Homosexuality - A Christian Response

A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO HOMOSEXUALITY

(Preached October 1995)

In November last year, the pro-active homosexual pressure group known as Outrage "outed" ten Bishops at the General Synod Meeting

Earlier this year, they turned their attention on the present Bishop of London. He responded by calling a press conference in which he said: "I have from the beginning chosen to lead a single, celibate life. This is a positive way for me. I am happy and content with and within myself. I enjoy the company of both men and women."

The Bishop of Southwark rallied to his defence and, when asked whether he would be prepared to ordain someone having an openly homosexual relationship, replied: "That entirely depends on whether that relationship may be stable or not...........I simply don't interfere with that kind of thing".

This response enraged his fellow evangelicals and a conservative evangelical group called Reform immediately sought to have him removed as President of the Church Pastoral Aid Sociefy.

In a counter-attack to the attitude of Reform, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement are currently canvassing support from those seeking election to the General Synod in November.

Only a few weeks ago, the new Bishop elect of London indicated that he was not prepared to initiate a witch-hunt in that diocese which is said to have more homosexual clergy than any other diocese in England.

No wonder, the retired Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montifore – often irreverently known as Montifiasco – wrote in the Church Times that homosexuality is the one subject that will not go away.

And he is right, judging by the number of reports by the Church of England on this subject in the past twelve years alone.

In 1979 it published Homosexual Relations, commonly known as the Gloucester Report. Nine years later it addressed the subject again in the Lambeth Report, entitled, The Truth shall make us Free. In the following year, 1988, there was the unpublished Osborne Report. Finally in 1991, the House of Bishops issued a controversial statement called Issues in Human Sexuality.

However, the Church of England has not been alone in discussing this subject. In 1989 the World Council of Churches published a report called Living with One Another. A year later, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of America published Human Sexuality. The same year the Methodist Church appointed a Commission on Human Sexuality and the United Reform Church published a report simply called Homosexuality.

All these reports call for further study of both the teaching of scripture and the results of scientific and medical research in order to promote a deeper Christian understanding of the subject.

Why does the Christian Church find it so difficult to come to a common mind on this issue?

After all the Bishops' statement sums up its biblical survey by saying: "There is in scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, intersexual union as a setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings. Sexual activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual practice as especially dishonourable". Now that may seem pretty straightforward. But is it?

It is a principle of the Christian Church to interpret the Bible within the context of its time and in the light of further revelations of God in history and human experience.

For instance, in the light of modern scientific discovery, we no longer believe in a three storey universe, nor do we accept that all illness is the result of sin, as did the writers of the New Testament. However, further revelation does not deny that God is still in charge of the universe or that He can bring healing and wholeness to humankind, even though the issues may be far more complex than originally perceived by the New Testament writers.

Now when we turn to the causes of homosexuality, the experts are not agreed and it is this which presents problems for a Christian understanding of this subject.

At the risk of oversimplifying a difficult and complex situation, there appear to be two alternative views as to the causes of homosexuality.

Some favour a physical explanation in terms of genetics and biology. Such an explanation confirms that homosexuality is an alternative condition within the order of creation to that of heterosexuality. In other words it is part of God's created order and therefore a homosexual has no choice whether or not he or she is homosexual.

Others favour a psychological explanation in terms of environment and upbringing.

Such an explanation confirms that homosexuality is a distortion of the created order and therefore not of God's making but of mankind’s. In other words a person is free to choose whether or not to be a homosexual. Hence some Christians will attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation though in most instances it has proved strongly resistant to modification.

In short, is homosexuality given or chosen? The answer to that question will determine what is the most appropriate response for a Christian towards homosexuals. Hence, all the reports call for further study of scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.

Obviously some people may find this unsatisfactory and, like Clifford Longley, the Religious Affairs correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, would much prefer a simple 'right' or 'wrong' answer by the Church. However, life is not as simple as that and, as John Habgood, the former Archbishop of York, has pointed out, there is room for moral uncertainty in the Christian life, and that is the basis of the Bishops’ statement called Issues in Human Sexuality.

Yet in spite of this moral uncertainty the Bishops’ statement does seek to offer some guidance.

They underline two fundamental principles which should guide our pastoral response towards homosexuals.

Firstly, homosexual "orientation and its expression in sexual activity do not constitute a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual". After all, the primary natural purpose, both biological and theological, of the genital organs is for the procreation of children. Their secondary purpose is that of being a means of bonding together two people who, because they are of different gender, are not merely differentiated but also diverse in their emotional, mental and spiritual lives, and in their ways of experiencing and responding to reality. In both respects, homosexuals are “unnatural” insofar as they cannot use the sexual act either for the procreation of children or adequately and fully bonding. It therefore follows that homosexual relationships cannot fully provide an alternative form of relationship to that of heterosexuals.

Now this does not mean that the Christian Church should reject a homosexual person or treat him or her as inferior. True, sexuality is very important and an influential element in our human makeup, but it is only one aspect. Our sexuality may vary from the norm in many ways, of which homosexuality is but one, without affecting our equal worth and dignity as human beings. Our dignity as human beings rests on the fact that all of us alike are made in the image of God.

This leads to the bishops’ second principle, namely, that "homosexual people are in every way as valuable to and as valued by God as heterosexual people. God loves us all alike and has for each one of us a range of possibilities within his design for the universe". In short, every human being has a unique potential for Christlikeness.

For some Christian homosexuals that path towards Christlikeness will be through a life of abstinence.

Others are of the opinion that "they have more hope of growing in the love of God and their neighbour with the help of a loving and faithful homosexual partnership, in intention lifelong, where mutual self-giving includes the physical expression of their attachment".

While the Bishops do not commend this latter path towards Christlikeness, neither do they reject it for those who sincerely believe it is God's will for them.

Now, I realise that this may seem a bit strange for those of you who prefer to think only in terms of black and white with no room for greyness; strange for those of you who prefer to think in terms of right and wrong with no room for moral uncertainty.

However the Bishops’ refusal to completely reject this way of life is based upon the historic tension that has always existed in Christian ethical thinking between the God-given moral order and the freedom of the moral agent.

Let me try to spell that out. On the one hand, as Guardians of the Gospel, the Bishops have a responsibility to proclaim the Christian truth, as the Church perceives it, as a guide for Christian living. On the other hand, the Church has always recognised that its members are free to apply that interpretation as is appropriate to the particular situation. The Church has always shown respect towards the informed conscientious judgment of its members.

We are not puppets on the string of the Church's teaching but free human beings endeavouring to determine God's will in our own particular lives.

Perhaps I can give you an illustration of what I mean. The Roman Catholic Church in recent years has changed its attitude towards those who practise birth control which it believes is against the will of God. Whilst on the one hand it does not commend its practice, neither does it reject those who practice it, provided it is done out of an informed Christian conscience.

However, such a freedom cannot apply to clergy. The Bishops are quite adamant that clergy should not enter into active homosexual relationships, and it is this that has drawn considerable criticism since the Bishops would appear to be advocating a double standard, one for the clergy and one for the laity.

But such criticism is not valid for two reasons. Firstly clergy are expected to practice what they preach. They are expected to be living examples of the gospel which they proclaim. Therefore certain possibilities are not open to the clergy by comparison with the laity.

And secondly, the clergy need to be accessible and acceptable to the greatest number of people and therefore should be free from anything which would make it difficult for others to have confidence in them.

In short, in their public and representative role, loyalty to the teaching of the Church is a condition for the exercise of their ministry which they accept at ordination.

Sadly the story of the Church's attitude towards homosexuals has too often been one of prejudice, ignorance and oppression. We should never forget that the pastoral mission of the Church is to help and encourage all its members as they pursue their pilgrimage from the starting points given in their own personalities and circumstances, and as they grow by grace within their own particular potential.

So the report concludes: "It is, therefore, only right that there should be an open and welcoming place in the Christian community both for those homosexuals who follow the way of abstinence, giving themselves to friendship of many rather than to intimacy with one; and also for those who are conscientiously convinced that a faithful, sexually active relationship with one other person, aimed at helping both partners to grow in discipleship is the way of life God wills for them".

Above all, we need to remember, that the Church is not here to pass judgment but rather to proclaim the Gospel and to enable all people to become the unique persons God has created them to be, in response to that Gospel.