Homosexuality

God’s Ways or Our Ways?
By the Rev. David Fisher

[Reprinted with permission from Fellowship Magazine, June 2001]

In the early 1980s, the local United Church I attended invited a gay and lesbian group to speak with us about homosexuality and the church. One memory stands out. In our small group discussion, a young gay man politely answered our questions but he seemed to have no real interest in the church. When I asked him about it, he said that the church—as a community of faith—meant little to him. Rather, he viewed it as a vehicle through which his vision for society could be attained. He reasoned that if the church accepted gays and lesbians, irrespective of their form of sexual expression, then society as a whole would follow. I don’t believe that he represents most gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered United Church members on matters of faith but, when it comes to an agenda for acceptance, his views are widespread.

Nearly 20 years have passed since that conversation, and the struggle in the United Church to officially endorse homosexuality appears to be over. This past summer, the 37^th General Council of the United Church of Canada passed several resolutions, including one stating that "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered…[and] heterosexual orientations are gifts from God, part of the marvelous diversity of creation." A second resolution calls the United Church to "affirm lesbian and gay partnerships, recognize them in church documentation and services of blessing and actively work for their civil recognition." Last year, the federal government took a major step in that direction, passing Bill C-23 in the House of Commons. This bill amends 68 laws, giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples.

As gains are made in the political arena through legal and legislative channels, advocates for homosexuality within the church continue the more difficult task of working toward making lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered orientations and behaviours appear acceptable and even normal to the majority of the people in the pews.

Until this past General Council, the official United Church of Canada policy considered homosexual activity sinful. Given our recent history, this may come as a surprise, but a close examination of what the United Church stated in a past General Council bears it out. In 1960, the 19^th General Council declared that "A Christian understanding of sex and marriage must be based on the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of sin and redemption." It held that "Life-long fidelity of a husband and wife to each other is the only form of marriage which does justice to the fundamental truth about the nature of man and woman as God has created them…." With respect to homosexuality, it differentiated between "homosexual feelings" and "their expression in overt acts of homosexual conduct." It stated that homosexual conduct constituted a moral problem for four reasons: "…it violates the will of God as an offense against the proper expression of sexuality in monogamous marriage; by misuse of natural functions, homosexual activity is a sin against the self; since it involves at least one other person of the same sex, with or without his consent, homosexual activity is unedifying and destructive of ‘neighbour love’; it tends to undermine the foundations of stable society based upon heterosexual marriage and family responsibility."

Undoubtedly, this reasoning would appear passé to many United Church leaders of today. The 37^th General Council voted to "renounce the 1960 statement that homosexuality is a sin; and encourage [church] courts, congregations, and members to learn ways to offer healing for the damage inadvertently caused by the historic stance of our church on homosexuality." Yet the 19^th General Council never labeled same-sex sexual attraction as sinful per se. Its focus was on describing a Christian ethic for sexuality. As far as the treatment of homosexuals is concerned, it stated that "…our attitude toward persons so afflicted must be fair, untinged with prejudice and always charitable—in short, Christian."

This may seem like splitting hairs. But it needs to be made clear that, with this new resolution, the United Church of Canada has not simply endorsed homosexuality, it has actually sanctioned homosexual behaviour as morally permissible. Obvious questions arise: What makes it permissible? What makes non-heterosexual orientations gifts from God? And how do we establish that they are?

The logic appears to run something like this: My orientation is not something I chose and, in spite of persistent societal pressure to the contrary, I must accept who I am. I must be true to myself, and have the freedom to express myself sexually. If this is the way that God created me to be, then why should I not accept this as a gift from God?

It must be said that teaching respect for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons is appropriate and right. The Gospel exhorts us to love all people. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are told to "lay aside all malice" (1 Peter 2:1), and this surely includes any malice towards those of differing sexual orientations.

However, affirming various non-heterosexual orientations as "gifts from God" goes well beyond the ethic of tolerance. In fact, it violates not only what has been the traditional teaching of the United Church, it also runs contrary to the theological understanding and practice of mainstream Christianity.

How radical is this recent shift in the UCC? The eminent German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, writing in the Church Times in Britain put it this way: "If a Church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm and recognized homosexual unions as personal partnerships of love equivalent to marriage, such a Church would stand no longer on biblical grounds but against the unequivocal witness of scripture. A Church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

But what do we say when we are confronted with the reality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons who sincerely tell us that they haven’t chosen their sexual orientation? Many of them have suffered because of their orientation and, given the lingering stigma and persecution they have experienced, their claims appear valid.

I believe it to be true that the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered do not consciously choose their sexual orientation. At the same time, this does not mean that homosexual feelings are biologically determined. Early social and psychological factors also must be taken into account when considering how a person’s sexual orientation develops.

The same can be said about most addictive types of behaviour. For instance, we may ask if anyone consciously chooses to be an alcoholic, a compulsive gambler or a drug addict. It is more likely that a combination of forces and factors converge, quite apart from biology, to result in these addictions.

That is not to say that there couldn’t be a biological predisposition toward some of these conditions, but society as a whole does not excuse them, nor does the church condone their widespread acceptance, by labeling them "gifts from God." The point is that the lack of a conscious choice to feel or to experience temptation in certain ways does not mean that these desires are either God-given or a part of a person’s unchangeable identity from birth. Besides, the Christian life should be marked not by what we were at birth, but by who we become in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). To compare homosexual, bisexual or transgendered orientations to race or skin colour is a misguided and unfair comparison.

Although the current debate about the origins of homosexuality is ongoing, there is no conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that genetic or hormonal factors cause homosexual behaviour. The most widely held opinion is that it stems from a multiplicity of factors. In their book, Human Sexuality (3^rd edition, 1988), Masters and Johnson wrote, "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies." Some researchers, such as John Gagnon, view all patterns of reproductive, gender and sexual conduct as shaped by the surrounding culture, and say that these patterns can be viewed as examples of socially scripted conduct. Whatever the causes, most people with a homosexual orientation are the product of forces over which they have had little or no control, certainly in the early stages of their lives.

Perhaps the more significant question is not whether a person is born with homosexual, bisexual or transgendered feelings but, rather, whether individuals of various sexual orientations are able to choose how they behave sexually? Unless raped, as adults we do choose how to use our sexuality, and our choices involve accountability. God holds us responsible not for what we are tempted by, for Jesus himself was "tempted in every way just as we are, yet [was] without sin" (Hebrews 4:15b), but for how we act. By God’s grace, regardless of orientation, we overcome temptation and live as disciples of Jesus Christ.

So can we accept all orientations as "gifts from God"? That depends on whether we believe that there is a divine intent for our sexuality. In 1960, the UCC believed there was, and we supported that conviction with Scripture, which states that "…from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife…Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mark 10:6-9). (See also Matthew 19:4-6 and Genesis 2:24.) Jesus pointed out that heterosexual union is the acceptable God-given norm. His silence regarding other types of sexual expression, other than his condemnation of adultery, is telling, especially given the context of his Jewish heritage. There are several admonitions against homosexual practice in Scripture (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10), and a total absence of Scriptural support for such practices. The 1960 General Council wisely went beyond simple biblical "proof texts," and grounded its understanding of sexuality within the doctrines of creation, redemption and the fall.

As we enter the new millennium, it seems fair to ask on what grounds the present UCC General Council bases its doctrines regarding sexuality, and how it defends its new understanding of God’s intention for our sexuality?

Creation would seem to be a good starting point, since the 37^th General Council declared that "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered as well as heterosexual orientations are gifts from God, part of the marvelous diversity of creation" [emphasis added]. So if we begin with creation, there would seem to be two problems with General Council’s statement. First, the Bible endorses heterosexuality exclusively as a part of God’s original plan for the created order. Second, if it is admitted that non-heterosexual orientations are part of God’s plan for creation, insofar as people believe they have been created that way, then there is no logical reason to exclude other sexual compulsions such as pedophilia or sadomasochism. Though same-sex contact between consenting adults is a far cry from sex with children or from sadomasochistic sex, this argument misses the point.

If gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons declare their orientations as gifts from God because they feel that they have been created that way, then why would the church not also consider people involved in pedophilia or sadomasochism as "gifted"? Some would say with equal conviction that God has created them that way. A double standard is unavoidable if "orientation" is defined one way when applied to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual orientations, and another when applied to all other sexual proclivities. The question we must ask ourselves, as Christians, is whether we are to conform our sexuality to God’s revealed intent, which we find through careful study of the Scriptures and the received doctrines of the Church, or to our own preferences?

It must not be said that the United Church of Canada has forsaken all standards when it comes to sexual morality. We have standards. We are on record as stating that "God’s intention for all human relationships is that they be faithful, responsible, just, loving, health-giving, healing and sustaining of community and self." While this statement is good as far as it goes, the practical reality is that it offers no basis upon which to achieve consensus about what constitutes ethical Christian sexual behaviour. What may be faithful and responsible in the eyes of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual individuals may bear little resemblance to how faithfulness and accountability are understood by those who live according to Christian faith, practice and tradition. If we discard the explicit norms of sexual ethics and behaviour as spelled out in the Scriptures, then we are left to determine and interpret these norms according to merely human standards, to what is "right in [our] own eyes" (Judges 21:25). We may find this course of action appealing, but as our Christian faith over the centuries acknowledges, being human makes us prone to self-deception. God’s ways are not our ways, but they are always better.

So what about people in the church whose orientation is homosexual, bisexual or transgendered? Like their heterosexual counterparts, they are loved by God and called to serve Jesus Christ. But, like all single Christians, they are called to curtail their sexual activity, in keeping with God’s intentions for human sexual expression. Though this is not easy (and we sometimes fail in our intentions), by God’s grace, it is possible and noble.

There is also the possibility of change of sexual orientation. Though the homosexual community appears to harbour a deep-seated animosity toward the claims of ex-gays who say they have been healed—by denying the real possibility of change in a person’s sexual orientation and by ridiculing it as unrealistic, cruel and unethical—there are individuals whose lives have been changed and who have left the gay lifestyle. The church needs to encourage them and hear their stories.

Admittedly, it is unethical for a therapist to try to change a person’s sexual orientation against their will and, sadly, some individuals have undergone therapy that has been both painful and unsuccessful. But these unfortunate situations do not diminish the reality that for many who want to change, it is possible with the proper support. Jeffrey Satinover, a practitioner of psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over 20 years, summarizes various approaches to treatment in his excellent book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, in which he states, "The simple truth is that, like most other methods in psychiatry and psychotherapy, the treatment of homosexuality has evolved out of eighty years of clinical experience, demonstrating approximately the same degree of success as, for example, the psychotherapy of depression."

It is unfortunate that with the definitive (yet unsubstantiated) statements concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual orientations made by the 37^th General Council of the UCC of 2000, that we remain stuck where we were in 1988. Words spoken that year, at the 32^nd General Council, seem as appropriate today as they did then: "We confess our continued confusion and struggle to understand homosexuality, even as we confess our history of sinfulness."

The Rev. David Fisher has a Masters degree in Pastoral Counselling, and is currently the associate minister at St. Paul's United Church in Fredericton, New Brunswick.