|
First Corinthians 13 May 16, 2004
IF
YOU HAVE NOT LOVE: THE CHURCH DEBATES HOMOSEXUALITY
There is a wonderful scene from the first movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy where Frodo is talking to Gandalf and is disheartened by the task he is facing. Frodo says that he wishes none of this had ever happened. To which Gandalf replies: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.” And that remains true today.
Whether we like it or not, one of the major issues confronting the Church today is homosexuality. In my opinion, local congregations and pastors cannot in good faith ignore the issue. While we are not to be of the world, we are called to live in the world. The sign out front states our dilemma very well: “Where are you going to serve God if not in the world?” (From Bishop Bill Morris’ 2003 ordination sermon.) It is almost always easier to remain silent. However, the Church cannot hope to be an instrument of God in transforming this world if we refuse to engage the world in vital issues of the day. Like Frodo, we may not like the time in which we find ourselves, but over that we have no control. The challenge is what will we do with the time that we have?
Let me tell you how I hope to spend our time this morning. After sharing a couple of basic guidelines, I want to lay out very clearly the official position of the United Methodist Church. Then, I want to present some of the major arguments in support of that position. Next, I will put forth some of the major arguments used by those who would like to see the Church change its stance on the issue of homosexuality. Then I will highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses on both sides. I will talk briefly about why this issue is so divisive. And finally, I will talk about my hope for the Church.
First the guidelines: One, I am not dealing with the extremists on either side. I am not addressing those people whom you occasionally see on TV with the signs declaring “God hates gays” or worse. Nor am I addressing those who advocate that when it comes to sex, anything goes. The radical fringes on both sides have little, if any, to offer to this debate. Two, the people who put forth the arguments I am going to share with you this morning are sincere in their beliefs. Both those who believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s will, and those who believe it can be a valid expression of God’s love in the world genuinely believe they are right. There have been times in our lives when all of us were wrong about something. But none of us started out with the intention of being wrong. So it is with regards to homosexuality. Regardless of where you stand, the people on the other side are not intentionally trying to be wrong. This brings me to the third guideline which is that the genuineness of one’s faith in Jesus the Christ cannot be determined by one position on any given issue. Paul tells us in the 12th chapter of First Corinthians that no one can proclaim Jesus is Lord except through the Holy Spirit. So just because you disagree with me on a particular issue, I am not free to say: “Well clearly you don’t believe in Jesus.” The moment you begin to say that or to use phrases which unfortunately you hear all too often in Church such as: “Well, if you really knew Jesus,…” or “If you really had faith,…” or “If you really were a Christian, …” then you have crossed the line into judging, which Jesus says we are not to do. So these are my guidelines this morning. I am not dealing with the radical extreme on either side. People on both sides of the debate are sincere in the beliefs. And I cannot determine the status of one’s relationship with God based upon their being right or wrong about this one particular issue.
So having said all of that, allow me to state very clearly the official teaching of the United Methodist Church regarding homosexuality as determined by the 2004 General Conference which met in Pittsburgh less than two weeks ago. Here it is. “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all and we will seek to live together in Christian community.” This is a direct quote of Paragraph 161G from the Book of Discipline. Furthermore, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be ministers in the United Methodist Church. And some of the specific offenses for which a minister may be charged and subjected to a church trial. include “being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.” And while I do not know the paragraph from the Discipline, I am also quite certain that such ceremonies are not to be celebrated in our churches. So there you have it, which basically means nothing has changed. This has been the position of the United Methodist Church for the last thirty-two years, ever since there has been any comment at all regarding homosexuality in our Discipline. I do not think the United Methodist Church could be much clearer.
What are the arguments that led a 60% majority of the delegates at this year’s General Conference to justify these positions. The first argument is that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. On your insert are listed the seven most common Scripture passages cited when dealing with homosexuality. The first five are quite explicit, and accepted by all scholars as referring to same-sex activity. The Genesis and Judges passages deal with rape, while the Leviticus passages are a part of the Holiness Code which marks Israel as distinct from its neighbors. In Romans, Paul is describing the nature of fallen humanity. And while there is debate over what exactly Paul is referring to in First Corinthians and First Timothy, he clearly does not approve of it. In fact, no where in all of Scripture is same-sex activity spoken of in a favorable light. For many, this argument alone is enough to declare homosexual practice incompatible with Christian teaching.
The second argument is that homosexuality is clearly a perversion in which one chooses to ignore God’s design and will for our lives. Genesis says that God created us male and female. The sound bite of this argument is that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. A more serious representation of this position refers back to the reference Paul makes in Romans about men and women exchanging the natural for the unnatural. This argument holds that for one to choose to engage in homosexual activity is to choose to go against God’s ordained design for us and therefore must be sin.
The third argument against homosexuality is that even if homosexuality is not a choice, we are all born with sinful dispositions. Adam Hamilton in the chapter on homosexuality in his book Confronting the Controversies puts it this way. “We are all born with an orientation to sin. We have a broken and fallen human nature, which means that by nature and from birth, we struggle with our longing for power and wealth, our tendency to be self-centered and self-absorbed, and with a host of issues related to misuse of our sexuality, not simply homosexuality.” (p. 121) John Wesley believed in the doctrine of total depravity which holds that left to our own devices, all we would ever do is sin. We can do nothing good and right apart from the grace of God. But because we have that grace, we cannot justify our sin because of our sinful nature. Some see this as the difference between temptation, and yielding to temptation. To be tempted is part of life. To yield to the temptation is sin.
Finally, those who believe homosexuality is wrong argue that with God all things are possible. Some who hold this position sincerely believe that it is possible to change one’s sexual orientation. It is not easy, but it can be done they say. There are congregations that have declared themselves to be “Transforming Congregations” with the stated purpose of reaching out to homosexuals for the purpose of transforming their sexual orientation. Others, conceding that orientation is not a choice and therefore cannot be changed assert that with God’s help, homosexuals can and therefore should lead faithful, celibate lives.
These are the major arguments used in opposition to homosexuality. Other arguments expand on these, but these are the foundation. And for many of you here this morning, and for most of the people in our community, this is enough. Some might say, “Preacher just stop right there, because there really is nothing more to say.” However, I would remind you of two things I said earlier. One, it is almost always easier, and some would add smarter, to remain silent, but in a time such as this we need understanding, and we can only have genuine understanding when we listen to both sides. The second thing I would remind you of is the vote from General Conference. 60% voted to retain our position against homosexuality. But that means 40%, which is a sizable minority, want to change our Discipline to allow a fuller inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the Church. On what basis, do people justify such a change?
People who are more favorable toward homosexuality readily acknowledge and do not question that no where in the Bible is same-sex activity affirmed. What these people do question is what is actually condemned by the Bible. Rape, cultic prostitution in pagan temples, slavery, the exploitation of young boys for the sexual pleasure of older men; these were the most common expressions of same-sex activity known in ancient times. No wonder the Bible speaks against it. None of these can be considered faithful expressions of God’s gift of sexuality. Just as such activity was condemned in ancient times, it should be condemned today. Paul in Romans condemns exchanging the natural for the unnatural. But the idea of a committed, mutually loving relationship between two people of the same gender was a completely foreign idea to the writers of Scripture. It never occurred to Paul that two people of the same gender might naturally love each other. The concept of homosexuality, of having an orientation in which one is attracted to a person of the same gender, did not originate until the latter half of the 19th century. Therefore, the Bible cannot explicitly condemn an idea which did not even exist when it was written. This is the first argument cited by many who want to see the Church change its position.
The second argument asserts that even if the Bible is read as condemning homosexual behavior, those passages must be understood in their cultural context. There are numerous passages of Scripture that we do not see as applying to our lives today. The Holiness Code of Leviticus contains a whole list of prohibitions that we no longer acknowledge as accurately reflecting God’s will. The whole idea of clean and unclean foods is very Biblical, but I guarantee you our lunch today will not be kosher. Cross breeding animals and hybrid seeds are both expressly forbidden by the Bible. Anyone this morning wearing a shirt or blouse made of cotton and polyester is in violation of the Holiness Code. The ladies here this morning that have prayed without a hat or veil may have disgraced themselves according to some interpretations of Paul. All Scripture must be read through the gift of the Holy Spirit which means that interpretations have changed as our knowledge has changed. Those who advocate change say that our increased knowledge today allows us to move beyond the cultural norms of 2,000 years ago.
A third argument used by those advocating a more tolerant position is that Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexual behavior. In fact, Jesus continually was going out of his way to reach out to the marginalized and outcasts of society. If this is such a vital issue, why did Jesus say nothing about it? Jesus always saved his harshest criticisms for those who considered themselves holy or pure while condemning others. Based on the teachings of Jesus alone, self-righteousness seems a far greater issue than homosexuality. And if Jesus was tolerant, should not the Church be also?
Finally, a fourth common argument used by those who would have the Church change its position on homosexuality is the belief that clearly homosexuality is not a choice. While sexuality is a complex aspect of human existence that is the result of many factors, there is within the medical community, a growing consensus that one’s sexual preference is not a choice. And if it is not a choice, how can the Church condemn someone for something that is such a basic part of who they are and over which they have no control. While God created Adam and Eve, there is growing evidence that God created Steve as well. Thus, to condemn someone for being what God has made them borders on cruelty.
These are the major arguments cited by those who want to see the Church change its position. Again, there are others, but they tend to be variations on one of these four.
I am sure that each of you finds certain arguments more persuasive than others. In my mind, clearly the strongest arguments for retaining the Church’s current teaching are the Biblical admonitions. Everyone is selective in the verses of Scripture to which they give greater authority. And just because people choose to ignore some passage of the Bible, does not automatically make the ones they do follow invalid.
In turn, the weakest position of those who would change the Church’s stance has to be the one that asserts because Jesus says nothing about homosexuality it must be okay. Arguments based on silence are rarely strong or persuasive. There are a host of specific issues about which Jesus said nothing that we still affirm or reject.
The strongest argument in favor of changing the teaching in my mind has to be that homosexuality is not a choice. It may be nature or nurture, or in all probability some combination of the two, but few, if any, people choose to be homosexual. Some people may choose to engage in same-sex activity out of rebellion or as an expression of power, but sexual orientation is not something people control.
Having said that, choosing the weakest argument in support of the Church’s current is easy. Those who assert homosexuality is to be condemned solely because homosexuals are choosing to go against God’s design for their lives need to come up with another argument. Common sense and our own experience reveal the weakness of this position. Did any you as teenagers when your hormones were raging go to school one day, look around and say to yourself: “Okay, which one am I going to like, girls or boys?” I suspect for most of us, that question had already been answered. As the scientific community reaches a growing consensus on sexual orientation not being a choice, those who continue to insist it is run the risk of losing credibility. Already some folks react to the studies on sexual orientation the way the tobacco companies react to studies linking smoking to lung cancer, insisting that the studies are wrong or inconclusive.
Now I want to address very briefly why I consider this issue to be so controversial. First, it is only natural for some people to be passionate about their perception of the truth. As I said at the beginning, people on both sides believe they are right, and they are going to defend their position strongly.
Second, people are passionate about principles. You have heard people say: “It is the principle of the thing.” Some people cling to some basic principles for strength and guidance. At the very beginning I shared some basic principles to guide us, primarily to guide me, so that we did not stray from the path we were seeking to take today. For many, the issue of homosexuality raises the principle of faithfully following the teachings of the Bible. And there is grave concern that if one discounts the teaching of the Bible on this issue, where do you stop? Does the Bible have any authority at all?
And I would add that within the United Methodist context, the principle of covenant is very important also. Clergy have taken vows to uphold the teachings of the Church. If clergy begin to ignore or defy those teachings, can we remain in covenant?
Yet while some are passionate about principles, others may be more passionate about people. Those who know gays and lesbians, those who have homosexual friends or family members find it very difficult to support a teaching that brings such pain and anguish to these they know and love. A clear example of how people sometimes get placed ahead of principle occurred last weekend when Nancy Reagan came out in support of stem-cell research which is opposed by many religious conservatives because of principle. However, as you know, former President Reagan suffers from alzheimers. For some, people take precedence over principle. It breaks the hearts of some to think of teenagers who commit suicide because they are homosexual and feel rejected by almost everyone, including the Church and God. It is hard to console parents of gay and lesbian children who fear for their safety and well-being in a culture that sees them as perverse when the Church’s teaching seems to only echo that belief. It is difficult for some to understand why people who have clearly been called by God to a relationship with Jesus the Christ, and have so many gifts for pastoral leadership, should be denied the opportunity to share those gifts with the Church just because their expression of love happens to be with a person of the same gender.
I hope by now you can see that this is not a simple issue. My goal was not to persuade you to take one side or the other, but to help you understand both sides. To help us see both sides of the issue so we can be more compassionate and more loving toward those with whom we disagree. Paul said is very clearly that love, not agreement, is of the utmost importance within the Body of Christ. Liberals need to get past thinking that all Conservatives are at best selective Biblical literalists, and at worst hypocrites who not only want to send gays and lesbians to Hell, but also anyone who supports gays and lesbians. Conservatives need to get past thinking that all Liberals totally disregard the Bible, have no moral standards whatsoever, and basically believe anything is okay. Both of these views are caricatures that make us more prone to violate Jesus’ commandment which we heard last week that we love one another. My hope for the Church is that as we continue to struggle with this issue, as we genuinely listen to those on the other side and not just label them as fundamentalists or west coast liberals, we will all realize that we see in a mirror dimly. That none of us has all the answers, that for all of us, our salvation is not dependent upon getting any one issue right; rather our salvation, indeed everyone’s salvation, is dependent upon the love and grace of God poured out upon the world through Jesus the Christ. God loves the Conservatives and the Liberals; the gays and the straights. In other words, maybe our debate will remind us of the Good News which we have to proclaim to the whole world. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. That proves God’s love for us. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I am doubly indebted to the Rev. Adam Hamilton. First, he spoke so passionately at the Congress on Evangelism in January about the need for churches to address the questions “21st century people are asking” that I found the courage to address the topic of homosexuality with the two congregations I serve. Second, his book Confronting the Controversies was the primary source for the arguments in favor of the UMC’s stance on this issue. There have been several books in recent years that have presented both sides of this debate. Another one I found to be helpful was Caught in the Crossfire: Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality. Finally, I would recommend Tony Campolo’s 20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch. Both Campolo and Hamilton do a wonderful job of presenting the Church’s traditional teaching on this subject in a compassionate, grace-filled manner. Alas, this does not seem to happen too often in this debate. Finally, since I wrote this sermon, I have learned that the percentages 60/40 may not be very reflective of where we are as a denomination. However, regardless of the numbers, there is a vocal and passionate minority seeking to change our stance. As sisters and brothers in Christ, we should at least try to understand one another.
I would gladly entertain comments or questions on this sermon. My email is RevDean@ecsis.net.
Rev. Dean Emerson
|
Visits
since 05/30/2004: