THERE HAS been some degree of surprise within the Jewish community at the sight of Anglicans angrily quoting Hebrew texts from Leviticus at each other in the debate over whether a homosexual can be made a bishop. Why is it, we thought, that those who wilfully eat pork in direct contradiction of Leviticus xi, 7, and who ignore the clear demand of xix, 19, not to wear garments made of wool and linen mingled together, are suddenly so meticulous about what xviii, 22 has to say about same-sex relations?

However, what did not surprise us was the course of the controversy, which has followed very similar lines to that among the rabbinate, as we too have struggled to apply traditional teachings to modern realities. As any honest theologian will know, there is no such thing as the authority of Scripture. There is only the authority that we choose to invest in Scripture, because we have decided to accord it such status. Throughout the centuries, Jewish and Christian clergy have cited texts that reinforce their view and interpreted away those that do not. When the sages of old were confronted with a topical issue, they first decided what result they wanted and then found a proof text to back it up.

So too with the homosexuality issue today. Those rabbis who consider it abhorrent have triumphantly quoted that verse in Leviticus. They can also assert that this has been the view of Jewish authorities until recently, based on the assumption that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore an evil. More sympathetic rabbis argue that this is a religious travesty, for homosexuality is not a conscious choice or a deliberate vice but the natural state of those concerned. It is therefore neither moral nor immoral, but a biological fact. Ultimately, God created them homosexual, and so any challenge to them is a slap in the face for God.

What to do about Leviticus? One option is to say that it reflects a bygone age and so we no longer hold it valid. Similarly, we ignore the texts in Deuteronomy about stoning rebellious children (xxi, 18) or in Numbers about subjecting women accused of adultery to drinking a potion of water that has been cursed (v, 22).

Another option is to reinterpret the text in a new light. Thus some claim that the ban on a man having intercourse with another refers to the ancient practice in time of war of victorious armies subjecting defeated soldiers to acts of buggery as a way of humiliating them. Condemnation of that cannot possibly apply to a loving homosexual couple in a stable relationship today. Other rabbis have declared that Leviticus prohibits men who are heterosexual from engaging in same-sex relations as an occasional activity, because for them it is unnatural. However, for homosexuals, no such rules apply.

One important factor in the Jewish debate has been the long-standing tradition that whatever happens sexually in private between consenting adults is permissible and nobody else’s business. The 5th-century rabbinic commentary, the Talmud, even lists various positions, including anal intercourse, and declares that a man may do what he pleases with his wife, providing she pleases too. This principle can easily be extended to same-sex relations by those rabbis who consider them to be legitimate.

Nevertheless, British Jewry has in recent years experienced incidents no less stormy than the Oxford and New Hampshire furores: Orthodox representatives objected to the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group attending a communal walk, while a lesbian rabbi who was recommended by the appointments committee of a Reform synagogue was then rejected by the membership at large at the AGM called to ratify the decision. The episode indicated that however much some heterosexuals may be in favour of equal rights for gays intellectually, many still have deep reservations on an emotional level.

Despite these problems, there are now a number of gay and lesbian rabbis who hold pulpits successfully and live with their partners, some of whom occupy the congregational role of a minister’s spouse. There is also one synagogue in London which, though open to all, specifically reaches out to gays. Moreover, it has provided the highest number of candidates for the rabbinate in recent years. It highlights that whereas gay Christians have always entered the ministry but done so clandestinely, Jewish gays with a strong religious inclination had largely avoided pursuing a religious vocation but are now flocking to take up the new opportunity openly.

Furthermore, two other differences between synagogue and church over the gay debate have emerged. First of all, whereas the Anglican clergy is divided on the issue, its Jewish equivalent, the Progressive rabbinate, is unified in its acceptance of practising gays; if opposition arises, it is from the Jewish laity. Second, that whether Jews are for or against the right of same-sex relationships, there is no distinction over whether that applies to laity and clergy. If a gay couple can live together, then it is irrelevant whether one partner is a rabbi or not; sexual mores are not dependent on one’s job description.

What still remains to be addressed are the pastoral issues arising from accepting gay couples: whether a minister may officiate at a commitment ceremony and what form it should take; the religious education of any children in the household; and treating a bereaved partner as the main mourner when the other one dies. Divisions still exist on the gay issue, but there is a definite shift in Jewish opinion to a more sympathetic approach.

There is now a much greater understanding of the diversity of God’s handiwork, and a profound belief that we honour God most by honouring those whom God has created.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain is minister of Maidenhead Synagogue