219 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion
By Jeffrey S. Siker

PROLOGUE

"Remember," said the chairperson, "the motion is for this committee to continue to endorse the ordination of celibate gay and lesbian candidates without necessarily condemning non-celibate forms of homosexual expression. The question has been called. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstain?" In 1989, I abstained when this question was put before a local committee that oversees the steps leading up to ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The motion failed, as it has in the larger Presbyterian church, and most other denominations, since 1978.¹ I abstained because I just didn't know how to vote. I had problems with both sides of the debate. I also felt somewhat embarrassed, not by the issue itself but because reflections on the Bible figured prominently in the discussion, and, as both an ordained Presbyterian minister and a full-time professor of New Testament at a local university, I thought I should have some reasoned position on the basis of which to make an informed decision. But I did not.

After that vote, I decided to study and learn more about the issues in question. After much reading, prayerful reflection, and many conversations with people on both sides of the debate, I changed my mind. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that I made a decision. The following year, at a presbytery meeting, I voted to affirm the ordination of gays and lesbians to the ministry (the vote failed by one vote). The discussion that follows presents some of the reflections that led to my decision.

Jeffry Siker is Assistant Professor of Theology at Loyola Marymount University. He has written Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy and has a book forthcoming on uses of the Bible in twentieth-century Christian ethics.
¹ The 205th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in June, 1993 reaffirmed a ban on the ordination of "practicing" gays and lesbians and called for a three-year churchwide study and dialogue within each presbytery on various issues surrounding the ordination of gays and lesbians.

220 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

THE DEBATE

How should the church view persons confessing to be Christians who also acknowledge that their sexual orientation is homosexual rather than heterosexual? Different answers to this question have resulted in significant polarization between Christians within many "mainline" denominations, especially among Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, American Baptists, and Roman Catholics. ²

Most denominations have felt compelled to issue various policy statements about how the church approaches the question of including or excluding homosexual Christians. Most of these statements make at least an implicit distinction between homosexual orientation and active homosexual behavior. In practice, the significance of this distinction cuts two ways. On the one hand, for those who consider homosexual behavior inherently sinful (namely, not in keeping with God's intentions for humanity) the distinction allows acceptance of persons with a homosexual orientation, while, at the same time, allowing condemnation of overt homosexual behavior (namely, loving the sinner, hating the sin). ³ From this perspective, a homosexual orientation reflects a distortion of God's intentions for human sexuality but is not itself an active expression

"How should the church view persons confessing to be Christians who also acknowledge that their sexual orientation is homosexual rather than heterosexual?"

of sin. Accordingly, most denominations see heterosexuality as normative and homosexuality as a tragic aberration. Thus, while persons with a homosexual orientation can be Christians and, in principle, can participate fully in the church, even in ordained leadership positions, Christians with such an orientation must abstain from active homosexual practice if they want to remain within the church.

On the other hand, for those who do not consider all forms of homosexual behavior as inherently sinful, and indeed who argue for a positive evaluation of monogamous mutual homosexual relationships, the distinction allows for an emphasis on homosexuality as a predisposed sexual orientation, an orientation that is given and not chosen. People do

² The most recent collection of official church statements on homosexuality I have been able to find is J. Gordon Melton, The Churches Speak on Homosexuality Official Statements firom Religious Bodies and Ecumenical Organizations (Detroit: Gale Research, 1991). This is a thorough collection (almost 300 pages in length) of various church documents.
³ See, e.g., the policy statement and recommendations adopted by the 1978 General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church (USA) in Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Part I.- Journal (190th General Assembly; 7th series; vol XII, 1978), pp. 263-266. See also Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (writing for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," Origins, 16 (1986), pp. 378-382.

221 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

not actively choose to have a homosexual orientation rather than a heterosexual orientation; instead, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are predispositions of which one becomes aware as one becomes sexually mature. Thus, from this perspective, homosexual behavior is simply a natural and appropriate expression of a homosexual orientation, itself given by God and natural, albeit a different orientation and expression than heterosexuality. A homosexual orientation does not reflect a distortion of God's intentions for human sexuality; rather, it is simply another expression of human sexuality along with heterosexuality, The issue is not homosexuality per se, but how one gives expression to one's sexuality, just as is the case for heterosexuality. ⁴

"Experiencing the grace of God in Christ does not mean that one ceases to have a homosexual orientation and converts to having a heterosexual orientation. "

The crucial question, then, is how one construes the homosexual orientation itself. Those who argue that homosexual expression goes against God's intentions for humanity conclude that the homosexual orientation is one symbol among many of the distorted relationship between humans and God. It is a consequence of the fall, and, while not sinful in and of itself, it is one expression among many of human rebellion against God. ⁵ (Many would argue that this position can be derived from Paul's argument in Romans 1.) Being redeemed through God's grace in Christ means coming to recognize that God has ordained heterosexuality as the exclusively normative sexual orientation for authentic human existence. Living as we do, however, between the already and the not yet, it may be that some individuals having a homosexual orientation will continue to struggle with their sexual orientation as the old self gives way to the new self in Christ. If they find themselves unable to engage in appropriate heterosexual relationships (that is, monogamous marriages), then the only recourse is abstinence. This is the argument advanced in the official policy statements of most denominations.

⁴ See, e.g., Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality, and Social Justice, the majority report of the General Assembly Special Committee on Human Sexuality, Presbyterian Church (USA), 1991, pp. 93-108. See also John J. McNeill, "Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow," The Christian Century 104 (1987), pp. 242-246. (This was McNeill's initial response to the Vatican instruction on "The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.")
⁵O0ne now classic articulation of this stance can be found in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's statement in a letter to all Roman Catholic bishops on behalf of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder" ("The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," Origins, 16 [1986], p. 379).

222 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

On the other hand, those who argue that homosexual expression does not necessarily counter God's intentions for humanity conclude that the homosexual orientation is simply one among various sexual orientations with which people are naturally born. While the heterosexual orientation is by far the majority sexual orientation, it is not the only one. It is not exclusively normative, nor has it ever been, though, on the whole, society has deemed it as such. Since the homosexual orientation is natural, namely God-given, then, by definition, homosexual expression can also be natural and in keeping with the possibilities of authentic human existence before God, as is heterosexuality. From this perspective, what is sinful is the heterosexism and homophobia of people (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) who, out of ignorance, fear, and moral blindness, perpetually refuse to recognize the God-given legitimacy of the homosexual orientation and loving homosexual relationships. Experiencing the grace of God in Christ does not mean that one ceases to have a homosexual orientation and converts to having a heterosexual orientation. Indeed, to suggest such a conversion is to encourage the repression and falsification of part of one's identity before God. Why should we condemn what God condones? This is the argument of many gay and lesbian Christians.

I would like to contribute to the current discussion (and what appears to be an impasse) by developing each position in terms of two respective analogies. My hope is that a consideration of these analogies may shed additional light on the issues and the people involved. The argument of those who see homosexual expressions as inherently sinful is analogous to how the church has viewed Christians who are also alcoholics. The argument of those who see homosexual expressions as not inherently sinful is analogous to the earliest Christian debates about inclusion of the Gentiles. After presenting both analogies and their limitations, along with a brief exploration of the debate about the biblical witness, I will raise what seems to be a fundamental question: How does the church determine what is sinful or not sinful, what is inauthentic or authentic human existence before God? Similarly, how does the church recognize and accept the power of God's Spirit at work, especially when recognition and acceptance involves conflict with previous understandings of God's empowering Spirit?

THE ANALOGY OF ALCOHOLISM

The position of most Christian denominations on the issue of homosexual Christians is analogous to the position many churches have towards the issue of alcoholic Christians .⁶ Some people have a predisposi-

⁶ See, e.g., William Muehl, "Some Words of Caution" in Homosexuality and Ethics, edited by E. Batchelor, Jr. (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1980), pp. 71-78, especially p. 73; and Elizabeth Achtemeier, "Homosexuality: What Does the Bible Say?," The Presbyterian Layman, 26 (May/June, 1993), pp. 10-11. For a very different approach to the relationship between alcoholism and homosexuality, see R.J. Kus, "Alcoholism and Non-Acceptance of Gay Self: The Critical Link," Journal of Homosexuality, 15 (1988), pp. 25-42. On the basis of his clinical research, Kus argues that there is a close correlation between alcoholism and non-acceptance of gay self-identity and, inversely, that there is a close correlation between sobriety and positive acceptance of gay self-identity.

223 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

tion to alcoholism, and some do not. Christians with an alcoholic orientation should refrain from active engagement in alcoholic practice since practicing alcoholism is destructive both to oneself and to others and is not in keeping with God's intentions for humanity. While an alcoholic orientation in and of itself is tragic but not sinful, practicing alcoholism is sinful.

An alcoholic predisposition is seen as a consequence of humanity's fall from grace, a reflection of generic human sinfulness. In this sense, the sins of our parents have been visited upon us. Indeed, the sins of an alcoholic mother are visited quite literally upon her child, who is born with various birth defects as a result of the mother's choice to give in to her alcoholic orientation. The mother must repent of (turn away from) her alcoholic practice because of its destructive character. She is directly responsible for the practice, even if she cannot repent of her alcoholic orientation, for which she is not directly responsible. One is always a recovering alcoholic, since the disposition remains even if one abstains from drinking alcohol. (Thus, the practice in Alcoholics Anonymous of always introducing oneself in the following way, even after years of being "dry": "Hi, my name is Joe/Mary, and I am an alcoholic.")

"...how does the church determine what is sinful or not sinful, what is inauthentic or authentic human existence before God?"

Similarly, the argument goes, to allow Christians of homosexual orientation to engage in active homosexual practice would be to allow, and even to invite, the destructive consequences of such practice into the body of Christ, the church. The destructive consequences of practicing alcoholic persons are clear: depression, dependency, violence, incapacity, physical illness, and the like. What are the destructive consequences of practicing homosexual persons? The argument is that such practice inevitably results in the allowance, and even the encouragement, of promiscuity and infidelity, that it threatens basic family units, and that it defies procreation as intended by God.

How should one deal with a person who does not repent of his or her alcoholic or homosexual actions? Certainly, the argument goes, one should show compassion and mercy, and multiple opportunities for repentance should be given. Ultimately, however, if the person refuses to acknowledge the destructive character of his or her actions and so refuses to change his or her behavior, the church should not tolerate the sin. Rather, we should heed Paul's counsel: "Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch" (1 Cor. 5:6-7). The implications here are clear. (Matthew's teaching on church discipline also comes to mind here. See Matt. 18:15-20.)

If you allow a persistent and unrepentant practicing alcoholic to be part of the church, you risk polluting the whole church by tolerating and tacitly

224 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

endorsing such destructive behavior. If, instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, churches started allowing "Drunks Divine" to organize groups in their churches (as apparently the Corinthians did! cf. 1 Cor. 11:21), imagine what would happen. What if practicing alcoholics began arguing that their alcoholic orientation was really a gift from God and that their drunkenness was but an expression of this gift? The acceptance of such practice would be a terrible distortion of God's intentions for redeemed human communities.

Similarly, many would argue, to allow so-called homosexual Christians to dupe the Christian community into thinking that their sexual orientation was simply a gift from God, like heterosexuality-only different, would result ultimately in a destructive distortion of God's intentions for human communities redeemed in Christ from the power of sin. And so Paul's statement to the Corinthians would apply: "when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse" (1 Cor. 1 1: 17).

As I understand it, this is the basic argument of those Christians who grant that homosexual orientation is neither a sin nor a choice but is simply a tragic given, reflecting the distortion of human relationships with God. The choice is how one views and acts upon this given sexual orientation. God's intentions are for heterosexual, monogamous, faithful relationships, and, so, any homosexual activity would run directly counter to God's purposes for humankind. Similarly, even to view a homosexual orientation as but another legitimate sexual expression intended bv God would itself be an expression of sin, for it would encourage people to act against God's intentions for human existence. Thus, like persons with the orientation for the disease of alcoholism, so persons with the orientation for the "disease" of homosexuality (though since 1973 the American Psychiatric Association has ceased to consider homosexuality a "disease" ⁷) are, from this perspective, always "recovering homosexuals."

There are, however, significant limitations to the analogy between alcoholism and homosexuality. These limitations are so serious that, in my view, they render the analogy not only useless but dangerous. Most important, while the damaging effects of active alcoholism are readily apparent, such is not the case for persons with a homosexual orientation who engage in homosexual activity. Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of "diseases" precisely because there was no clinical evidence that homosexual activity resulted

⁷ For some fascinating accounts of the decision-making process that led the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders see, especially, R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981); S.A. Kirk and H. Kutchins, The Selling of DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]: The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry (New York: de Gruyter, 1992), pp. 77-119; R. Stoller, et al., "A Symposium: Should Homosexuality Be in the APA Nomenclature?" American Journal of Psychiatry, 130 (November, 1973) pp. 1207-1216; and R. Bayer and R. Spitzer, "Edited Correspondence on the Status of Homosexuality in DSM-III," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18 (1982), pp. 32-52.

225 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

in any more destructive behaviors than was the case for persons engaging in heterosexual activity. ⁸

Further, while most recovering alcoholics recognize that their alcoholic orientation is potentially debilitating and destructive, unless they abstain from drinking, most persons who are homosexual do not see their sexual orientation as anything from which they need to recover. Rather, contrary to the alcoholism analogy, they would argue that abstaining from homosexual activity itself is what is potentially most debilitating, because to do so is to deny a significant expression of their identity as human beings who seek out intimate and committed relationships with other persons, just as heterosexual people do. Thus, while church teaching views alcoholism and homosexuality in analogous ways, most persons with a homosexual orientation do not recognize themselves in the analogy.

"While church teaching views alcoholism and homosexuality in analogous ways, most persons with a homosexual orientation do not recognize themselves in the analogy. "

Finally, alcoholism is a disease, from which some people suffer, that is triggered by the act of drinking alcoholic beverages. The focus in alcoholism is on the act: either drinking or abstaining from drinking. But gays and lesbians repeatedly remind us that, while heterosexuals tend to focus on homoerotic acts whenever discussing homosexuality, gays and lesbians are much more concerned with the whole range of factors that comprise relationships. Homosexual acts (just like heterosexual acts) are but one feature of a much larger complex of factors that contribute to the makeup of relationships. To focus on the sexual act is to miss the point of the larger context of the relationship. To do so is to dehumanize and depersonalize gays and lesbians, caricaturing them only in terms of their sexual activities rather than seeing them as whole persons with lives that include more than sex.

⁸ See especially the study of E. Hooker, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual," in The Problem of Homosexuality in Modern Society, edited by H.M. Ruitenbeek (New York: Dutton, 1963), pp. 141-161. That the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder is not to suggest that the church should look primarily to the social sciences in order to adjudicate the church's position on homosexuality. However, the social sciences can suggest ways human reason and experience can be used, along with the church's witnesses of Scripture and tradition, to address controversial issues. On the biological front, see, especially, two recent articles: Chandler Burr, "Homosexuality and Biology," The Atlantic Monthly 271:3 (March, 1993), pp. 47-65; and Dean H. Hamer, et al., "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science, 261 (July 1993), pp. 321-327. Burr surveys results of recent work on sexual orientation in three distinct but interrelated fields of biology (neuroanatomy, psychoendocrinology, and genetics). Hamer's conclusions point in the direction of a genetic marker for some cases of male homosexuality, making a stronger case for sexual orientation being a genetic predisposition. My hunch is that such findings will be used on both sides of the theological arguments regarding inclusion or exclusion of gays and lesbians in the church.

226 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

THE TRADITIONAL BIBLICAL TEXTS

While I used to find the alcoholism-homosexuality analogy an appropriate one, I obviously no longer do, both because of significant problems with the analogy itself and because I think there is a much more appropriate analogy that does not envision the practice of homosexuality as necessarily sinful. First, however, I want to anticipate a fundamental objection to the view that homosexual practice is not by definition sinful, namely, what the Bible is thought to say about homosexuality. Appeals are often made to what have become classic biblical texts on homosexuality, the most significant being Genesis 1-2 (the creation story); Genesis 19:1-9 (Sodom and Gomorrah, with Judges 19 and Ezek. 16:46-56 as parallels); Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (within the. Holiness Code); and, from the New Testament, Romans 1:26-27 (the most significant of the texts), I Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.⁹ Simply put, all of these passages are often used to "prove" that heterosexuality is God's exclusive intention for human sexuality, and that homosexuality is an abomination before God.

But, to use the creation stories to argue for heterosexuality as the exclusive norm is largely an argument from silence, since nothing there is said about homosexuality. Heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, but it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality. (This is to say nothing of how the story reflects the patriarchal context in which it was written, a context that, not incidently, subordinates women to men.) As for the Sodom and Gomorrah story, one can certainly conclude that homosexual rape (just like heterosexual rape, though this seems of little concern to Lot in the story) is an abomination before God, but it does not follow from this that all expressions of homosexuality are prohibited. (David's sin of adultery with Bathseba does not make all heterosexual expressions sinful!)

As for the texts from the Leviticus Holiness Code, the problem is how one decides which texts have authority and which texts do not. The prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are clear enough, but, then, so are the prohibitions of crossbreeding animals, sowing two kinds of seed in one field, wearing garments made of two different materials, rounding off the hair on one's temples, marring the edges of one's beard, and receiving a tattoo (Lev. 19:19, 27-28; 21:5). All of these practices, along with child sacrifice and prostitution, appear to be related to Molech worship practiced by the previous occupants of the land, according to Leviticus

⁹ There is, of course, abundant literature on these biblical passages. See especially the following: Victor Furnish, "Homosexuality," in The Moral Teachings of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985) pp. 52-82; R. Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Richard Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," The Journal of Religious Ethics, 13:1 (1985), pp. 184-212; Richard Hays, "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies," Sojourners, 20 (July, 1991), pp. 17-21; and Marion Soards, "The Biblical Understanding of Homosexuality," reNews (a publication of Presbyterians For Renewal), 4 (February, 1993), pp. 6/1-6/4, reprinted with minor changes in Presbyterian Outlook, 175 (May 10, 1993), pp. 8-15.

227 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

18:21-30. So, if one chooses to take the prohibitions about a man lying with another man out of context and apply them to today, what is the rationale for not abiding by the other levitical prohibitions? To read and apply the biblical texts out of context leads inevitably to misreadings and misapplications.

As for the New Testament texts, the crucial question in the various vice lists where homosexuality is purportedly mentioned has to do with what Paul (and other early Christians) understood by the terms used. There is general agreement that Paul was referring primarily to the practices of pederasty (an older "active" man with a younger "passive" boy) and male prostitution, both increasingly debated practices among the Greek and Roman moralists contemporary to Paul. From Paul's perspective, the practices of pederasty and male prostitution were conscious choices made by heterosexual (that's all Paul conceived of, if he had any conception at all) Gentile sinners, which was but an expression and consequence of their idolatrous rejection of God. (This is basically the logic of Romans 1 as well.)

But is what Paul knew in his day analogous to what we know in ours? ¹⁰ Paul was concerned with what he saw as exploitive relations that were expressions of idolatry and the rejection of the one true God. But homosexual relationships today are not by definition exploitive any more than heterosexual relationships are. It is arguable that gays and lesbians today are as concerned with consensual monogamous committed relationships as are heterosexuals. The exploitive forms of homoerotic expressions Paul condemned, which are apparently all he knew about, are not by definition analogous to all expressions of homosexual practice in our day. Thus, even Paul's condemnation of homoerotic practices in Romans 1 can only be a condemnation of those forms of homoeroticism that he knew: pederasty and male prostitution. Elsewhere in his writings (for example, 1 Cor. 7) Paul extols reciprocity and mutuality in sexual relationships. If monogamous and faithful gay and lesbian relationships exhibit such reciprocity and mutuality, then I am not clear on what scriptural basis such a relationship is condemned.

Finally, Marion Soards has argued that, according to Paul, "God's purpose for humanity … was for man and woman, male and female, to find fulfillment in the complementary sexual union that guaranteed the continuation of God's own creation." ¹¹ Essentially, this is an argument that heterosexuality is exclusively normative because of God's desire that human beings procreate. But Soards would be hard pressed to find

¹⁰ This is the question posed also by Victor Furnish in his essay, "Homosexuality," pp. 78-81. See also S.E. Fowl and L.G. Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture & Ethics in Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 113-116, who, with Furnish, recognize that there are problems in linking homoerotic practices in Paul's day with homosexual practices of today. They further lament ways in which churches have treated homosexual Christians as "outsiders in our midst," though the authors never explicitly state their position on the debate.
¹¹ Soards, "The Biblical Understanding of Homosexuality," pp. 6-4.

228 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

evidence in Paul's writings that argue for procreation. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul counsels people not to marry, that is, not to be burdened with the responsibilities of married life and procreation, since the end is coming soon. The only reason people should marry has nothing to do with procreation but with uncontrollable desires for mutual sexual satisfaction, which Paul says is not a sin if expressed in what he sees as appropriate forms (monogamous marriages). Further, would Soards follow the logic of his procreation argument to its natural conclusion and argue, as the Roman Catholic church has long done, that the use of birth control is prohibited since it actively avoids procreation?

"The exploitive forms of homoerotic expressions Paul condemned … are not by definition analogous to all expressions of homosexual practice in our day."

And, so, we are left with a troubling question: Do we blithely adopt first-century (or ancient Israelite) social constructions of human sexuality and sexual relations and apply them to today? As far as I can tell, for the most part we do not. For example, we find Abraham's taking of Hagar to have a child for Sarah in Genesis 16 as very strange. Similarly, unlike Jacob in Genesis 29, we see polygamy as immoral. We also view levirate marriage as immoral, unlike Judah in Genesis 38. Further, we view ancient notions of a wife's complete subordination to her husband as rather unenlightened. And so we pick and choose from the various constructions of human sexuality expressed in the Bible according to what we see as most in keeping with our own contemporary understanding of God's unfolding intentions for human existence. When we read the biblical stories, we keep their social and historical contexts in mind.

As Christians today, we would no doubt, with Paul, condemn pederasty and male prostitution, but what of relationships between two loving monogamous homosexual adults who see themselves as Christians? ¹² I would contend that Paul's arguments have little to teach us directly about homosexuality as we understand it today. (This is not even to mention our

¹² Rosemary Ruether has put it well in her essay "The Personalization of Sexuality": "Once sex is no longer confined to procreative genital acts and masculinity and femininity are exposed as social ideologies, then it is no longer possible to argue that sex/love between two persons of the same sex cannot be a valid embrace of bodily selves expressing love. If sex/love is centered primarily on communion between two persons rather than on biologistic concepts of procreative complementarity, then the love of two persons of the same sex need be no less than that of two persons of the opposite sex. Nor need their experience of ecstatic bodily communion be less valuable." (In E. Bianchi & R. Ruether, From Machismo to Mutuality: Essays on Sexism and Woman-Man Liberation [New York: Paulist, 1976], p. 83). See also Ruether's essay, "Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Pastoral Practice," in Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life, edited by J. Gramick (New York: Crossroad, 1989), pp. 21-35.

229 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

dismissal today of Paul's natural law argument in 1 Cor. 11:14-15 that women should have long hair and men short hair or the arguments in 1 Timothy 2 about the subordination of women.)

Thus, the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God's intentions for humanity. (Of course, the Bible has quite a lot to say about treating others as fully human persons, and not as "issues," and about pursuing God's justice and love in all of our relationships.)

THE ANALOGY OF GENTILE INCLUSION

If the Bible does not provide definitive guidance regarding our questions about homosexuality, then where do we turn? In addition to what the Bible does and does not say regarding homosexuality, where else do we turn for guidance? Many advocates of homosexual rights today have argued on the basis of civil rights legislation analogous to the ways African Americans and other ethnic minorities as well as women have been protected by law from discrimination. While such an argument is legitimate in terms of civil rights, I do not think it fully applies to the issue of homosexual Christians in the church. The main difference between including women and ethnic minorities in the church and including homosexuals in the church is that, at least today, being a woman or being an African American is not seen as existing in a sinful state (though certainly throughout church history many women and African Americans have been demonized and treated as though they were lesser human beings and more prone to sin. See, for example, 1 Timothy 2:12-15) while homosexual practice has regularly been characterized as sinful behavior.

Thus, rather than making an analogy between homosexual persons and women and ethnic minorities, I believe a more appropriate constructive analogy, and certainly more appropriate than the alcoholism analogy, is to view homosexual Christians today in the same way the earliest (that is, Jewish) Christians approached the issue of including gentile Christians within the community. ¹³ Recall that the earliest post-resurrection vision of Christianity did not conceive that Gentiles would become part of the Christian movement as Gentiles, namely apart from essentially first converting to Judaism and abiding by the Jewish law (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws, and the like). Recall Peter's vision from Acts 10, where he is scandalized at the notion of eating anything he considered impure and unclean, a metaphor for the Gentiles. (Similarly Paul can equate Gentiles with sinners in Galatians 2:15.)

¹³ Such an analogy is already briefly presented in the majority report of the 1978 Presbyterian task force on homosexuality. See Minutes of the General Assembly (UPCUSA), Part 1: Journal (1978), pp. 239-240.

230 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

But much to the shock of Peter and his associates, God had poured out the Spirit on the Gentiles as Gentiles. "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God" (Acts 10:45-46). Peter and those with him bore witness to the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Gentiles, to their utter surprise. None had expected such a thing, such a scandalous thing. Indeed, the next thing Luke reports (Acts 11: 1-3) is that, when the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem heard that Peter and those with him had gone to Gentiles, "the circumcised believers criticized him, saying 'Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"' Peter told them about his experience, and their response was one of great surprise: "When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, 'Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life' " (Acts 11:18). There continued to be great opposition to the Gentile mission from a significant number of Jewish Christians who were convinced that Gentiles as Gentiles could never be included among God's people, as Acts 15 and Galatians 2 richly attest. Paul fought this fight throughout his ministry.

To be a Gentile was, in the eyes of Jews and Jewish Christians alike, the same as being a sinner, since the Gentiles did not have the law, since they were by definition unclean, polluted, and idolatrous. They first had to repent of being Gentiles and adopt the purifying and transforming practices of God's covenant people, the Jews, before they could become Christians. And yet the experiences of Peter and Paul led them, and eventually many others, to the realization that, even as a Gentile, one could come to know God, to worship God, and to receive and show the Spirit of God. To be a Gentile did not by definition mean to be a sinner.¹⁴

Before I came to know various Christians who are also homosexual in their sexual orientation, I was like the hard-nosed doctrinaire circumcised Jewish Christians who denied that Gentiles could receive the Spirit of Christ as Gentiles. But just as Peter's experience of Cornelius in Acts 10 led him to realize that even Gentiles were receiving God's Spirit, so my experience of various gay and lesbian Christians has led me to realize that these Christians have received God's Spirit as gays and lesbians and that the reception of the Spirit has nothing to do with sexual orientation.¹⁵

¹⁴ By using the analogy of Gentile inclusion apart from Jewish law-observance, I hope that I am not misinterpreted as in any way suggesting a supercessionist view of Christianity in relation to Judaism. In addition, Christianity is, of course, not the only religion to be struggling with the issue of including gays and lesbians. This issue is also much debated in contemporary Judaism,
¹⁵ One book that was particularly important for developing my understanding of gay and lesbian Christians was Chris Glaser's Uncommon Calling: A Gay Man's Struggle to Serve the Church (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). Reading this book was all the more poignant because I had gotten to know Chris Glaser and to have deep respect for him as a gifted brother in Christ as we both served on the Presbytery's Committee on Preparation for Ministry. Though he has been denied ordination by the church, he has continued to serve people within the church.

231 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

Indeed, the church has long honored as esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ many gays and lesbians who were simply never known as such. I once thought of gays and lesbians as Peter and Paul thought of "Gentile sinners," but now, with Peter I am compelled to ask, "'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"' (Acts 10:47).

While I can understand the sense of moral revulsion that many heterosexual Christians today may have when they contemplate homosexual relationships, is it in essence much different from the moral revulsion that early Jewish-Christians apparently felt when contemplating association with impure and unclean Gentile Christians? Was not their sense of betraying the longstanding and sacred truth of ritual purity in the face of Gentile inclusion similar to the sense of some heterosexual Christians today that to welcome gays and lesbians into the church along with their homosexuality is to betray the longstanding tradition of heterosexuality as God's revealed truth? But it is one thing to understand religious bigotry; it is another to condone it. Peter and Paul called the Jewish Christian church in their day to move beyond the marginal toleration of Gentile Christians to welcome their full inclusion. Similarly, in our day we in the heterosexual Christian church are being called by God to move beyond our marginal toleration of homosexual Christians to welcome their full inclusion.

"Do we … adopt first-century (or ancient Israelite) social constructions of human sexuality and sexual relations and apply them to today?"

Having presented a case for seeing the acceptance of "non-abstaining" homosexual Christians as analogous to how early Jewish Christians accepted "non-abstaining" Gentile Christians, it is important to note that here too there are limitations to the analogy. Most important, while the acceptance of Gentile Christians led eventually to an exclusively Gentile Christianity within a very short period of time, it cannot be maintained that the acceptance of homosexual Christians would result in the entire church becoming homosexual, since persons with a homosexual orientation represent a relatively small portion of the overall population (while Gentiles have always far outnumbered Jews in the overall population). Another limitation is that while we recognize homosexuality as a sexual orientation, it is not clear that being a Gentile is an orientation per se. It merely means that one is a non-Jew. The crux of the analogy, however, lies in the observation that early Jewish-Christians saw Gentiles as being sinners because they were Gentiles, just as today most heterosexual Christians see active homosexuals as being sinners because they engage in homosexual activity. Thus, although there are limitations to the analogy, the Gentile Christian/homosexual Christian analogy is still a helpful one,

232 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

and one that is much more appropriate, I would argue, than the destructive alcoholic Christian/homosexual Christian analogy.

There is one other problem that must be addressed. Many heterosexual Christians who have struggled openly and honestly, and in my view also honorably, with how best to respond pastorally to Christians identifying themselves as gays or lesbians in light of the weight of Scripture and tradition have concluded that for lack of any clear guidance, one cannot rule in favor of accepting any homosexual practice. For example, Richard Hays, in his 1991 Sojourners article "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies," concludes

In view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture's present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God's sexual creatures: Marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God's loving purpose. ¹⁶

But is not this exactly what the law-observant Jewish Christian opponents of Paul said when dealing with the question of Gentile inclusion? Could they not appeal to God's covenant with Abraham and point to circumcision and the full conversion to Judaism as normative for the inclusion of Gentiles within the covenant people of God, as it had always been (see Romans 4 and Galatians 3)? Could they not appeal to the sayings of Jesus himself to show that the Jewish law had not been and could not be abrogated" Could they not complain that Pau, was betraying the faith and was simply giving in to Gentile culture and making a mockery of the standards of Christian faith and practice? Could not these faithful law-observant Jewish Christians appeal to the preponderance of the testimony of Scripture and tradition in response to these Gentiles who seemed to have the Spirit of God and say that they were welcome into the Christian community once they abstained from their former sinful Gentile practices (not observing the Sabbath, eating unclean foods, among other things) and became converts to Judaism and only then to the true messianic faith?

Various law-observant Jewish Christians could do this and they did do this. And if Galatians is any indication, many Gentiles were rather receptive to this message. But Paul saw things differently. Acts tells us that Peter saw things differently. Gentiles were not by definition sinners, for the Spirit of God had been poured out on them apart from law observance. The Spirit guided their lives, not the law. Just so, I would argue, the Spirit guides the lives of heterosexual and homosexual Christians alike, not their sexuality.

¹⁶ Richard Hays, "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies," p. 21.

233 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

DEFINING SIN AND DISCERNING THE SPIRIT

A final and crucial consideration, then, is how we define sin and discern the Spirit at the same time. What are the criteria for determining that Certain behavior is sinful or not sinful? Definitions of "sin" change and are not static across time. Jesus challenged notions of sinfulness, held by some Pharisees, that were grounded in notions of ritual purity. Paul challenged traditional Jewish notions of sinfulness in his debate with Jewish Christians over whether or not Gentile Christian law observance was necessary for the inclusion of Gentiles in the Christian movement. Today we view the subordination of women (one of the curses in Genesis 3 from which I hope we are redeemed in Christ) as an expression of human sinfulness, and yet 1 Timothy 2 clearly presents the subordination of women as part of God's intentions for authentic human existence. So how do we go about determining what is and what is not authentic Christian existence? We do so by utilizing the various sources of authority we have in hand: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. We do so in conversation with one another, trusting that God's Spirit is among us, even if in the heat of discussion that is not always apparent.

Discerning the Spirit of God is not something that happens automatically, either individually or communally. Even though by the end of Acts 10, Peter is convinced that Cornelius has received God's Spirit as a Gentile, the disputes in Acts 11 and Acts 15 indicate that judgments about the reception of the Spirit is not always self-authenticating. The testimony of others who are acknowledged in the community as having the Spirit is itself very important to the community's process of discerning the Spirit. Such testimony, in turn, develops out of friendships nurtured over time; it is not automatic. ¹⁷

In conclusion, I would argue that the Bible does not give us clear guidance regarding inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Christian community, but it does give us clear guidance regarding the inclusion of those who, even to our surprise, have received the Spirit of God and join us in our Christian confession. Paul appeals to the Galatians to pay attention to their experience (Gal 3:1-5): "You foolish Galatians!…. The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? … [D]oes God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the

¹⁷ For these observations I am indebted to the comments of Stephen Fowl (of Loyola College, Baltimore) on an earlier draft of this essay. In his comments he also raised an intriguing question: ". . . [T]he example of Acts 15 indicates that even though the Gentiles were included based on the recognition of their reception of the Spirit, they were also asked to observe certain practices which would enable table fellowship with Jewish Christians to continue. Would your argument recognize an analogous component? Might it be along the lines of concern for the 'weaker' brothers and sisters (i.e., homophobes)?" Indeed, this is an important practical and pastoral question for how heterosexual and homosexual Christians might get along in integrated Christian communities. My own observations of interactions between various gay and lesbian Christians and heterosexual Christians in Presbyterian churches in Los Angeles are that gay and lesbian Christians regularly go out of their way to be sensitive to the scruples of heterosexual (and often homophobic) Christians.

234 - How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion

works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?" Paul calls upon them, and us, to pay attention to their experience of the Spirit. Did they recognize the Spirit through a doctrinal orthodoxy and orthopraxy now being called for by troublemakers who insisted that the only good Gentile was a "Jewish Gentile"? Or did they recognize the Spirit through their faith? And so today we are called to ask an analogous question: Despite our experience, do we insist that homosexual Christians can have the Spirit of God only if they are "heterosexual homosexual" Christians? Or with Peter and Paul are we up to the challenge of recognizing, perhaps with surprise and with humility, that gay and lesbian Christians, as gays and lesbians and not as sinners, have received the Spirit in faith? If so, then let us welcome our newfound brothers and sisters in Christ, and get on with the tasks to which God has called us all.