The Church and Homosexuality

First, this post is not about answering the question. But I periodically visit IBC’s discussion forum, Table & Fire, and found a new topic introduced by one of the more thoughtful forum regulars. I say forum regulars loosely. In the past, T&F had a fairly significant following. But its server crashed in a serious way, and the entire thing had to be rebuilt. And in the midst of that, the person who had been responsible to maintain it moved and was could no longer do so. So when it finally reemerged a few months later, only a paltry few signed back up. It has been fairly silent for a while until this friend opened the hottest topic yet. And it was viewed, but no response for 10 days. Here is the opening post:

I thought I'd see if T&F was completely dead. I think that IBC should re-evaluate its approach to gay people.

I would argue that God desires loving relationships and that committed same-sex couples should be allowed to enter those relationships without fear of condemnation from our church. Rather they should be encouraged as would any heterosexual couple desiring to marry. I wondered if anyone else felt the same at IBC or if I was just way off here. I'm fairly certain I'm one of a handful (if that) of IBC'ers who may feel this way. I wanted to see if there were others.

That's all. Simple, right?

Being the man of way more than a few words, I have now responded as follows:

Simple. Right. (Imagine God responding to Noah when he suggests that the rain be limited to only 40 days and nights and the sewers back up.)

You’ve opened the can of worms that will make allowing women to preach seem like some no-brainer of ancient history.

This is an issue that I know will eventually be dealt with in a meaningful way. But I doubt that it will receive the generic blessing that you have proposed in the near future, if ever. The problem is that there are a lot of layers to work through to arrive at any change in position, whether it moves toward yours or ultimately stays somewhat near to where it currently is. I will admit that I have a current position, and it looks closer to the old-line view than the one you propose. But like a lot of things, I can see the possibility of change. Here are the things that come to my mind when I think of this topic.

First, there are the clear words of scripture. Certain of them are very clear. “No homosexual or . . . . ” This is not simply a comment on society. Either God will allow them in or He will not. Should society’s opinion on the subject change how he responds? Others are less certain, such as the description of the conditions in Sodom and Gomorrah. I’ve heard that the issue was possibly the licentiousness rather than the homosexuality. I’ll grant some level of murkiness can exist there (although I did not just reread the passage and may be forgetting something significant there).

There are the general understandings, or principles, in scripture that are further understood as the principles of God and not just rules put on man. God created “man” as male and female with a charge to “replenish” the earth. Not a charge that can be accomplished by two men or two women. Of course, if we accept what Paul said about remaining single, then everyone is not necessarily commanded to procreate.

The thing about the “principles” is that they are not necessarily tied to the customs of man. In some cases, it seems evident that statements are tied to the culture. But when God made mankind, we are given an account of the specific lack that the one man, Adam, had and what God did to fix it. He made woman. Then it is recorded that the two were to be the pattern for the future — the man shall leave his mother. . . . This does not appear to be generic, but specific. And when you add to it the more pointed statements, I come to the conclusion that acting upon homosexual desires is a sin — it stands at least somewhat opposed to the command of God.

While mankind thinks it is constantly improving itself, it is at some level no better than it ever was. We have concluded that we really believe in “to each his own” as long as it does not infringe upon me. So murder is still wrong because it infringes upon someone else. But since sexuality infringes on no one, society is beginning to be OK with it. It did the same with “cohabitation” long ago.

So the question becomes, "is the definition of sin based upon the mores of society, or does God get the last word?" Do we presume that reading scripture within the context of the current culture is always right, or are there limits to it? Some still argue that scripture allows slavery, therefore it is OK. And while it is illegal in most of the civilized world, it is not clear how God would rule upon slavery. And while it used to be acceptable to shoot your spouse and his/her lover if caught in an adulterous liaison, that is no longer true in this country. You may have grounds for divorce, but that is about the end of it. Do we start to rewrite the Christian position on adultery because society becomes populated with an increasing number of otherwise kind, hard-working citizens and neighbors who are regularly engaged in adultery?

I’m not equating adultery and homosexuality. But I’m asking whether we are clear about what is sin. And are we clear what should then be the church’s position with respect to that sin. And what should be the position and actions of the church toward individuals who tend toward certain sins yet try to abstain. And how should the church act towards those who are not part of its community (Christian community). Something about love and neighbors comes to mind.

And without asserting that my position is or is not right, there is a serious problem from the viewpoint of the outsider since Christianity is being represented by those who would rant at certain sinners using words that they would not speak within their sanctuaries. Even if the current “fundamental” position on homosexuality ultimately holds as it is and has been for centuries, the way that Christians deal with the homosexual must change. The same can be said with respect to many other “sins.” We too often tend to express the love of God within our closed circle of Christian friends but not toward outsiders, especially those who engage in designated sins. This must change.

Now it is clear that I have a position. But I have presented some of the things that I believe must be considered if there is to be any kind of change in the church’s position toward homosexuality. I would hope that some others might take on the things that I see as standing in the way of the kind of thing that you have proposed. The change will never (and should never) come simply because we feel better being nice to those that we otherwise call sinners. (And not calling them sinners would be even nicer. But is that just an abdication of our belief in a God who saves us from degradation. If nothing is sin, then nothing is degradation.) And even if the change never comes in the way you suggest, we still need desperately to change our attitudes toward the sinner even if the attitude toward the sin remains intact.

I will close by pointing to a sermon given at IBC that, unfortunately, probably cannot be downloaded or even checked-out. It is from our days on Finley Road and for me was the opening salvo in the slow move toward loving all my neighbors even if I hold that their acts are sin in God’s eyes. It marked a shift in the rhetoric of IBC from support for the militancy of Operation Rescue to the care-based Mid Cities Crisis Pregnancy Center (as representative of a broader shift). It will take more than a shift in society’s mores to move me to accept open and willful practice of homosexuality as something “permitted” in front of the curtain, so to speak, within the church. But that does not mean that we should not be as open to invite all who would come and sample of the grace of God to do so. I do not presume to make God’s decisions. From this chair, it seems that God has actually spoken, and in a manner that is not as uncertain as many of the other things that we have seen fit to change our views on.

But I am not closed to reconsideration.

And almost immediately, I added the following:

In my next-to-last major paragraph of the previous post, I mentioned parenthetically that God saves us from our state of degradation. We may prefer not to consider ourselves or anyone else to be degraded, but it is a fact.

Either that, or our belief that God is who he says he is must be reconsidered. Either there was “very good” followed by the introduction of death and expulsion from paradise, or there was not. If we are made in God’s image, but have fallen from that, then it must be presumed that our natural view of things is not necessarily God’s. Even our best morality is suspect, especially when we keep defining parts of it away because society thinks that its thoughts are higher than those of older times. (Why marriage? It is just confining. I’m hungry, I’ll just take the food I need/want. Obey the king? Why? He wants to expel people who illegally entered the kingdom. Let’s be subversive to that rule.)

Do we believe that God is, and that He makes the rules. Or do we presume that our wonderful minds are the arbiter of what God thinks. Now clearly God did not tell us everything. But do we simply suggest that what God seems to have clearly said can be ignored because we think we know better now? Do we really think that the answer is that the consciousness of mankind has now been raised and God’s rules can be ignored. If so, then what God do we say we serve? Is it a God of our making? Did we make God in our image, and since our self image is changing, so should our God?

I do not say this to quash any review of the topic in question. But if we are going to consider it, we should be seeking to know the difference between God’s absolutes (a rejected word in a postmodern world) and man’s constant changing. The difference between accepting God’s ways and going our own way.

What are God’s rules? Do they really include something about homosexuality? If so, do you have a problem with God? I’m not making a derogatory remark in that statement. Sometimes we need to admit that we have a problem with God and deal with him about it. It’s either that or move away from God.

Of course, if we are just hanging onto the vestiges of a myth of man that keeps him focused and gives him hope, then it doesn’t really matter. Either God is, or he is not. But one last complication: How, in the midst of all of this, do we read the parable about the enemy who sowed weeds among the good seed in the context of this discussion? Does it suggest a less dogmatic approach even if we consider homosexuality to remain sin?

Not saying. Just thinking.

Two more days. No response. I will hear from the originator. We may even delve into our reasoning, certainties, uncertainties, fears, and hopes. We won’t conclude. And that includes no conclusion about each other. We are committed Christians and while we would admit to different opening perspectives (that we will defend, but with open minds) we know that our conclusions, whether agreed or disagreed, are not the basis for disunity or separation.

Do you have an opinion on this? If so, join the discussion on Table & Fire.

(Note: Table & Fire is now long closed.)