I have friends who are traditionalists, with whom I disagree on the topic of homosexuality. However, we have a mutual respect and a shared love of God that does not diminish in the light of us disagreeing on this issue. We respect each other's viewpoints, understanding where these views come from and why they are held. And we continue to love one another and fellowship and serve God together. This, I believe, is an approach very true to the teachings of the Bible, particularly of the Apostle Paul, and is consistent with the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17:
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me"
Paul also highlights the fruit of the Spirit as being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. However, the acts of the sinful nature are shown to include hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.
My problem is with the more conservative wing of the Church. Discussions with them (never truly discussions, they always seem to turn into heated debates and arguments) always seem to follow a particular pattern. The order might change and there might be subtle shades, but broadly, the pattern is as follows:
1. They put forward a view that the Bible is unambiguously clear that God opposes homosexuality. So, if you take one of the handful of passages and show an alternative view that leads to some ambiguity, rather than acknowledge this, they jump onto another passage. If you then take this next passage and do likewise, the anger mounts against you and they start to talk of the overwhelming message of Scripture and the internal consistency of God's message. Now, at this point, if they were to pause and acknowledge that yes, there is a different reading but that they don't agree on your interpretation, that would be fine. It doesn't breach our relationship and we can agree to disagree and acknowledge that our actions have to have integrity with our reading of Scripture.
However, usually they believe your new interpretations are not consistent with their understanding of God and therefore are not likely. But interestingly, here the argument has changed. It is now no longer saying that things are unambiguously clear, but that there is a broad, overarching theme. However, if this theme is built on the pillars of interpretation of a few verses, then it makes sense that a challenge to these verses can result in a challenge to the overarching (perceived) theme. Conversations rarely get beyond shouting matches and the throwing of Bible verses at you, however. I have also noticed that when you present an important Biblical principle, rather than addressing this, they will throw an apparently contradictory principle at you. For example, if you quote a verse about loving your enemies or refer to passages where the Church was encouraged by Paul to work together despite differences, they will quote another passage about dealing with heretics, as if this in some way negated Paul's other teaching.
2. When a shift does occur from claiming individual verses back up the anti-homosexual position, a broader view is put forward that the Genesis template clearly shows marriage is to be between one man and one woman. This is actually a good point. However, where things unravel is when you say that this is the ONLY acceptable model for covenant marriage. 2 Sam 12:8 has a very uncomfortable passage for traditionalists. God here is actively participating in polygamy. Every time I have mentioned this passage to a traditionalist, I have only been met by silence and a jump to another argument. Also, Jesus was single and Paul promotes celibacy (where those have that gift). These are different ways of living that are a deviation from the argument that all men must marry one woman. It shows that while it is A template, it is not necessarily the only acceptable model for human relationships. When discussing God's participation in polygamy, I would much rather hear someone honestly say "I don't know why God did this". This would be honest and shows us that we don't always know or understand the Bible at face value and we need to wrestle with these issues in prayer.
3. Then some will angrily talk about the inability of 2 men to reproduce. This is not a theological or Biblical argument, but is often used. It is true. But some married heterosexual couples are likewise unable to reproduce and some choose not to. Are they in some way sinning by living together as a married couple? Adoption is also an option to all these couples, and there are many moving testimonies from adopted children of the love they felt for having been "chosen" to be loved, in a way that is reminiscent of the Christian story.
4. Some talk of different gender roles and a hierarchy of male over female. This does not sit comfortably with me at all, particularly in light of Galatians 3 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"). It is also not an argument about sexuality, but of power and dominance in a 2 person relationship. There is also such diversity within gender groupings, that any argument that each gender contributes something unique to a relationship has little evidence to back this up.
5. Some worry about the harm caused to children if raised by gay parents. Studies do not appear to back up these concerns. In fact, there is more harm caused by divorce or being raised by a single parent according to studies.
6. Homosexuality is seen by some conservatives as a choice. They believe that the issue we are discussing is purely one of sex. Therefore, the act of sex is a choice and you can choose whether to have it with a man or a woman. Presumably they would argue that if you want to have sex with someone (of the opposite gender), you would need to marry them first and then be allowed sex. However, our studies of sexuality clearly show that sexual orientation is not a choice. Ask people if they believe homosexual orientation is a choice and surprisingly, many will say "yes". However, ask those same people when they chose their sexual orientation and you will likely be met with confusion, as they would think they always were and didn't ever make a conscious choice to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender. As a heterosexual man, I never once made a choice to be sexually attracted to women. It just happened naturally.
The metaphor people use is also very interesting. Conservatives like to talk of homosexuality as being like an addiction (e.g. an alcoholic). The logic follows that you help an alcoholic to recover and not drink alcohol. However, sexual orientation is more like being left handed, right handed, or in a few cases ambidextrous. You do not force an orientation change. Also, using one or the other is not inherently right or wrong, but it is what you do with your hands that is good or evil.
7. Finally, a bemusing argument, often from a place of desperation to attempt to silence you, is that the Church has believed the traditionalist view for centuries and therefore why should we change it now? The first clear answer is that we understand the issue of sexuality better now. It is clearly not just a lustful orgy-like behaviour that society needs to condemn. It is genuine same sex attraction that has the same perils, hopes, dreams, opportunities as heterosexual attraction. A second answer is to point out that the Church has been spectacularly wrong in the past. Take for example the flat earth or scientific discovery. Just because people have a view for a long time doesn't make that view more valid than a new, enlightened view. That is really no argument whatsoever. We might as well say we have sinned for centuries, why should we stop now?
Where I would be in total agreement with a traditionalist, would be if they said that their conscience would not allow them to express their own homosexuality. The Bible actually tells me what to do in that situation (see Romans 14). I must not put a stumbling block in the way of my brother or sister. Nor should any minister be forced to conduct a wedding against their conscience. I would stand up and strongly defend the right of a traditionalist to act with integrity according to their conscience. The question is, would a traditionalist stand up for me in similar situations?
What exhausts me is the constant arguments that go in circles, never listening to other views, not willing to even contemplate that there might be truth in another's position, and calling you a heretic or unsaved believer if you dare to disagree with their conservative view. I have been accused of sneaky tricks, of heresy, of probably not being truly saved, of being confused. Thankfully, praise God, I have also met some wonderful, peace-loving and gracious traditionalists, that I am proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree on homosexuality and if we might vote differently on issues (e.g. marriage).
I genuinely am at a loss to know what to do with the other people though...
The words of Paul to Titus (Titus 3) ring in my ears and I keep asking God if there is another way: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." I fear I have gone beyond the second warning in many conversations from people who wish to eject any believers from the Church on account of a different interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality, or who call for division and disunity, all in the name of God.
I would appreciate any wisdom from readers to know how we progress in this situation, where one party refuses to even listen and have fellowship with one who disagrees on a single issue of doctrine, in this case, the place of homosexuality in God's kingdom.
God bless
