AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Homosexual _Marriage_/STOTT.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 48KB | 805 lines

                            HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
                            *******************

                            by John R. W. Stott

                     Christianity Today  Nov 22, 1985

An increasingly more vocal Christian gay community (characterized by such
groups as Evangelicals Concerned and the Metropolitan Community Churches)
is actively challenging the church's traditional understanding of homosexual
behavior and its sinfulness. More specifically, the contention that both
homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally from God and are, therefore,
to be celebrated, calls upon individual believers to search the Scriptures
again for what they have to say about the purpose and nature of human
sexuality.

With this in mind, theologian John R. W. Stott addresses the critical
arguments set forth by the Christian gay community in the second volume of
his book, Involvement: Social and Sexual Relationships in the modern world
(Revell, 1985). With his assistance, Christianity Today presents the
following adaptation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of the explosive nature of this topic, let me begin by setting the
proper context for our discussion.

First, we are all human beings. That is to say, there is no such phenomenon
as a "homosexual." There are only people - human persons - made in the image
and likeness of God, yet fallen. However strongly we may disapprove of
homosexual practices, we have no liberty to dehumanize those who engage in
them.

Second, we are all sexual beings. Our sexuality, according to both Scripture
and experience, is basic to our humanness. God made us male and female.

Moreover, not only are we sexual beings, but we have a particular sexual
orientation. Alfred C. Kinsey's famous investigation into human sexuality
led him to conclude that 4 percent of white American males are exclusively
homosexual throughout their lives, 10 percent are homosexual for up to 3
years, and as many as 37 percent have had some kind of homosexual experience
between adolescence and old age. Kinsey found the percentage of homosexual
women to be lower.

Third, we are all sinners. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that every
part of our human being has been twisted by sin, and this includes or
sexuality. Dr Merville Vincent, of the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard
Medical School, was correct when he wrote: "In God's view I suspect we are
all sexual deviants. I doubt if there is anyone who has not had a lustful
thought that deviated from God's perfect ideal of sexuality."

Fourth, in addition to being human, sexual, and sinful creatures, I take it
my readers are all Christians - not people who reject the lordship of Jesus
Christ, but rather those who earnestly desire to submit to it and who believe
that he exercises it through Scripture; who want to understand what light
Scripture throws on this topic, and have a predisposition to seek God's grace
and follow his will when it is known.

                          NECESSARY DISTINCTIONS

Our context set, are homosexual partnerships then a Christian option? I
phrase my question advisedly. It introduces us to three necessary
distinctions.

First, we have learned to distinguish between sins and crimes. Adultery has
always (according to God's law) been a sin, but in most countries it is not
an offence punishable by the state. Rape, by contrast, is both a sin and a
crime. In 1967, England established the Sexual Offenses Act, which declared
that a homosexual act performed between consenting adults over 21 in private
should no longer be a criminal offense. "The Act did not in fact 'legalize'
such behavior," wrote Prof. Sir Norman Anderson, "for it is still regarded
by the law as immoral, and is devoid of any legal recognition; all the Act
did was to remove the criminal sanction from such acts when performed in
private between two consenting adults."

Second, we distinguish between homosexual orientation or "inversion" (for
which people are not responsible) and homosexual practices (for which they
are). The importance of this distinction goes beyond the attribution of
responsibility to the attribution of guilt. We may not blame people for what
they are, though we may for what they do. In every discussion of
homosexuality we must be rigorous in differentiating between "being" and
"doing" - that is, between a person's identity and activity, sexual
preference and sexual practice, constitution and conduct.

But we now have to come to terms with a third distinction, namely between
homosexual practices that are casual (and probably anonymous) acts of
self-gratification and those that (it is claimed) are just as expressive of
authentic human love as is heterosexual intercourse in marriage. No
responsible homosexual person (Christian or not) is advocating promiscuous
"one night stands," let alone violence or the corruption of the young. What
some are arguing, however, especially in the so-called gay Christian
movement, is that a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual partnership are
"two equally valid alternatives," being equally tender, mature and faithful.

The question before us, then, does not relate to casual homosexual practices,
but it asks whether homosexual partnerships - lifelong and loving - are a
Christian option. Our concern is to subject prevailing attitudes (whether
total revulsion or equally uncritical endorsement) to biblical scrutiny. Is
our sexual "preference" purely a matter of personal "taste"? Or has God
revealed his will regarding a norm? In particular, can the Bible be shown to
sanction homosexual partnerships, or at least not to condemn them?

What, in fact, does the Bible condemn?

                       THE BIBLICAL PROHIBITIONS

The late Derrick Sherwin Bailey was the first Christian theologian to
re-evaluate the traditional understanding of the Biblical prohibitions
regarding homosexuality. His famous book - of which all subsequent writers
on this topic have had to take careful account - 'Homosexuality and the
Western Christian Tradition', was published in 1955. Although many have not
been able to accept his attempted reconstruction (in particular his
reinterpretation of the sin of Sodom), other writers, less cautious in
scholarly standards, regard Bailey's argument as merely a stepping stone to
a much more permissive position.

There are four main biblical passages that refer (or appear to refer) to the
homosexual question negatively: (1) the story of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-13), with
which it is natural to associate the very similar story of Gibeah (Judges
19); (2) the Levitical texts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), which explicitly prohibit
"lying with a man as one lies with a woman"; (3) the apostle Paul's portrayal
of decadent pagan society in his day (Rom. 1:18-32); and (4) two Pauline
lists of sinners, each of which includes a reference to homosexual practices
of some kind (1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11).

1. The stories of Sodom and Gibeah.

The Genesis narrative makes it clear that "the men of Sodom were wicked and
were sinning greatly against the Lord" (13:13), and that "the outcry against
Sodom and Gomorrah" was "so great and their sin so grievous" that God
determined to investigate it (18:20, 21). In the end, God "overthrew those
cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities"
(19:25). There is no controversy about this background to the biblical story.
The question is: What was the sin of the people of Sodom that merited their
obliteration?

The traditional view has been that they were guilty of homosexual practices,
which they attempted (unsuccessfully) to inflict on the two angels Lot was
entertaining. But Sherwin Bailey challenged this interpretation on two main
grounds. First, it is a gratuitous assumption (he argued) that the demand
of the men of Sodom, "Bring them out to us, so that we may *know* them,"
meant "so that we can have sex with them" (NIV).

The Hebrew word for "know" (yadha) occurs 943 times in the Old Testament,
of which only 10 occurrences refer to physical intercourse, and even then
only to heterosexual intercourse. It would therefore be better, Bailey
maintained, to translate the phrase "so that we may get acquainted with
them." We can then understand the men's violence as based on their feelings
that Lot had exceeded his rights as a resident alien, for he had welcomed
two strangers into his home "whose intentions might be hostile and whose
credentials ... had not been examined." In this case, the sin of Sodom was
to invade the privacy of Lot's home and flout the ancient rules of
hospitality. Lot begged them to desist because, he said, the two men "have
come under the protection of my roof" (v. 8).

Bailey's second argument was that the rest of the Old Testament nowhere
suggests that the nature of Sodom's offence was homosexual. Instead, Isaiah
implies that it was hypocrisy and social injustice; Jeremiah - adultery,
deceit, and general wickedness; and Ezekiel - arrogance, greed, and
indifference to the poor. Then Jesus himself (though Bailey does not mention
this) on three separate occasions alluded to the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah, declaring that it would be "more bearable" for them on the day of
judgment than for those who reject his gospel. In all these references there
is not even a rumor of homosexual malpractice!

It is only when we reach the Palestinian pseudepigraphical writings of the
second century B.C. that Sodom's sin is identified as unnatural sexual
behavior. And this finds a clear echo in the letter of Jude, in which it is
said that "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up
to sexual immorality and perversion" (v. 7), and it similarly appears in the
works of Philo and Josephus, Jewish writers who were shocked by the
homosexual practices of Greek society.

Bailey handled the Gibeah story the same way. Another resident alien (this
time an anonymous "old man") invites two strangers (not angels, but a Levite
and his concubine) into his home. Evil men surround the house and make the
same demand as the Sodomites: that the visitor be brought out "so that we
may know him." The owner of the house first begs them not to be so "vile"
to his "guest," and then offers his daughter and the concubine to them
instead. The sin of the men of Gibeah, it is again suggested, was not their
proposal of homosexual intercourse, but their violation of the laws of
hospitality.

But Bailey's case is not convincing for a number of reasons: (1) the
adjectives "wicked," "vile," and "disgraceful" (Gen. 18:7; Judges 19:23) do
not seem appropriate to describe a breach of hospitality; (2) the offer of
women instead does look as if there is some sexual connotation to the
episode; (3) although the verb yadha is used only ten times of sexual
intercourse, Bailey omits to mention that six of these occurrences are in
Genesis and one in the Sodom story itself (about Lot's daughters, who had not
"known" a man, verse 8); and (4) for those of us who take the New Testament
documents seriously, Jude's unequivocal statement cannot be dismissed as
merely an error copied from Jewish pseudepigrapha. To be sure, homosexual
behavior was not Sodom's only sin; but according to Scripture, it was
certainly one of them.

2. The Levitical texts:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (18:22).

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done
what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their
own heads" (20:13)

Both these texts belong to the "Holiness Code," which challenges the people
of God to follow his laws and not copy the practices of Egypt (where they
used to live) or Canaan (where they were going). These practices included
sexual relations within the prohibited degrees, a variety of sexual
deviations, child sacrifice, idolatry, and social injustice of different
kinds.

"It is hardly open to doubt," wrote Bailey, "that both the laws in Leviticus
relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other
acts performed in the name of religion." Others, however, affirm the very
point that Bailey denies. They rightly point out that the two texts are
embedded in a context preoccupied largely with ritual cleanness, and Peter
Coleman adds that the word translated "detestable" or "abomination" in both
verses is associated with idolatry. "In English the word expresses disgust
or disapproval, but in the Bible its predominant meaning is concerned with
religious truth rather than morality or aesthetics."

Are these prohibitions merely religious taboos, then? Are they connected with
that other prohibition, "No israelite man or woman is to become a temple
prostitute" (Deut. 23:17)? Certainly the Canaanite fertility cult did include
ritual prostitution, and therefore provided both male and female "sacred
prostitutes" (even if there is no clear evidence that either engaged in
homosexual intercourse). The evil kings of Israel and Judah were constantly
introducing them into the religion of Yahweh, and the righteous kings were
constantly expelling them. The homosexual lobby argues, therefore, that the
Levitical texts prohibit religious practices that have long since ceased, and
have no relevance to homosexual partnerships today.

3. Paul's statements in Romans 1:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also
abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (vv. 26-27).

All are agreed that the apostle is describing idolatrous pagans in the Greco-
Roman world of his day. They had a certain knowledge of God through the
created universe (vv. 19-20) and their own moral sense (v.32), yet they
suppressed the truth in order to practice wickedness. Instead of giving to
God the honor due to him, they turned to idols, confusing the Creator with
his creatures. In judgement, "God gave them over" to their depraved mind and
their decadent practices (vv. 24, 26, 28), including "unnatural" sex.

It seems at first sight to be a definite condemnation of homosexual behavior.
But two arguments are advanced to the contrary. They emphasize that although
Paul knew nothing of the modern distinction between "inverts" (those who have
a homosexual disposition) and "perverts" (who, though heterosexually
inclined, indulge in homosexual practices), nevertheless it is the latter he
is condemning, not the former. This must be so, because they are described
as having "abandoned" natural relations with women, whereas no exclusively
homosexual male would ever have had them. Second, Paul is evidently
portraying the reckless, shameless, profligate, promiscuous behavior of
people whom God has judicially "given up." What relevance has this to
committed, loving homosexual partnerships?

4. The other Pauline texts:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor
male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

"We also know that law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and
rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts
[arsekokoitais], for slave traders and liars and perjurers - and for whatever
else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel
of the blessed God ..." (1 Tim 1:9-10).

Here are two ugly lists of sins that Paul affirms to be incompatible with the
kingdom of God and with either the law or the gospel. It will be observed
that one group of offenders is called *malakoi*  and the other (in both
lists) *arsenokoitai*. What do these words mean?

To begin with, it is extremely unfortunate that in the original Revised
Standard Version translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, both words were combined
and translated "homosexuals." Bailey was right to protest, since the use of
the word "inevitably suggests that the genuine invert, even though he is a
man of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and
excluded from the kingdom of God."

Fortunately, the revisers heeded the protest, and the second edition (1973),
though still combining the words, rendered them "sexual perverts." The point
is that all ten categories listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (with the possible
exception of "the greedy") denote people who have offended by their *actions*
- idolaters, adulterers, and thieves, for example.

The two Greek words *malakoi* and *arsenokoitai* should not be combined,
however, since they have precise meanings. The first is literally 'soft to
the touch,' and metaphorically, among the Greeks, it meant males (not
necessarily boys) who played the passive role in homosexual intercourse. The
second means literally 'male in a bed,' and the Greeks used this expression
to describe the one who took the active role. The Jerusalem Bible follows
James Moffatt in using the ugly words "catamites and sodomites," while among
his conclusions Peter Coleman suggests that "probably Paul had commercial
pederasty in mind between older men and post-pubertal boys, the most common
patterns of homosexual behavior in the classical world."

If this is so, then once again it can be (and has been) argued that the
Pauline condemnations are not relevant to homosexual adults who are both
consenting and committed to one another. Not that this is the conclusion that
Peter Coleman himself draws. his summary: "Taken together, St. Paul's
writings repudiate homosexual behavior as a vice of the Gentiles in Romans,
as a bar to the Kingdom in Corinthians, and as an offense to be repudiated
by the moral law in 1 Timothy."

Because there are only these four biblical references to homosexual behavior,
must we then conclude that the topic is marginal to the main thrust of the
Bible? Must we further concede that they constitute a rather flimsy basis to
take a firm stand a homosexual lifestyle? Are those protagonists right who
claim that the biblical prohibitions are "highly specific" - against
violations of hospitality (Sodom and Gibeah), against cultic taboos
(Leviticus), against shameless orgies (Romans), and against male prostitution
or the corruption of the young (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy); and that none
of these passages alludes to, let alone condemns, a loving partnership
between genuine homosexual inverts? Indeed, such is the conclusion reached
by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mallenkott in their book 'Is the Homosexual
My Neighbor?' They write:

"The Bible clearly condemns certain kinds of homosexual practice (... gang
rape, idolatry and lustful promiscuity). However it appears to be silent in
certain other aspects of homosexuality - both the 'homosexual orientation'
and 'a committed love-relationship analogous to heterosexual monogamy.'"

But we cannot handle the biblical material in this way. The Christian
rejection of homosexual practices does not rest on "a few isolated and
obscure proof texts" (as is sometimes said), whose traditional explanation
can (perhaps) be overthrown. For the *negative* prohibitions of homosexual
practices in Scripture make sense only in the light of its *positive*
teaching in Genesis 1 and 2 about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage.
Without the wholesome positive teaching of the Bible on sex and marriage, our
perspective on the homosexual question is bound to be skewed.

                       SEX AND MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE

Since gay Christian activists deliberately draw a parallel between
heterosexual marriages and homosexual partnerships, it is necessary to ask
whether this parallel can be justified.

God has given us two distinct accounts of Creation. The first (Genesis 1) is
general, and affirms the *equality* of the sexes, since both share in the
image of God and the stewardship of the earth. The second (Genesis 2) is
particular, and affirms the *complementarity* of the sexes, which constitutes
the basis for heterosexual marriage. In this second account of Creation,
three fundamental truths emerge.

First, the human need for companionship. "It is not good for the man to be
alone" (v. 18). True, this assertion was later qualified when the apostle
Paul (surely echoing Genesis) wrote: "It is good for a man not to marry" (1
Cor. 7:1). That is to say, although marriage is the good institution of God,
the call to singleness is also the good vocation of some. Nevertheless, as
a general rule, "It is not good for the man to be alone."

God has created us social beings. Since he is love, and has made us in his
own likeness, he has given us a capacity to love and be loved. He intends us
to live in community, not in solitude. In particular, God continued, "I will
make a helper suitable for him." Moreover, this "helper" or companion, whom
God pronounced "suitable for him," was also to be man's sexual partner, with
whom he was to become "one flesh," so that they might consummate their love
and procreate their children.

Second, Genesis 2 reveals the divine provision to meet this human need.
Having affirmed Adam's need for a partner, the search for a suitable one
began. God first paraded the birds and beasts before him, and Adam proceeded
to "name" them, to symbolize his taking them into his service. But (v. 20)
"for Adam no suitable helper was found," who could live "alongside" or
"opposite" him, who could be his complement, his counterpart, his companion -
 let alone his mate. So a special creation was necessary.

Thus, a special work of divine creation took place. The sexes became
differentiated. Out of the undifferentiated humanity of Adam, male and female
emerged. And Adam awoke from his deep sleep to behold a reflection of
himself, a complement to himself, indeed a very part of himself. Next, having
created the woman out of the man, God himself brought her to him, much as a
bride's father today gives her away. And Adam broke spontaneously into
history's first love poem:

At last (in contrast to the birds and beasts), "This is now bone of my bones
/ and flesh of my flesh; / She shall be called 'woman,' / for she was taken
out of man."

There can be no doubting the emphasis of this story. According to Genesis 1,
Eve, like Adam, was created in the image of God. But as to the manner of her
creation, according Genesis 2, she was made neither out of nothing (like the
universe), nor out of "the dust of the ground" (like Adam v. 7), but out of
Adam.

The third great truth of Genesis 2 concerns the resulting institution of
marriage. Adam's love poem is recorded in verse 23. The "therefore" or "for
this reason" of verse 24 is the narrator's deduction: "For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and they will
become one flesh."

Even the inattentive reader will be struck by the three references to
"flesh": "this is ... flesh of my flesh ... they will become one flesh."

We may be certain that this is deliberate, not accidental. It teaches that
heterosexual intercourse in marriage is more than a union; it is a kind of
reunion. It is not a union of alien persons who do not belong to one another
and cannot appropriately become one flesh. On the contrary, it is the union
of two persons who originally were one, were then separated from each other,
and now in the sexual encounter of marriage come together again.

It is surely this that explains the profound mystery of heterosexual
intimacy, which poets and philosophers have celebrated in every culture.
Heterosexual intercourse is much more than a union of bodies; it is a
blending of complementary personalities through which, in the midst of
prevailing alienation, the rich, created oneness of human being is
experienced again. And the complementarity of male and female sexual organs
is only a physical symbol of a much deeper spiritual complementarity.

In order to become one flesh, however, and experience this sacred mystery,
certain preliminaries are necessary, which are constituent parts of marriage.

"Therefore":
"a man" (the singular indicates that marriage is an exclusive union between
two individuals)
"shall leave his father and mother " (a public social occasion is in view)
"and cleave to his wife" (marriage is a loving, cleaving commitment or
covenant, which is heterosexual and permanent),
"and they will become one flesh" (for marriage must be consummated in sexual
intercourse, which is a sign and seal of the marriage covenant, and over
which no shadow of shame or embarrassment had yet been cast).

Jesus himself later endorsed this teaching. He quoted Genesis 2:24, declaring
that such a lifelong union between a man and his wife was God's intention
from the beginning, and added, "what God has joined together, let man not
separate" (Mark 10:4-9).

Thus Scripture defines the marriage God instituted in terms of heterosexual
monogamy. It is the union of one man with one woman, which must be publicly
acknowledged (the leaving of parents), permanently sealed (he will "cleave
to his wife"), and physically consummated ("one flesh"). Scripture envisages
no other kind of marriage or sexual intercourse, for God provided no
alternative.

Christians should not therefore single out homosexual intercourse for special
condemnation. Every sexual relationship or act that deviates from God's
revealed intention is *ipso facto* displeasing to him and under his judgment.
This includes polygamy and polyandry (which infringes the "one man-one woman"
principle), clandestine unions (since these have involved no decisive public
leaving of parents); casual encounters and temporary liaisons, adultery and
many divorces (which are incompatible with "cleaving" and with Jesus'
prohibition "let man not separate"), and homosexual partnerships (which
violate the statement that "a man" shall be joined to "his wife").

In sum, the only "one flesh" experience that God intends and Scripture
contemplates is the sexual union of a man with his wife, whom he recognizes
as "flesh of his flesh."

                     CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED

Homosexual Christians are not, however, satisfied with this biblical teaching
about human sexuality and the institution of heterosexual marriage. They
bring forward a number of objections in order to defend the legitimacy of
homosexual partnerships.

1. The argument about Scripture and culture.

Traditionally, it has been assumed that the bible condemns all homosexual
acts. But are the biblical writers reliable guides in this matter? Were their
horizons not bounded by their own experience and culture? The cultural
argument, therefore, usually takes one of two forms.

First, The biblical authors were addressing themselves to questions relevant
to their own circumstances, and, these were very different from ours. In the
Sodom and Gibeah stories, they were preoccupied either with conventions of
hospitality in the ancient Near East that are now obsolete or (if the sin was
sexual at all) with the extremely unusual phenomenon of homosexual gang rape.
In the Levitical laws the concern was with antiquated fertility rituals,
while Paul was addressing himself to the particular sexual preferences of
Greek pederasts.

The second and complementary culture problem is that the biblical writers
were not addressing themselves to *our* questions. Thus the problem of
Scripture is not only with its teaching but also with its silence. Paul (let
alone the Old Testament authors) knew nothing of post-Freudian psychology.
They had never heard of "the homosexual condition"; they knew only about
certain practices. The difference between "inversion" and "perversion" would
have been incomprehensible to them. The very notion that two men or two women
could fall in love with each other and develop a deeply loving, stable
relationship comparable to marriage simply never entered their heads. So
then, just as slaves, blacks, and women have been liberated, "gay liberation"
is long overdue.

If the only biblical teaching on this topic were to be found in the
prohibition texts, it might be difficult to answer these objections. But once
those texts are seen in relation to the divine institution of marriage, we
are in possession of a principle of divine revelation that is universally
applicable. It was applicable to the cultural situations of both the ancient
Near East and the first-century Greco-Roman world, and it is equally
applicable to modern sexual questions of which the ancients were quite
ignorant. The reason for the biblical prohibitions is the same reason why
modern loving homosexual partnerships must also be condemned - namely that
they are incompatible with God's created order. And since that order
(heterosexual monogamy) was established by Creation, not culture, its
validity is both permanent and universal. There can be no "liberation" from
God's created norms; true liberation is found only in accepting them.

2. The argument about creation and nature.

I have sometimes read or heard this kind of statement: "I'm gay because God
made me that way. So gay must be good. I intend to accept, and indeed
celebrate, what I am by creation." Or again: "You may say that homosexual
practice is against nature and normality; but it's not against *my* nature,
nor is it in the slightest degree abnormal for *me*." Some argue that
homosexual behavior is "natural" because: (a) in many primitive societies it
is fairly acceptable, (b) in some advanced civilizations (ancient Greece, for
example) it was even idealized, and (c) it is quite widespread in animals.

These arguments, however, express an extremely subjective view of what is
"natural" and "normal." We cannot agree, for example, that animal behavior
sets standards for human behavior! God has established a norm for sex and
marriage by creation. This was recognized in the Old Testament era. Thus,
sexual relations with an animal were forbidden, because "that is a
perversion" (Lev. 18:23) - in other words, a violation or confusion of
nature, which indicates an "embryonic sense of natural law."

This was also clearly in Paul's mind in Romans 1. When he wrote of women who
had "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," and of men who had
"abandoned natural relations," he meant by "nature" (phusis), the natural
order of things that God had established (as in 2:14, 27, and 11:24). What
Paul was condemning, therefore, was not the perverted behavior of
heterosexual people who were acting against *their* nature, but any human
behavior that is against "Nature," God's created order.

3. The argument about quality of relationships.

Gay Christian activists borrow from Scripture the truth that love is the
greatest thing in the world (which it is) and from the "new morality" or
"situation ethics of the 1960's the notion that love is an adequate criterion
by which to judge every relationship (which it is not).

In his "Time for Consent," liberal theologian Norman Pittenger lists six
characteristics of a truly loving relationship. They are: (1) commitment (the
free self-giving of each to the other); (2) mutuality in giving and receiving
(a sharing in which each finds his or her self in the other); (3) tenderness
(no coercion or cruelty); (4) faithfulness (the intention of a lifelong
relationship); (5) hopefulness (each serving the other's maturity); and (6)
desire for union.

If then a homosexual relationship, whether between two men or two women, is
characterized by these qualities of love, surely (the argument goes) it must
be affirmed as good and not rejected as evil. It rescues people from
loneliness, selfishness, and promiscuity. It can be as rich and responsible,
as liberating and fulfilling, as a heterosexual marriage.

But the biblical Christian cannot accept the basic premise on which this case
rests, namely that love is the only absolute, that beside it all moral law
is abolished, and that whatever seems to be compatible with love is ipso
facto good, irrespective of all other considerations. This cannot be so, for
love needs law to guide it. In emphasizing love for God and neighbor as the
two Great Commandments, Jesus and his apostles did not discard all other
commandments. On the contrary, Jesus said, "If you love me you will keep my
commandments," and Paul wrote, "Love is the fulfilling [not the abrogating]
of the law."

On several different occasions a married man has told me that he has fallen
in love with another woman. When I have gently remonstrated with him, he has
responded in words like these: "Yes, I agree, I already have a wife and
family, but this new relationship is the real thing. We were made for each
other. Our love for each other has a quality and a depth we have never known
before. It *must* be right." But no, it is not right. No man is justified in
breaking his marriage covenant with his wife on the ground of the quality of
his love for another woman. Quality of love is not the only yardstick by
which to measure what is good or right.

Similarly, I do not deny the claim that homosexual relationships can be
loving (although a priori I do not see how they can attain the same richness
as the heterosexual mutuality God has ordained). But their love quality is
not sufficient to justify them. Indeed, I have to add that they are
incompatible with true love because they are incompatible with God's law.
Love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved. And our highest
human welfare is found in obedience to God's law and purpose, not in revolt
against them.

4. The argument about acceptance and the gospel.

"Surely," some people are saying, "it is the duty of heterosexual Christians
to accept homosexual Christians. Paul told us to accept - indeed welcome -
one another. If God has welcomed somebody, who are we to pass judgement on
him (Rom. 14:1ff.)? Norman Pittenger goes further and declares that those who
reject homosexual people "have utterly failed to understand the Christian
gospel." We do not receive the grace of God because we are good and confess
our sins, he continues; it is the other way round. "It's always God's grace
which comes *first* ... his forgiveness awakens our repentance." He even
quotes the hymn "Just as I am, without one plea," and adds: "the whole point
of the Christian gospel is that God loves and accepts us just as we are."

This is a very confused statement of the gospel, however. God does indeed
accept us "just as we are," and we do not have to make ourselves good first -
 indeed we cannot. But his "acceptance" means that he fully and freely
forgives all who repent and believe, not that he condones our continuance in
sin. Again, it is true that we must accept one another, but only as fellow
penitents and fellow pilgrims, not as fellow sinners who are resolved to
persist in our sinning. No acceptance, either by God or by the church, is
promised to us if we harden our hearts against God's word and will. Only
judgment.

                           FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE

If homosexual practice must be regarded, in the light of the whole biblical
revelation, not as a variant within the wide range of accepted normality, but
as a deviation from God's norm; and if we should therefore call homosexually
oriented people to abstain from homosexual practices and partnerships, what
advice and help can we give to encourage them to respond to this call? I
would like to take Paul's triad of faith, hope, and love, and apply it to
homosexually oriented people.

The Christian call to faith.

Faith is the human response to divine revelation. It is believing God's word.

First, faith accepts God's standards. The only alternative to heterosexual
marriage is sexual abstinence. Nothing has helped me understand the pain of
homosexual celibacy more than Alex Davidson's moving book, "The Returns of
Love." He writes of "this incessant tension between law and lust," "this
monster that lurks in the depths," this "burning torment."

The secular world says: "Sex is essential to human fulfillment. To expect
homosexual people to abstain from homosexual practice is to condemn them to
frustration and to drive them to neurosis, despair, and even suicide. It's
outrageous to ask anybody to deny himself what to him is a normal and natural
mode of sexual expression."

But no, the teaching of the Word of God is different. Sexual experience is
not essential to human fulfillment. To be sure, it is a good gift of God. But
it is not given to all, and it is not indispensable to humanness. Besides,
God's commands are good and not grievous. The yoke of Christ brings rest, not
turmoil; conflict comes only to those who resist it.

So, ultimately, it is a crisis of faith; Whom shall we believe? God or the
world? Shall we submit to the lordship of Jesus, or succumb to the pressures
of prevailing culture? The true "orientation" of Christians is not what we
are by constitution (hormones), but what we are by choice (heart, mind, and
will).

Second, faith accepts God's grace. If God calls us to celibacy, abstinence
is not only good, it is also possible. Many deny it, however. It is "so near
to an impossibility," writes Norman Pittenger, "that it's hardly worth
talking about."

Really? What then are we to make of Paul's statement following his warning
to the Corinthians that male prostitutes and homosexual offenders will not
inherit God's kingdom? "And that is what some of you were," he cries. "But
you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). And what shall
we say to the millions of heterosexual people who are single? To be sure, all
unmarried people experience the pain of struggle and loneliness. But how can
we call ourselves Christians and declare that chastity is impossible? Christ
comes to us as he came to Paul and says: "My grace is sufficient for you, for
my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9). To deny this is to
portray Christians as the helpless victims of the world, the flesh and the
Devil, and to contradict the gospel of God's grace.

The Christian call of hope.

I have said nothing so far about "healing" for homosexual people, understood
not now as self-mastery but as the reversal of their sexual bias. Most agree
that, lacking heterosexual outlets, and under cultural pressures, a large
percentage of people would (or at least could) behave homosexually. Indeed,
although there may be a genetic factor or component, the condition is more
"learned" than "inherited." Some attribute it to traumatic childhood
experiences, such as the withdrawal of the mother's love, inhibiting sexual
growth. So, if it is learned, can it not be unlearned?

The possibility of change by the grace and power of God depends also on the
strength of the person's resolve, which itself depends on other factors.
Those whose sexuality is indeterminate may well change under strong influence
and with strong motivation. But many researchers conclude that constitutional
homosexuality is irreversible. "No known method of treatment or punishment,"
writes D. J. West, "offers hope of making any substantial reduction in the
vast army of adults practicing homosexuality"; it would be "more realistic
to find room for them in society." He pleads for "tolerance," though not for
"encouragement," of homosexual behavior. Other psychologists go further and
declare that homosexuality is no longer to be regarded as a pathological
condition; it is therefore to be accepted, not cured. In 1973 the trustees
of the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the
category of mental illness.

Are not these views, however, the despairing opinions of the secular mind?
Christians know that the homosexual condition, being a deviation from God's
norm, is not a sign of created order but of fallen disorder. How, then, can
we acquiesce in it or declare it incurable?

We cannot. The only question is *when* and *how* we are to expect the divine
deliverance and restoration to take place. The fact is that, though Christian
claims of homosexual "healings" are made, either through regeneration or
through a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit, it is not easy to substantiate
them.

Martin Hallett, who before his conversion was active in the gay scene, has
subsequently founded the "True Freedom Trust," an interdenominational
teaching and counseling ministry on homosexuality and related problems. They
have published a pamphlet entitled *Testimonies.* In it homosexual Christian
men and women bear witness to what Christ has done for them. They have found
a new identity in him, and a new sense of personal fulfillment as children
of GOd. They have been delivered from guilt, shame, and fear by God's
forgiving acceptance. But they have not been delivered from their homosexual
orientation, and therefore some inner pain continues alongside their new joy
and peace.

Indeed, complete healing of body, mind, and spirit will not take place in
this life. Some degree of deficit or disorder remains in each of us. But not
for ever! The Christian's horizons are not bounded by this world. Jesus is
coming again; our bodies are going to be redeemed; sin, pain, and death are
going to be abolished; and both we and the universe are going to be
transformed. Then we shall be finally liberated from everything that defiles
or distorts our personality.

Alex Davidson is one who derives comfort in the midst of his homosexuality
from his Christian hope. "Isn't it one of the most wretched things about this
condition," he writes, "that when you look ahead, the same impossible road
seems to continue indefinitely? You're driven to rebellion when you think of
there being no point in it and to despair when you think of there being no
limit to it. That's why I find a comfort, when I feel desperate, or
rebellious, or both, to remind myself of God's promise that one day it will
be finished...."

The Christian call to love.

At present we are living "in between times," between the grace that we grasp
by faith and the glory that we anticipate in hope. Between them lies love.

Yet love is just what the church has generally failed to show to homosexual
people. Norman Pittenger describes the "vituperative" correspondence he has
received, in which homosexuals are dismissed by professing Christians as
"filthy creatures," "disgusting perverts," "damnable sinners," and the like.
Rictor Norton is yet more shrill: "The church's record regarding homosexuals
is an atrocity from beginning to end: it is not for us to seek forgiveness,
but for the church to make atonement."

"Homophobia," or the attitude of personal hostility towards homosexuals, is
a mixture of irrational fear, hatred, and even revulsion. It overlooks the
fact that the great majority of homosexual people are not responsible for
their condition (though they are, of course, for their conduct). Since they
are not deliberate perverts, they deserve our understanding and compassion
(though many find this patronizing), not our rejection. No wonder Richard
Lovelace calls for a "double repentance," namely "that gay Christians
renounce the active lifestyle" and that "straight Christians renounce
homophobia." David Atkinson is right to add: "We are not at liberty to urge
the Christian homosexual to celibacy and to a spreading of his relationships,
unless support for the former and opportunities for the latter are available
in genuine love."

At the heart of the homosexual condition is a deep loneliness, the natural
human hunger for mutual love, a search for identity, and a longing for
completeness. If homosexual people cannot find these things in the local
"church family," we have no business using that expression. The alternative
is not between the warm physical relationship of homosexual intercourse and
the pain of cold isolation. There is a third alternative - namely, a
Christian environment of love, understanding, acceptance, and support. I do
not think there is any need to encourage homosexual people to disclose their
sexual orientation to everybody; this is neither necessary nor helpful. But
they do need at least one confidant to whom they can unburden themselves, who
will not despise or reject them but will support them with friendship and
prayer. They may also need some professional, private, and confidential
pastoral counsel; possibly the support of a professionally supervised therapy
group; and many warm and affectionate friendships with people of both sexes.

Same-sex friendships are to be encouraged, like those in the Bible between
Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Paul and Timothy. There is no hint
that any of these was homosexual in the erotic sense, yet they were evidently
affectionate and (at least in the case of David and Jonathan) even
demonstrative. It is sad that our Western culture inhibits the development
of same-sex friendships by engendering the fear of being ridiculed or
rejected as a "queer."

These relationships, both same-sex and opposite-sex, need to be developed
within the family of God, which. though universal, has its local
manifestations. He intends each local church to be a warm, accepting, and
supportive community. By "accepting" I do not mean "acquiescing," any more
than in rejecting "homophobia" I am rejecting a proper Christian disapproval
of homosexual behavior. No, true love is not incompatible with the
maintenance of moral standards.

There is, therefore, a place for church discipline in the case of members who
refuse to repent and willfully persist in homosexual relationships. But it
must be exercised in a spirit of humility and gentleness (Gal 6:1f.). We must
be careful not to discriminate between men and women, or between homosexual
and heterosexual offenses; and necessary discipline in the case of a public
scandal is not to be confused with a witch hunt.

Perplexing and painful as the homosexual Christian's dilemma is, Jesus Christ
offers him or her (indeed, all of us) faith, hope, and love - the faith to
accept his standards and his grace to maintain them, the hope to look beyond
present suffering to future glory, and the love to care for and support one
another. "But the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor. 13:13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

John R. W. Stott, rector emeritus of All Souls Church, London, is now
director of the London Institute for contemporary Christianity, which helps
clergy and laity interpret the Bible, understand the modern world, and relate
the two in terms of discipleship and mission.

*******************************************************************************
Dr. Stott deals more comprehensively with this subject in his book "Decisive
Issues Facing Christians Today" - Revel (available in the UK as "Issues Facing
Christians Today" - Hodder).