Homosexuality
and the Virtue of Respect
Romans
1:24-27 and Acts 10:27-47
I know that I am not going to convince anyone to change their mind today. If you came here this morning opposed to the practice of homosexuality, you will leave here the same. If you came here this morning supportive of the practice of homosexuality, you will leave here the same. Let us be clear: it is neither my desire nor my intent nor my goal that anyone will change their mind today. At least, not as far as where they stand on the issue of homosexuality.
That said, it is my desire, intent and goal for you to change your mind regarding how you perceive those who disagree with you. Nowhere is the Church more in danger of losing its identity as the one Body of Christ than over the issue of homosexuality. Individuals will leave their church if they disagree with their pastor on this issue. Churches will leave their denomination if they disagree on this issue. Wars have not yet been fought, but jobs have been lost, friendships broken and people beaten, even murdered, because of this issue. Neither abortion, nor immigration nor even the War in Iraq have a similar power to create discomfort and dis-ease between brothers and sisters in Christ. Why is that?
We live according to our values. If we betray our values we betray our integrity. If we betray our integrity we lose our identity. If we lose our identity we are no one; we are nothing. Therefore, we must live according to our values. Nowhere is this statement more passionately held than regarding the issue of homosexuality.
For Christians on “the right,” their opposition to homosexuality is rooted in their love and understanding of Scripture. For these Christians, the Bible is God’s Word, the unique witness to Jesus Christ, the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. And it is absolutely clear to these folks that Scripture is against homosexual behavior; God’s Word is univocal (with one voice) and unequivocal (without compromise.) To accept homosexual practice, for these Christians, would be to betray the sanctity of the Word and to fail their God. If you are such a Christian, you must oppose homosexuality; it is your sacred duty. One does not say no to the Word of God.
For Christians on “the left,” their support for homosexuality is rooted in their great desire for justice. Often these Christians will know someone who is gay, perhaps a friend or family member, and will know how their loved one has been judged, oppressed or even abused. They will know that their loved one, a decent, caring human being who does not deserve such treatment, will, at times, have to fight for the common dignity which the rest of us are routinely granted as a matter of course. And in the same way that the fight to free slaves or to give women the vote or to enact civil rights laws were matters of justice, so this fight is a matter of justice. If you are such a Christian, you must support homosexuality; it is your sacred duty. One does not say no to the call of justice.
We have here a dilemma. Christians on both the right and the left are making principled stands, heeding holy callings to uphold truth or justice. To ask someone to deny either of these values is unfair and irresponsible. Yet, I wonder, might there be a different way forward into unity? Might there be a way to uphold both truth, justice and the Christian Way?
*****
The way forward into unity is found through embracing the virtue of respect. This can be said of almost any contentious issue but is imperative with this issue. And the foundation of respect is a sincere, honest listening to one another.
For Christians who support homosexuality, it is important to hear and be honest with the fact that Scripture is univocal and unequivocal in its opposition to homosexuality. Every instance of homosexual practice is condemned by law and custom. Ham’s rape of Noah in Genesis 9:20-27 condemns homosexual practice. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:4-11 condemns homosexual practice. The Benjaminites’ attempted rape of the Levite in Judges 19:22-25 condemns homosexual practice. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 call homosexual practice, toeba, an abomination, along with child sacrifice, incest, adultery and eight other universally rejected behaviors. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 condemns homosexual practices related to the celebration of worship. Paul famously condemns homosexual practice as “contrary to nature” (Romans 1:24-27). Indeed, Paul’s argument in Romans 1 echoes the Genesis creation accounts in establishing “gender complementarity” as the basis of anthropology. That is, men and women were created for one another; we “fit” biologically and, according to Scripture, we “fit” spiritually. Scripture is univocal and unequivocal in its opposition to homosexuality.
Attempts to minimize the Bible’s strong, univocal and unequivocal message generally prove lacking. The argument that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality rather than homosexuality is specious and misleading. Yes, the Sodomites were inhospitable. Yes, inhospitality is a grievous sin in Middle Eastern cultures, but a large part of their inhospitality is that they wanted to penetrate their male visitors sexually! The argument that Leviticus can’t be trusted on this point because it also condemns such things as eating lobster, bacon and a variety of other things is equally specious. Clearly there is a difference between the ceremonial law and the moral law, and the New Testament writers universally rejected the need for the ceremonial law while highlighting the need to maintain the moral law. One other specious attempt to discredit Scripture’s univocal and unequivocal argument against homosexual practice is to note that Jesus was silent on the subject. Yes, this is true. But remember that Jesus was a Jew and it was the universal opinion of ancient Jews that homosexual practice was an abomination; nowhere in ancient Jewish literature can acceptance of homosexual practice be found. Why on earth, or for heaven’s sake, would Jesus need to talk about homosexuality at all. In fact, Jesus’ silence on the subject demonstrates his acceptance of the traditional moral evaluations of his day. Given Jesus’ liberality in defying and denouncing traditions with which he disagreed, his silence and inaction regarding homosexual practice must be viewed as a tacit rejection.
For Christians who oppose homosexuality, it is important to hear and be honest with the fact that Scripture may not be as clear as it appears to read. Let me give you, briefly, four ways that Jesus loving, Bible believing Christians may come to an acceptance of homosexual practice.
First, it is necessary to ask why ancient Jews, and their Scriptures, were against homosexual practice. The Jewish philosopher Philo criticized all male behavior that “destroys the procreative sperm” as something that is “contrary to nature.” What this suggests is that ancient Jewish opposition to homosexual practice may have been based on the premise that all sexual relations must be for the purpose of procreation and all other sexual relations are forbidden. If you are Roman Catholic, you may agree with this theology. If you are Protestant, you probably find this theology lacking.
Second, there are plenty of biblical admonitions that we commonly reject today because they are from a different culture. When culture changes, societal ethics often change. One can argue whether or not they should change but that they do change is beyond dispute. For instance, the Bible is against usury, the charging of too much interest, and even goes so far in Deuteronomy 23:19 to say, “Do not charge [a fellow countrymen] interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.” Now, how many of you here today are bankers, mortgage lenders or in any way shape or form participate in the unbiblical practice known as the credit industry? How many of you hypocrites out there today allegedly love God but support this unholy abomination by carrying a credit card? Come on: fess up! When culture changes, societal ethics often change, and this may be one of those times.
Third, when one looks closely at Paul’s argument in Romans 1 he rejects homosexual practice because such practice is, again, “contrary to nature.” But what if some people’s “nature” is not heterosexual but homosexual? What if Paul lacked our modern distinction between homosexual practice and homosexual orientation? Those who are homosexual in orientation are not acting contrary to their nature in seeking same sex partnerships. Now the critical question is whether or not such an argument is correct, whether this argument conforms to Paul’s intent and meaning, but that it is a valid argument to put forth is without question.
Fourth, in Acts 10 we read the story of Peter’s visit to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. Fifteen centuries of Jewish tradition and over 100 verses of Scripture told Peter that Cornelius was unclean because he was an uncircumcised Gentile; he could not be a part of God’s people. Yet led by God’s Holy Spirit Peter spoke these words to Cornelius: “God has shown me that I should not call any person impure or unclean…I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts people from every nation who fear him and do what is right…everyone who believes in Jesus receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:28, 34-35, 43). Exchange 15 centuries of Jewish tradition for 20 centuries of Christian tradition; exchange over 100 verses of Scripture for but a handful; exchange “Gentile” for “homosexual” and maybe, like Peter, we should concern ourselves most with where the Spirit is leading God’s people.
*****
Ted was one of my closest friends in Christ. When I was fresh out of seminary, an associate pastor in San Antonio, I was invited to lead a worship service at Mission Road Developmental Center (MRDC), which is a residential community for persons with mental retardation. My “payment” for leading worship was that Bob and Ted, the executive director and assistant director of MRDC, would take me to lunch following the service. Normally this kind of gig is one in which you get called to volunteer three or four times a year because the organization, in this case MRDC, doesn’t want to burn out its list of volunteers. After about six months, I was MRDC’s regular chaplain. And the reason was Ted.
Bob, the executive director, wasn’t always able to make it to our lunches, but Ted was always there. I have never met a more spiritual, Christ-centered man. I have never had a closer friendship of spiritual encouragement and support than I had with Ted. Even when Bob joined us for lunch, Bob never stayed the entire time because Ted and I shared for such long periods our views of theology, spirituality and life in Christ. I once commented to my wife that I hoped Duncan, my boss, didn’t begrudge the time I took when I went to MRDC to lead worship. Laura said that if Duncan ever said anything she would talk to him personally to make sure it was ok. She said, “You always come home so fired up after being at Mission Road. It’s important for your own spiritual health that you keep going.”
About three years into my ministry in San Antonio, Ted left MRDC to attend theological seminary in Chicago. Ted was married with a ten year old daughter, and the entire family moved north. During seminary, Ted realized he was gay. Ted and his wife divorced, with his wife and daughter moving back to Texas. Ted eventually became an Episcopal priest. He lives with his long-term partner in Michigan, in a committed and monogamous relationship, where he serves as a priest in a non-parish position. Ted sees his daughter, who is now an adult, often, and I am told that he remains close to his ex-wife. I have never met a more spiritual, Christ-centered man. I have never had a closer friendship of spiritual encouragement and support than I had with Ted. I have never felt more conflicted giving a sermon. My conflict comes because I remain unconvinced that Scripture allows homosexual practice as the will of God, yet I know the Spirit has touched Ted with the love of Jesus. I want to honor my friend and our friendship, but how can I do either if I do not honor his lifestyle? What am I to do? What are we to do?
*****
The way forward into unity is found through embracing the virtue of respect. I may disagree with you and you with me, but we can respect the sincerity and the potential of each other’s views. I may disagree with you and you with me, but we can respect the sanctity with which we each try to live our lives, whether straight or gay. I may disagree with you and you with me, but we can each give to the other the grace that acknowledges that this issue is not abstract but intimate and personal, and, therefore, we must discuss everything in ways that protect the dignity of our common humanity.
My proposal for the radically moderate Christian is a series of small steps. As a Church, we aren’t ready for big steps, and we may never be ready for big steps. For now, let me respectfully suggest that we agree on the following seven things:
· Number 1: Jesus forgives, and so should we. The most common sin Jesus forgave was sexual sin. From the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the “sinful woman” who anointed his feet with her hair (Luke 7), Jesus was most forgiving towards those people who struggled with the powerful urges of their sexuality, and so should we be most forgiving here.
· Number 2: Let us look first within. Paul used homosexuality as an illustration in Romans 1 not because it is the most significant sin that flowed from human idolatry but because, in Paul’s opinion, it is the most obvious sin, obvious in the sense that one can visually and intuitively discern the lack of gender complementarity. That said we must recognize also that Paul listed several other sins illustrative of our tendency toward idolatry, including gossip, deceit, arrogance and boastfulness. Remember that in the early chapters of Romans Paul was building the case that we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23). Can we not say Amen to that!
· Number 3: The heterosexual community must repent of its hypocrisy. If Christians are concerned about sexual ethics, outrage needs to be expressed at the behavior of heterosexuals not homosexuals. Ask any pastor you know, and he or she will tell you the majority of couples who get married today are sexually active before the wedding. Even more, we must repent of our homophobia inspired hypocrisy. During the Super Bowl, Snickers ran an ad in which two burly, male mechanics were fixing a car. One of them had a Snickers in his mouth and the other took a bite from the other end. They quickly met in the middle and their lips touched. Immediately they both acted grossed out and started doing “manly things.” The commercial was intended to be funny but was merely offensive. Now, here is an example of hypocrisy and homophobia combined: guys, if the ad had been two buxom and beautiful blondes, would we have minded? I doubt it. The fact that most of us did mind the original commercial is a symptom of homophobia; we can’t have it both ways.
· Number 4: All hate speech is wrong. Recently when the former NBA star Tim Hardaway said, “I hate gays,” he was justly rebuked by the NBA. And in the Church, hate has no place among those who love Jesus.
· Number 5: Gays are not “anti-family.” Don’t believe the hype coming out of Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family. Mary Cheney and her partner, if they want to raise a child with love and care and discipline, are not going to destroy the “traditional” family structure. Husbands and wives, fathers and mothers are doing far more destruction to “family values” through divorce, abuse and neglect, and general abdication of parental responsibilities than gay couples could ever possibly do. What’s more, the truth of the matter is that the Bible honors several different family structures; if you don’t believe me, look in Genesis or 2 Samuel and count the number of wives Abraham and David had.
· Number 6: Civil rights are human rights. It makes no sense to me that Laura could make medical decisions on my behalf while I was sick in a coma, yet Ted would not be afforded the same legal rights for his partner were they in the same situation. How is that right?
· Number 7: Let us commit to Table fellowship. I know that faithful, intelligent Christians will not agree with one another about this any time soon. We are going to be together around this Table for a while, however, so why not live according to our values. You Christians on the “right,” keep opposing homosexuality; it is your sacred duty, for one does not say no to the Word of God. You Christians on the “left,” keep supporting homosexuality; it is your sacred duty, for one does not say no to the call of justice. Meanwhile we can all agree that the guy between us, the guy among us, the guy within and above us, Jesus, he’s invited all of us here to join him at this Table, both those on the right and those on the left. He’s the One we all love; he’s the One who loves us all. On this we can agree. Sometimes that’s the best we can hope for.
Sometimes that’s all we need.
Return to Sermons Menu