems not addressed include: participation of the individual
in the processes of government, commercial relationships, and the issues of trade unions
among others. Jesus reiterated in Matthew 6: 24 that one cannot serve two masters, but
today many people are placed in situations where two or more masters demand their
allegiance.

Third, it is common place to hear about civil rights and trade unions existing for the purpose
of fighting for the welfare of workers and citizens. In order to achieve their aims their
methods involve conflict and sometimes the use of violence. In the case of Trade unions
industrial action is employed. In some instances violent means is used to bring revolution to
dispose dictators and unjust systems. The NT is not explicit on this.

Fourth,the Christians may find themselves living in a state which follows standards which
contradict their own.Reconciling the performance ofChristian duty withpublic duty is
difficult in some situations. Situations which raise such difficulties include social workers,
doctors, soldiers, and judges just name a few.

The character of the New Testament


The Bible is not an ethical textbook, attempting to cover systematically the legal, social and
ethical problems of its time. The NT teaching is also incomplete in the sense that it does not
address every issue in detail. It only discusses issues present in the first century Christian
context.

A pertinent hermeneutical question is whether or not NT ethics should apply to humanity in


general, or only to those who recognize the authority of scripture. Challenges have been
noted in situations where society allows divorce whereas Jesus prohibited it. The question
that still persists is whether or not the NT ethics can be universally applied.

A further set of problems may be broadly called hermeneutical. These arise at various levels
discussed below.

1. The exegeticalproblem of determining precisely what a given biblical textmeant for


the original readers. There can be difficulties of text and vocabulary, sentence
construction and so on comprising all the problems that arise in an exegetical
discussion. Along with this there may be the question of different understandings of
the text at different times.

2. Frequently certain texts are picked to support a particular position without paying
attention to the context of the text. This is happens in what is known as proof texting.
The same approach is sometimes used to emphasize a chosen theme above others in
biblical study. Supporting a specific theological view leads to bias in the way the text
is read and used (Curran, 1984, p. 194).

3. Determining the significanceor application of the text to our own situation. The
meaning of a text may be possible to get but its significance is not always objectively
determinable. A text has one meaning, but may have varying significance.
4. The meaning of a text may be unacceptable to the modern interpreter. This happens
in the case where the meaning of the text seems to be morally unacceptable to the
present reader. This is true in the OT where God is said to have commanded the
massacre of entire communities(Deut. 20:17).

5. Fourth, we have the problem thatthe thinking of the Bible may not correspond the
thinking in the present. In 1 Corinthians Paul commands excommunication and
handing over to Satan of a person who was having incestuous relationship. The first
part is acceptable today but the second part is hardly practiced.

6. A problem arises because the NT has diverse viewpoints on the matter of ethics.
There is no homogeneity in the way the NT documents deal with issues. The NT is
not a homogeneous body of doctrine but rather voices of diverse views. Temptation
to use one author to interpret another is ever present. But what Hays (1996, p. 188)
says is important, “We must let the individual voices speak if we are to allow the NT
to articulate a word that may contravene our own values and desires.” Even with
serious exegesis the problem of diversity is not lessened.

Methodological Approach in Making an Ethical Decision

As noted above many ethical issues have arisen today which require some explanation or
resolution. Some of the issues are not directly or explicitly addressed in NT.This means that
we have to work with those passages which most closely approximate the ethical problems
which require a decision.

In examining those biblical images respect must be had for the following points that have
been argued:
 The gap between the present and the past must be respected. The process of
„distanciation‟ must be taken into consideration.
 The biblical images or passages must be explained according to all the hermeneutical
principles that are presently available. The meaning opened up by the text must be
discovered before one can make an appropriation to today. The meaning of the text
then must be unearthed in order to know its meaning for now.

Significance of biblical images


It is important to understand biblical images and how they fit within the vision or stance on
the world which the biblical revelation promotes. Very often a decision is not based on a
rational argument, but is the outcome of one‟sview of the world. The Scriptures open up a
vision which presents a narrative of God‟s dealings with the world and how he calls forth a
response from those who are in a relationship with him. The search is not so much for ethical
norms, decisions, or goals, as for an attempt to discover how the problem fits within the
Christian stance orvision called forth by the biblical narrative. Christianity is sometimes
described as away of life in which the disciple strives to maintain a relationship to the person
of Jesus and to remain faithful to his work and not just based on norms.
Decision in the context of the faith of the Christian
An individual Christiandoes not act alone, but under the guidance and support of the
Christian community. The NT documents arose within the context of the early Christian
community as Daly notes, “What the biblical author wrote arose from the community. So
also the reader must be aware of the community as a source of interpretation and as recipient
of communication from the reader” (Daly, 1984, p. 294).

The community‟s support does not necessarily make and action right.The rightness or
wrongness of an action is not based a majority support.The ultimate measure for the
Christians is the authority of the Bible correctly interpreted.

The questionof Homosexuality

Homosexuality defined generally as sexual attraction between those of the same sex has attracted
much debate from diverse quotas including biblical scholars. Due to rapid social
change,homosexualityhas found acceptance in some countries of the world resulting from a
redefinition of sexuality. It has also lead to a new understanding of the concept of the
family. There is a push from human rights perspective to recognize homosexuals in all
dimensions of society including in religious institutions among them Christianity. However,
Christianity seems to be the source of the greatest criticism of homosexuality.

Two categories of homosexuals have been identified: perverts and inverts. According to
Samuel WajeKunhiyop (2008):

A pervert, like the situational homosexual, is someone who is really heterosexual but
occasionally indulges in homosexual acts. In other words, perverts distort their actual
sexual orientation when they occasionally engage in homosexual sex. An invert, by
contrast, is one who is genuinely homosexual. It is argued that homosexual
intercourse by inverts is not a perversion or distortion because they are acting in
accordance with their essential nature. They are constitutional or static homosexuals.
(pp. 303-4).

A pervert is deliberately going against his/er constitution but inverts are doing what is
natural to them. This means that though perverts can avoid engaging in the practice, inverts
cannot. Ethical discussion might be helpful to the pervert but not to the invert.

Christians use the Bible as the source of authority in responding to ethical issues, in this case
the question of homosexuality. As noted above diverse views exist on how to use the bible
especially the NT in addressing ethical issues. The NT has some passages that seem to speak
about the subject of homosexuality which need to be examined.

NT passages that speak of homosexuality

Romans 1:26-27
Though this text appears to contain a direct condemnation of sexual relations between men it
should be understood within the context of the Roman epistle. The traditional interpretation
states that the passage condemns homosexuality. However, Paul seems to be generally
concerned with the theological issue of idolatry which also includes the issue of
homosexuality. Humanity had turned away from God to worship idols and thus God then
gave them over to their „degrading passions‟. One of the results was men giving up sexual
relations with women for intercourse with other men. It implies males who were
naturallyheterosexual turning to homosexuality which was contrary to their nature.
According to Scroggs (1983:109) the passage is referring to pederasty, a type of sexual
relation between older and younger males.

Paul‟s concern then was not so much the ethical issue of homosexuality but idolatry
resulting in actions opposed to God. It was a theological concern and not ethical.The passage
is to be understood within its cultural context.

Those who support homosexuality argue that the passage does not condemn homosexuality
on the basis of three arguments (Stott, 1994, p. 77). First, the passage focuses on the
expression of God‟s wrath and not on sexual ethics. One can respond that if a certain sexual
behavior is a portrayal of God‟s wrath then it must be wrong.

The second point states that Paul was talking not about homosexuality but pedastry as noted
above because it humiliated the youth. This view has no support from the text. The third
argument is based on the meaning of the word nature as used by Paul in the passage.
Homosexuals are acting in ways that are perfectly natural for them and to act in heterosexual
ways would be unnatural to them and thus wrong since it would go against God‟s creation.
According to them this is what Paul was advocating for. According Richard Hays, Paul was
using natural to refer to heterosexual relations while homosexual was treated as unnatural
(1986, p. 192). The general biblical evidence is that God instituted heterosexual relations
because he created male and female.

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10


These two passages touch on homosexual behaviour.In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul indicates that the
unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God.He then gives a list of people belonging to the
category of the unjust which include fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, boy prostitutes,
andpracticing homosexuals.

In 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul states that the law is meant for the lawless. Among the lawless are the
practising homosexuals.

Interpreted within the context of their cultural environment the two passages seem to be referring to
pederasty whereby boys or youth were enslaved for sexual purposes particularly by adult males
(Scroggs, 1983:120-121.).

African attitude towards homosexuality


Traditional Africans interpret human behavior from a communal perspective. It is not based on
individual‟s preference. Homosexuality was generally regarded as a taboo and would not be
mentioned in public. The purpose of sexual relations in African traditions was not mere pleasure but
for procreation. Though a majority of Africans are of this view some have started arguing for not only
the acceptance of the practice but the recognition of gay rights and legislation be provided. Several
reasons can be noted for this shift.

 The fronting of freedom of speech and human rights. In the past homosexual were
afraid to come out of into the open but this has changed due to western influence and
the support of human rights organizations.
 The push for morality to be based not on the bible or some religious tradition but on
scientific findings such as psychological, social and other scientific. The claim is that
homosexuality is not a matter of choice but by constitution of the individuals.
 Relegation to the background of traditional values and beliefs due to secularization
contributed education and globalization in general. The fabric that used to hold
communities together have been destroyed. Individualism has started setting in resulting
in individual decisions in matters of behavior.
 Questioning of the bible as authoritative in matters of faith and practice. The church also
no longer occupies center stage in giving direction to moral issues is communities.
Secular, humanistic thinking has in some situations dominated the thinking of
individuals especially the educated.The meaning of sexuality and even marriage itself
has been redefined to include homosexual relationships.
 Great progress in technology especially touching on reproduction. Procreation is no
longer in the purview of sexual intercourse. This means that getting children is now a
medical option available to homosexual couples.

The African situation though still at its early stage of grabbling with the questions of homosexuality
requires answers on how to deal with the challenges. Two camps or even three can be identified: first,
are the traditionalist who do not even want to hear anything about homosexuality, the second group
comprise Africans who have converted to Christianity and use the Bible and traditional world as their
points of reference in interpreting issues including homosexuality, and the third category are educated
Africans who claim to have abandoned their traditional culture and also pay no allegiance to
Christianity.

Conclusion
The forgone discussion has shown the difficult situation faced in attempting to understand
the question of homosexuality within the African context. The first challenge is the myriad
of ways of using the NT as source of ethics. Several ethical models exist. Settling on one is
a difficult task. The second challenge is the existence of diversity within the African
context. Apart other religious traditions there exist traditional Africans who still uphold
traditional values, Africans who have converted to Christianity and educated Africans who
have abandoned traditional values and reject Christianity. Another challenge is the
non-existence of explicit NT texts that deal with homosexuality from an ethical perspective.
When the three NT passages discussed above are interpreted within the context of the
original writer they indicate theological rather than ethical concerns. Generally
homosexuality in whatever form then, was regarded both as detestable supporting the
African view and a pointer to departure from the ways of God. It means that all homosexual
acts are to be treated as evil. Paul‟s verdict in the Roman epistle is that homosexuality is a
sign of godlessness and wickedness.

It is noteworthy that the rejection of the act does not necessarily mean the condemnation of
those practicing it. The NT attitude is that of loving the person even while disapproving the
act. The traditional African approach would possibly require religious cleansing for the
individual to be incorporated into society.
REFERENCES
Brunner, E. (1937). The Divine Imperative. London :Lutterworth.

Curran, C.E. (1979). Moral theology, psychiatry and homosexuality. InTransition and tradition in
moral theology. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp.59-80.

Curran, C. E. (2012). The role and function of the Scriptures in moral theology. Proceedings of the
Catholic Theological Society of America, 26.

Curran, C.E. & McCormick, R.A. (1984). Readings in moral theology. No 4: The use of Scripture in
moral theology. Paulist: New York.

Daly, R. J. (1984). Christian Biblical Ethics. From Biblical Revelation to Contemporary Christian
Praxis: Method and Content. New York : Paulist.

Dodd, C.H. (1975). Paul: An Outline of his Theology. Grand Rapids, Eerdmanns translated
by John Richard de Witt.

Fee, Gordon (2000). How to Read the Bible for all its Worth, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Geisler, N. L. (2010). Christian Ethics: Contemporary issues and options, 2nd edition. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic.

Gustafson, J. M. (1970). The place of Scripture in Christian ethics: A methodological


study. Interpretation, 24(4), 430-455.

Guthrie, Donald (1981). New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: Intervarsity.

Hartin, P.J. (1987). New Testament ethics: Some trends in more recent research. Journal of
Theology for Southern Africa, 59:35-42.

Hartin, P. J. (1991). Methodological principles in interpreting the relevance of the New Testament
for a new South Africa. Scriptura, 37, 1-16.

Hauerwas, S. (1983). The peaceable kingdom: a primer in Christian ethics. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press.

Hays, R. B. (1986). Relations natural and unnatural: A response to John Boswell's exegesis of
Romans 1. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 184-215.

____________.(1996). The Moral Vision ofthe New Testament: Community, Cross, New
Creation. San Francisco, CA.

Kunhiyop, Samuel Waje (2008). African Christian Ethics. Nairobi: WordAlive.

Longenecker, R. N. (1984). New Testament social ethics for today. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Murray, J., (1957), Principles of Conduct. London: The Tyndale Press.

Osborn, A.R., (1940). Christian Ethics. London: Oxford University Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. TCU press.

Ricoeur, P., & Thompson, J. B. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language,
action and interpretation. Cambridge university press.

Scroggs, R. (1983). The New Testament and homosexuality. Philadelphia : Fortress.

Scroggs, R. (1984). The New Testament and Ethics: How Do We Get from There to
Here?. Perspectives in Religious Studies, 11(4), 77-93.

Ukpong, J. S. (1995). Rereading the Bible with African eyes: Inculturation and
hermeneutics. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 91(5), pp. 3-14.

Wallace, R. (1998). The Ten Commandments: a study of ethical freedom. Wipf and Stock
Publishers.

Yilbet, Yoilah, (2000). Knowing the Biblical Author‟s Intention: the Problem of Distanciation.
Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology Vol. 19 no 2, pp. 165-185.

Comments
Definition:
„sexual attraction to or sexual relations with members of the same sex‟

1. What should be the attitude of Christians towards homosexuality?


a. Compassion
b. Distain
c. Allow them to practice – liberal attitude
d. Provide a way for healing. Homosexuality is a form of illness either psychologically or
spiritually. The causes of homosexuality should be explored. Are they social, physiological,
psychological or spiritual?
e. Distinguish between a homosexual person and a homosexual act – YusufuTuraki (p 1355 in
Africa Bible Commentary).
2. There are those evangelical Christians who acknowledge that they are homosexuals. Should
they go ahead and practice it? Some say yes but others respond that they don‟t have to. Just like
heterosexuals who can decide to be celibate, homosexuals can abstain from it.

Arguments
- Nature – biological i.e. genetically determined so condition is void of moral or
spirituality.
- Human rights (homosexual seek for recognition, they claim to be a minority
- Changes in meaning of family

Morality in ATR
- Social ethics
- Moral ethics

In order to understand the morality of the African people “requires us to examine the
world-view and ethos contained in their religious symbols. Such an exercise will open the
door through which we can enter the mind and heart of Africa and truly appreciate the
controlling motivations of her values and her people‟s attitudes.” (LaurentiMagesa (p. 15,
1997). African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life. Nairobi: Paulines)

You might also like