The Church and Same-Sex Relationships (Conclusion)
Hi Dojo readers,
Here is the final part of my response to my friend Sam regarding whether or not the Church should endorse same-sex sexual relationships as a valid expression of Godly sexuality among followers of Jesus.
If you’re just joining us, Sam’s initial guest post can be read HERE.
My initial response to Sam can be read HERE.
My response to Sam’s 2nd major point can be read HERE.
Below I will address Sam’s 3rd major point. Again, for the sake of reading, Sam’s points are in bold and my responses follow.
———————————-
“A normative structure focused only on sexual acts between two people of the same sex and/or gender: a) is not the best means by which to do ministry as or with sexual minorities and b) does not obtain in the Discipline of the UMC.
You’re rightly opposed to condemning people for things they can’t help, JM. Acknowledging that lesbians and gay men are immutably attracted to those who belong to the same gender category, you’ve made a point of focusing only on the act of a woman having sex with a woman or a man with a man as sinful, not their orientation towards doing so. This is an example of the balance which you seek to strike between unreflective condemnation of queerness on the one hand and celebration of queerness in marriage and ordination on the other. As I’ve argued, such a balance isn’t the best way to go about doing things.
Now we come to the heart of the issue in terms of pastoral/Christian response. I appreciate you outlining my approach Sam, and I think you’ve accurately captured the nuance I strive for in terms of focusing on action rather than orientation. This is where I want to correct what I believe is a small, but significant assumption that you are holding to–namely, the difference between SIN and TEMPTATION.
You said…
“Here’s one example of why: claiming that an act is sinful but that the desire to commit the act is unproblematic really kind of puts queerness in its own moral category. Adultery is an evil act, and desire to commit it is sinful too, as Jesus said. I think we’d think the same thing about murder, theft, etc.”
I disagree. I don’t think it puts same-sex sexual desire in its own moral category; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. I believe the desire for sex with someone of the same gender is no different (in terms of sinfulness) than the desire for sex with someone who is not your spouse…or the desire to look at pornography…or the desire to have sex with multiple people at the same time…etc.
The desire to do such things is simply temptation. And we are ALL subject to various sinful temptations. Some people were born with the temptation to abuse alcohol—based on their genetic makeup, rather than any choice they’ve ever made. Yet we rightly recognize that they are not guilty of sin unless they give in to this desire and get drunk. So long as they recognize it as a sinful temptation and allow the Holy Spirit to strengthen them daily (or even hourly, if necessary!) in resisting it, then they are faithfully living as Disciples of Jesus and are not morally guilty of the sin of drunkenness.
Or let me use a personal example that I know the majority of men (and many women!) in the church can relate to. I’m a single guy. I am attracted to beautiful women. If I’m online and see a link to a site where I can see beautiful women naked and doing their best to look alluring and seductive for me, I experience a genuine desire to look. If I give in and look lustfully, that is an inward assent—a mental “yes”, if you will—to temptation and I then become guilty of the sin of lust (and also allow a counterfeit to suffice in the absence of the genuine).
But if I do not look…if I abide in Christ and call upon the Spirit to strengthen me in this struggle, then I am walking as a faithful follower of Jesus.
What’s more, even if I do look…if I give in to the temptation and end up sinning, all is not lost. If I confess this as sin and turn to God for forgiveness and cleansing (1John 1:9), then I am once again walking as a faithful follower of Jesus. God’s grace, mercy and forgiveness is always available, no matter which sin I allow to entangle me.
But I have to see what I’m doing as sin.
That’s the danger in revisionist positions on same-sex sexual relationships, Sam. Ironically, they end up alienating people who (like the rest of us!) need empowering grace and cleansing forgiveness in their lives from the God whom you (rightly) long for them to know.
In other words, advocating for the acceptance and celebration of same-sex sexual relationships enables rather than empowers. It tells people to accept and celebrate their chains rather than freeing them from Sin’s grasp.
It would be like telling the person addicted to pornography that their actions are not really sin and should be celebrated so long as they do not end up harming anyone else or causing problems with their social/work/family life.
That is why many of us who oppose same-sex sexual relationships are so adamant—because we believe that God has declared it to be a form of sin and all sin hurts and destroys people at some level, alienating them from God regardless of whether or not we can measure such harm with through secular methodology.
After all, returning to the example of pornography, there’s no measurable harm done by me looking at, or even fantasizing about beautiful naked women who desire nothing but my sexual fulfillment (I’m not even talking about “addiction” in the psychological sense; just “moderate use” if we need to label it). No one is hurt and I can even rationalize it creatively as merely “expressing my sexuality” or “finding a measure of fulfillment” given the fact that I’m not married and thus cannot enjoy sex with a loving wife.
But there is spiritual harm because I am disobeying God by giving in to sinful desire. I am not walking in holiness or abiding in Christ unless I turn from it and reject the temptation…which in the heat of the moment, as anyone who’s struggled with temptation to pornography (or any other sexual sin) can attest, seems near-impossible.
Essentially, I believe that same-sex sexual desire is simply another form of temptation. A deeply-rooted and life-defining temptation for many who struggle with it…but a temptation nonetheless.
Thus, when we stop seeing it as a temptation and start declaring it a “mysterious gift from God” or an innate part of someone’s self-identity, we negate the very essence of the Gospel and the very purpose of Jesus, who bears that name because He came “to save His people from their sins.”
Jesus can’t save us from our sins if we refuse to recognize them as sin.
“People who have a persistent desire to commit major sins, like pathological arsonists, shouldn’t be condemned as sinners but are in serious need of medical/psychological attention. People who have a compulsion to engage in minor inconsiderate acts, like those who insist on doing everything an even number of times, are rightly seen as harmless and loved in spite of the compulsive condition they exhibit. But you probably don’t want to argue that queerness is anything like pathological arson that requires serious psychotherapy since you’re likely aware of how abjectly wrong it is to try to change someone’s sexual orientation.”
Actually, I don’t believe it is “abjectly wrong”, nor do I believe that sexual orientation is immutable.
Now to be clear, I don’t claim that every person who has same-sex attraction is promised to be delivered from the temptation of it (as some ex-gay proponents may claim).
But I also don’t believe that such change is impossible.
In fact I had a pastor up in Boston during my days in seminary who had experienced such change. So I know for a fact that while it may not be the norm, it is very much possible.
Just as I don’t believe God doesn’t heal because He doesn’t choose to heal every disease or deformity, I don’t believe that God cannot change a person’s sexual desires just because some never experience such change.
I’m also very much opposed to the idea that someone who has unwanted same-sex desires should not have the opportunity to seek such change. I totally reject the idea that counselors who offer such therapy are necessarily unethical (though of course there are always those who promise more than they can deliver, or use manipulative/unethical methods and end up bringing shame to the Gospel and bitterness to those they make such promises to who do not experience such change).
However, discussions of whether or not change in orientation is possible aside, I want to make it clear that (to quote Rob Gagnon) “No command of God is predicated on an eradication of impulses to do otherwise.”
So whether or not someone with same-sex desire will ever be free from such desire or will ever experience normal sexual desire for the opposite gender, the act of sex with someone of the same sex remains an act of sin.
Not an unforgivable sin. Not a sin that makes them “worse” or “more immoral” than other sins like gossip, drunkenness or mean-spiritedness. But sin nonetheless.
“And you probably don’t want to argue that being lesbian or gay is a trivial (with respect to those outside the subject) orientation that has no relevant bearing on one’s potential ordination or marriage in the church. So it’s a third thing: some sort of a disordering of God’s creation that we must ecclesially oppose acting upon but never attempt to change the desire to do. I submit to you that that is a little bit strange, though it would be interesting to see if you feel like this paragraph holds any argumentative water.”
Yes, I reject the “…but never attempt to change the desire to do” part.
I believe that, like any other sinful desire, same-sex desire should be actively opposed by the person who experiences it, and the Body of Christ should rally around them in support as they walk the path of Discipleship.
People who struggle with it should not feel inordinate amounts of shame or guilt, nor should they be treated any differently by the Church than someone struggling with any other sinful desire—be it greed, heterosexual lust, chemical addiction or gossip.
They should be affirmed as human beings created in God’s Image and of inherent, intrinsic worth and dignity…not because of their same-sex temptation, but in spite of it.
Just like every other person who faces the Cross, they must choose whether to take it up daily and “deny” themselves (as Jesus so un-politically-corretly put it!), or whether to stake their identity upon their particular sinful desire and refuse Jesus’ lordship over it.
This is indeed a hard, even seemingly-impossible, choice for many. I don’t want to be glib or negate the seriousness of such a call or the ferocity of the battle it entails. But as Jesus put it regarding those who do not or cannot experience sexual fulfillment in this life, yet who still seek the Kingdom in spite of that fact, “Let anyone accept this who can” (Matthew 19:12 NLT)
“I’m not going to fight hard to defend my use of the word “queer”—indeed, to those in the LGBTI community who are offended by my use of the word, I sincerely apologize. I’ll take this opportunity to self-identify as a straight man and therefore acknowledge I have no prerogative to assign labels to anyone without their consent, especially not sexual minorities. Yet I use “queer” because it’s a person-focused term; sexual minorities (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender persons, intersex persons) share a common experience at the margins of society because of their immutable, unchosen sexual identity and use “queer” as a term linking them one to the other. Speaking about sexual acts without any regard to sexual actors is, frankly, somewhat incoherent. We must be people-focused, and if it’s not a sin or a pathology just to be lesbian or gay, it’s not a sin or a pathological act to do what lesbians and gay men who are Christian do: get married to the one to whom you’re called to get married.”
I don’t mind your use of the term “Queer”…but I avoid it precisely for the reasons that you employ it.I believe it reduces the identity of the person to their sexual desire.
I can understand why you do and I commend your desire to reach out and affirm the struggle and sense of alienation and fringe experience than many within the LGBT community live with as a daily reality. But I think that it is, from a Kingdom perspective, counterproductive and only serves to further alienate people who already feel alienated. However, I know many proudly embrace that label and I can understand why they do.
The bigger point above that I want to challenge is your “if…then” notion. I believe it is a non-sequitur.
“…if it’s not a sin or pathology just to be lesbian or gay…”
I don’t believe it is a sin.
I do believe it is a form of pathology (though not in the technical/psychological sense).
However…
Pathology =/= Sin.
In other words, I believe that we are all born “bent” (to borrow C.S. Lewis’ term). Such “bent”ness manifests itself in various ways among each of us…whether physically, emotionally or spiritually.
For instance, I have clinical depression/anxiety disorder (for which I sought psychiatric treatment and take medicine to alleviate). This is a form of mental illness. It is pathological. I am not morally guilty as a result, but if I were to act in a sinful manner during a bout of anxiety or moment of extreme depression, I would be guilty of sin.
Likewise, other people are born with the innate desire to abuse alcohol. This is pathological. They are not morally guilty of sin, however, unless they act on that desire in a sinful manner.
Similarly, I believe, someone who is born with an innate attraction to members of the same sex (while not considered technically pathological by the APA since 1973) experience their “bent”ness in the area of sexuality. This does not make them morally guilty anymoreso than either of the above examples. But if they act on the desire through sexual relationship with someone of the same sex (even if the relationship is seen by them or society as “loving”, “committed” or deemed “marriage” by the government), then they move from struggling with temptation to being morally guilty of sin.
And since God unequivocally and universally throughout both Testaments of Scripture has claimed that same-sex sexual relationships are a form of sin, then no matter what someone might feel in their heart, they are not “being called” by God to marry someone of the same gender, and the Church must not recognize such a claim as valid. To use such language as “calling” implies that God is the one leading the person to do something which God has specifically prohibited His people (under both Covenants) from doing.
Of course this is nothing new…many heterosexual Christians have claimed that “God called them” to leave their spouse upon meeting their “soul mate.” In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a Pastor who hasn’t heard this claim before, I’m willing to bet. Yet we rightly recognize it as pseudo-spiritual rationalization of what is in actuality a sinful decision they have made.
“…the UMC has failed to focus either on persons or on acts. Instead, its focus is on orientation, indicated by its consistent use of “homosexual(ity)” in the BoD. Failing to speak about acts falls short of your aim to embrace persons and simply to condemn their concrete sexual actions—the Church is concerned with the self-avowal and practice of an orientation, of which a person is partly constituted! And at the same time, the UMC also fails to do what I try to do: namely, to hold to (what I should like to think is) the logical conclusion that if it isn’t a sin to will it, it isn’t a sin to do it. Instead we have a murky third thing that suggests to me that, in ministry and theology, a lack of careful attention to language is really a lack of careful attention to the Spirit to whom we are responsible.”
This is actually a very good point, Sam. I had not considered it because I always read “homosexual(ity)” as referring to the act of same-sex sex.
But I think you’re right and that’s one of the reasons why throughout our discussions I’ve chosen to use the cumbersome-but-specific “same-sex sexual” phraseology rather than “homosexual” (though I’d probably get more blog hits if I used the latter, as it’s much more search-engine-friendly!).
Thank you for pointing it out. While I agree with what the current statement in the Book of Discipline is intending to say, I can see your point and recognize that its wording doesn’t do a good enough job in delineating the distinction between action and orientation/temptation.
After reading through your post and considering how I would respond, I believe that the heart of our debate centers on whether or not the act of sex with someone of the same gender is innately sinful.
If it is not, then your position is admirable and I would be very much inclined to accept it.
However, from a biblical/exegetical perspective, Scripture is uniform and uncompromising in its witness to the fact that like other forms of porneia (such as, say, group sex or consensual adultery, etc.), the act of having sex with someone of the same gender is innately sinful.
Likewise, the Church universal (along with our Jewish friends and predecessors), have concluded the same thing for the entirety of our history. Like I said in my initial response, this must be given more weight than many revisionists who appeal to the “ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit” seem to want to give it. Is the Holy Spirit only now “leading” us to go against what He has led the Church (across all denominations and traditions) to consistently teach for the past two millennia?
I don’t believe that He is.
Honestly though, given the fact that I have close friends who are either in same-sex sexual relationships or who experience unwanted same-sex desire, and who I truly love and care about deeply, I actually wish same-sex sex wasn’t innately sinful. It would be so much easier if Scripture and the historic testimony of the Church universal weren’t so clear on this subject. I really do mean that.
This is why I strive to reject and call to repentance any Christian who speaks in mean-spirited, hateful, or dishonest ways on this issue. HERE‘s an example for those who don’t follow this blog. And here’s a video response I gave at an open Q&A when the subject came up which seeks to clarify the ways in which the Church and various Christians have dropped the ball in terms of dealing with the LGBT community at times:
So while I wish that God hadn’t declared same-sex sex to be sinful, since God has in fact stated it to be such I cannot in good conscience declare otherwise. If I were to do so, I would be “eating the fruit” because it is “good” and “pleasing” in my eyes, so to speak. I would be listening to the voice of the Serpent rather than the leading of the Spirit. That’s simply not an option.
In the end, like so many other issues the Church has wrestled with throughout the millennia, it all comes down to that initial insidiously subtle question: “Has God really said…?”
In the case of same-sex sexual relationships, I’m afraid He has.
———————-
I want to again thank Sam for agreeing to this discussion and for his cordial and genuine demeanor in approaching such a controversial and often-volatile issue. The UMC would be better off if more of us shared his approach (regardless of which side they come down on).
I have invited Sam to respond to my points in this series of posts and if he chooses to do so I will publish it as another guest post here in the Dojo.
I hope this conversation in some small way challenges people on all sides of this issue to push past the sound-bytes and sloganeering and come face-to-face with the Word of God and the Spirit who Inspired it and guides us as a Body.
Blessings from the Dojo,
JM
Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Ministry, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
[…] here for the Conclusion of James Michael Smith’s […]
by Thoughts of the Day 06/08/12- “The Church and Same-Sex Sexual Relationships: A Response” | Letters From the Top on Jun 8, 2012 at 8:01 pm
[…] My response (3) – https://jmsmith.org/blog/same-sex-4 […]
by Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Christians and same-sex discussion – Round 2: My response (continued, 2) on Jun 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm
[…] Check out this exchange between Christian authors on opposite ends of the spectrum writing and treating each other respectfully while disagreeing about how The Church should handle same-sex marriage. google_ad_client = "pub-9758495611579099"; google_ad_channel =""; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60; google_ad_format = "468x60_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_color_border = "000000"; google_color_link = "0000FF"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_bg = "F0F0F0"; google_color_url = "008000"; The Facebook Censor Strikes, Town Hall [↩] […]
by Don’t Tell Me Christians “Hardly Ever” Talk About This | Steve Bremner on Jul 4, 2012 at 12:42 am