«

»

Nov 30 2012

teddy ray: Framing the Church’s homosexuality debate appropriately

Original post at http://teddyray.com/2012/11/30/framing-the-churchs-homosexuality-debate-appropriately/


HomosexualityRecently, I’ve seen more discussion than usual about the homosexuality debate in the church. Several sub-debates seem to rage on within this larger debate. I think many of those are doing more to distort and confuse the issue than they’re doing to help. They lead to a lot of talking past each other, as John Meunier pointed out in a good recent post.

Though they break down into many smaller tribes, there are generally two camps in the discussions I see: those who believe the church should be fully open to homosexuals, and those who don’t. I dislike all of the typical terms used for these two groups, so here I’m going to refer to these groups as the Openness Camp and the Holiness Camp, respectively, based on the primary arguments I tend to hear from each side. [I'm hoping to be neutral with these two identifiers. I'm open to suggestions of better terms and not trying to make any larger statement with them.]

Let’s try to properly frame the issues here.

Sexual orientation

Holiness Camp, you need to quit talking about sexual orientation in negative terms. Quit debating whether someone can be inclined to homosexual attraction from birth. And for Christ’s sake, don’t even think about excluding anyone from the church or Christian fellowship because of sexual orientation!

You begin with the premise that homosexual behavior is sinful. We’ll get to that later. But you’re doing incredible harm and creating a logical inconsistency for yourselves when you assume that anyone of LGBT orientation needs to be “fixed” or should be excluded from church membership or leadership based on sexual orientation.

Attraction isn’t the issue here. If you exclude everyone who is attracted to someone whom they shouldn’t have sex with, you’ll just about empty the church. Nor is the issue about an inclination to do something you believe is sinful. Some people are born inclined to compulsive consumption of alcohol. We call that alcoholism. Some are born with a unique urge to steal. We call that kleptomania. Surely the church doesn’t exclude anyone with these inclinations. Inclinations and sexual orientation aren’t the issue.

Hospitality

Openness Camp, you need to drop the hospitality rhetoric. Stop saying things like, “The church should be open to all people,” in reference to this debate. You don’t mean it, and you’re going to back yourselves into an uncomfortable corner.

First, if being open to all people means “regardless of sexual orientation,” then I think we should all be able to agree. Yes – full membership and leadership in the church should be open to people of all sexual orientations. See above.

Second, if being open to all people means “regardless of sexual behavior,” then I don’t think you really mean it. Will you allow full membership and leadership rights to someone who openly has one-night stands every week? Yes, we believe God still loves this person. Yes, we believe final judgment belongs to God alone. Yes, we believe Jesus called us to love and hospitality and gave an example of such. But still, you probably won’t give this person full membership and leadership rights. You have lines, too. The “hospitality” and “love” arguments don’t hold up for you. It’s time to drop them (except when the Holiness Camp is violating what I asked them to drop above).

The Real Issue

Openness Camp, some of you were just offended that I used one-night stands in analogy to homosexual practice. That’s likely because you don’t believe homosexual behavior is sinful (many of you would qualify that to say, “if it’s in a committed, monogamous relationship”), but you believe one-night stands are. And that leads us to the two real issues – how the church handles sin and whether homosexual practice is sin.

Let’s handle the easier one first. The church cannot be fully open for membership and leadership to those who don’t earnestly repent of their sins. Persistent, willful sin can’t be ignored. There are thousands of sub-debates that can ensue. “What makes one sin worse than another?” or “Who made you judge?” or “Sounds like a witch hunt.” Yet I think those are mostly red herrings. Go back to the example above of the promiscuous person. Will you allow that person to be your pastor? That persistent, willful sin was judged problematic enough that almost everyone will exclude that person from leadership, possibly membership (an issue to get into more later). So I think we’re nearly all on the same page here. Persistent, willful sexual sin should at least prevent someone from being in leadership in the church. Yes, I said “sexual sin.” I say that because I know of no churches that will stand for their pastors committing obvious sexual sin (e.g. one-night stands or adulterous relationships). My hope is that we’ll go well beyond “sexual sin,” but it seems there’s at least already a line in the sand here.

This leads to the more difficult issue: is homosexual behavior sinful? And for this, we have to do the hard exegetical and hermeneutical work. We need to look at Scripture and the Church’s tradition. I’m not attempting that in this post. But I believe this must be the framing issue for the discussion.

If we call homosexual practice sinful, then the arguments about hospitality and God’s love can only address this in terms of how we remain hospitable and loving in the face of sin. And the Openness Camp must admit that they don’t fully open membership and leadership rights to everyone, regardless of sins they are committing.

If we don’t call homosexual behavior sin, then all of the rest is null and void. If this is acceptable behavior in light of Scripture and the orthodox faith, then it should have no bearing on full membership and leadership opportunities.

This may all strike you as rather obvious. Yet I think it’s necessary to emphasize a proper framework here, since it seems that the discussion keeps ending up chasing the rabbits of hospitality and sexual orientation – or even worse, making appeals to what our culture thinks is best or arguing about how our secular government should rule on gay marriage.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether I’m framing this correctly.

BIG NOTE: I don’t want the comments turning into a fight over whether homosexual practice is a sin. I want to know what you think about the framework. I will DELETE any comments that turn the argument here into the question of whether this is sin.

Related articles

  • Why The Church Is So Concerned With Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexual Ordination – Tim Tennent wrote this excellent article to people who already believe that homosexual practice is wrong, explaining why the debate must be a big deal for them in the church, even if they don’t want it to be. You really should go read it if you’re among those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful.
  • Stealing - an attempt to show that whatever the issues are here, I don’t think they are about bigotry or inhospitality. At least, they shouldn’t be.

About the author

Teddy Ray

Permanent link to this article: http://methoblog.com/3_0/2012/11/framing-the-churchs-homosexuality-debate-appropriately/

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: