Homosexuality

[Scott Peterson]

What are your thoughts on how a church community seeking to live out God's shalom should handle the issue of homosexuality?

[Chad]

First of all, I hesitate to comment on this issue because I know how divisive it can be. I hope that anyone who participates in this discussion is willing to listen whole heartedly and be open to what others share. Having stated this disclaimer:
I am part of the Community of Christ denomination, and this is an issue that our church has been dealing with a lot over the past several years. For me, I think that a church should be completely based on building the Kingdom, the common root, if you will. Often times issues like this divide churches on very strong lines. I understand that, for people who support homosexuals in their choices, the church accepting them as they are and saying that being homosexual is not a sin is sort of human rights issue; however, I understand how some people see it as a sin and don't want practicing homosexuals in their church leadership. My denomination said in the 1980's that as long as a person was not practicing it was acceptable for them to be in the priesthood, and I know of some that are. I think that the first step in addressing this issue is finding common ground for all the members of the church to accept any one who walks in through the doors just exactly as they are, completely withholding judgment, and make them feel at home. I feel that unless a church body can reach a consensus, and everyone is willing to really listen to each other about the issue that consensus should be found in simply loving the person as they are. I know that Jesus would show nothing but love to anyone, and Christians should have the same response.

[Scott Peterson]

I hesitated to make this post specifically because I know that this is a contentious issue. However, after much prayer, I decided that a community such as this one should be able to handle this topic with discernment and love. I am under no illusion that Common Root will be the source of a one-size-fits-all answer. On the other hand, I am fully convinced that an authentic community can only be sustained by engaging in open and loving conversation.

[Dustin]

The one thing I often find absent in conversations such as this (as they occur in the Church) is that homosexuals are largely absent. One of the most constructive times I've had in developing my own position on this issue was being able to sit down with members of the LGBT community who are Christians. To hear their stories and listen to their struggles was quite important in my own development of a position on homosexuality and Christian faith.

So, I would say the first step for the church community would be to sit down with members of the LGBT community who are Christians and simply listen. Those who were party to such a discussion would be under no constraints to change their position, but simply listening would go a long way...in my opinion.

[Scott Peterson]

I can definitely agree with this post. Sadly, I don't think the church is always a safe place for LGBTs to come out openly in order to engage in conversation.

[Dustin]

True. In certain places, it would be hard for members of the LGBT community to "come out" and chat. However, there are enough "celebrity" LGBT Christians who might wish to engage in such dialog--i.e., Mel White, Ray Boltz, etc.

[Barry Mast]

I have a strong feeling that most "hot button" issues in the church today (particularly abortion and homosexuality) are contentious issues precisely because we have very different ways of reading and interpreting the Christian bible. I would be interested in what people think about the following article by Walter Wink.

"Homosexuality and the Bible" -> http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/winkhombib.htm

One root assumption Wink makes is that "there are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant)". While I assume he means that the cause is irrelevant rather than one's nature, I would suggest that any argument to one's nature is irrelevant as well. Sin has a way of messing up our "nature" in a variety of ways so that a claim to one's nature does not automatically make the nature acceptable by default (I believe this is true for apathy, violence and selfishness as well). So, regardless of our "nature", it is our definition of acceptable practice that seems to divide us.

I find that we often view the practice of homosexuality on a continuum and coming to a consensus on where one "draws the line" is what strikes me as divisive. Do we accept a person only if they denounce their homosexual nature? Do we accept the person (who is "by nature", gay or lesbian) but prohibit the practice of gay marriage and require celibacy (similar to a celibacy requirement for unmarried heterosexuals)? Do we prohibit sexual intimacy between unmarried persons (gay or otherwise) but allow for gay marriage insisting on a monogamous marriage relationship? Do we allow for sexual intimacy between persons outside of a conventional marriage covenant (gay or otherwise) as long as the relationship is monogamous? And the list goes on...

I believe any biblical ethic hinges on what Jesus (and Paul) says it hinges on...the love of neighbor. Of course, Paul also calls us to "behave decently" (Rom 13.13). So what is "decent"? That tends to be culturally determined. I happen to draw the line where it can include gay marriage as decent (an intimate, monogamous, and covenantal relationship between two people of the same sex). I have difficulty seeing this arrangement as indecent or destructive and it holds same-sex couples to the same standards of decency I have for heterosexual couples; namely love, respect, faithfulness and trust. Of course, I am the first to admit I may be missing something and that my "line" is pretty tenuous.

[stefan]

The only thing I have to add to this is that I went to NYC's only gay sports bar, GYM, Sunday night with my best friend who is gay.

[Dustin]

Barry,

I appreciate your comments regarding this very difficult issue.

The first thing I want to add relates to your point on how one reads/interprets scripture. For many on the side of full inclusion of LGBT individuals, this is the issues which divides them from those who disagree with them. However, I think it may even go further than that--because I believe it is when one comes face to face with an embodied form of an "issue" which forces one to fully understand and own their beliefs. This is what happened to me specifically regarding this issue. It's much easier to hold to a particular point of view when I am not faced with anyone who would be affected by my belief.

Second, in reference to the marriage issue, I believe the Church should be able to fully welcome and embrace "legal" marriages for homosexuals. Marriage, in a legal sense, is nothing more than a contract made between two persons with financial and legal consequences. The problem the Church is faced with is we've accepted the state's definition and form of marriage over and above the spiritual/sacramental understanding. Thus, for some, to allow gay marriage is a threat to all marriage, which I find to be illogical when one understands the two natures of marriage.

Yet, as you stated, it all must be shrouded in love of neighbor and honoring everyone's humanity, regardless of what any one person might believe.

[Rod McCallum]

We should focus on the logs in our own eyes before condemning others for the splinters in their eyes.

[Barry Mast]

I totally agree. Key word for me being "our" own eyes. This is a sensitive subject where I have hang-ups based on my own experience and relationships. This kind of communal experience and conversation helps me take the log out of my own eye while at the same time serves as an invitation for others to join me in the "log extraction" process.

[Barry Mast]

Below is an article from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that tackles many of the issues discussed so far including 1) what kind of relationships are recognized and supported, 2) where consensus can be reached and at what level - local or denominational, 3) requirements or prohibitions for leadership, 4) the desire to respect those whose conscience binds them to disagree the move and 5) the role of Scripture (used, in this case, by conservative Lutherans opposed to the move).

"Lutherans move to allow gay clergy -- sort of" -> http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=17576

[dlw]

I wrote a review to the movie Milk over at Recovering Evangelica where I set out my thoughts on the politics of homosexuality, which I take as distinct from the question at hand and yet something that needs to be worked out carefully to be able to form relations with others as communities of Christ followers.

My practice is to show love while firmly disagreeing w. the notion that our sexual orientations are in the core of our identities and to emph that we all need discipleship in community for our lifestyles, which is separate from them being given certain legal rights. I also believe in getting rid of legal marriages, as a vestige of Constantinized Christianity, so there are only bilateral civil unions, ideally set up so folks could only have two such unions be fully recognized/rewarded legally in their lifetime to emph that they are not to be entered into lightly and are meant to last, and so the less economically-productive partner in a civil union can have extra legal protections against its dissolution.

Whether a community of followers of Christ or a denomination chooses to recognize homosexual marriages and what if any stipulations are made is a matter of local rules of faith. I would prefer to be part of a network of communities that did recognize homosexual marriages that were between partners committed to emulating the Biblical Ideal set out in Gen 2 in all other respects and I have also believed but wavered on the idea of requesting the couple to abstain from anal intercourse so as to respect the OT passage calling for a man not to lie with another man as a man lies with a woman.

But that leaves a lot of stuff open, particularly when it comes to dealing with how we show love in dealing with inevitable moral failings of all sizes and shapes and colors.

dlw