Since its beginnings in a Greenwich Village bar in 1969, the gay liberation movement has snowballed into a social force which is changing the basic values and structures of our society, from the family right through to state institutions. For example, legislation pending in the United States Congress proposes to fully legitimise homosexuality as a sanctioned alternative lifestyle.
If passed, this bill will make it illegal for any organization, including churches, to refuse employment to practising homosexuals. It will legalise same-sex ‘marriages’ and compel every school system to include homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle in its sex education courses. By March, the bill had 140 congressional sponsors, as well as the full support of Bill Clinton. Primary schools such as New York City Public School have already included into their curricula pro-homosexual books aimed at very young children. Their titles include Heather has Two Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. Part of the third book reads, “Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That’s why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice”. Gudel makes the point that when it comes to gay rights, the issue is not whether rights have been infringed, but whether new rights, not previously recognized, should be created. This would seem to be where we are heading in Australia as well, with MP Clover Moore’s anti-vilification bill constituting the latest step on the way.
More tragically, this is where much of the Christian Church is also heading in a move led by its theologians and intellectuals. Paradoxically, the effect of these trends for many evangelical Christians is a decreased willingness to think about the issue—whether because we realize it is a losing battle, or because it is distasteful to us, or because we secretly feel the power of the arguments levelled against us. Despite this unwillingness (even because of it), we owe it to ourselves, and especially to our homosexual friends to consider where we stand.
Terms of the debate
The key terms of the debate are as follows: homosexuality is a word used to describe a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whether or not this orientation is expressed in sexual acts. Thus there is a spectrum in society from the exclusively homosexual at one end, through the mainly homosexual, the bisexual and the mainly heterosexual to the exclusively heterosexual at the other end. The implications of this are twofold. Firstly, homosexuality is diverse: for example, there are different levels of sexual interest and of feelings about one’s own homosexuality. Secondly, heterosexuality also is hard to define in the language of the debate. It could be anything from bisexuality to exclusivity, with ambiguity being the main impression! Finally, note the important distinction between ‘orientation’ and ‘act’, the latter being the expression of one’s sexual orientation in explicit sexual activity.
Three main arguments are used to defend homosexual activity. First, that it is natural; second, that it is loving; and third, that it is cultural. We will deal with these in turn.
Is it natural?
The gene question
Several researchers today are trying to show that homosexuality is genetically determined. If they succeed, they believe they will have shown that homosexuality is the equivalent of left-handedness: a neutral condition which is neither good nor bad in a moral sense, but merely a normal and healthy variation of human sexuality. No studies have yet provided clear evidence for this hypothesis, and most experts believe homosexuality to be a product of nurture rather than nature, stemming from early childhood development. However, this does not nullify the case for homosexuality as ‘natural’: no matter how a person’s homosexual orientation developed, it is neither chosen nor changeable. It is experienced as a ‘given’ of that person’s identity, and to treat it as unnatural would be to deny something experienced as part of the core of his or her being.
One response to these arguments is to try to falsify them, by showing on the one hand that the genetic theory is unfounded (hardly a simple or permanent solution), or on the other hand that a homosexual orientation is changeable and need not continue to be subjectively ‘natural’—one may return to one’s original ‘nature’ of heterosexual identity. But this will always prove hopeless, since the homosexual people who do change will be labelled bisexual by the gay lobby precisely because they have changed. In other words, any attempt to falsify the nature argument on these terms will fail because of the open-endedness of science and the ambiguity of experience: events do not mean anything; values cannot be derived from bare facts.
The meaning of ‘natural’
The biblical response must be deeper than this. First of all, we must return to the terms of the debate and challenge their validity. For when we turn to the Bible, we find that when addressing this subject it speaks exclusively in terms of acts and never in terms of orientation. The immediate result of this is incredible liberation: no-one is condemned for feelings they cannot help. Consider how it would be if a heterosexual man were considered an inevitable adulterer because of his erotic interest in Playboy. And yet the terms of the homosexuality debate assume that a person’s desire determines his identity. It is wrong that Christians have laid this burden of guilt on their brethren, condemning them for homosexuality because of their feelings towards members of the same sex.
So what does the Bible say?
There are four groups of important passages:
- Genesis 19, Judges 19, 2 Peter 2:6-7, and Jude 7. These passages consist of the Sodom story, a similar event in Judges, and some New Testament comments;
- Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. These verses, part of Israel’s legal code, condemn homosexual acts between consenting males as an abomination;
- Romans 1:26-27. This condemnation of both male and female homosexuality is part of Paul’s account of the sinfulness of a humanity under the wrath of God;
- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. These form part of Paul’s lists of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God—the ungodly.
Apart from the first group where the offence could possibly be rape rather than homosexual activity per se, there is consistent and unambiguous condemnation of all forms of homosexual activity. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to expound these passages, note that in Romans 1 homosexual activity is labelled as ‘unnatural’ or ‘against nature’. Cranfield in his commentary explains this as meaning ‘against God’s will for the created order’. This provides us with the principle we need in order to deal with the argument that homosexuality is ‘natural’. It enables us to reply firstly that the definitions of ‘natural’ used above are wrong: what counts is not whether homosexuality occurs in nature, or feels ‘natural’, but whether it is God’s will for humanity. And now that we have the correct values we can correctly interpret the meaning of the events and experiences which would otherwise remain ambiguous: if its cause is genetic, homosexuality must be considered a disorder; ‘bad’ in the sense that all other genetic disorders are bad. If its cause is environmental, homosexuality must be considered a dysfunction, and the ‘sufferer’ a victim of circumstance.
Is it loving?
The purpose of sex
So far we have considered a very narrow set of biblical texts, and many would argue that any conclusions are premature. What of the broader context of positive teachings about sex in the Bible? And what about the broader question of the purpose of sex? This is a question which has become crucial in the second half of the twentieth century, simply as a result of effective contraception. The new question is: ‘If the primary goal and consequence of sex is no longer reproduction, what is it?’ And the new answer which many are giving is that wholesome sexuality is to be evaluated in terms not of procreation but of the nature and quality of the relationship.
The Bible addresses these questions primarily in Genesis 1-3. The starting point is Man as the image of God in 1:26-28 where we see that it is not man or woman who is the image of God, but man and woman in relationship. Given this context, 2:24 describes a marriage which is more than bodily union; it is ‘a re-union in sexual encounter.’1 The heterosexuality of the relationship is the thing that gives its sexual component a unitive function; it makes marriage an expression of the image of God. The whole purpose of sex hinges on its heterosexual nature.
But what of the procreation/relationship debate? What is sex for? Once again. Genesis 1:26-28 provides us with the context, where the command to multiply is later fulfilled through the marriage relationship of 2:24. Procreation is important. On the other hand, sex is intended by God also as a means of expressing the love of married people for one another. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 for example, Paul speaks against too much sexual abstinence within marriage. Clearly he believes sex to be for the benefit of one’s spouse; a good and natural desire, not just a procreative mechanism.
To summarize, Genesis 1-3 makes two significant affirmations about sex: first, that because of what it means to be in the image of God, sexual relationships are meant to be heterosexual. And second, that the purpose of such a union is neither procreation alone, nor relationship alone, but relationship in a context where procreation is a possibility.
The meaning of love
Given these two affirmations of Genesis 1-3, let us examine the assertion that homosexual partnerships are good because they are loving. Anglican theologian Norman Pittenger is a proponent of this view, and he argues that homosexual activity is neutral in itself, becoming moral or immoral only insofar as it contributes to ‘mutual fulfilment in love’. It is plain that he ignores the need for both male and female to be involved before a marriage can express the image of God, as well as the significance of procreation. But even more plainly, to sustain this argument Pittenger has had to invent his own concept of love: it is certainly not the Bible’s. Jesus teaches, “if you love me you will keep my commandment” (John 14:15, cf. Ro 13:8-10). It may be true that love involves ‘mutual fulfilment’, but who decides what is fulfilling? Do I make the decision based on my feelings of the moment, or does my Creator decide on the basis of His perfect knowledge of my nature and destiny? In the end, homosexual partnerships are incompatible with true love because they are incompatible with God’s law.
Sexually handicapped?
Some advocates of homosexual partnerships acknowledge both affirmations of Genesis 1-3. They acknowledge that homosexual partnerships are, by their very nature, contrary to God’s purpose for human sexuality, but they see the homosexual person as ‘sexually handicapped.’ Helmut Thielicke, a German theologian, is a proponent of this position. In his view, homosexuality is a perversion or disorder of the fallen world; the sufferer did not choose it, but it is a particular manifestation of the original sin in which we all share. “The homosexual must therefore be willing to be treated or healed so far as this is possible … But now experience shows that constitutional homosexuality … is largely insusceptible to treatment”.2 Thielicke cites the modern concept of a homosexual ‘orientation’ as one which, being alien to the New Testament, forces us to reinterpret the relevant New Testament ethical teachings. Homosexual people must behave ethically on the basis of their irreversible orientation, and this means a responsible sexual relationship which, although it cannot fulfil God’s purposes for human sexuality, can at least provide the loving fulfilment which is a goal of sex in Genesis 1-3. To put it simply, given that they are sexually handicapped, homosexual people must try to do the best that they can within their limitations.
This is an attractive argument on many levels, but it is fatally flawed. The focus on orientation is the first mistake. It leads to the conclusion that celibacy is not an option, by the sort of reasoning that goes, ‘I am homosexual. I cannot change this. I cannot help having homosexual relationships because that is who I am.’ Celibacy is “a special calling and, moreover, is an act of free will”3 (see 1 Cor 7:7). But the Bible’s interest is in actions not orientation: we may not be able to alter our sexual orientation, but we are free to change our actions. To use 1 Corinthians 7 this way is fallacious: Paul did not intend that a passionate heterosexual fornicate if he cannot find a wife.
Finally, the mere existence of a need for loving fulfilment through sex is not enough. Consider for instance the case of a frustrated single (heterosexual) man who ‘needs a woman’. That this is his need is not in itself a reason to meet that need. Talk of fulfilment in a relationship as the sole criterion for judging an action fails to take into account the fact that (heterosexual) marriage is given as the only proper context for sexual activity. Love outside of God’s law is neither loving nor fulfilling.
Is it cultural?
The argument that the Bible’s ban on homosexual activity is an obsolete part of ancient culture carries very little weight. Firstly, the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality stood out sharply from the surrounding nations. Secondly, the basis of the ban was neither patriarchy nor a need for population increase. Rather, as we have seen, heterosexual marriage is a created norm, and thus transcends culture and time. Finally, the consistent and unqualified disapproval of homosexual activity sets it apart from matters such as slavery or the subordination of women, concerning which the Bible contains internal tensions.
Where do we go from here?
Don’t condone the act
When all is said and done, the Bible clearly condemns homosexual activity, but the way the debate has focused on orientation rather than action has confused the issue. Thielicke is right when he says that, for many people, there is no element of choice about their homosexual orientation (though this is not the case for all). However, he is wrong to say there is no element of choice about celibacy. In more recent years people like Bishop Spong have carried this mistaken conviction to its logical conclusion. To the homosexual Christian the Bible speaks clearly: accept God’s standards of no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, and explore with God’s help the possibility of a cure. ‘Cure’ is not a dirty word, despite what the gay lobby would have us think, and creative approaches have been taken by people like Elisabeth Moberly and the American ‘ex-gay’ support group Exodus International.
Don’t condemn the person
Nevertheless, cure will never be a reality for many homosexual Christians, and it is the God-given responsibility of all Christians to support and love their homosexual brothers and sisters. Sadly, churches often have an atrocious record in this respect, and it may be that some of us have to renounce homophobia and reassess our commitment to homosexual brethren. It is not enough to lay down the law and wait to pounce on the lapses. We must be willing to fill the void of celibacy with true relationships, to share joys and pain, to be agents of God’s forgiveness and hope. The following quote from the gay church organization AngGays is by people who believe homosexual activity to be acceptable, but there is still food for thought in some of their observations:
The church fails to offer us support in crisis situations such as the death of a partner, breakup of a relationship, problems within a relationship. It fails to support us when we are persecuted, when we suffer job discrimination, when we are bashed and attacked … We are unable to participate fully in parish life. We must appear at church as ‘single people’ unable to bring the context of our lives, out relationships, our households, our families, into the congregational life of the Church … We aren’t allowed to incorporate our sexuality into our lives like other well-adjusted human beings … We are excluded from the prayer-life of the Church.4
Some remaining questions
This article has been able to touch just a few of the problems and questions pertinent to the topic of homosexuality. There are many unanswered questions that remain to be dealt with: What is the range of interpretations of biblical material compatible with an evangelical approach to Scripture? How much moral and theological diversity should we be prepared to live with in a congregation? What about social involvement in legislation? On the ministry front, is there any reason why celibate homosexuals should not be ordained? Perhaps most importantly, are there proper expressions of sexuality for the single, the widowed, and the homosexual to be discovered and encouraged?
As we continue to grapple with these questions, let us encourage one another to think biblically and sensitively about this vital issue for today’s world.
Books consulted
R. T. Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic confusion (New York: Seabury Press, 1979).
N. Pittenger, Time for Consent: A Christian’s Approach to Homosexuality (3rd ed; London: SCM, 1976).
J. R. W. Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today (2nd ed; London: Collins Marshall Pickering, 1990).
H. Thielicke, Theological Ethics Volume 3: Sex (Tr. JW Doberstein; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) pp. 269-92.
E. R. Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Cambridge: J dark, 1983).
Endnotes
1 N. Pittenger, Time for Consent: A Christian’s Approach to Homosexuality (3rd ed; London: SCM, 1976).
2 H. Thielicke, Theological Ethics Volume 3: Sex (Tr. J. W. Doberstein; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) p. 283.
3 Thielicke, p 285.
4 ‘AngGays’, Judge Others? A Contribution to Discussion (Hunters Hill, 1981).
