Christianity and Homosexuality
Christianity and homosexuality is a topic to which I have
given much thought. I have witnessed the treatment those of my friends and
family who are gay have endured by both society and the majority of the
Christian community. I have felt ashamed and embarrassed. As a student of
theology I have taken a personal interest in this topic and how it has
developed over the last few decades in the Christian community. Recently the
topic of homosexuality has begun to impact my local community. As I have read countless editorials and blogs
across many venues regarding this, it is evident that my local community is
struggling with discrimination and homosexuality in the public arena. Some of
the opinions I have encountered are obviously slanted, while others are very
thoughtful. Yet, neither side convinces me of their argument. I myself have
started many blog posts and “letters to the editor,” just to discard them because
I did not like my own tone or analogies. With the arguments I presented, I felt
I was overlooking an important facet. I felt the need to reflect deeper upon
this topic before putting in words some knee-jerk reaction.
My early awareness of homosexuality occurred in high school
during the late 1980’s. A few guys in my class were gay, yet we thought nothing
of it. At school, it was never a topic of conversation or concern. But at
church… it was a sin and they were choosing to live in sin. Of course we had no
idea what their personal life held, but they must be sinners because they chose
to be or act gay. So, what exactly is the “sin” of homosexuality, the
attraction to someone of the same sex or the sex acts themselves? My
understanding at that time was that: to be gay was to act in a certain manner
and therefore that manner was equal to sin. Yet, the exact nature of sin was
never defined. The culture and society taught us that gay men were flamboyant
and promiscuous. The church taught us that it was most obviously a sin.
Through the years, I met gay couples who were neither
flamboyant nor promiscuous, challenging the cultural view. They were just
regular people whose mate was of the same sex. So then, from the church’s
perspective, what exactly was the sin they were committing? At that time in my
life, I did not think deeply about it. Based on what I had been taught, it was
obvious they chose that life, and that they should know the consequences.
When I began my theological training at a conservative
Christian college, this dialogue suddenly changed. It was no longer “choosing”
a lifestyle, but whether or not to accept the lifestyle into which they were
born. At that point, being homosexual became known to be more biologically
based. Homosexuals were born as such. In these teachings, it was an
“abnormality,” which could either be cured or ignored. With this understanding,
it was then sinful if they were not seeking the correct “aid” in overcoming
this “disease.” The burden of sin, then, still rested on the head of the person
who was gay. So, even though the dialogue shifted, in essence, the result was
still the same. What still remained undefined was what exactly was the sin? At
this point in my life, it all made much less sense.
So as we further this thinking that homosexuality is a
“disease,” then what exactly is the “disease?” Does the liver of a person who
is gay produce too many of the wrong proteins? Or perhaps, the brain must be
growing upside down. Could someone point to a root biological cause of
homosexuality? Does that even matter?
It is at this point of questioning and reviewing what I’ve
been taught, that I am reminded of the story in the Gospel of John, chapter
nine, where Jesus heals the man who was born blind. The disciples asked who had
sinned, the man or the man’s parents, that he might be born blind. The
religious leaders then affirm in the story that there is a relationship between
blindness and sin. We are left with a distinct impression that the thinking of
that time was that those born with any “defect” were born so due to sin. It was
a common idea of the time. Yet, Jesus actually denied this claim and then healed
the man.
Throughout the history of Christianity, the concept of a
“defect” being related to sin was carried through until the nineteenth century.
It was at this time that science began to have a better understanding of the
human body as a whole. Now, we see a child who has Downs Syndrome and we may
call them “God’s Angel” rather than a “sinner.” My comparison here is only that
neither being gay nor having Downs Syndrome are “sinful.” They may not fit the
overall “norm” of humanity, but then nobody technically does on an individual
basis. Ten thousand years ago, no one had seen a green eyed person before.
Certainly, the first green eyed person should have been stoned as a sinner.
Obviously, this is sarcasm on my part.
So then, what does this mean for the Christian? Does this
thinking change the dialogue again? Perhaps, people who are homosexual choose
to be the person that God created them to be, rather than living in fear of the
majority; the supposed “norm” of society. People who are homosexual do sin,
just like everyone else. But, the sin is not for being attracted to the same
sex as oneself, but could be just like everyone else’s sins: breaking
relationships, giving in to temptations, and being disheartening to others.
Some may say, “But, as a Christian, we are supposed to live
by the Bible and the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.” To this,
I would counter, as a Christian, we are supposed to live by the grace of God
and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Should we then follow the Bible and
call those who are born with blindness sinners? Or, should we follow Christ in
extending a hand of healing to the broken man? Through the church’s Bible
thumping, fear mongering, and dis-graceful behaviors, we have wounded, rather
than healed. And by healed, I do not mean to change others, but rather to bring
hurting people into the arms of love, mercy, and community so that they may
know health.
Upon reflection and writing, I recognize that I do not see
homosexuality as a sin, in and of itself. Through contemplation, I had to
wrestle with my theology of human nature, of sin, of the place of the Bible and
Holy Spirit, and of community in general. I believe that sin is a relational
matter. It is not a thing or a state of being. When a relationship, be it
personal or communal, is being torn apart because of the action or inactions of
the parties involved, then sin is occurring. Therefore, the church has sinned
against people who are homosexual, in its words and actions which have broken
the relationship between the individual and the church corporate.
It is not an easy task coming to an understanding of the
root causes of sin. Ask any marriage counselor about why spouses act out
against their partner, and recognize that there is no specific answer.
Relationships are easy to break and hard to mend. Christians are called to mend
relationships with grace and love. In order to overcome “sin” in a
relationship, both sides have to be willing to confess their faults and enter a
meaningful conversation. Therefore, how can the church make such a move,
especially when many Christians misunderstand homosexuality? Is it a
theological restructuring and pastoral hermeneutical rethinking that needs to
take place? For some, this may sound as if I am trying to justify “sin” and
change the “truth” in order to fit the culture. In essence, it is necessary to
free Christianity from the culture. The true heart of Christianity is grace,
not sin.
