|
Rabbi Milder Sermon
Homosexuality and the Bible Yom Kippur Morning 5766 I. The Torah Readings for the High Holy Days This morning's Torah portion is one that we all enjoy. It is filled with a religiously enlightened message: The Torah is the equal property of all of us--No one has exclusive claim over its truth or its meaning. As enlightened as the message is, it is worth noting that this is not what is read in more traditional congregations on the High Holy Days.
II. The Afternoon Torah Readings What is true of the morning Torah reading for Yom Kippur, is also true of the afternoon Torah reading. In Orthodox and Conservative synagogues, Yom Kippur afternoon is the time when we read the passage from the book of Leviticus detailing the laws regarding prohibited sexual relations. It is a passage that can make even the most ardent fan of Torah squirm. Among the categories with which it deals are prohibitions on nakedness, incest, homosexual behavior, bestiality, and Molech worship. No one even knows what Molech worship consisted of, but it is conjectured that it may have meant infant sacrifice or the dedication of children as cultic prostitutes.[1] It is not a pleasant passage. By contrast, the following chapter of Leviticus, which is read in Reform congregations, is unquestionably one of the Torah's greatest statements of Israelite ethics, called the Holiness Code. As we will read this afternoon, the Holiness Code commands a life of ethical holiness, including respect for parents, honesty in one's business practices, justice in the courts, not placing a stumbling block before the blind, and what is probably the most famous verse in the entire Torah: Love your neighbor as yourself. Small wonder, then, that the Reform movement chose the ethical over the sexual as the proper reading for the most important day of the Jewish year.
III. Text and Meta-Ethics Personally, I agree with these choices. The Torah is read in its entirety, beginning to end, in the weekly cycle of Shabbat Torah readings. For our sacred days, I think that it is incumbent upon us to choose our texts wisely. Especially considering that many of us are not fully versed in the complete contents of the Torah, it is critical that the High Holy Days serve to remind us of the Torah's most enduring teachings. By enduring teachings, I am staking a claim to a position that would not be accepted by a more fundamentalist reader of the Bible. Not all of the Bible's laws, I believe, are worthy of being practiced. Some of them, we must conclude, are inconsistent with the deepest values of Judaism, what might be called Judaism's "meta-ethics." Today, this meta-ethical reading of the Torah is necessary, if we are to get beyond some of its most troubling passages. Foremost among the Torah's disturbing texts, is its absolute condemnation of homosexual behavior, a prohibition which is painfully repeated annually in traditional synagogues on Yom Kippur afternoon. No one who hears this passage, in which homosexual behavior is associated with a whole range of morally corrupt, and even violent transgressions, can help but wonder about Judaism's stance regarding homosexuality.
IV. Homosexuality in the Bible The operative verse is Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." Just what is an abhorrence? The Hebrew word to'evah is generally used to describe not something which is abhorrent by nature, but rather something which is prohibited to Israel. It is usually used in connection with prohibited Canaanite practices. Thus, the Torah characterizes certain animals as abhorrent, like pigs, not because they are unfit for consumption, but rather because their consumption is prohibited to Israelites. In this way, the laws of Kashrut served to distinguish Israelites from their Canaanite neighbors. In the same way, the prohibition of homosexual acts may be related to a Canaanite practice involving the use of cultic male prostitutes. This reading makes sense, because the commandment immediately follows the prohibition of Molech worship. To prohibit cultic prostitution may have indeed been the whole point behind the Torah's condemnation of homosexuality. But why was this passage, of all the possibilities, selected for reading on Yom Kippur? One view holds that it has to do with a response to pagan New Year rituals. In primitive cultures, the New Year brought with it a sense of abandon, the breakdown of social norms, and a license to engage in that which is generally prohibited (which is not a whole lot different from the Gregorian New Year's celebration we have at the end of December). As a barrier to this kind of New Year's celebration, the traditional reading for Yom Kippur emphasizes sexual boundaries. V. A More Progressive Halachah And this is where the meta-ethic of Judaism comes into play. Judaism is not a fossilized religion, but one which seeks to hear God's commanding voice anew in each generation. The wisdom of our ancestors is instructive, but not a dogmatic doctrine. The rabbis frequently reinterpreted Biblical passages which made them uncomfortable, and which they regarded as inconsistent with Judaism's higher values. There is the case of the rebellious son, whom the Bible says is to be taken to the town square, and there the elders of the community shall stone him to death. But the rabbis said it never happened and never will happen. There is the Lex Talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye, which the Talmud says does not mean an eye for an eye at all, but rather monetary compensation. A closer analogy can be drawn from the case of the Cheresh, the deaf person, who was not permitted to serve as a witness in court, or be counted in the Minyan. Our ancestors presumed that a deaf-mute was mentally incompetent. But Maimonides simply redefined the term Cheresh to mean one who is mentally incompetent and deaf. One who is merely deaf is now accorded the same religious status as all other Jews. It is irrelevant that the Bible expressly limits the rights of a deaf person. By the middle ages, the rabbis had learned to view deafness differently. So, too, we have learned to view homosexuality differently. On this point, just as with deafness, the Torah is unequivocally wrong, and teaches a doctrine that is inconsistent with its own highest values. What, then, are the values that should govern our understanding of homosexuality? According to Genesis, human beings are created B'tselem Elohim, in the image of God. That means all of us, straight, gay and lesbian. That's the way we are, and whatever our inherent sexual orientation might be, it is a reflection of the natural order of God's universe. Sexuality is inherently good, not sinful. "It is not good for man to be alone," says God of the first human. Companionship, and sexuality are part of what make us human. The natural tendency of a portion of the human species to be homosexual is no less God's doing than is heterosexuality, and to deny the sanctity of such relationships is to say that God erred in creating us as we are. The Bible tells the story of a few couples whose same-gender friendship achieved the status of love. King David says of his friend Jonathan, the son of his rival King Saul, who was killed by the Philistines, "I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan, you were most dear to me. Your love was wonderful to me, more wonderful than the love of women." Similarly, Ruth expresses her devotion to Naomi. It is not necessarily the case that these are stories of gay men or lesbian women, though they may be that as well. Rather, they teach us that our ancestors understood the possibility that one might feel a primary sense of devotion and companionship toward another person of the same sex, without in any way violating the values of Torah. Our tradition calls marriage "Kiddushin," that is, holiness. When we consider what constitutes a holy relationship, we ought to give priority to the quality and depth of commitment shared by partners, not to their gender. Loving, committed monogamous lesbian and gay relationships have more in common with loving, committed monogamous heterosexual relationships than they have with the coercive, non-consenting forms of sexual behavior regarded as abominations in the Torah, such as bestiality and incest. What Judaism needs is a more progressive, Judaically-true (as opposed to "Torah-true") doctrine on human sexuality, that reflects the full range of Jewish ethics as applied to this particular social situation. The Reform movement has already taken important steps toward this goal. What we do is evidence enough of our values. Our synagogues are welcoming communities for gays and lesbians. Our seminary ordains openly gay and lesbian rabbis and cantors. But what we say Judaism stands for is just as important as what we do, especially when it comes time to speak out in the face of a society gone berserk with anti-gay rhetoric. No fundamentalist should be permitted to tell us that what the Torah states in a particular verse is the final "word of God" on a complex issue such as homosexuality. Authentic Judaism is based on many sources, ancient, rabbinic and modern, and an ongoing dialogue that continually seeks to define our most central values. Judaism is not about the ability to selectively cite Scripture when it suits our purposes. You know, the Torah says that lobster is an abomination, too, but I haven't heard too many fundamentalists citing that text. VI. Answering the Anti-Gay Rights Movement This Yom Kippur, more than in other years, it is imperative that we confront the message of this day's traditional reading head on. Because there are those whose religious beliefs have led them to vilify gays and lesbians, and to seek to deny them their civil rights. The petition which is currently circulating in Massachusetts will place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that will deny same-sex couples not only the right to marry, but even the right to a non-marital option called civil unions. It is nothing but bigotry, in the guise of religion and a misguided notion of family values. And it is, indeed, religious denominations which are the prime movers in promoting this attack on what the Massachusetts Supreme Court has deemed a right, a right that most of us enjoy without thinking about it: the right to marry the person we love. Churches are leading the way in gathering signatures for the petition. If they get enough signatures, and it is likely that they will, the amendment will go to the Massachusetts legislature for ratification. There, it will require only 50 votes out of 200 legislators, 25% of legislators, in two consecutive sessions of the legislature, in order to be placed on the ballot for voter approval in 2008. If left up to the voters, there is every reason to think that the majority of those who vote will vote for discrimination. We Jews are accustomed to relying on the courts to guarantee minority rights. If it weren't for the protections of the constitution, there would be nothing to prevent the kind of discrimination against Jews which was commonplace only one generation ago. That is the kind of discrimination which continues to be the daily experience of gays in our society. The Massachusetts Supreme Court said what should be obvious: popular prejudice should not be permitted to deny people their rights. But, if this petition is successful, we will be a state that has enshrined prejudice in our constitution. We should be proud to belong to a religious movement that says: "Not in our name." In 1996 and 1997, the Central Conference of American Rabbis and then the Union for Reform Judaism adopted resolutions supporting marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Even before that, the Reform movement advocated comparable benefits under law to same-sex couples, and urged synagogues to welcome same-sex couples as members. In 2000, the CCAR went on record as supporting rabbinic officiation at same-sex commitment ceremonies. I am proud of the public position of the Reform movement. I am even prouder of our own congregation's Board of Directors, which adopted a resolution supporting same-sex marriage in response to the proposed Travaligni-Lees amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. But public statements aren't enough. There must not be a failure of effort on our part. We, as a congregation, must begin now to take a leadership role in defending Kiddushin, the possibility of holiness in marriage, for all our members. No legislator should imagine that the religious community sanctions prejudice. Remember this morning's Torah portion: The Torah is the equal property of all of us. It certainly does not belong exclusively to those who advocate state-sanctioned bigotry. I am asking you to be the voice of Judaism. Set before us is life and death, the blessing and the curse. Let us choose life, therefore, that we may live, all of us, straight, gay and lesbian, in freedom and dignity and without fear of discrimination. It's up to us. [1]Plaut, Gunther, The Torah: A Modern Commentary, UAHC, 1981: New York, p. 883-4. |