Homosexuality

Lord, give us the physical strength, the spiritual wisdom, the moral courage to do what you are calling us to do in the name of Jesus, amen. Now we started last time the biblical testimony on homosexuality, and I began with the creation ordinances. That's the way we always must begin, to show that that framework from Genesis to Revelation assumes that there is, that human sexuality finds its true and proper expression within the committed, lifelong relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. It's reinforced by the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 1822. You shall not lie, do not lie with a male is one lies with a woman, it is an abhorrence, it is totally barred, and I think that I ended at that point last time. On the Pauline epistles, there are three passages in the Pauline epistles that are relevant. A Roman's 1 verses 24 to 27, the emphasis in these verses is on the fallen human condition. This is Paul's diagnosis of the fallen human condition, and the root problem of the fallen human condition is the refusal to honor God as creator. I have to begin earlier in the chapter 1, which talks about creatures not giving God the thanks that he deserves as creator, but rebelling against him. And as the penal consequence of rebelling against the creator, God gave them up, so that human idolatry is allowed to run its self-destructive course. But the problem is the rebellion of the creature against the creator. Now, homosexual behavior, and Paul mentions both male and female homosexual acts, is adduced as particularly graphic evidence that human beings are in rebellion against their creator. I think that accounts for the place of homosexuality. It is graphic evidence, the most graphic evidence, but not the only evidence that humanity is in rebellion against the creator. So Paul does say here that it is contrary to nature, which is standard terminology for homoerotic acts. And we should not stop reading at the end of chapter 1, but to read on to Romans 2, where Paul says, you who condemn others, don't you know that you are involved in the same sin? It should haze cause that a sting operation of God to present these in particular homosexuality, and then to bring it in that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are in rebellion against the creator. And I think that that is an appropriate emphasis. The end of last hour was talking about the other things that are in abomination to the Lord that we must not forget, so that we don't single this out as the only thing to which we refer to as an abomination. But it is homosexual acts as such that Paul finds in rebellion against the creator. It is contrary to the way God has created us, male and female, his purpose for homosexuality, and that is known through the scriptures, but it is also known through the creation itself. There is a double argument for heterosexual marriage as the way in which God has designed us for erotic fulfillment and the bringing of children into the world and their nurture. Second passage in Paul that is relevant is 1 Corinthians 6 verses 9 to 11, and I should read these just to get it before us, 6, 9 to 11, do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God, do not be deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you were, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God. The emphasis in these verses is redemption. Romans 1, it was on the fall, here the emphasis is on redemption, and it included in the list of things of which we have been reading, or the two words that Paul uses, malacos, is pejorative slang for the passive male partner, softies, it would be rendered colloquially. The NIV translates that male prostitutes. The other term is simply the term for a male homosexual. The first excellent use of this term, it is coined by Paul, apparently, it's also used in 1 Timothy 1, 10, and it's very likely to be coined on the basis of the Septuagint of Leviticus 20 verse 13, so that there is a linguistic connection between the law of Moses and the sexual sin of homosexuality. The thing that Paul emphasizes here is that you've been redeemed from that, such were some of you, so that whereas there were those who practiced these acts beforehand, they no longer practiced these acts. They have been redeemed from that bondage to act on a contrary to God's created order in this area. The third passage in Paul is 1 Corinthians 618, where Paul says, shun fornication, fornaia, the general word for sexual sin. Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against the body itself. That's the new revised standard version which is an accurate translation. The emphasis of 1 Corinthians 618 is the special character of sexual sin. Every other sin he says is outside the body, but the fornicator, the one who commits fornication, either an adulterer or a homosexual act, sins against the body itself. So, sexual sin is in a class by itself in some sense, and I think that the best to explanation I've seen of this is that Paul's understanding of body here is the physical body under the aspect of personal self-communication. The body is the way in which we communicate ourselves, uniquely in sexual intercourse, and so that the immoral person perverts that faculty within himself that's meant to be the instrument of bodily communication between persons. Paul assumes marriage as the normative context for sexual intercourse, outside of which all genital relations, heterosexual as well as homosexual, or sins against the body itself as designed by God, and therefore intrinsically wrong. I'll run that by again. I think it's going to be important in the argument. Paul assumes legitimate marriage or marriage, non-incessuous, I mean critiques that and non adulterous marriage, but Paul assumes legitimate marriage as the normative context for sexual intercourse, outside of which all genital relations, heterosexual as well as homosexual, or sins against the body itself as designed by God, and therefore intrinsically wrong.

So it's not the motive that's in view, if the argument is, as long as you have a loving motive and is not exploitative, then sex is not wrong. Paul is saying the fornicator sins against the body itself. Relatively speaking, every other sin is outside the body, but this is the special character of sexual sin that it intrinsically violates God's purpose for sexual communication. Now in the homosexuality notebook on reserve, the best brief article that I know of on the biblical material is an article by Richard Hayes, he was at Yale when he wrote this, he's now professor of New Testament at Duke. Title of the article is awaiting the redemption of our bodies, and he goes over the biblical material, but he goes over it in the context of his ministry to a friend who is dying of AIDS. And knowing that he was dying, their friendship, they experienced their friendship in a number of ways that they enjoyed together, but it always came back to what is the Bible teach about homosexuality, and Richard Hayes would not give up. The biblical truth for the sake of his friend, and eventually his friend was persuading, and as he came near death, he no longer identified himself as a homosexual. It's a very moving account of someone who holds the scripture faithfully, but also holds on to his friend faithfully. It's a wonderful account, and I urge you to take a look at it, maybe put it in your files, it's useful to refer people to in connection with this issue. But those are the specific passages in the biblical testimony that refer to homosexual acts as wrong intrinsically wrong, against the background remember of God's creative will for human sexuality that he'd be fulfilled in the unique one flesh relationship of a man and woman in marriage. Now, we need to see how the churches are responding to homosexuality, and I have an analysis of where the churches are. The question of homosexuality and contemporary Christian ethics comes down to this. Does the scripture universally prohibit same-sex genital expression, or does it permit same-sex genital expression within a loving and committed gay or lesbian relationship? No one defends promiscuity, but the idea is that sexuality is for intimacy, it's an expression of love, in a committed relationship, the argument goes, that's different, the non-expoity, loving relationship, that's the question. Does the scripture universally prohibit same-sex genital expression, or does it permit it within a loving and committed gay or lesbian relationship? Now, it's only in the present generation that the churches begun to differ on that issue, it's really only since the sexual revolution of the 60s, beginning in the 60s that you have churches taking a position of affirmation. I'm going to distinguish three positions that currently are in the churches. The first is affirmation. This would be the earliest statement that I can find is in the pamphlet toward a quaker view of sex, published in 1963, a group of British friends. Surely it is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters, one must not judge it by its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is some way wrong. So it's the consequences or the motive or consequences that determine morale to the act. Now, that's the official position of the universal fellowship of metropolitan churches, which is founded in 1968, reading from their statement, neither heterosexual love nor homosexual love is sinful in itself. Sex acts only become sinful when we act in lust or in abuse of another person. So if it's loving, then it's right, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. Now, so far among mainline denominations, only the United Church of Christ has a position of full affirmation of homosexuality parallel to heterosexuality. The United Church of Christ took that position in 1993. Now, the problem with this approach is that in granting homosexual relationships equal status with heterosexual relationship, it effectively annuls the will of God in creating humankind as male and female. Neither the complementarity of man and woman, which is anatomically self-evident, nor the procreated benediction upon the sexual partnership of marriage, of procreation and for nurture. So adopted children come within the purvey of the marriage-based two-parent family. A couple may not be able to have children of their own, they adopt children, the child relates to male and female. The child who is procreated by male and female, my others, now become the male and female to become under the nurture relationship of father and mother. But neither of those, neither the sexual complementarity, nor the relationship of a man and a woman to children, either procreation or adoption, count for anything in making moral judgments with respect to sexual intercourse. Sex is purely instrumental, deriving its entire value from the intimacy to which it leads. Now, it's clear from the biblical testimony that God's sexual preference is for human beings, for human beings is a loving, committed, permanent and exclusive heterosexual relationship. Uniform teaching of scriptures is that human beings flourish and find true sexual fulfillment only in the companionship and partnership established by the marriage covenant. I would emphasize companionship and partnership. It's both of those together. The proposal that homosexual partners are an equal alternative to heterosexual marriage ignores the original and abiding will of God and discounts the effects of the fall. This is why so far, denominations have not gone that way apart from the United Church of Christ. Now, there are congregations within larger churches that take an affirmation view. And it is an issue in three churches at the present time of whether the discipline will be applied. It's an issue in the Methodist Church right now going on. It's an issue in the Presbyterian Church in their meeting later this summer and in the Episcopal Church. All of these denominations have do not equally affirm homosexual relations. But they all have congregations where those relationships are receiving blessing and now the issue becomes well, will the church maintain that position by discipline? So look for that. Now, a second view, yes sir, it's threatening to do that. This has become an issue. It is a very divisive issue. It's the most divisive issue in the churches. That is internally of churches and the question is how to live together and are we going to have now sections of the church that allow and other sections that don't. Now, there is a, we need to distinguish affirmation and accommodation. These get to, they're very close in one sense but I think that they are, I think that they're distinct and it's worth considering their distinctiveness. This second position that I'm calling accommodation recognizes the permanent norm of heterosexual marriage. That is God's ideal but it also recognizes the fallenness of human nature. And the argument goes that because the fall renders the ideal unattainable for persons with a permanent homosexual orientation, the norm should be accommodated to their situation. So it is, it's not God's ideal will but it's allowing people to make the best of their circumstances, given the fallen relationship. The church that has taken, the church of England has officially endorsed this position. The statement issued in 1991, they upheld the biblical norm and said that we will not ordain homosexuals. But for homosexuals, for persons with a, in the British term, homophile orientation, if, if their conscience is clear in a committed relationship, then we're not going to, we're welcome to the church. We don't, we can't affirm that but we will allow that. We believe that that's within the bounds, allowing the individuals to make the decision in that respect. The most recent thing that I've seen on the argument for accommodation is an article by Luis Smedes, S-M-E-D-E-S. The title of it is like the wideness of the sea. This is in the periodical perspectives, May of 1999. His, his argument is that homosexuality is a burden that some of God's children are called on to bear an anomaly. Nature gone awry. But I do believe that homosexuality is only the raw material that they have for living as good a life of sexual love as they can in a world where so much is bent out of shape. This is, this is, he compares it to, he's writing it out of the Christian reform tradition, for a while the Christian reformed church had the policy that persons who are remarried after divorce are living in adultery and they ought not to have sexual intercourse. And gradually they changed that policy and recognized that persons remarried after divorce now have a valid marriage and allowed them to fulfill that in sexual intercourse. Smedes argued by analogy, both divorced and remarried partners and homosexual partners are seeking to fulfill a fundamental God implanted human need for a shared life of intimate committed and exclusive love with one other human being. So that is the, the idea that commit that sexuality is for intimacy, we all have this human desire for intimacy expressed sexually, granted that it's abnormal, that it is fallen, that it is a burden to be born, nevertheless the law can be accommodated to that in light of that. Now this is what this leads to, if you acknowledge that you're not saying that it's equally valid, it's heterosexuality, but that God's will is accommodated in the fallen situation. Why not give these unions your blessing? It follows naturally and I think that part of that goes is a part of the church's argument here for the blessing of these. It doesn't necessarily mean they're equal affirmation but rather to find ways in which to encourage the stability of relationship to avoid promiscuity in the worst forms of homosexual behavior. Why not bless these unions? Well, even though they are an accommodation to sin. Now I think that this is, I think a couple things about the accommodation position. I think that it's initially attracting because of its compassion and empathy. You seem to be on the one hand upholding the biblical idea, you're saying yes, heterosexuality is the norm, but here are folks who can't live up to the norm, let's help them do the best they can given their situation. And it accepts stable homosexual relationships in the interest of promoting a fuller, more humanly rich life for them. Well, I think that this is an unstable position, I think within the church you can't really have both a negative view of homosexual relations as not being God's will and yet approve them. If my view I would put this way, if the church has good scriptural reasons for believing that homosexual acts are sin, then it must lead the faithful in their new obedience, not shift the responsibility to the conscience of the individual. Now we'd like to do that, well if your conscience is clear, blessings on you, I might go a further step and say we'll bless you in that union, but the call to the Christian discipleship is superior to what we may feel is necessary for a fulfilled and satisfying life as a human being. Here I think you're faced with the question of discipleship or this idea of I need fulfillment as a sexual human being, if God says that's not the right way to do it, then I think however painful that may be, we have to be called to discipleship. The church is bound by the will of Christ in Scripture, not our own best judgment in seeking the good of the members under her care. So although this initially seems compassionate, it's not compassionate if it moves people away from discipleship, discipleship is sometimes right? She gives folks who are in that position a welcoming response and all of our support and recognize their struggle, yes. Well yes, that's right, there is an assumption about homosexuality that it is irreversible and that's not necessarily so. So that isn't an assumption as the handout that I gave to you by Mary Stewart Van Muin points out that most of these churches assume that is a starting point. I think that the third point should be labeled abstinence. Wait a minute, get a shot of the class.

This is most fully developed in the Roman Catholic tradition. There was a letter by Pope John Paul II in 1986 that underscores that the church is doctrine based on Scripture. What then are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? That is, persons who find themselves having these inclinations toward same-sex relationships. Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's cause. It is a denial of self but in service of the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practice virtue in the place of vice. I think that's well put. We must be prepared to suffer rather than to disobey a clear command of Christ. It's Christ's own example that encourages us to persevere even in the face of intense trial and no one should seek to minimize the extent of the sacrifice involved in sexual abstinence. But the book of Hebrews repeatedly refers to the suffering and temptation by which Christ was perfected that enable him to be a merciful and faithful high priest. So I think that there are two things about that. I don't want to minimize the possibility of reparative therapy. I think that we have to take into account the testimony of two sorts of Christians, some who give testimony of having experienced therapy by which they were restored to a heterosexual orientation that even married and gone on from there. But that doesn't always happen even with reparative therapy. And I think that we should appreciate that some folks bear this burden and live life long. I don't deny that reparative therapy is an option that we should encourage folks to see. But we shouldn't over promise in terms of that. A lot depends upon where they are along the spectrum in terms of exclusive homosexual orientation. Two to three percent of the population is at that end. And that's the most intractable form as they tell me in this area. But elsewhere along that spectrum, where a person may be freed from, first the actions and then even the desire for same-sex relationship. So consult the literature. Dr. Winter has bibliography available on reparative therapy. And there are organizations such as Harvest Out of the Tenth Presbyteria Church that have a good record of outreach to homosexuals and experience change by the grace of God. Now, the third major heading is, has to do with social policy where we are in terms of our society. And I think that there is a spectrum really of responses. There are five parts to this. So if you are writing them across the page, write small. And one extreme is persecution. Where gay bashing is allowed or even as a matter of state policy, homosexual property are seized and various things are done to them. That was a Nazi policy with respect to homosexual. Nobody defends persecution. We should be opposed to that. Homosexual persons are persons created in the image of God. And they are deserving of due process and civil protection as anyone. So we reject persecution. At the other extreme is affirmation. We need an adjective probably to make it clear equal affirmation. That is affirmation of equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality. And that's really where the advocates of homosexuality in our society are. That it is discriminatory unless we recognize the ink unless we equally affirm their homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. So it's the two extremes of persecution on the one hand equal affirmation on the other. In between, there are a couple of steps. Prosecution would be that there are laws on the books against homosexual acts and the person should be punished for those. It's a criminalization of homosexual acts. And up until recent times those have been common in the state laws. They began to be taken off the books. And only about half the states now have them. People start taking them off the books because of the movement toward equal affirmation and they left those things on the book. They have been found to be constitutional. The Supreme Court by an error decision ruled that the sodomy laws, as they're called in Georgia, were constitutional. That surprised a lot of people. And one Supreme Court just as after he left the court said that he wished he had voted differently. But they are constitutional. The question is whether they are wise, whether they in our pluralistic society, they are the right thing to do. That is to punish consensual acts in private between adults or whether that is an invasive use of government authority. Whether it is, in effect, unenforceable without invasive procedures. The case that came to the Supreme Court from from from Georgia was by accident, really. There was a warrant that a police officer had and he discovered a homosexual, a gay pair in the act. And it is due to the arrest and the prosecutor would probably not have pursued that case. It was thought it's time to make it a test case. And it didn't turn out as those who wanted the test case done. On the other side here is what I call, what do I call this? People have a vision to consult my notes. Yeah, it's protection. Of course, homosexuals should be protected from abuse. But this is the idea of special protection as other other minorities that have been historically discriminated against. That homosexuals deserve special protection. This was the issue in Colorado and that it was eventually the Supreme Court struck down the laws that were opposed to providing special protection. The government came from the Lords of the Christian Community in Colorado that you're protecting a simple behavior and doesn't deserve protection. But it was made a civil rights case. It was argued parallel to protection of other minorities that homosexuals should have special protection. The idea behind large is what can be called tolerance in between these extremes. Now, tolerance for many people now means approval but that's not a historic meaning. I think we should try to recover its historical meaning. But tolerance is allowing things that you don't approve of. It's like arbitrary divorce in the Old Testament. It's not allowed it, but it didn't approve it. Our polygamy are slavery. Some things are tolerated for certain reasons that are not approved. I think that as a pluralistic society, there is an area that we can tolerate homosexual action in the law, not criminalize them, but not provide them special protection, let alone equal affirmation. I think that our society is pretty much reached a consensus on tolerance and I think that it is a workable compromise in a pluralistic society. Where the laws are still on the books, there's no zeal to enforce them and I think that that's appropriate. It's a question now as to whether since they're not being enforced, there's a need to take them off the books or not. The movement, the gay rights movement has gone far beyond seeking tolerance to special protection and now with same sex marriage, the call for equal affirmation. So that the issue right now is at the level of same sex marriage, particularly with the recent decision of the legislature in Vermont to authorize what are called civil unions between persons of the same sex. They're not marriages, they're distinct from marriage, but they are same sex civil unions to which the state grants many of the benefits that formerly were granted only to marriage. I haven't had time to review that legislation in detail. There are a couple of things that I will put in the folder on reserve. One of the best analysis by a homosexual is in the current issue of the May 8th issue of the New Republic by Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan is the most important spokesman for a gay marriage as written a book on the subject has edited a collection of essays on the subject. He is himself a Roman Catholic so he's consciously out in dissent with his church, but he knows the church's position from the inside. If you want to get his analysis, and I think it's important, it's a title state of the union referring to the Vermont decision, and his argument is that what you've created here is not to be applauded that much because it is a separate but equal doctrine. In Sullivan's view, marriage is among the most basic civil rights, and so when you put it in the civil rights category to have a separate category for civil unions, it's not marriage, it appeals to the old separate but equal doctrine which was discriminated actually against African Americans. This is not satisfying to anybody, about a third of the American public strongly supports gay marriages, about of the third of the American public is equally an ultimately opposed to them, and there's another third that would like to see some kind of parallel institution for them. But I think that consistently the idea of civil unions really undermines our institution of marriage. Civil unions are not just for same-sex couples, couples of the opposite sex may apply for these. They have done so in France, France has had this in law for about six months, hauling for about a year. And what it does is create a situation where folks can get some of the benefits of living together, but without the obligation, the responsibilities that typically go with marriage. So I think that if we should not minimize the importance of this issue for the gay rights movement, which has its goal, equal affirmation, this means that we have to make a decision, this we're forced to a decision, if people are asking us by way of our institutions to give equal affirmation and say in effect that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equally valid, we can't do that. This is where we draw the line, but that's where the issue now is. Sullivan earlier said, for example, let me give you one quote, this was written in the 1996 homosexuality at its core is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central, more definitive of that connection than marriage, the denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue, it is the entire issue. So we shouldn't think that this is marginal in the minds of those like Andrew Sullivan, this is the entire issue and it's why we get the kind of hostility that I reported on. Now I have found the best treatment of this issue, I will put this on in the folder on reserve later in the day, it's the person that I found most helpful in this all along is David Orgoncumage, he works full time in this area. And he is a Christian, he comes out a reformed tradition, but it is in a book that has the title Homosexuality and American Public Life, I just published last year. The chapter in the book that will be on reserve, not assigning it for you for the final exam, but it's something I think you ought to have in your five. I think you'll want this because it's the thorough treatment and it's better than I can do with a partial lecture on it, but it's the question, the title is the question of marriage, a page is 200 to 238. So it's a full treatment, I will alert you to the key thing that it does, it goes all over the stage. Basically we have a conflict between models of marriage and particularly between what he calls the commitment model and the complimentary complementarity model. The commitment model is this, every individual seeks intimate relationships sex as a way of expressing intimacy, intimate relationships grow best within a framework of commitment. Couples, children, society and government benefit from committed rather than promiscuous relationships, it is reasonable therefore for the law to encourage committed relationships. Marriage is the central legal institution of commitment in American society, therefore marriage or something equivalent to it should be open to any couple. Attempts to resist this are irrational and bigoted, where it seems prudent court should take the initiative and push the legal system in the right direction. The complementarity model, marriage is a unique sexual community based on difference and union of the sexes. It is more than the creation of contracting individuals or the state and he goes on just to further elaborate on the complementarity marriage. Now that is where the issue is, I think that many of the things that we associate with civil rights for persons, for example a long term committed same sex friendship, those partners might contract to care for one another. That can be done by contract law, there is no need for domestic legislation already, joint ownership of a house, so that one dies the surviving friend who receives the house or if one is hospitalized then you can contract for the person who is designated next to Ken, the nearest person to you, all of that are things that I think are right and we should allow. But it doesn't take domestic partnership laws to have those kinds of things. As a matter of justice, I think that the state should allow same sex friendships to form, not inquired to their sexual basis, not being involved in approving their sexual basis, and not to these typical domestic partnership do not promise sexual exclusive fidelity. But there's good reasons for not involving the state in approving a sexual based relationship, whereas the state I have argued may have some forms of contractual relationships and just not inquire as to what the intimacy of the relation is, that's for those friends for themselves to self describe.