About Homosexuality

 

An overly rigid, inflexible faith

 

The early New Testament times were full of confusion for people of faith. Much of what the Jews had been taught was being changed, and many people didn't know what to think. Certain foods which had been unclean for over a thousand years were suddenly "clean." A whole different attitude toward Gentiles was put forth. Circumcision was no longer required. These changes were so fundamental to the faith that they were extremely controversial and threatened to split up the new, predominantly Jewish Christian church.

 

In the New Testament, faith was not comfortable. It involved changing beliefs that one's family had held ("in faith") for hundreds of years. It was a huge emotional upheaval for those involved. There was lots of discomfort in departing from the "old ways."

Consequently, the Jewish members of the church had to undergo changes in the way they thought and felt. Numerous passages in the New Testament deal with these changes. Christian Jews couldn't be rigid and still adapt to the changes taking place in their religion. It just wasn't possible. It was a painful time for the church. Accepting change was difficult in the early church, and it will always be something that the church has to face. The Jews must have had visceral reactions to the changes happening around them every as bit as strong as some Christians are having about homosexuality.

 

Rigidity is a form of over-controlled thinking and feeling, and it can be a problem in other arenas also. In psychological circles it is sometimes said that "over-control leads to out-of-control." In fact, any form of all-or-nothing thinking, feeling, and behaving can be a problem. For example, it can be uncomfortable to study the children of rigid and judgmental parents, because there are some pretty unpleasant results of that type of parenting. And most extremist political groups, whether conservative or liberal, became extreme by being strongly rigid and judgmental in their views, including about what it means to be moral. Inevitably, rigid and judgmental churches also become unhealthy.

 

On common sense

 

Jesus challenged popular Jewish thought about keeping Old Testament practices--including practices he did not suggest setting aside for something new. One such practice was the prohibition of activity on the Sabbath. Over and over in the Old Testament it was said that the Sabbath was holy--"the Lord's day." God commanded that the Sabbath be a special day in which no work was to be done. For example, it was very clear that no cooking was to be done on the Sabbath. In fact, the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was the same as for same-gender sex...death (Exodus 31:14-15.)

Even the old hymns warn us about being too rigid. You can view the entire text of this hymn here. There's a Wideness in God's Mercy There's a wideness in God's mercy, Like the wideness of the sea; There's a kindness in His justice, Which is more than liberty. For the love of God is broader Than the measures of man's mind; And the heart of the Eternal Is most wonderfully kind. But we make His love too narrow By false limits of our own; And we magnify His strictness With a zeal He will not own. Frederick Faber, 1854

 

Yet, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath and was accused of breaking it, he reminded the people that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. When a sheep fell in the ditch on a Sabbath, the owner would sensibly rescue it (Matthew 12:11-12.) In the same way Jesus healed on the Sabbath because it was humane. In another example, he reminded people that when there was no other food King David took the showbread from the temple for his men to eat (Matthew 12:3-7.)

 

Jesus taught what was considered novel to many who heard him--that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. Though there was a general principle that no work was to be done on the Sabbath, there were going to be exceptions to that rule. That was quite a different way of looking at things; and his tone suggested that the people of his time should have known this! However, religious leaders of the day were very offended by his teaching.

 

On common sense regarding sexuality

 

What about sexuality? Is it some mold that we must cram ourselves into at the price of our mental health? Was not sexuality made for man, rather than man for sexuality? This is not to say that any imaginable sexual behavior is "ok"--that sex with children is appropriate, etc. That would be a huge distortion. But if a loving relationship with a same sex adult person is what a person is able to have, perhaps their emotional health and happiness is more important to God than a "typical" idea of what sexuality "should" look like, even though since the beginning of time it has not actually looked like that.

 

There is always a need for judgment in these matters. Jesus didn't teach that doing work for trivial reasons on the Sabbath was acceptable. But he did teach that when genuine human well-being (or animal well-being, for that matter) was at stake, then exceptions to the "rule" could, and should, be made. And if homosexuality is an "exception" to the rule, so be it. Whether it's an example of creative variety in the plan of sexuality or a genetic "eccentricity" is to some degree an academic, unanswerable question at the present time. One has no more control over it than being left- or right-handed...and therefore no reason to feel shame or be deprived of social acceptance. Gay people offer a great deal to society, often because of their make-up as gay people. We have reason to affirm gay contributions to society and gay sexuality. And, using the figure of Jesus' story, to fail do so would be to "leave the sheep in the ditch;" in other words, to ignore the legitimate needs of a wonderful group of people.

 

Picking and choosing

 

One observation that indicates how our thoughts have changed from "Old Testament times" is our response to the penalties there. In the verses condemning same-gender sexual behavior in Leviticus 20 the penalty for the offending behaviors is death. The same is true a few verses earlier for children who curse their parents. If we are rigid about the modern day application of the verses about homosexuality, then we don't have a lot of choice about the associated penalities, either. However, most people who quote these verses don't really believe that capital punishment is an appropriate outcome for either cursing parents or homosexuality. That leaves us in the awkward position of teaching half of a verse while ignoring the other half. That does not make for a consistent belief.

 

In fact, there are numerous Old Testament passages containing radical penalties and practices that are upsetting to modern Christians. And frankly, it's difficult to know what to say about them. Though the Bible is generally accepted as the basis of the Christian faith, it's a very controversial and, at times, confusing book. Christians often do not agree on the interpretation of many of the "difficult" biblical passages. We end up ignoring them because we simply don't know what else to do.

 

Let's look at another frequent concern...

 

Isn't homosexuality unhealthy?