In my final blog response to the recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage I conclude with several reflections on matters that I feel far more comfortable writing about since I am neither a legal expert nor a professional ethicist. These points strike me as both modest and fairly obvious, at least to most orthodox Christians.
Homosexual pairings, in which sexual practice is actively engaged in, is morally questionable, if not a clear violation of God’s law. I believe, with the historic Christian church, that same-sex practice is a violation of God’s holy law. But, and this is very important to say in our present context, a couple engaging in sexual activity of any kind does not make their moral choice right even if they are engaging in sex consensually as heterosexuals. The New Testament word porneia, commonly used for sexual relationships outside of marriage, is rightly defined as inclusive of all illicit sexual intercourse. A standard Greek lexicon says very simply that this word porneia includes the whole range of sexual sins: adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc.
I think it should be further said that because a married couple is having sexual relations doesn’t mean that this relationship, even within marriage, is healthy. Sexuality is much more complex than genital activity. Sexual expression is, to put it mildly, extremely complicated. Many Christians seem to have a limited understanding of this reality. Furthermore, because two people get legally married does not mean that they entered into Holy Matrimony as I defined it in yesterday’s post. My point here is simple, but not so obvious – sexuality, a gift from God to humankind, is a powerful (earthly) reality and deeply (and mysteriously) complicated.
If what I’ve said is true then it should be further said that there is more sexual dysfunction, sexual ambiguity and unholiness (and wholeness) in human sexual behavior than we may understand. Add to this, as blogger Rob Schenck has rightly noted, “the very wide spectrum of human sexual proclivities–from autoeroticism to, well, you name it–and the situation becomes even murkier.”
I believe there is a divine ideal in human sexuality but few of us attain it in the intimacy of a healthy, mature and honest married relationship between two people. Perhaps a better way to say this is that we all struggle to mature and grow up into Christ’s love, especially in basic areas of human need, and the struggle with our passions and desires. In regards to our sexuality most of us must admit that this is an extremely difficult minefield where we all live with differing degrees of difficulty. Sex is not a simple “yes” and “no.” To reduce it to this approach, ethically and psychologically, is to fail to deal with the holy mysteries of this God-given reality, reality that is deeply impacted by the fall. The Christian church has quite often failed to develop a healthy theology of sexuality. One of the first great thinkers to address this Christocentrically was Pope John Paul II. His theology of the body is must reading for serious Christians.
Based on everything that I have written in this series of five blogs I offer some conclusions that state things I believe rather deeply about this present controversy:
- I grew up in a time when homosexual persons could not seek help or talk about their struggle. They were “in the closet” in every way, especially if they were non-Christians. In the church the whole idea of a homosexual person being among us as a brother would never have crossed our minds. Homosexuals were continually insulted and shamed. They were mocked and beaten, even killed in some instances. In most states if they came out of the closet they faced fines and/or prison. To the people I grew up with, homosexuals were criminals. My peers, especially in my all-male prep school, would have helped get them expelled if not ridiculed them into complete collapse emotionally. What has changed in the last two-plus decades is that this social and legal status no longer applies to homosexual persons. I am profoundly grateful for this change. My calling as a Christian does not include the specific condemnation of homosexuals.
- The story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8 reveals something important to us here. In Jesus’ time (or in similar circumstances in places where the Taliban rules today) a woman caught in the very act of adultery was to be killed. (The man was not held accountable in the same way, which reveals that this is not just about sex but about power!) Women were shamed, mocked and violently attacked, even killed in many instances. What did our Lord do in this particular circumstance? He intervened and stopped the stoning of this woman. He then gave her hope and told her that he did not condemn her thus she should go and “sin no more.” (There is true freedom in God’s law thus His Spirit can help to break all forms of sexual addiction!) Jesus also made a startling charge to those who had condemned this woman when he said, “If you are without sin then cast the first stone.” I think this story speaks powerfully to the homosexual issue in our time.
- There are not different categories of sinners in the world and/or the church. We are all sinners. The only hope we all have is the love and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before God, and the cross, we are on level ground. We should, therefore, stop treating gays and lesbians as “extraordinary sinners.” Though we have reasons to be nervous about the overall sexual impact of these legal and social changes on our wider society Christians should not fret and react. The sins that will destroy us are not primarily sexual, as many conservatives seem to believe. The sins that will likely destroy our society are the abuse of power and our near total preoccupation with consumption. Homosexuals, to put this very clearly, are not destroying our culture!
- The state is not charged with teaching or with lovingly showing people how to practice Christ-centered morality. I remind you that the judges who wrote the strong opinions in these cases were both appointed by Republican presidents. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose strong views stand out in his majority statement, was a Reagan appointee. (I have said this many times before but Reagan gave us no-fault divorce, a mixed bag at best and a legal decision that did more to influence marriage than any single state decision.) Chief Justice Roberts is a George W. Bush appointment. My point here is that judges are not the servants of the moral law and the church. They are sinners and they render good and bad decisions like all sinners. We should be reminded that the ultimate judge will be Jesus Christ, the perfect and righteous one.
- God and his Word are the only real solutions to sexual dysfunction. Sexual brokenness is a major part of our secular, post-Christendom culture. Healing is found in eucharistic community and this Christian healing includes all sexual sins, homosexual and heterosexual.
- When the gospel is preached and taught we who proclaim it must understand that we are talking to sinners. Our listeners include liars, thieves, adulterers, fornicators, the rebellious, and murderers. Our audience consists of people filled with pride and self-will.
- We must speak the truth, but always in love. Sexual sin is not limited in some unique way to homosexuals. But we are not free to create our own patterns for sexual expression because we have a desire and feel the only way to act on it is to give ourselves over to our passions and desires. Holy sanctification has cleansing power and can cure all who flee to Jesus.
For those who are interested, the finest single book that I have read on this topic, is authored by Dr. Wesley Hill, New Testament professor at Trinity School for Ministry (Anglican) in Pennsylvania. It is titled: Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Zondervan, 2010). I encourage you to read his story and prayerfully consider his careful Christian treatment of this issue. Wes is a good friend, a celibate homosexual and a scholar who frames his response to this issue in a healthy and biblical way. So far I have read nothing better. You will find a treasure of reviews and comments on this book if you search the Internet but be sure to read the book if you want to grow in your understanding of this complex issue.
Related Posts
Comments
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
Good article, book recommendation, and typo “…a celebrate homosexual and a scholar…” 🙂
Thanks, John. Very thoughtful and courageous of you to stand where you are. I agree with you on all of these points. I stand with you. I will have to read that book.
Typo corrected. This one was slightly “Freudian” you think?
Wesley Hill’s book is excellent. I read it on the way to Israel in January. Quite good.
I prefer the typo 🙂 I find it fascinating that LGBT people are held to such high standards, invoking the “divine ideal” argument. And then at the end of the day, they are told to go back into their closet. I’m glad John that at least you say it politely “Go back into your closet, please.”
“There are not different categories of sinners in the world and/or the church. We are all sinners. The only hope we all have is the love and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before God, and the cross, we are on level ground. We should, therefore, stop treating gays and lesbians as “extraordinary sinners.” Though we have reasons to be nervous about the overall sexual impact of these legal and social changes on our wider society Christians should not fret and react. The sins that will destroy us are not primarily sexual, as many conservatives seem to believe. The sins that will likely destroy our society are the abuse of power and our near total preoccupation with consumption. Homosexuals, to put this very clearly, are not destroying our culture!” Well written John. I see why you take so many “hits”.
Brian, you suggest I say “Go back into your closet.” I am quite sure you do not understand what I am saying if you hear or read such an idea in my statements about marriage. I feel quit differently. All I have rejected is the church performing same-sex marriages as holy matrimony that meets God’s revealed standard of one man-one woman in a union involving holy sexual expression. I do not want anyone to stay in the closet and be tormented or persecuted. Please read my posts this week on marriage for further evidence of my actual views. I deeply love you and do not want misunderstanding to drive our relationship in any way so again I assure you I am not promoting or endorsing the closet in the normal sense of this expression. Question: Can I, and most of the Christian Church, not approve same-sex marriage and be open to LGBT persons as equals in every legal and personal sense? Or, out another way, “Must we all approve same-sex marriage to be really open and loving to our LGBT neighbors, family and fellow believers?”
I did read all your posts this morning John, and I agree that treating all people humanely, whether they are known to be tax cheats, bullying business owners, oppressive church leaders, arm-twisting politicians, or any other societal label, is a truly Christian duty. That way my secret sins are treated equally under the grace and mercy of God.
I suspect that many who are quick to point their condemning fingers at homosexuals are not quite transparent about the sins they conceal in secret. I’m sure there was a very good reason the accusers of the woman found in the act of prostitution, walked away in silence when Jesus scrolled some writing on the ground. This is a stretch but I have wondered if it was possible that one of these men was serviced by her, and the others knew it? Conviction of sin silences most self-righteous crowds.
John I think you are correct, I don’t understand. For example, I have no idea what this is: “holy matrimony that meets God’s revealed standard of one man-one woman in a union involving holy sexual expression.” My idea of marriage has not much to do with any of that, so maybe that is why I see no problem with allowing any human being to enter into marriage.
The reason I said you are putting LGBT people into the closet is because you give them no expression for their sexuality. I see it as a kind of Christian closet. Marriage was a concession according to Apostle Paul as far as I remember. I don’t understand the logic behind barring same-sex marriage in churches. (We are in agreement at the state level, and I am glad I work at a company that offers equal benefits for same-sex couples.)
John, you asked “Can I, and most of the Christian Church, not approve same-sex marriage and be open to LGBT persons as equals in every legal and personal sense?” Logically speaking, no. This is like saying “you are free to do whatever I tell you.”
It would be better in my mind to just bar LGBT people altogether. What good does it do for anyone to claim “Marriage is the best, most intimate way to learn about God, oh but you can’t participate.”
I advocate Brian McLaren’s position fully:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/10/08/brian-mclaren-clarifies-his-view-on-homosexuality/
I believe as McLaren writes: “the Western church had been wrong on slavery, wrong on colonialism, wrong on environmental plunder, wrong on subordinating women, wrong on segregation and apartheid (all of which it justified biblically) … we had been wrong on this issue.”
Why aren’t people considering the natural structure of the human body, and the complementarity of its reproductive members? It doesn’t take a theologian, or a rocket scientist, to see that “gay marriage” is irrational, as a “perturbatio naturae.” It is the suspension of common sense and reason that allows such a phenomenon to be accepted. But then, so much of our culture has become irrational, as many recent news events bear witness.
No Brian, I am sorry but your logic is not sound. Saying I will not perform a Christian wedding for a same-sex couple is not the same as saying I believe in enslaving people. Surely you can see a difference brother. As far as giving people room for expressing their sexuality you seem to be arguing from what you see to be right and fair and and not from nature, reason or revelation. Expressing sexuality as people feel free to do so is not an issue for the state but it is a concern for the moral law and thus for Christians and their behavior. I would like to see one non-modern case where a moral and ethical argument is made for same-sex marriage. Seriously, there is no comparison as McLaren argues, none. And how did you get marriage is a concession in Paul? Honestly, I wish I understood what kind of hermeneutical principles you were employing here since none is really clear to me except your reading of some arguments used by recent advocates for same-sex practice and marriage who once argued against it. For the record, the NT did open the door to women’s equality and males shut it within decades of the death of Jesus. Same for slavery. In both instances we have reasons to see how this message of freedom was taught and practiced before it was pushed back. In the case of same-sex practice I have seen no such evidence in the NT record or among the earliest Christians. The Romans clearly had a lot of same-sex practice going on within every aspect of the culture of the first century. If this was OK morally why did the NT provide such inclusive language by using porneia to describe sin, a broad word for all sexual practice except that between a married husband and wife. Please read my posts tomorrow and the day after to see what I say about sexuality and my thoughts here might be clearer at that point.
Brian, since you ask me the question about what I wrote, and I am the one who gave a definition of marriage, would you share what your view of a marriage is if it is not a holy union between a man and woman that included the mystery of sexual experience and the bonds of a covenant that can produce children?
Richard, you asked “Why aren’t people considering the natural structure of the human body, and the complementarity of its reproductive members?” I don’t know about others, but I rejected “body part theology” a long time ago. Body part theology seems ok at the surface but leads far away from the love and grace of Christ in my observation. And I just don’t understand the obsession with body parts among some Christians.
John, I admit my knowledge of the things you mention is lacking, severely lacking. But I don’t admit my logic is lacking. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul conceded two things: sex in marriage is better than withholding sex and also that it is better to marry than to burn with passion while attempting to be celibate. (Unless I misunderstand these verses, they indicate that Paul sees marriage at least partially as a commitment and does not elevate marriage to the idol level some have done within the past 100 years or son).
My views of marriage are based on the “suitable helper” verses in Genesis and also the State’s idea of a contract with benefits. So I believe that an LGBT person’s suitable helper ought to be someone suitable for them, in every way including sex. I simply fail to see where this notion of elevating marriage to a “God status” comes from in the bible? I can pretty much guarantee no man is thinking of holy matrimony during sex. Such musings to me seem to be based on equating the Bride/Bridegroom passages in the bible to human marriage, something I don’t agree with.
Brian, I don’t understand your comment. “Body part theology” (if you could really call it that) is implied in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” To deny the complementary male-female pairing of the human race, and substitute pairing of another sort, is to tell the Creator he made a mistake. That’s why Paul (Romans 1:18-27) lists homosexuality first, among things that “suppress the truth” and do not honor God as God or give thanks to [i.e., acknowledge] him. After stating, “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made,” Paul then describes behavior that flies in the face of the truth of God’s creation, and homosexual and Lesbian behavior heads the list. Homosexuality is a flat denial of the reality of God and his purpose in creation. So so-called “body part theology” (really, it’s “natural theology”) can’t just be fluffed off as irrelevant, as though people weren’t physical creatures but instead were just disembodied spirits.
Richard, you describe my term body part theology quite well. In Romans 1 you see body parts. But the first problem in Romans 1 is idolatry. And Romans 1 says nothing about a faithful monogamous same-sex relationship.
Jesus Himself acknowledged three types of people in the famous male/ female scripture. He mentions eunuchs also.
Thank you Brian. You have clarified a lot with real honesty. You have also done better at saying it than many can or will do. I, of course, disagree rather profoundly and think you are responding to cultural stereotypes of marriage, not biblical and Christian categories of covenant and the language of sacrament as well. For the record, all I think about during sex is personal pleasure unless I am learning to love in the fullest sense; i.e. to give to another, even in moments of intense pleasure. My views are based on the same verses but the suitable helper is called “woman” and Eve, for she was taken from Adam/man for his companionship thus God himself officiated the first covenant/sacrament of marriage making it holy. As for “ex” you are right about what Paul says but keep in mind you admit he sys it is best to be single. Given what we know he probably means this in terms of mission and (perhaps) the eschaton. Either way celibacy is an option for Paul. Could it be for some of us as well? I think so and believe we have so sold out to sexual pleasure being divine purpose that we missed this message.
Jesus may have recognized three types of people, and your are right about eunuchs (a text few will deal with adequately I think and this debate is forcing more dialogue about what this means which I welcome). There are problems in reading some of these texts but Richard’s major point is correct and this is how the church has understood it for 2,000 years. This homosexual explanation of these verses is not some “minor” departure from “misunderstood texts” re: slavery, the role of women in culture and the church, etc.
Thanks John. I appreciate the further explanation, and yes I do see most of your points. I think we are at near 100% agreement on the State level. But I have difficulty grasping how numerous points you make at the Church level tie together, and yes I have a different conclusion, but none of these conversations makes any difference in our friendship (from my end at least!).
Friendship is much deeper than agreement, which I think you know I believe and practice. You are my friend. I want you, and everyone else reading these threads, to know this since it is how the gospel really works in human life.
I have to practice that kind of friendship John. Most of my friends have some sort of mutual disagreement! I no longer hide my beliefs nor do I look only for friends who conform to my beliefs. And I don’t engage in this specific topic in order to dictate my beliefs but in hope to improve my thinking. I am most satisfied if someone persuades me that I’m wrong. Although your blog posts on this topic did not change my beliefs, I gained new perspectives.
Kathryn Elliott Stegall liked this on Facebook.
Donnie Freeman liked this on Facebook.