Discuss whether it is possible to be a Christian and in a same sex relationship.

Transcription

1 Discuss whether it is possible to be a Christian and in a same sex relationship. What is required and, in contrast, prohibited in order to be a Christian is a question far beyond the scope of this essay. However, one particular facet of being Christian is the scene of one of the most heated discussions in the present-day Church, at least in the West. Christian attitudes to homosexuality (and sexuality in general) incorporate some of the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Many denominations are finding themselves locked in an impasse between members of different opinions. 1 At the heart of the disagreement is whether or not homosexuality and/or its practice is sinful. It is presumed that it would be paradoxical for a Christian to be knowingly engaging in a sinful lifestyle or sinful activity. This essay considers that question and assertion, and suggests that it is possible for gay and lesbian people in same sex relationships to be considered Christians by themselves and others. For the purposes of this essay, and to avoid a widening of the question, a same sex relationship is taken to mean a sexually active same sex relationship. There are two main positions to be discussed before any conclusion can be made; the negative stance (same-sex relationships are sinful 2 and therefore anti-christian) and the positive stance (same-sex relationships are not sinful and are part of God s created order). The negative position relies heavily on the prohibition of same-gender sexual activity found in a number of Biblical passages as well as an argument that it contravenes the natural order ; that male-female sexual (and non-sexual) relationships benefit from a complementarity that is not available to same sex relationships. The positive stance sees homosexuality as a consistent sexual condition 1 Stuart, E. & Thatcher, A., People of Passion, pp ibid., p.170 Page 1 of 8

2 of a minority, 3 making use of arguments from psychology and sociology as well as a particular interpretation of the same Scriptural texts (and their contexts) as the negative stance. Underpinning all of these is the authority upon which each position is asserted. There are three main sources of authority that are drawn upon; Scripture, Church tradition/teaching and personal/corporate experience. All three are given value and licence to contribute to the debate, yet the value that each is given varies greatly. It seems apparent that placing a different emphasis on any of these will affect the conclusion that is made, though it is not a simple matter of determining stance by preferred authority. The negative stance has two basic tenets (though others are sometimes added); that samegender sexual activity is prohibited in several passages in the Bible, and that it is an unnatural activity that contravenes the design (by God) of the human body and gender. This is characteristic of the official Roman Catholic position, 4 rooting understanding of human sexuality in the creation account and specifically Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 5 From here, marriage (as part of God s ordering of creation) is seen as the only permissible situation for sexual activity to occur. Homosexuality is therefore by definition outside of the natural order and as such prohibited. This viewpoint is sometimes linked with a view that sexual activity, having begun outside of the Garden of Eden in the Biblical narrative is to be seen as part of the sinful fallen nature of man. 6 More commonly, however, *t]he Church understands sexual activity not as a basic human right but as a good tied by God to his good gift of marriage. 7 3 ibid., p ibid., p NRSV 6 cf Quaker Group, Towards a Quaker View of Sex, in Gill, R., A Textbook of Christian Ethics, p Goddard, A., Homosexuality and the Church of England, p.10 Page 2 of 8

3 The second point in the negative stance is the direct prohibition of homosexuality in the Bible. Here reference is made to passages such as Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 among others which appear to identify homosexual practice as sinful. It is often noted that these prohibitions appear in Old and New Testaments and a variety of biblical genres, 8 limiting the counter argument that other OT prohibitions (about shellfish and poly-cloth fabrics for example). The passages are considered to be perfectly clear in their own context, describing homosexual acts as an abomination punishable by death. The passage in Genesis 19 indicates that homosexuality was regarded as a worse sin than heterosexual rape, 9 though this will be refuted later. Even critics of this position argue that, in some of these passages, the biblical tradition takes a very negative attitude towards homosexual practice, 10 even stipulated extreme and brutal punishments for those fought guilty of committing them. But there are counter claims about the validity of the negative stance s application of biblical passages. Not least among these is the selectiveness of texts that are deemed applicable to modern Christian teaching and those which are not. The Old Testament speaks in terms very similar to its understanding of homosexuality about menstruation, exogamy, nudity, masturbation and birth control, 11 yet much modern Christian teaching considers these prohibitions to be void. Similarly, practice which the Old Testament accepts and even condones such as prostitution, polygamy, concubinage and the treatment of women as property has, quite rightly, been rejected by Christians for centuries. 12 When it comes to the main New Testament passage that is referred to (Romans 1:18-27), there are two counter-arguments. Firstly, the passage is seen as a condemnation of a whole way of life that includes and is symbolized by homosexuality, and a 8 ibid., p.11 9 Stuart, E., & Thatcher, A., op. cit., p Wink, W., Homosexuality and the Bible in Wink, W. (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith, p ibid., p ibid. Page 3 of 8

4 polemic against Gentile culture. 13 Homosexuality is here an example of the rejection of God as it is a rejection of the natural use of the sexual organs. For there to be Christians who engage in homosexuality would be anathema to Paul, as they would have to reject God to do so. But today there are Christian homosexuals, and they do not reject God. This is seen to confound Paul s argument. 14 Secondly, Paul s understanding of sexual orientation is brought into question. The notion of having abandoned natural relations for unnatural ones would not be a prohibition if homosexual orientation were able to be considered natural, as many claim it can and should be. 15 The positive stance seeks first and foremost to affirm the positive experiences of homosexual people who have been able to form and develop mutual loving relationships. From a Christian consideration of a marriage as being intended for a variety of good purposes (such as grace, giving of self, comfort, help, unity in love), it is seen that *w]ith the exception of childbirth all these purposes of marriage can be fulfilled in a permanent, stable, faithful same-sex relationship, and are being fulfilled in many. 16 Same-sex orientation is seen as a part of human nature, and therefore to be affirmed as good and not to be repressed. Many look to science to confirm their belief that homosexuality can be found at our very deepest biological level the gene and that as its origin is therefore built within us it must be natural and of God. 17 Others look to refined understandings of sin in order for affirmation of same-sex orientation and activity; we accept the definition of sin given by an Anglican broadcaster, as covering those actions that involve exploitation of the other person. 18 If homosexuality is consensual (and I have found no- 13 Stuart, E., & Thatcher, A., op. cit., p ibid. 15 Wink, W., op. cit., p John, J., Christian Same-Sex Partnerships, in Bradshaw, T. (ed.), The Way Forward?, pp ibid., p Quaker Group, op. cit., p.391 Page 4 of 8

5 one arguing for the legitimisation of any kind of non-consensual sexual activity) then no-one s rights are breached, no-one is hurt, offended or exploited, so it cannot therefore be sinful. The questions that this stance raises are over the nature and origin or orientation (is it indeed natural, and would that make it God-given anyway? Surely there are negative, but natural parts of the human condition, such as anger and selfishness, which are not God-given ) and such a concept of sin that appears to remove the possibility of the exploitation or offence of God being an important consideration. But the question that this essay is attempting to answer is not Is homosexual activity sinful? The sinful nature or otherwise of homosexuality is an important consideration, and it leads towards a conclusion, but it is not the answer in itself. Were homosexuality to be sinful, what would that mean for homosexual people? Would their engagement in what they believe to be an inherent part of what makes them who they are preclude them from God s family, salvation and love? Even particularly conservative scholars conclude that, at a level of legal guilt there is no hierarchy of sin; no activity that is more or less sinful in God s sight. 19 James 2:10 makes the point clear; For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. How then would it be possible to say that Christians, none of whom are perfect and without sin, are able to be forgiven, whilst a person in a same-sex relationship is unable to receive the same forgiveness and therefore be a Christian? That Christian may even be guilty of a sin of which they are unaware, but would be convinced that their general penitence and reliance on God s mercy and grace assures their forgiveness of that too. 19 Grudem, W., Systematic Theology, p.501 Page 5 of 8

6 There are clearly question marks over the biblical passages that prohibit homosexual behaviour. Whilst they are traditionally read to continue that prohibition, many Christians (not all of whom are homosexual) read them with faith and integrity but come to a different conclusion. That a person seeks to live their life in submission to Jesus Christ as Lord, and is dependent upon him for the forgiveness of their sin (whatever that may be) is a core identifier of Christian faith. 20 This rules out the intent to live against God s rules (if homosexuality is sinful), but does raise other questions of whether a plain reading of Scripture is required for a person to be accepting the real Jesus, rather than an impression of him that suits their desires, but this is a weak argument. Having considered the suggestions that homosexuality is either sinful or not, it becomes apparent that, either way, it may not be a preclusion from the Christian faith, as this is not based upon the sinless lifestyle of the individual, rather their attitude to God in their sinful state. This is not a final answer to the question, however, as issues about the origin of human sexual orientation that remain unanswered make a significant impression. 21 A point on which the majority of the experts agree is that a homosexual orientation is discovered, not chosen. This clearly has important implications when personal responsibility is discussed. 22 Responsibility is closely tied with questions of authority which we mentioned earlier. Homosexual Christians have, as do all Christians, different influential authorities on their lives. They have the authority of Scripture, of the Church and of their own experience and ability to make reasoned judgement. All of these have been used in the current debate on homosexuality within the Church by homosexuals to make a case for the acceptance of their sexual orientation. Those who oppose this acceptance have made use of the same authorities. The debate has often 20 ibid. pp.569ff 21 Goddard, A., op. cit., pp Field, D.H., Homosexuality, in Atkinson, D.J. & Field, D.H., New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, p.451 Page 6 of 8

7 been seen as us versus them and those who are in versus those who are out on both sides. The capacity for the inclusion of those in homosexual relationships to the Christian faith might help to reduce the partisan nature of it, and to lead to a shared application of the authorities that the whole Church does, in theory, share. Page 7 of 8

8 Bibliography Atkinson, D.J. & Field, D.H., New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, IVP, Leicester, Bradshaw, T. (ed.), The Way Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church, SCM Press, London, Gill, R., A Textbook of Christian Ethics, T&T Clark, London, Goddard, A., Homosexuality and the Church of England: Grove Booklet E132, Grove Books, Cambridge, Grudem, W., Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, IVP, Leicester, Stuart, E. & Thatcher, A., People of Passion: What the churches teach about sex, Mowbray, London, Wink, W. (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, Page 8 of 8