Homosexuality

A sermon preached at a swrvice of
Evensong with Holy Communion, Sunday, October 15th, 2006

Readings: Romans 1: 21-27, John 8: 1-11

I had originally hoped to do this sermon as a dialogue in order to avoid some awful polemic that would be unnecessarily hurtful to those who struggle with this issue. And I need to start by saying that I have been guilty of saying things in the past, both in print and personally that have been ill-considered and hurtful.

We have to recognise that this is not an abstract issue; it is something that cuts to the heart of a persons perception of their identity. It is also not a monochrome situation. Some folk are clearly content with their homosexual orientation. Others struggle with a painful mixture of emotions over where their orientation truly lies. Others, fairly sure of their orientation, experience great pain over the tension between a culture that says its OK and to be accepted, and a church that they perceive to be hostile to them as individuals because of their sexuality.

We also have to be aware of the cultural context in which this conversation takes place. On the one hand, for all the movement towards tolerance that has taken place in the last 20 years, there remains within our society a deep seated homophobia. Sadly, it can be argued that this has been fuelled by teaching on the appropriate boundaries of human sexuality taught in all world faiths. All Christians, whatever their views on this subject would agree that homophobia is not an appropriate response to anyone struggling with their sexuality. At no point does Jesus encourage us to hate or fear anyone, especially on the basis of their sexuality.

However, we also need to realise that the contemporary intellectual climate stifles an honest and open debate on such issues as the origin and development of our sexual orientation. It is almost axiomatic in psychological and counselling circles these days that sexual orientation is fixed. If someone seeks help to change their orientation (as some do) this is regarded with suspicion. The accusation of homophobia has been inappropriately broadened to include anyone who asks questions about where the legitimate moral boundaries or our sexuality should be.

Both sides of the argument have been guilty of charicaturing the others position, which is not helpful. In the Church at least it should be possible to have an open debate accepting that love is the motivation behind both points of view.

Before we move on to the scriptural teaching it is also important to acknowledge the legitimacy of the accusations that homosexual people have levelled at the orthodox position.

We have been quite rightly accused of a hypocrisy over this issue. Why for example do people not take an equally censorious view over heterosexual ‘sins’ The scriptures are very clear about the sanctity of marriage and yet the Church has moved significantly in its practice over the re-marriage of divorcees. Why, it is argued, can it not similarly move with regard to homosexual practice.

It can also be argued that the Churches traditional teaching about the legitimate expression of our sexuality still allows heterosexuals an outlet for their expression: through marriage. For someone with a homosexual orientation celibacy is the only option, according to traditional teaching. This seems to cruelly deprive someone of the possibility of a lifelong committed partnership.

Personally, I have also noticed how even the most strident defender of traditional norms changes their tune when someone close to them ‘comes out’ , or experiences other forms of sexual confusion. I suspect that the comparative rarity of homosexuality compared to other departures from orthodox teaching goes a long way to explain why the teaching on homosexuality seems less under threat than that on marriage. Many people know divorced and remarried people. Comparatively fewer know homosexual people, particularly those in a long term committed relationship. It is much easier to make sweeping remarks and generalisations if you don’t personally encounter the people you vilify.

Having said all that, Christianity remains a revealed faith. We didn’t dream it up ourselves. God’s dealings with his people are recorded for us in the scriptures, and his character supremely revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus regarded the scriptures as the final authority on all matters of faith and morality. As we read the scriptures we will find that the teaching about boundaries for our sexual conduct are about the clearest for any subject we might care to enquire about. I’m sure the passage from Roman’s made us wince when we heard it but it is amongst the more gentle of the passages in the Bible that refer to homosexuality directly. The teaching of the whole Bible (rather than isolated proof texts) is off men and women created to be complementary to one another and to restrict the full expression of love in sexual intercourse to lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

The question we have to ask ourselves is what to do with this teaching when our culture has departed so far from it, or when some folk find their feelings prevent them being able to keep to it. Sometimes changes in culture can be prophetic to the Church. I think this is so for example in the ordination of women to the priesthood. The fact that women were very successfully exercising leadership at all levels of society called into question why ordained leadership in the Church should be restricted to men. Failing to ordain women to the presbyterate looked increasingly absurd in a culture that welcomed their leadership. However, a closer examination of the scriptures, using universally agreed principles of interpretation, shows that this change in the Churches practice to be entirely consistent with the teaching of the Bible taken as a whole.

We always have to ask the question whether a particular teaching of the scriptures is culturally determined or universal. So, for example we no longer demand that women have their heads covered in Church (1 Cor. 11). However we do honour the principles that underlay this teaching in the context of our day although the manifestation is different.

Therefore, we must ask whether the teaching about sexuality is universal or culturally determined. Here I have to say that I believe it is universal. All the specific, explicit instructions support it, as does the whole Bible’s understanding of the nature of men, women and sexuality.

It is this issue that has now more or less split the Episcopalian Church in the USA. However, we should not think it is different opinions over homosexuality that have done it alone. This issue is symptomatic of a more fundamental disagreement over the nature of authority. No-one in the USA is seriously arguing from scriptural authority for the revision of accepted norms. Instead, they are arguing that norms should be assessed now by the criteria of experience and cultural acceptability. Many people take the view that since our faith is revealed in the scriptures, formulated in the creeds we simply cannot do this. Indeed the danger is, as has been clearly shown by the writings of some Episcopalian Bishops, that to abandon authority on this issue leads to a revision of faith in almost every other area as well. If the writings of Bishop Jack Spong are to be seen as representative in this you are left with a formulation of faith barely recognisable as Christian.

But where does this leave us with real people struggling with their sexuality and sense of identity? Is it inevitable that because the Bible says a particular pattern of behaviour falls short of God’s ideal that those who disagree with that, or who struggle with keeping to it, should feel excluded and demonised.

Well, clearly, the ministry of Jesus should show us no. In the passage in John 8 a woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus by a group of religious thugs who want to use her to condemn him by trapping him on the horns of a dilemma. He carefully avoids their trap by helping them to see that they are sinners too and in no place to condemn anyone. At the same time he clearly states to her where the boundaries lie but is explicit in not condemning her as a person.

It is in this story that we see the classic Christian response of clarity about truth but grace to those who fall short. If someone asks me how as a Church we treat someone with a homosexual orientation, especially someone expressing it in a committed relationship I would ask how I should treat any of the other folk in our Church who fall short of God’s ideal, as indeed I do. How should we treat the person who steals by dishonestly filling in their tax return, or who is a practising greedy person, or who gossips, or has sex outside marriage, or abuses substances or who by their behaviour harms other people in the way they relate? The answer is in the same way that Jesus did. People who were outside the social norms flocked to Jesus because in him they experience love, acceptance and forgiveness.

If our Church community isn’t functioning like that then we fall short of Jesus expectation. I hope that anyone with a homosexual orientation who came to this community would experience nothing other than welcome, love and acceptance. I am more interested that someone experiences God’s grace than of being known of as right. Ultimately, all of us only begin to change when we meet Christ’s grace in the midst of our own particular sin of choice. This is the same for the homosexual person as it is for the greedy or addicted.

We are all in this together.