The Challenge of Same Sex Marriage
From a Pastor’s Perspective
The Challenge of Homosexuality
From a Pastor’s Perspective
Jim Hickman
While I was updating this essay Glee’s Santana and Brittany were scheduled to be married. Both girls were cheerleaders and choir members at the fictional Ohio high school where the series is set. I don’t know if the marriage actually took place. I used to watch the show for the music (honestly, that’s not quite the same as claiming to read Playboy for the articles) but as the show became more and more a soap opera about teenage angst I stopped watching. That the storyline should have reached the point of two female choir members marrying each other is hardly surprising. The earliest episodes, focusing, as they did, on the pregnant president of a “true-love-waits” type club, mocked the notion of teenagers controlling their sexual impulses. At the same time, those episodes foreshadowed the show’s recurring celebration of homosexuality.
I read of Santana and Brittany’s upcoming marriage while i was thinking of the thought-provoking verse that ends the first chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In that chapter, of course, is the key passage where Paul links homosexual behavior, among other sins, to humankind’s rebellion against God. The apostle concludes his vivid discussion of the depths of sin’s perversion of human nature by saying, “They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.” (1:32 NRSV) Dr. Charles Gore, former Bishop of Oxford, commented on this verse in a commentary written in 1923.
…the lowest stage of moral degradation lies, not merely in doing what is wrong, but in having ceased to disapprove of it. That is to say, the lowest moral stage carries with it a complete loss of ideal, or absence of the standard of right and wrong; and this lowest stage is anticipated before it is reached. It follows, therefore,…that the actual conscience of the individual, or of the society, at any particular moment affords no adequate standard of right and wrong. The moral conscience…requires enlightenment…. To disobey [the enlightened] conscience is to dull it, and finally to make it obdurate and insensitive. The absence of conscientious objection to a particular course of action may therefore be due either to our having neglected to enlighten our conscience or to having refused to obey it. (St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: A Practical Exposition, Volume 1, p. 85.)
Bishop Gore goes on to argue that individuals have the duty to enlighten their own consciences and to “keep the corporate conscience up to standard.” (p. 86) It’s tempting to wonder what the bishop would have thought had he been able to see nine decades into the future.
A large proportion of our culture seems to embrace and even celebrate same-sex marriage. Gore’s words should keep us from assuming consensus is grounds for accepting any behavior. Simply because politicians, professors, entertainers, novelists, and clergy should applaud same-sex marriage it does not mean same-sex marriage is good for our society. For politicians, professors, entertainers, novelists, and clergy may have dulled consciences. Therefore, we must determine to yield to the voice of Scripture.
What, then, does the Scripture say about sexuality?
—The Bible recognizes we are sexual beings; sex is a gift to enjoy and appreciate.
—The Bible always approves sex within the context of marriage.
—The Bible always disapproves sex outside the bonds of marriage.
—The Bible never approves homosexual behavior. Suffice it to say those materials condemn homosexual behavior whenever it is mentioned.
Having said this, I have not included a lengthier discussion of the Biblical materials in this posting since they are available on other sites.
At the same time, homosexual behavior is never condemned apart from the condemnation of other sins—lying, gossip, etc. Indeed, if the members of the Westboro Baptist Church were consistent, they would protest at the funerals of known gossips.
Furthermore, the Bible does not dwell on homosexual behavior as often as do some TV and radio evangelists. It is mentioned it fewer than a half-dozen passages in the New Testament. Certainly, when it is mentioned there is no doubt about it being condemned but there is no obsession with the behavior. Any review of the Biblical material on homosexuality that does not acknowledge these boundaries should be suspect.
Keep in mind I presented the first edition of this essay a few years ago. At that time, the issue of same-sex marriage was frequently in the news but I’m not sure how many of us took the threat seriously.
There were, of course, petitions being circulated urging support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. To many who opposed same-sex marriage that seemed to be excess; the likelihood same-sex marriage would become a national right seemed unlikely.
Yet, since then the effort to make same-sex marriage legal nationwide has become something of a juggernaut, rumbling along without fear of being stopped no matter how resolute the opponents. A major political party has made the legalization of same-sex marriage a plank in its platform; thus, it was hardly surprising that President Obama voiced his approval of such unions. A same-sex couple, complete with adopted daughter, is featured on one of TV’s most popular sitcoms Modern Family; other homosexual couples appearing on other programs are presented as “the new normal.” All of this has prompted me to revise and expand this material. Still, I would insist this essay is seminal, rather than comprehensive.
I have decided to include the opening remarks I made in the original essay because I believe they help set the tone I wished to convey.
I wish to avoid stereotypes when discussing homosexuals. Those familiar with the spectacle of a gay-pride parade may find it easy to embrace misconceptions about homosexuals.
True, there are homosexuals whose lifestyle displays the flamboyance of the Village People. In their case, as someone said, “The ‘love that dares not speak its name’ has become the love that won’t shut-up.” Others, often coworkers or neighbors, live and work quietly among us keeping their personal lives to themselves to the degree we are actually surprised when they finally trust us enough to share their secret with us.
Both the homosexual whose antics offend us and the homosexual whose hard work and dignity win our admiration, need to hear the gospel—not because they are homosexuals, but because they are sinners—like us.
The opportunity to rationally discuss the correctness of homosexual behavior is difficult. I know there may be some who would cry, “Homophobe” after reading what I’ve written. “Homophobia,” a term which first appeared in the 1950s, once described those who possessed an irrational fear of homosexuals, irrational to the degree those manifesting the condition would respond with violence or abuse toward any homosexual they might encounter.
Unfortunately, the term has been pirated to describe anyone who tries to have a rational discussion regarding the negative aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. It’s especially used of those who might try to interject the Bible’s perspective on the issue. Call a person “Homophobe” and you end the discussion.
I hope I will be treated more fairly.
********
The issue of homosexuality in our society is complex. Getting people to listen to the Bible’s perspective is often difficult.
Those thoroughly committed to a secular viewpoint will probably never be won over by a presentation of the Bible’s claims.
Anyone who may have read the first edition of this material will notice I’ve added some questions and expanded my answer to others.
Still, this section continues to be addressed primarily to Christians; at the same time, I further realize that some Christians will disagree with my observations, including some who might agree my explanation of the Scripture is fundamentally correct.
Some of those Christians have concluded the Bible is irrelevant to our contemporary problems and have sought, therefore, guidance in making ethical decisions from other sources.
So, some critics will ask “Isn’t your saying homosexuality is wrong merely your opinion based on out-dated Christian morality?”
In the first-century world, many of those who believed homosexuality was acceptable behavior also believed it was appropriate to own slaves, to make female slaves the unwilling concubines of their masters, to expose unwanted female babies to the elements, to allow gladiators to fight each other to the death as sport, to use children for sexual gratification, and to allow prisoners to be torn apart by wild beasts. Within just a few centuries most of these behaviors would disappear from the culture. Why? It was largely due to the advent of Christianity and its morality. That morality was based on the Scripture.
Christianity did not bring a utopia because Christians are not perfect. But Christianity did transform society for the better.
No modern critic of the church’s historic position on homosexuality would be in favor of the appalling behaviors I just mentioned. While we are grateful for that, it is legitimate to ask those who would abandon Christianity’s traditional view of homosexuality: On what standard do you base your view?
To claim it is based on the Bible seems to be wishful-thinking that ignores the consistent view of the Scriptures.
To claim it is based on an “ethic of love” seems to misunderstand the biblical understanding of love.
To claim it is based on a position wherein “everything is relative” seems to preclude the very notion of objective ethical standards.
To claim it is based on a notion that affirms “whatever is natural is right” opens a door that would allow any behavior by a person who claims “I was born this way.”
I’ve no doubt the great majority of those who see homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage legitimate behavior are upright, moral individuals. But I believe it is important they think through the ethical principle behind their position and how that ethical principle might be applied to the rest of life.
As I’ve just implied, some are troubled by what they see as the heartless response of the church to the homosexual community’s concerns and needs. They ask, “If Christians are to love others, why don’t they accept homosexuals?”
Certainly, those “Christians” who carry signs saying things like “God Hates Fags!” to events such as the funeral of soldiers killed in Iraq should repulse us. Nothing justifies that behavior.
At the same time, comments by prominent conservative Christian leaders such as the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have given the impression that homosexuals merit little of Christ’s love and kindness.
On the other hand, the question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian love. Despite all the volumes written to explain the concept of agape, William Barclay’s simple definition is still among the best. He says, “Agape is the spirit which says: ‘I will always seek nothing but [the] highest good [for another].”
Even before the advent of AIDS homosexuals had a life-expectancy which was considerably lower than the larger population; homosexuals are more frequently the victims of domestic violence than heterosexuals, homosexuals are living in defiance of God’s will, a defiance which, in time, will lead to eternal separation from God. How can love--which seeks nothing but the highest good for another--allow individuals to remain in such a self-destructive life-style?
Related to this, there are those who complain, Why do Christians support laws limiting the happiness of others?
This is not the place to discuss wether happiness should be the summum bonum, the “highest good.” But it may be appropriate to point out most laws limit someone’s happiness. Obviously, the pornographer is made unhappy by anti-obscenity laws. Then, too, the chain smoker is made unhappy by the law saying he can’t light up cigar in the restaurant. The lead-footed driver is unhappy because she can’t drive 60 through a school zone. Christians aren’t spoil-sports but we’re not going to embrace an anything goes philosophy because rules make some people unhappy.
Still others ask, “Why don’t Christians focus on the problem of divorce if they’re so concerned about marriage?”
Christians at both ends of the theological spectrum do recognize the damage done by divorce and are trying to find ways to strengthen marriages. That they aren’t always successful doesn’t mean they should quit or that they should focus only on one social problem.
It is important to remember that while divorce fractures the Biblical pattern for a marriage, same-sex marriages are rooted, from the very beginning, in a perversion of the Biblical pattern. Same sex marriage is an attempt to hijack the pattern of a legitimate relationship to try to bestow legitimacy to a fundamentally illegitimate relationship.
However, to a degree, simply arguing that the church has not given up its resistance to rampant divorce avoids a hard truth.
Those who say same-sex marriage will corrupt or weaken traditional marriage miss the obvious. The fact that such a large percentage of our culture stands ready to endorse same-sex marriage is evidence our view of traditional marriage has already been corrupted or weakened.
Stories of celebrities who move from one "true love" to another in a matter of months, if not weeks, are fodder for the supermarket tabloids. We lose track of how often a thirty/forty something star declares "This time it's real."
Not long ago I saw a headline about a world-famous couple: "After Six Children, Brad and Angie are ready for marriage." It's hard to believe Ingrid Bergman, one of the most famous stars of the 40s and 50s, saw her career end because she became pregnant out of wedlock. Today, photographers would capture her walking into the Oscars in a designer maternity gown, amid speculations about who the father might be.
Once multiple divorces were reserved for the most notorious Hollywood celebrities; now we all know at least one person who has had two or more divorces--perhaps a school teacher, the teller at your bank, or the baritone in your church choir.
Sadly, the divorce rate is high among Evangelical Christians, as well; but not as high as sometimes reported. The frequently quoted statistic that Evangelical Christians divorce as often as non-Evangelicals has been proven inaccurate or misleading. Not misleading enough, however, to sue for defamation of character.
Evangelical Christians who regularly attend church are only half as likely as the general population to have divorced. Divorce among self-described Evangelicals who do not attend church is, however, as frequent as that among the general population.
The point is heterosexual marriage, even among Christians, is not as healthy as it should be. Churches should strive to correct the problem. But in recognizing one serious problem it is usually not prudent to ignore another problem.
Carpenter ants in the floor joists and termites in the attic are both serious threats to a home. No homeowner would ignore one while dealing with the other.
As it happens, the solution to the challenge of divorce and same-sex marriage involves communicating the Biblical view of marriage as the commitment of one man and one woman for life. True, the Bible allows this commitment to be terminated in certain circumstances (divorce) but it never varies its definition of the participants ("one man and one woman").
Still, some will ask, “Shouldn’t we honor the homosexual’s desire to establish a permanent, committed relationship?”
Not if the argument just made is valid. At the same time, we must not trivialize the feelings same sex partners have for each other. We live in a lonely, isolating world. That we seek security and permanence in relationships is understandable.
Our task is to try to help men and women—whether single heterosexuals or single homosexuals—find some way to fulfill that longing that honors the Biblical ideal.
Some, both Christians and non-Christian, might ask, “Isn’t it the State’s province to determine who can get married, not the church’s right?”
In the West, from about the fourth century to about the seventeenth century, the church had considerable influence in determining who could and could not marry. In more recent centuries, the state has had a louder voice in the matter. In fact, most of us can recall hearing a minister say at the conclusion of a marriage ceremony, "By the power vested in me by the State of ...... I pronounce you husband and wife."
While many believe marriage should be defined by the church, many others believe marriage is defined by the State. The former believe they are protecting marriage, the latter believe they are preventing an incursion by the church into private matters. The former believe they are upholding a God-ordained pattern, the latter believe they are combating a violation of the separation of church and state.
There was a time when those in the pews were perfectly willing to allow the State to define who could get married. When I was much younger, many laws forbade members of different races to marry. Elaborate definitions determined who was eligible to marry. Terms like quadroon, octoroon, and quintroon were used to designate individuals on the social or racial spectrum. Such standings were important because they were used in deciding who could legally marry. In the United States, most of the western states had laws forbidding interracial marriage until the mid-twentieth century and most of the south had such laws until they were overruled by the Supreme Court in 1967; such laws in the northeast were revoked after the Civil War but the stigma continued. In 1904, a Cincinnati paper carried a dramatic story of a local mother who was heart-broken because her son was going to marry a quadroon girl. Mrs. Andrew Adams told The Cincinnati-Times Star, "I would rather see my son dead than see him married to a colored girl." (29 June 1904)
While the Old Testament clearly forbade Jews from entering into religiously-mixed marriages, it says nothing about racially-mixed marriages. Yet, many Christians, my childhood pastor included, were so infused with the white culture's racism they expanded the prohibitions against the former to include the latter. Consequently, they saw opposition to interracial marriage as a Christian obligation.
Some believe President Obama sees opposition to same-sex marriage to be analogous to the opposition to interracial marriage. If so, his view of the issue could well be clouded by a perception of conservative Christians as inherently racist...and homophobic.
An unfair equation? Certainly. But it may be one of those occasions when the sins of the fathers are visited on later generations. The unblinking acceptance of racism by so many "Bible-believing" Christians challenges us all make sure our positions on moral issues are Biblically sound. Otherwise, our entire ethical scheme becomes open to attack.
Of course, Christian Americans have as much responsibility to oppose policy they believe to be ultimately harmful as any other Americans. But in so doing they must be sure their arguments are neither overstated nor rooted in a misunderstanding of how American democracy works.
Some Christians ask, “If homosexuals are ‘born that way,’ how can we condemn them?”
Since my first draft of this study, I’ve come to the conclusion that at this point we just don’t know why some men and women enter the homosexual lifestyle. Some enter it willingly, some only after years of struggle and attempts to live as heterosexuals. There are no simple answers to the etiology of an individual’s sexual orientation.
Even the well-known Evangelical spokesman Albert Mohler has acknowledged this, saying, “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
I do know the reasons given in my college psychology class decades ago are not answers anyone will accept today.
Homosexuals, themselves, do not agree on the answer.
Some homosexuals resist the notion that biology negates any choice. Commenting on LeVay’s research, Darrel Yates Rist, cofounder of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, suggests the claims, however questionable they might be, to have found some biological cause for homosexual behavior may prompt some people to feel more kindly toward homosexuals. Yet, he adds, “It seems to me cowardly to abnegate our individual responsibility for the construction of sexual desires. Rather, refusing the expedient lie and insisting instead on the right to fulfill ourselves affectionately--in whatever direction our needs compel us, however contrary to the social norm they may be--is both honest and courageous, and act of utter freedom.”
Rist, of course, isn’t denying any biological causation but he is refusing to jettison any role for personal choice by the homosexual or lesbian.
The quest for a genetic basis for behavior seems to know no boundaries. Some researchers claim to have found a “religious gene,” which implies those individuals--of all cultures--who take religion seriously were born that way. Does this mean your involvement in your church is out of your hands, that your choices have nothing to do with it?
What should we say to those who claim to have known they were “different” from an early age?
That’s a difficult question to answer. Such persons may need intensive counseling to discover the origin of such promptings. At the same time, it may be that we are so constructed that we are more susceptible to some temptations than others.
All of this is why it is so important to maintain the distinction between the person and the person’s behavior. While we cannot and should not approve of behavior the Bible condemns, we should remember that those engaging in this condemned behavior are loved by Christ and should, therefore, be loved by those who bear his name.
This leads to one further question: How can the local church respond to the challenge of being in a society where homosexual behavior is so widely accepted?
An old joke about dogs and cats goes something like this: Dogs know when we’re feeling sad. Cats also know when we’re feeling sad; they don’t care, but they know.
I think some people in our churches are like cats when we mention homosexuality. They know what the Bible teaches; they don’t care, but they know.
A recent university graduate who had grown up in church dismissed the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual behavior because it was cultural. I was amazed when she told how one of her professors had explained that Paul and others condemned homosexuality because the entire first century world rejected homosexuality. Early Christians were simply echoing their culture’s stance.
That is simply not the case. The Judeo-Christian rejection of homosexual behavior was exceptional. Both Greeks and Romans accepted homosexuality, with few dissenters. Philosophers wrote essays praising homosexual love and some household pottery bore graphic displays of homosexual behavior. Are we approaching that situation again? Will the church be willing to hold fast to that kind of exceptionality?
I wonder if we have ever lived at a time when the church has been more sensitive to the opinion of the culture, more willing to seek the culture’s approval.
Yet, many of the great moral advances have been brought about because Christians have been willing to challenge the culture, to flout the culture’s approval. Had Wilberforce been sensitive to the culture’s approval he would have remained silent about the horrors of slavery. Had Amy Carmichael aligned herself to the culture’s mores she would have abandoned thousands of young girls to be temple prostitutes in south India.
Any church taking a stand against the recognition of homosexual behavior as morally neutral will be inviting criticism, from those without and probably by some within. In saying that, however, I don’t want to be too pessimistic. In 2008, Rodney Stark reported that 91% of Evangelicals believe same-sex sexuality is wrong; that’s hardly a surprise but he also reported that 56% of non-Evangelicals Americans agree with them. More recently, the figures suggest somewhere between a third and a half of Americans hold traditional views of marriage only being between a man and a woman.
While those statistics may reflect a decline in support for traditional marriage, they also confirm that we Christians who support such marriages are not alone in our perspective.
Taking the hard line remains tough because so many Americans (and I’m including many Christian Americans) do not want to invite charges of bigotry and intolerance.
Surely it is possible to condemn homosexual behavior without joining the ranks of Westboro Baptist Church. But how?
Several years ago a young man and young woman came forward during the invitation time and requested church membership. Both “Bill” and “Rose” were bright and gifted people; they would be an asset to any church they joined. Bill once gave my preaching one of the highest compliments anyone has ever given me.
Usually such an event is a time for celebration, especially in a small church. For me, it was an extremely stressful moment. Rather than immediately welcome them to our fellowship, I stumbled through something like, “We’re pleased Bill and Rose have expressed an interest in becoming members and I’m going to meet with them soon to talk about it.” I’m sure my response left some people puzzled; others knew exactly why I hadn’t welcomed them as members. Bill and Rose, though living together, weren’t married.
I met with them later in the week and explained that we couldn’t accept them as members because we believed simply living together was wrong. It was contrary to the Bible’s teaching about marriage. Bill explained they were saving up for a really big wedding someday. I said I understood but that didn’t resolve the problem. I suggested I might marry them in my office and, later, when they could afford it they could have the big wedding they wanted. They declined.
As the meeting ended, I said I hoped they felt they could continue to attend. They said they would and then Bill added, “You know, my dad told me that if you were the kind of pastor you should be, you’d tell us exactly what you told us.”
Ironically, had I said nothing about their situation they would have been disappointed in me and in the church.
Any church that is the kind of church it should be won’t back away from what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.
In taking that stand, it is essential a church be ready to explain the Biblical teaching on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. To do so a church must sort through all kinds of misinformation and disinformation to distill an accurate summation of what the Bible says.
Of course, at the same time, the church must have a clear view of salvation, grace, spiritual formation, discipline, and other matters concerning our experience as Christians.
More specifically, there are other things the church must keep in mind.
Certainly we must begin by watching our language. We must not refer to homosexuals in language used to harass some soul in the locker room or on the school bus. We should be deterred from such terms by simply remembering the homosexual is one for whom Christ died.
Then, too, I try to avoid certain inflammatory terminology. For example, I never speak of “the homosexual agenda.” That various pro-homosexual groups might share similar goals is understandable. To a degree, that might be an agenda. However, having an agenda is morally neutral; we might look at evangelism and missions as part of the Baptist agenda. That like-minded people might share an agenda is neither surprising nor sinister.
Evaluate how you say what you say in light of your overarching desire to be heard.
Having said this, it may be time we apologize for some of the language Christians have used to describe homosexuals and the methods used to forestall the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.
I first became aware of the battle against homosexuality through a popular singer’s efforts to bar homosexual teachers from the public schools. In the ensuing decades, I have met homosexual teachers and I am convinced they are no more prone to abuse their positions than heterosexual teachers.
During those same decades I’ve heard Christian leaders speak out against homosexuals having the right to good housing, health insurance, and job security.
I confess churches have not always been careful to insist that homosexuals—though embracing a lifestyle the Bible condemns—should be treated with humanity.
I long ago concluded that a business’ decision to provide insurance benefits to same-sex couples was a business decision, made, perhaps, to assure good workers stay with the company rather than go to a rival offering such benefits. But I'm also aware it is always possible the boards of these corporations were convinced offering benefits to same-sex couples and/or unmarried couples was the right and compassionate thing to do. As such, these decisions are not necessarily “endorsements” of the homosexual life style.
Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the homosexual is made in the image of God and, as I mentioned earlier, is one for whom Christ died.
We should stand faithfully by the Biblical understanding of homosexuality. At the risk of repeating what I said a few paragraphs above, this means we neither detract from nor add to the Biblical position. Homosexual behavior is sinful but not more sinful than other behaviors condemned in the Bible. At the same time, the homosexual is not beyond God’s redemption.
Jonathan Merritt has argued that younger Christians are more accepting of homosexuals than their parents and grandparents. These young Christians have no patience with the rhetoric of Christians like the late Jerry Falwell who called homosexuals “brute beasts.”
They have friends and relatives who are homosexual and refuse to treat them in an unloving, harsh way.
From my own experience, I believe Merritt’s observations about younger Christians are correct. The younger Christians I know may differ on political and economic issues but they are in agreement that homosexuals deserve more respect and consideration than they perceive the church giving them.
Of course, I have also met a surprising number of older Christians who are uncomfortable with the harsh, abusive languages sometimes directed at homosexuals. Courtesy is by no means the province of only one generation.
While the experiences of these older Christians may not be the same as their younger brothers and sisters, they, too, have had their own encounters with homosexuals. They have taught beside them in the schools, worked beside them in the office, and even discussed lawn-care with them in the neighborhood. They have come to see them as hard-working, respectable people who do not fit the stereotypes sometimes used to describe homosexuals. In short, these older Christians have come to see their homosexual colleagues and neighbors as “real” people, people who are objects of God’s love.
We should mingle patience, hope, and realism. There’s no doubt the power of God can liberate those caught in the grip of homosexual behavior. But the road to that liberation may be long and include detours and occasional u-turns.
In the pursuit of realism, we should understand what we are asking of the homosexual. We are asking them to leave a community that has been welcoming and supportive, perhaps the first welcoming and supportive community he or she has ever known. At the same time, we are urging them to become part of a community they may have learned through bitter experience to distrust.
Certainly we must avoid any simplistic notion that once a homosexual is converted, he or she becomes a heterosexual.
Only recently, since this essay was last posted, the head of the best-known organization claiming to be able reorient homosexuals issued an apology for the organization’s insensitivity and announced it would be ending its work.
Again, quite recently, some states have considered laws making reorientation therapy illegal. Counselors engaging in such therapy would lose their licenses and be subject to fines and, perhaps, imprisonment. Just how these laws would apply to pastors and other church leaders is not entirely clear. Such laws clearly imply those who say homosexuals can change should be considered charlatans.
I would by no means deny there are men and women who once were part of the homosexual community but, following conversion to Christ, found happiness and satisfaction in heterosexual marriage. But I am unprepared to maintain this is the pattern all homosexuals will follow should they trust Christ. To do so would be naïve.
We should prepare to help the homosexual face the complex challenges that may result from his or her becoming a believer. Because we live in a culture that has extended unprecedented freedom to homosexuals they have been able to establish relationships involving emotional, legal, and economic ties.
If one member of a same-sex marriage becomes a believer, the church must realize he or she must divorce to break the bonds established before conversion.
Even more complex, if the same-sex couple has adopted children, that parent who has been converted and is leaving the marriage must help the child understand what has happened and, to the degree the child is able, to understand why it has happened. Given the unpredictability of today’s courts, any parent leaving such a same sex marriage for religious reasons may face a situation where the unbelieving ex-spouse is given primary custody of the child or children.
When heterosexual marriages end there is often rancor between the partners manifested as the parents deal with their children. If a same-sex marriage should end, especially if it ends due to the conversion of one of the partners, we should not be surprised if there were extreme bitterness in the heart of the “abandoned” partner. That bitterness might lead to efforts to alienate the children from the believing parent.
Just as challenging, we must stand ready to help this brother or sister in Christ accept the Bible's call to chastity and celibacy.
Of course, we must also recognize there may be occasions when we must apply loving church discipline toward an errant member.
Here in Ohio there is a large Amish community. The Amish are famous for their dress, use of horse and buggies, and their tidy farms; they are also known for blending family, church, and community in a manner almost unprecedented in the “English” world.
Integral to maintaining their identity and order has been the “ban” and the related practice of “shunning.” That individual who has repeatedly behaved in a scandalous manner is disciplined by being banned from communion with the church and also shunned by the community. Although, the degree of shunning varies, it can mean the one so disciplined is ostracized by the entire community, including his or her family. The shock of this experience is so profound the offender often repents and agrees to live by the community values.
We have almost nothing comparable in our Evangelical churches. True, some Baptist churches still “church” errant individuals—meaning they are disciplined by their church; but that church has no power over how the community as a whole treats an offender.
In fact, in our pluralistic society, no one is obliged to remain part of any church if they find that congregation’s standards too oppressive.
A teacher I had in high school told the class she had left her Baptist church for a church of another denomination because she enjoyed dancing and the former group forbade its members to dance. That is the first time I caught a glimpse of what the American system of voluntaryism means for an individual Christian.
How, then, does this apply to the practice of church discipline in responding to homosexual behavior by a church member?
We have to recall that church discipline is enacted primarily for the good of the errant member; yet, almost of equal importance, church discipline is imposed on intolerable behavior because taking that stance makes a statement about the church.
So, the church may have to impose discipline even when it has little expectation of success (the repentance and restoration of the offender). Given the power of the homosexual community, the homosexual facing such discipline is likely to simply seek solace there rather than within his or church. And, of course, today’s homosexuals will have no problem finding a church willing to endorse and even celebrate their lifestyle.
This is another reason why it is so important to assert the authority of the Bible over our lives, while establishing a basis of trust with the person being disciplined.
What will this discipline look like? Our Baptist churches have so many members who simply never come, that barring an individual would be ineffective as well as counter-productive.
Certainly that person needing some form of discipline shouldn’t be allowed to teach or hold a position of authority in the church. In truth, I think something as public as singing in the choir shouldn’t be an option, even though many choirs invite non-members to join. Each church must define the particulars of its disciplinary actions.
Finally, any discipline must be endorsed by the entire church or at least the majority of the church members. The pastor cannot act alone, nor can a deacon.
Above all, we must hold to the hope that the Spirit can convict, correct, and change an errant individual far better than we can.
Our churches need to find some way to minister to the extended family of that person who has announced their homosexuality.
I believe the parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters of homosexuals love them. They want the best for them. If they understand the Biblical view of homosexual behavior, they are heartbroken over their children’s lifestyle.
While some family members may reject any member who admits to being a homosexual, most will struggle with finding a position between acceptance and approval, rejection and celebration. Churches need to be prepared to help and guide their members facing such challenges.
What does the future hold?
Since I first posted this essay the US Supreme Court struck down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act and left in place a lower Court’s ruling that California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional. Since then laws banning same-sex marriage in Texas and Alabama have been declared unconstitutional, it is difficult imagining a state crafting a legal of same-sex marriages that will stand up to the scrutiny of the Court.
What does this mean for the future of the issue? When I last addressed this issue just over a third of the US population lived in states where same-sex marriage is allowed. Presently (February 2015), same-sex marriage is illegal in fewer than fifteen states.
We might expect churches, related institutions, and even ministers facing pressure to relent on the matter. Linker, in the article previously cited, sympathizes with the traditionalists who “worry…that the widespread recognition of same-sex marriage will be followed by a public campaign to stamp out their dissent from the emerging pro-gay consensus.”
These worried traditionalists fear clergy and churches might be forced to solemnize same-sex marriages, that preaching against homosexuality might be prosecuted as hate-speech, and that our public schools will present the church’s traditional opposition to homosexual behavior in the same light as slavery.
Such worries might be unfounded since Americans have a long history as staunch defenders of personal freedom. Yet, it seems undeniable that a new breed of American is on the scene, an American who is disconnected from the traditions of dissent and disagreement, a breed that treasures conformity.
While I’m not ready to envision an America where the churches are silenced by thought-police, I don’t want to be naïve regarding the future.
Canada has as rich an Evangelical tradition as the United States, yet Canadian Christians are limited in their freedom to speak out on issues such as homosexual behavior. Canadian radio stations must censor or refuse to broadcast some American religious programming. To air certain episodes of Focus on the Family, for example, would be violating the law.
Since my right to perform marriage ceremonies comes from the state, I know the day may come when the state rules that my retaining that right will depend upon my willingness to marry any persons who come before me.
Churches might have to decide if they will hold on to their beliefs regarding marriage even if that means surrendering all or part of their tax-exempt status.
Of course, such dire predictions may well be unfounded.
Yet, within a culture where same sex marriage is part of the norm, we will have to stand ready to explain our position to our children and outsiders who might enter our churches.
A word to worried, wounded families.
“I’m gay.” Maybe you heard those word from a son, daughter, niece, nephew, or grandchild in several ways. Perhaps you greeted them with an attitude that says, in essence, “So what; it’s no big deal.” Or maybe you greeted those words with sorrow, dread, and even guilt.
Sorrow because you know this young person has embraced a lifestyle clearly condemned in the Scripture, clearly less than what God wants for us. You also know the Scripture includes grave warnings for those who have embraced such a lifestyle. Only the thought that God is merciful and the knowledge that none of us would have any hope beyond death if heaven is to be populated only with those who have achieved moral and spiritual perfection through their own efforts keeps your sorrow from becoming despair.
To a lesser degree, you may feel sorrow for yourself because you know your child will never give you grandchildren—unless, of course, those grandchildren are adopted or born though some medical procedure you would rather not think about.
Dread because you know your child has entered a lifestyle fraught with potential pain. Although the world has changed since computer pioneer and codebreaker Alan Turing was tried for “indecency” when he admitted his homosexuality, you know your loved one may still face ostracism and danger. You know there are still those who would gladly physically harm any gay or lesbian who crossed their path. You also know clever employers can always find ways to deny promotions despite stringent anti-discrimination laws.
At the same time, you may feel dread because you know homosexual relationships are known to be fragile and often temporary. While there are clearly many longterm relationships among homosexuals, there also appears to evidence from studies made in several countries that seems to suggest same-sex relationships are short-lived; according to some surveys fewer than 20% of same-sex relationships last longer than eight years. Moreover, studies have consistently shown that domestic violence rates are higher for same-sex relationships. Admittedly, there are studies appearing to counter these statistics so your sense of dread may be unfounded but this calls for critical thinking not mere denial.
Finally, you may feel guilty. Such guilt feelings are fruitless. Since the etiology of homosexuality is uncertain, blaming yourself for your child’s sexual orientation seems ill-advised.
If you are a parent or family member who is dealing with a child who has “come out,” let me offer some counsel.
First, find a support system. If you are part of a church, you may already have access to such a system. You need those who will pray with you and for you; who will just listen when you need to talk. You need someone who will not blame. You need someone who will not try to fix the problem. Most Christian—including most pastors—do not have the needed training to try to deal with such a complex issue.
Sadly, you must be wise as you put together your support system. Not every church member is prepared to listen without judging. And certainly not every church member understands the meaning of confidentiality.
Second, remember the difference between acceptance and approval. You may accept your child’s homosexuality without celebrating it. This will allow you to be with your child without arguing, to be part of your child’s life without either denial or change. Civilly accepting your child’s homosexuality will allow you to continue to be a positive influence.
**********
While still an infant, our son David was subject to very severe fevers. It was not uncommon for his temperature to reach 104 and, occasionally, it exceeded 105.
As you know, such temperatures can lead to brain damage or even death. When these fevers came, we had to act quickly. Tylenol alone was not enough to bring his temperature down so our pediatrician advised we bathe him in ice water and place ice-filled compresses under his arms and at other points where major arteries were near the surface of the skin.
This treatment was so radical that on one occasion Pat and I had to instruct emergency room nurses on the proper procedure.
Of course, it wasn’t easy putting David through these baths. He didn’t understand what was happening and we were constantly worried that we might inadvertently send him into shock. Just imagine a situation in which you’re relieved your child’s temperature has reached 101.
In the midst of taking these severe measures, it was easy to forget something very fundamental: The fever was only a symptom. Something else, usually an infection, had triggered the runaway temperature. We couldn’t be content with simply bringing his temperature down, the underlying problem had to be treated or we would have been wasting our efforts.
As I write, there are still those who hold onto the hope we can have a constitutional amendment to protect “traditional” marriage. At the risk of being branded a pessimist with no faith, that hope has almost certainly been dealt a deathblow. Yet, even if there were such an amendment, it would only be treating a symptom of a deeper problem.
Homosexuality--like racism, murder, adultery, lying, and gossip--reflects the presence of sin in our lives. Sin is the universal human malady; rooted in estrangement from God, and manifested in the tendency to do those things we ought not to do and to leave undone those things we ought to do. Those who take the biblical doctrine of sin seriously have long known each of us is born bent; each of us is prone to behavior contrary to God’s will and, ultimately, self-destructive.
As was true of David’s fever, same-sex marriage, though a symptom of a deeper problem, can do serious damage on its own; and leave its own scars and wounds on our society.
Even in the unlikely event of supporters of traditional marriage being successful in their fight for an amendment to protect one man/one woman marriage, the spiritual needs of the homosexual would persist. Moreover, if every homosexual were forced to undergo some manner of sexual-identity-reversal therapy—a therapy that always worked (despite it being applied to an unwilling subject)—those individuals would be left with their greatest problem. The problem is not that homosexuals need to become heterosexual; homosexuals need Christ.
Fortunately, although the Bible clearly and unmistakably condemns homosexual behavior, it also clearly and unmistakably offers redemption and regeneration to all who will repent and open themselves to the transforming power of the Spirit. All, including me, including you, including the homosexual.
