Money-lending

Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? There are a few verses that are relevant to homosexuality in the Bible, but how should we understand them, and how should we apply them today?

This video explains why the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. You can also read the transcript, or look at some of the resources backing up the video.

Other posts look at specific passages, including Genesis 1 & 2, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, the Gospels, Romans and 1 Corinthians. I also have a post looking at the Bible and transgender people.

You can also see my annotated bibliography.

Transcript

The Bible condemns homosexuality.

You’ve heard this? I think that’s wrong. Keep watching to find out why. Oh, and Calvin’s going to be important.

The argument often used

Let’s examine the type of argument you’ll have heard to say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It usually takes the form of…

  • This is X;
  • The Bible condemns X;
  • Therefore we should condemn X.

This is murder. The Bible condemns murder. Therefore we should condemn murder. And who isn’t against murder?

Let’s use a different example.

  • Mortgages are a form of money-lending.
  • The Bible condemns money-lending.
  • Therefore we should condemn mortgages.

Hang on a second – we don’t. Have you ever heard a sermon against mortgages? Are mortgages denounced on Christian podcasts, Christian TV channels, Christian books? But why not?

Mortgages are a form of moneylending. And the Bible condemns moneylending. Well, the reason we don’t is in part down to the great protestant reformer, Calvin.

Why we don’t condemn mortgages

Before the reformation, about 500 years ago, the church pretty universally thought that moneylending was wrong, and always wrong. And they thought the Bible said that it was always wrong.

Money-lending, usury, was a mortal sin. You couldn’t get a Christian burial if you lent money for profit. And this carried on into the reformation. Martin Luther denounced lending money for profit. He saw it as wicked.

But in the reformation, lots of people began to question this. Lots of reasons for this, to do with economic change. Anyway, a friend of Calvin’s wrote to him, asking him if lending money for interest could ever be OK.

And Calvin wrote back saying yes, in certain circumstances, it might be. This was incendiary stuff – the letter itself remained private until a decade after Calvin’s death.

But how did Calvin reach this conclusion?

His answer covered a range of areas – these include the authority of the Bible compared with interpretations of the Bible; the need to understand what the writings meant in their original context and to their original audience; that you need to look behind prohibitions to see what the purpose of them is; and also how does all this fit in with justice and love.

The importance of different contexts

In particular, Calvin recognised that the Bible’s context and his context (16th century Geneva) were radically different.

The Bible was talking about money-lending that was oppressive and harmed the poor, not businesses borrowing money to invest.

In other words, what the Bible was talking about was different enough from what was going on in Geneva, that in some circumstances it might be OK to lend money for profit.

So that’s why you don’t hear sermons against mortgages. It might be money-lending, but there’s a big difference between usury – money-lending that’s oppressive, that feeds on the poor, that’s wicked – and taking out a mortgage so you can make a large purchase and spread out the payments over a long period of time.

Venn diagram showing little overlap between usury and mortgages

The argument we should be looking at

So this is the pattern of argument we should use when we come to the Bible with questions about today’s world:

  • This is X (taking out a mortgage);
  • The Bible condemns Y (usury);
  • X and Y are similar (they both involve money-lending).

Do we then condemn X?

Well, if they’re different enough, not necessarily.

Applying this to homosexuality

OK, so let’s now apply this to the Bible and homosexuality. In Britain, there are committed, faithful, same-sex marriages. The Bible condemns same-sex activity in its contexts. But how similar are the two?

Is it like this?

Venn diagram showing Bible and homosexuality as similar

Or is it more like this?

Venn diagram showing Bible and homosexuality as different

Over a series of videos (and posts) covering different parts of the Bible, I’ll be showing you why I think it’s the latter – why what the Bible is talking about is vastly different from what we’re talking about today. If that interests you, subscribe to the channel. And if you want to find out more about Calvin and his approach to money-lending, you can go to the companion website bibleandhomosexuality.org

Ready to dive into the Bible in more detail? You can access my page explaining Genesis 1 and 2 here.


Found this helpful? You can now get the material from this website and more in a book. Affirmative: Why You Can Say Yes to the Bible and Yes to LGBTQI+ People is available at Amazon and other major retailers. You can find out some more about the book here.


Resources

You can find Calvin’s letter about moneylending to his friend Claude de Sachin at:

Calvin, John. De Usuris. Ioannis Calvini: Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. Vol. 10. Edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz and Eduardus Reuss. Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke, 1871.

Calvin’s works are available through the University of Geneva.

You can find a summary of Calvin’s approach, and its relevance to today, in an article by Andrew Goddard:

Goddard, Andrew. “Semper Reformanda in a Changing World: Calvin, Usury and Evangelical Moral Theology.” In Alister E Mcgrath and Evangelical Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, edited by Sung Wook Chung, 235-63. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003.

It is available on the Fulcrum website.

Others have also analysed Calvin’s approach to money-lending – for example:

Wykes, Michael. “Devaluing the Scholastics: Calvin’s Ethics of Usury.” Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003): 27-51.

Posted by admin in Bible - general