Much is being said about the United Methodist Church General Conference. The bigger question is why has the issue of homosexuality become a divisive one for the church?
First, some background should be noted on the social change that has occurred in the United States over the last thirty years.
I grew up in the 80’s. At the time, AIDS was a nameless untreatable pestilence that was rampantly spreading among gay men. To be afflicted with the disease meant certain death. Scientists and medical professionals tried to sound an alarm. They tried to push for government grants to investigate the disease. Time after time their requests were denied. They were denied when government officials were told that the only people coming down with the disease were gay men. The only reason why the grants were finally approved is because one scientist warned that it was inevitable that the disease would eventually spread to heterosexuals too. That scientist went on to discover the HIV virus and finally gave the disease a name – AIDS.
At that time, gays were social pariahs. They were not talked about within social circles. They were not represented on TV or in movies. Gays in general were treated as if they didn’t exist. They just weren’t talked about at all.
But as time went on, the media started to shine a light on the AIDS epidemic, and in doing so, they also shone a light on the gay victims of the disease. As they documented the afflictions of AIDS patients, they couldn’t help but notice other forms of suffering these men were already going through. If an AIDS patient was rendered incapable of caring for himself and had a life partner, that partner had no legal say on his lover’s medical care. Hospitals had no other legal choice but to call the closest living relatives, who, more often than not, had disowned that person years or even decades before because of the man’s gay lifestyle. Well-meaning relatives didn’t have a clue on knowing what the patient’s best interests might be; at the same time, they were often completely closed to what the patient’s partner would suggest.
The whole situation seemed grossly unfair. If a homosexual man is too ill to make decisions on his own, shouldn’t his partner have a say in his treatment and care? A gay man’s partner was often also his best friend, someone who would know more intimately than anyone else what would be in the best interests of his sick lover. There seemed to be a loophole in the law, a situation the law never considered. Meanwhile, heartless family members, who could care less about the person afflicted with the disease, were making all the decisions.
I remember watching such profiles and feeling a sense of compassion and sympathy for these men. It was hard not to feel for them.
And yet, there were plenty of other Christians I knew that didn’t have that compassion. It is shameful to say it, but I remember hearing Christians making statements that implied homosexuals were “getting what they deserve” as if God were punishing them for their homosexual lifestyles.
I remember feeling greatly disturbed by these statements. As Christians, we believe every person is a sinner, and therefore, deserving of death and eternal punishment. But because of God’s great love, He chooses not to punish us. If God’s love is great enough to cover our sins and remove from us the punishment we deserve, then why should it not be great enough to cover the sins of others? God takes no joy in our sufferings. Neither should we take any measure of satisfaction in the suffering of others, regardless of what sins we believe they’ve committed.
And thus the social conscious of both secular and social thought began to change. However, change did not happen without a decent amount of friction. As more and more gay men and women started coming out of the closet, there were equally a number of stories of outright hatred against homosexuals. Even worse, were the hate mail sent to some openly gay individuals who claimed to be Christian.
Some good came out of the change. Christians now I think understand where they went wrong. They had used Scripture as an excuse to oppress a particular subgroup of individuals, much as they had to blacks, women, Jews, and others. They had treated homosexuals as if they were less than human, not worthy of the same rights as others. Even worse, they had seen them as committing a vile sin that, at least in their eyes, is somehow greater than everyone else’s, and beyond redemption.
Scripture used in this sense is ALWAYS wrong! We should NEVER use Scripture to justify hate or oppression.
And while all this may be true, does that necessarily mean we should condone homosexual sex acts? If you believe homosexual sex acts are sinful, then no, we cannot. To marry a homosexual couple would be like wedding any other couple in which sex is flatly forbidden, such as marrying two of close relations: a man and his daughter; a brother and his aunt; etc. But if you believe homosexual sex acts aren’t sinful, then marriage and pastoral ordination should be accepted.
And this goes to the crux of the matter: Is homosexuality a sin?
There are those who believe strongly that, yes, it is a sin. This view has a lot of biblical backing. There are at least 6 different verses within Scripture that mention homosexual acts, and all of them condemn these acts as sin. In all cases in which marriage is described, it is always in the context of a union between a man and a woman. Keep in mind, too, these verses are found in both the Old and New Testaments. In the only Scripture in which sexual desire is intimately described, in the Song of Solomon, it is described in the context of the passion between a man and a woman. God also commanded in the Old Testament that mankind should “be fruitful and multiply”, something that cannot be achieved naturally through homosexual partnerships. These facts cannot be denied. It seems clear taking all these verses together that God intended sexual partnerships to exist solely within the context of marriage between a man and a woman, not just for sexual intimacy, but for the purposes of procreation.
But wait! This seems unfair. Why should a monogamous homosexual partnership, committed to mutual fidelity, be considered “bad” and a heterosexual one be considered “good”? Why would God view one partnership as “sin” and the other not sin? If God is just, this seems very unjust. If each dedicated partner also confesses Christ, what difference does it make?
Well, you have to admit, there are an endless number of human relationships in which it would be very inappropriate to add sex into the mix. Leviticus 18 lists numerous laws that define sexual immorality, not just for the people of the Old Covenant, but for modern society. I think most people of modern secular society would agree that sex between a brother and a sister is wrong, or between a father and his daughter, or a man and his mother, or a man and an animal. Wedged within the mix of what much of modern society would mutually agree as morally repugnant sins is this one: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Hmm. Well. Considering this, we must consider also the question: why would such an act be viewed as “detestable”? More to the point, considering these were laws directly passed down by God Himself, why would GOD view such an act “detestable”?
Here is a possible explanation, or at least one I’ve heard mentioned by some: The Old Testament contained many laws about cleanliness. Many of these laws are no longer considered relevant to the New Covenant. For instance, the Old Testament law forbidding the consumption of meats from certain animals because of their uncleanliness was superseded by Saint Peter’s vision in which God declared all living things within His creation as clean. Jesus Himself was often criticized by the Pharisees for hanging out with “sinners”, or those deemed too “unclean” to socialize with because of their sins. Jesus also approached, touched, and also healed lepers and those ostracized because of the “uncleanliness” of their disease. He also criticized the Pharisees for being “white washed tombs” who ardently followed the laws of outward cleanliness while possessing hearts that were either cold or dead. Taking all these things together, as followers of Christ and the New Covenant, “cleanliness” laws no longer seem to have any relevance. And so, it is perhaps possible that the Levitical law forbidding sex between two men was placed there because such relations were deemed as unclean.
This would be a valid argument if it weren’t for the passages in the New Testament that also condemn homosexual relations. Romans 1:24-27 describes an undeniably harsh and damning view of those enslaved by sexual lust, especially lusts involving homosexual relations. Of course, one has to also consider the context of these passages. Saint Paul had visited places that literally worshipped the Greek goddess of love, and who practiced such “worship” with all forms of prostitution and sexual depravity. It is very likely that many of these individuals became also victims of sexually transmitted diseases. This would engender disgust in any morally conscious individual. It is why Saint Paul so ardently implored new believers to honor their bodies as holy temples of the Spirit of God by living free from all sexual impurity.
Also, as a Pharisee and one knowledgeable in Levitical law, he would naturally consider also homosexual relations as sexually immoral. That may be true, but he nullifies the argument that his aversion to homosexuality had anything to do with cleanliness. He claims those who engage in homosexual relations have “exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones.” Hmm. Okay. Let us ponder on this one for a bit. What could he mean by that?
Homosexual partnerships, by their very nature, cannot procreate. It is undeniable that human beings would not have been able to procreate since the days of Adam and Eve if not for the benefit of heterosexual relations in conceiving children. Remember the words of the Old Testament – be fruitful and multiply. Women were honored by the number of children they conceived. Test tube babies aside, it would be biologically impossible for the human race to survive into a new generation if everyone were homosexual. By “natural relations” Saint Paul could be literally meaning “of nature”, or consistent with Creation, gender roles, and our biological need to procreate.
The language Saint Paul uses implies that indulging in homosexual relations is a choice. But there are those who argue that homosexuals are “born that way” – that is, there is something inborn in their biology that causes them to lust after those of their own gender. Let us then consider this view. If it is inborn, what would that look like? If human biology was designed by God in part for procreation, why would “nature” allow for homosexual relations? If it did, it would be considered a biological abnormality, since what is biologically normal require relations that encourage the natural conception of human life. This would also imply that homosexual behavior is the result of some kind of biological flaw. But I don’t see too many people advocating that. If it were considered a defect, why aren’t doctors trying to find a cure?
Perhaps there are those who consider it a biological abnormality, but a harmless one.
If you had watched television during the 80s and 90s, you would have seen the stories, the various stories of men who felt forced by society into leading double lives, one devoted to their wives, and another life, hidden from their families, in which they let loose their secret homosexual urges in closeted affairs with men. We who lived during that time frame would have seen them all on TV – both in fiction and in documentaries – of how families were destroyed once they find out the truth. It forced people to wonder that perhaps such men would have been better off in an openly gay monogamous relationship, a relationship that would be both sexually satisfying and without the hypocrisy.
I agree that such men would be happier, and heterosexual women would also better off by simply knowing which men are not worth investing their time in.
The Bible does say, that if two people can’t control their urges, they should marry, lest they burn with passion. So, if two men burn with passion for one another, why should they not marry?
Our U.S. Constitution states that everyone has the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” If having the right to marry makes homosexuals happy, why is that a bad thing? And doesn’t this bring equality to both heterosexual and homosexual couples?
From a legal standpoint, and a constitutional standpoint, there can be no argument made that would justify denying homosexuals of the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. Like I mentioned earlier, the denial of rights to homosexual partners came at a great cost during the AIDS epidemic. Regardless of how you feel about such partnerships, we have a social and moral responsibility to provide these individuals the same respect as human beings and citizens of this country.
But while I may have compassion on them in that respect, I am unconvinced that it is not a sin.
While people who prefer like-gender relations would certainly be happier in a physical and emotional sense, does that earthly happiness necessarily mean that God approves of such unions? Saint Paul indicates that God will “give over” those who seek sexual relations with those of their own gender. That is, God will not stop them. He will do nothing to prevent them from pursuing and indulging their lusts. In fact, He will hand them over to be enslaved by them. If they become enslaved, they can have no part with God.
Is this the doom we want homosexuals to endure? Do we want homosexuals to be doomed to an eternity apart from God? As Christians, do we not value and esteem our relationship with God over any other relationship? Isn’t it better to be miserable in this life by denying ourselves of certain earthly pleasures for the sake of an eternity with our Lord? Or are we being unreasonably harsh, unfair, and unrealistic to expect homosexuals to be celibate for the sake of our Lord? You might as well also say Jesus was being unrealistic, unreasonable, and unfair when He tells us to love our enemies, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, to give a thief your cloak after he just stole from you another one. (I am of the belief that to love as Jesus asks us to love can only be achieved with the power of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the Holy Spirit, we cannot genuinely love our enemies.)
To truly dedicate oneself to God, you must rely on the Holy Spirit. Without Him, we can do nothing.
Do not members of Alcoholics Anonymous seek the strength of a Higher Power to overcome their addictions? And aren’t such programs been proven successful in breaking people’s addictions, including those who may have a biologically genetic disposition towards addictive behaviors (born that way)? Do not “sinners” everywhere seek the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to let go and overcome their sinful weaknesses? Do we believe God can empower a person to overcome even sexual behaviors that are deemed displeasing to God? Or is our faith too weak to believe such a thing can happen? Or do we believe that, because a person slips again and again into indulging his sexual desires, that he must be “beyond hope” of ever changing? Do we then, at that point, when faced with the reality that the person may never change, decide we must have been in the wrong for encouraging that person to change in the first place? God forbid we adjust our thinking on what is right and what is wrong based on the difficulty a person endures in trying to adjust their lifestyle to that change! While we may have compassion and great mercy on that person as they go through that adjustment of realigning their lives according to what Christ would desire of them, we must still point out their wrong, but in a loving way that still builds them up with the courage to press on. No one said removing sinful desires from our lives would be easy! It’s a lifelong process.
Jesus makes it clear – we cannot love anything or anyone more than Himself. We cannot love any human relationship, even with our spouse, our children, our friends, above that of our relationship with Him. If we pursue any relationship at the risk of losing our relationship with God, then we are in trouble. We are playing with fire. It is one thing to sin and stumble from time to time. It is quite another to become enslaved and addicted to a relationship God does not approve of.