| |
||
| |
||
 |
How I Changed My Mind on Homosexuality
|
I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning. I am going
to speak about my change of mind on the question of homosexuality, what
I have learned theologically in that process, and some implications for
us as a church. I hope that you will find dealing with these issues helpful.
My deepest desire is that our discussion of these issues might in some
way contribute to moving us beyond our present theological polarization.
I look forward to the question period when I can hear from you. My education about homosexuality in the church probably began with the
General Assembly in 1976. I had a unique perspective on that Assembly.
I had been chosen as one of two Theologians-in-Residence to work with
committees of the Assembly to help them think theologically about the
business that they were assigned. That 188th Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church (the Northern stream)
in 1976 had received overtures from two presbyteries, New York City and
Palisades, asking for "definitive guidance" on whether it was
appropriate to ordain a person who was well qualified in every part of
the trials for ordination but was, in the language of 1976, a "self-affirming,
practicing homosexual." As part of my theologian-in-residence duties,
I was assigned to meet with a group of gay men, to help them develop their
response to the overtures. Prior to that I'm not aware of knowing any
openly gay Presbyterians. In that context, I met the person who was the test case to whom the overtures referred. His name was Bill Silver. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of a Christian college and of Union Seminary in New York. He had been working for two years in a ministry of the arts and had been extended a call by the congregation with which he worked.
|
|
At one point, Bill turned to me and said, angrily: "I can tell you a sin that you have committed that I never have." |
At one point, Bill turned to me and said, angrily: "I can tell you a sin that you have committed that I never have." He said: "I have never looked on a woman to lust after her." I said: "You've got me there." I had no reason to doubt Bill's assertion of his same-sex orientation. While that experience was not enough to overcome my general cultural bias against homosexuality, it got me thinking.
There is at present no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality.
My experiences have convinced me that there are some people who, through
whatever complex set of relationships in their biological makeup, are
sexually attracted to persons of their own sex. I am convinced that those
I know did not choose their sexual orientation any more than I chose mine.
They cannot change it any more than I can. When they have accepted it,
they have become more whole as persons. That is something that a great many Presbyterians do not want to hear. While I was Moderator of the 213th General Assembly in 2001-2002, I attended a meeting of the Coalition, an umbrella organization of groups that consider homosexuality a sin. I was seated in the balcony. During an "open mike" period, a young Hispanic woman a few rows from me stood and said: "I used to be a lesbian, but I have been redeemed by Jesus." Before she could say the next sentence people were on their feet, clapping and cheering. Many Presbyterians believe that people who are homosexual choose to be such and that if they just loved Jesus enough, they would quit it.
I will not rehearse the history of our struggles as a denomination over
the matter of homosexual ordination. Most of you know that all too well.
Let us fast-forward to the year 1993. At the General Assembly in 1993
in Orlando, Florida, gay and lesbian Presbyterians made a concerted push
for legitimation. Traditionalists pushed back. The 1993 Assembly asked
the church to study the matter for three years. That year, 1993, was the turning point for me. The events that led to my change of mind did not take place at a General Assembly, or in a theological seminary, but in the local congregation where my wife Sharon and I worship, the Pasadena Presbyterian Church. In the spring of 1993, a gay man, who had earlier been elected a deacon, wrote to the session of the Pasadena Presbyterian Church and expressed his dismay that the church was not studying the issue of homosexuality. He asked that the Session initiate a program of study and, at the end of a year, formally consider designating Pasadena Presbyterian Church a "More Light Church," one pledged to elect officers without regard to their sexuality. His action was supported by the Deacons and a number of elders. Subsequently, the Session asked the three pastors on the staff to establish a task force to create an educational program to sensitize the whole congregation to gay and lesbian issues.
|
The senior pastor asked me to be a member of the task force. I said, no. I thought I had a perfect excuse. |
The senior pastor asked me to be a member of the task force. I said,
no. I thought I had a perfect excuse. As an ordained minister, I was not
a member of the congregation, but of the presbytery. I was also not a
member of the pastoral staff of the Pasadena Presbyterian Church. Then
the minister put his request on a very personal level: "If you are
my friend, you will do this." He perceived that I, like him, was
conservative on the issue, and he wanted my support. I had many reasons
for reluctance, but they all came down to my not wanting to deal with
this issue. Eventually, I agreed to serve. The task force of 15 members covered the whole range of opinions. It included the gay man and the mother of a lesbian. Two of the task force members left the church when we began to look at more than what they considered the biblical perspective. A retired missionary member said he would stand in the church door to bar lesbian evangelist, Janie Spahr, from entering the building.
During this period I did not change my Reformed theological stance. I
did not change my evangelical method of biblical interpretation. For the
first time, however, I applied them to the issue of homosexuality. In this context of study I recalled a profound experience from the previous
summer, 1992. My wife Sharon and I celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary
with a trip to Greece and Turkey given us by our eldest son and his wife.
I had taught philosophy most of my adult life and I was excited to see
the places where Plato and Aristotle walked and taught. My surprise was that almost everywhere we went, the Apostle Paul kept
popping up. One example was Corinth. Corinth was a seaport town that,
in its heyday, boasted every kind of bizarre and corrupt sexuality. When
you stand at the place where Paul was tried by the civil court, you look
upward toward the AcroCorinth, a mountain on which was a temple to Aphrodite,
a bisexual god/goddess. In ancient time, it was staffed by seven thousand
prostitutes, male and female. You paid your money, had sex, and you had
been to church. Here were sex and spirituality combined for profit. I didn't think much about homosexuality that summer. It didn't hit me until we began to study Scripture in the Task Force. That experience in Corinth became a significant occasion for reflection on the meaning of the Bible. I began to study Romans 1 and 2 afresh. This Romans passage is considered by almost everyone to be the central biblical text regarding homosexuality.
|
I have become convinced that to |
I have become convinced that to pull the few statements about homosexuality
out of Romans 1 and make them a universal law exactly denies the point
that Paul is making. He wrote Romans from Corinth. I think he was remembering
the AcroCorinth and saying: "That is the worst example of idolatry
I have ever seen." I would agree. Paul's point is not about homosexuality,
but idolatry, worshipping false gods. Paul is talking about idolatrous people engaged in prostitution. It is
hardly fair to apply his judgment on them to Christian gayand lesbian
people who are not idolaters and no more lustful than anyone else. It
would be like using Howard Stern and Hugh Hefner as the norm for heterosexual
males and saying that all of us are just like them. Sex can be used sinfully
or redemptively, whether you are gay or straight. Paul goes on in Romans 1 to say that we are all guilty of sins just as
bad as the idolatry on the AcroCorinth. We have all committed sins that
in God's eyes are worthy of death. In verses 29-31, Paul lists 15 sins
that cover all of us, including envy, gossip, and foolishness. Then, in
chapter 2, he confronts us: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever
you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you
condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things"
(Romans 2:1). I think that should apply to our relationship with lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgendered people (LGBTs). In chapter 3 Paul gives the solution to the problem he has posed: "Since
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified
by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"
(Romans 3: 23-24). Justification comes by grace received through faith.
That is the central insight of the Protestant Reformation. To turn Romans
1 into a law, condemning, not the pervasive idolatry to which every one
of us is susceptible, but only the sexual expression of one group of people,
is to misrepresent Paul's point. It turns the Protestant Reformation upside
down. An evangelical conclusion from Romans 1-2 would be that we are accepted
by God individually, not as a class of people. No matter what we have
done, we are accepted in grace because of what Jesus Christ has done for
our salvation. As forgiven sinners we are called to submit all of our
relationships, including our sexuality, to God who alone is capable of
judging us. Homosexual behavior, as such, is not sinful. It is simply the appropriate
way for persons of same-sex orientation to express their need for intimacy.
For either gay or straight people, the Christian standard is that the
best way for sexual intimacy to be expressed is through a life-long commitment
to one partner. That puts heterosexuals and homosexuals on even ground. I've heard the claim whispered claim by straight people that gays are
inherently promiscuous and incapable of stable relationships. That is
simply not true. Again, we need to focus on the behavior of Christian
people, not on the most bizarre case we can think of. I met a gay couple
who had been together for 47 years. I have met couples that have celebrated
more than twenty years together, and many, indeed most, who have good
records of long-term relationships with the same partner. That is remarkable
in a culture that does everything possible to discourage stable, long-term,
gay relationships.
|
I had often said that |
I had often said that I could not change my negative attitude toward
homosexuality unless I was convinced by Scripture. I have now been convinced.
I had to learn to be consistent in a gracious interpretation of Scripture,
not just for myself, but for all people. I should not treat individual
verses as universal laws, but understand them, as Calvin recommended,
in their historical and cultural context. I had to learn to apply the
perspective of Jesus' life and ministry in interpreting Scripture. Here is where a historical perspective is helpful. In the case of homosexual
people we have lapsed back into the discredited practice of using proof-texts
to support a general societal prejudice, just as we did in an earlier
day to persons of color, women, and divorced and remarried people. In
the case of race, women, and divorce we changed our minds as a church
and self-consciously adopted a hermeneutic of looking at Scripture through
the lens of Jesus' life and ministry. In that way we recognized the full
humanity of these people and our responsibility not to interfere with
their right to have full privileges as members of the church. Now I want to speak of some further historical and theological discoveries
I have made. I have devoted most of my adult study to how we interpret
the Bible and how we use the Confessions. January of 2001, I was preparing
to teach a class on the Reformed Confessions at San Francisco Theological
Seminary's Southern California campus. One of my favorite confessional
texts is the Heidelberg Catechism. It was written and published in 1563
to insure a Reformed, rather than Lutheran, understanding of theChristian
faith in the area around Heidelberg, in what is now Germany. I always try to relate the doctrines of the confessions to current issues
in our Presbyterian (U.S.A.) denomination. We had been struggling with
the issue of homosexuality ever since 1976, and appeared ready to do pitched
battle over the issue of homosexual ordination at the 2001 General Assembly.
So, I was especially interested in Question and Answer 87 in the Heidelberg
Catechism:Q. 87 Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful,
impenitent life be saved? A. Certainly not! Scripture says, "Surely
you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom
of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty
either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers
or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." That seemed to be clear evidence in favor of the denomination's present
policy of calling all homosexual behavior sinful and, on that basis, of
barring gay and lesbian people from office in the church. That would have been the end of the discussion except for my memory that
when the Book of Confessions began to be cited against homosexuality,
a professor at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Johanna Bos,
said that the text I just cited was not authentic. A footnote in the Book
of Confessions indicates that the translation is of rather recent origin.
The Reformed Church in America and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches
combined in the early 1960s to produce a book entitled The Heidelberg
Catechism, 1563-1963. 400th Anniversary Edition (United Church Press,
1962). The text of the Heidelberg Catechism in our Book of Confessions
was taken from that 400th anniversary translation. The reason Johanna Bos had noticed a difference is that she was born
and raised in The Netherlands, where I also had the privilege of living
for five years. The Heidelberg Catechism is one of the three doctrinal
statements of the Dutch Reformed Churches. It was common practice in the
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands for the pastor to spend several years
taking young people carefully through the Catechism in preparation for
their joining the church, usually not before about age 18. Furthermore,
Dutch Reformed pastors were obliged to preach through the catechism each
year at the evening service. Johanna said, that despite all of that, she
had never heard any mention of homosexuality. I do my studying and class preparation in my carrel at the Huntington
Library in San Marino, California. It is a private research library primarily
focused on British and American history and literature from the 16th to
the early 20th century. I thought it unlikely that the Huntington would
have anything on the Heidelberg Catechism. To my great surprise I discovered
a significant quantity of index cards indicating books available in the
rare book room. My curiosity piqued, I began my search. I read Question and Answer 87 in the original Latin
version of Zacharius Ursinus, in a work published in 1586 (1).
I followed that with an early German version from 1795 (2).
Caspar Olevianus is believed to have translated Ursinus' Latin version
into German. Then I went to more familiar territory and read a Dutch version
of the Catechism, published in 1591 (3). I also found
and consulted a 1645 English edition published in London during the meeting
of the Westminster Assembly (4). I concluded my catechism
inquiry by studying a 1765 English translation of the Catechism prepared
for the Dutch Reformed Church in New York (5). (Citations
for this paragraph are at end of article.)
|
I was stunned! In none of the texts was there even a word where the 1962 version of the Heidelberg inserted "homosexual perversion." |
The text of Answer 87 was the same in the original Latin and in all
of the translations. The list of those impenitent sinners excluded from
the kingdom of God was always, in the same order, "unchaste person,
idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber,
or any such like." I was stunned! In none of the texts was there
even a word where the 1962 version of the Heidelberg inserted "homosexual
perversion." In every case the list went from adulterer to thief,
with no word or phrase, which might have been rendered "homosexual
perversion." So what do we conclude? On the basis of my investigation into early sources,
it would seem that we have in the Book of Confessions, a very unfortunate
and inaccurate insertion. Some translator(s), imbued with the general,
1960s, American assumption that homosexuality is inherently perverse,
took the liberty of inserting that bias into the Catechism. What is worse
is that in the Heidelberg Catechism there is not even a word on which
one could hang this prejudice. That leaves as the only possible reference to homosexuality
in the Book of Confessions the word "sodomy" which appears in
a long list of sins forbidden in the Seventh Commandment at Question and
Answer 139 of the Westminster Larger Catechism (7.249). The recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law renewed
the discussion of the meaning of that word. Its origin is in the natural-law
tradition of the Middle Ages that defined any sexual activity that was
not open to reproduction as sodomy. That would include, for example, the
use of contraceptives, and would implicate most heterosexuals. It was
applied to heterosexuals in some states until the early 1970s by which
time non-procreative sex was basically universal among heterosexuals.
At that time the law was changed to make it apply to homosexuals only
(6). I therefore cringe when people run to the microphone
at General Assembly and claim that the Confessions reject homosexual relationships.
That brings me to my final point. It seems to me now that the issue is not only how we interpret the Bible and the Confessions, but to whom we believe their words apply. It was easy for Presbyterians to believe that Blacks were cursed by God in Scripture because we assumed, in the words of General Assembly pronouncements on the matter, that slaves were ignorant and vicious. We could believe the Bible said that women were meant always to be subordinate to men because men generally agreed with Aristotle's dictum that women were incapable of reason, and thus of leadership in church or home. What is it that people believe about homosexuals that allows us to apply Scripture so selectively to them? Many people believe that the humanity of homosexuals is, in some way, perverted or twisted.
|
The irony is that for Gagnon, you really
don't need the Bible, because everything |
Grenz alleges that homosexuality cannot be "a fixed, life-long, unchanging given of a person's life" (p. xi).He insists that "some element of personal choice" must be involved. That is simply an assertion of his deeply rooted personal belief, despite the evidence against it. For Grenz, to be fully human is apparently to be heterosexual. To be homosexual is a willed deviance from the norm (p. 117).
Gagnon says what most heterosexuals believe: "Acceptance of biblical
revelation is thus not a prerequisite for rejecting the legitimacy of
same-sex intercourse." Behind all of the ancient sources, including
the biblical ones, according to Gagnon, was "the simple recognition
of a 'fittedness' of the sex organs, male to female" (p. 364). He
refers to "Paul's own reasoning, grounded in divinely-given clues
in nature" (p. 142). The Old Testament Holiness Code also "was
responding to the conviction that same-sex intercourse was fundamentally
incompatible with the creation of men and women as anatomically complementary
sexual beings" (p. 157). He says this so often it gets embarrassing. Paul, according to Gagnon, proclaims that both God and ethical human
behavior can be known through observing nature. To most American Christians
that just sounds like common sense. However, in the Reformed tradition,
we know God in Jesus Christ as revealed to us in Scripture. Augustine,
Calvin, and most of the Reformed tradition, would have had real theological
differences with Gagnon's methodology. Because he relies on natural law, Gagnon views all homosexual behavior
as willful and sinful (pp. 138-139). He thus reads Romans 1:26-27 backwards.
Instead of saying, as Paul does, that one consequence of idolatry could
be unnatural sexual behavior; Gagnon turns it around and says that the
homoerotic relationship causes the idolatry. He defines same sex intercourse
as idolatry. He writes: "In other words, idolatry is a deliberate
suppression of the truth available to pagans in the world around them,
but so too is same-sex intercourse" (pp. 254-255).Whereas Gagnon
presumably would judge heterosexual activity according to its motivation
and manner of expression, he simply defines homosexual activity as lustful
and denying of God, without consulting either the motivation or manner
of expression of real gay and lesbian people. Grenz and Gagnon are rightly cited as the most careful conservative scholars writing against homosexuality. At bottom, both of them depend, not on Scripture, but on natural law, what they assume is the natural order of things. They depend on a Western, Aristotelian tradition for their authority.
|
The sum of it is this. We image, or reflect, God in so far as God's love is reflected in our lives. |
Let us instead be biblical. There is a verse of Scripture etched inside
my wedding ring is I John 4:19 - "We love because he [God ] first
loved us." That is how the married relationship of my wonderful wife,
Sharon, and I, began 46 years ago. That is what maintains it to this day.
The only concise definition of God that we have in the New Testament is
in I John 4:8, "God is love." The sum of it is this. We image, or reflect, God in so far as God's love
is reflected in our lives. That means that every person has the capacity
and the possibility of being in the image of God. Our being whole, fully
human, beings and our living wholesome, fully Christian, lives does not
depend on a human quality that some people have and others lack. It depends
only on our trusting in the God we know in Jesus Christ and daily seeking
to live in joyful obedience to our God. We can therefore be open to perceiving
the image of God in others who, like Christ, reflect God's love in their
lives whether white or black, male or female, gay or straight. My reading of Scripture, my understanding of the good news of the Gospel,
my experience as an evangelical Christian all lead me to believe that
Jesus' saving act is for all believers. We need to be open to see the
image of God reflected in all those whom God has created and chosen. All
those who reflect God's love are worthy of consideration for leadership
in Christ's church. I know what my evangelical friends are saying about now. If we are just
loving, does that mean anything goes? What about promiscuity? Where are
the boundaries!? I agree that we need boundaries. The problem is, the
boundaries have been drawn in the wrong place. We have put a fence around
homosexuals. It is true that marriage is in trouble in America. But homosexuals
didn't cause that problem and restricting sexual behavior between Christian
committed gay couples won't solve the problem. We as a denomination need to invest our money and our energies in supporting traditional marriage and family life. And we need to be clear that promiscuity in any arena, homosexual or heterosexual, is destructive both personally and to our community.
|
As a church, our first responsibility is to provide for LGBT persons a "moral equivalent" to marriage. |
So what do we do now? As a church, our first responsibility is to provide for LGBT persons a "moral equivalent" to marriage. We need to create liturgies that recognize and bless people who sincerely seek to commit themselves to another responsible person in a covenant of love and shared life. Currently, in the Presbyterian Church and most states, these ceremonies cannot be called marriage nor use the language of the marriage service. Marriage is a function of the state. What the church does is give community sanction and blessing to the union. We need to do that for people whether they can marry in the eyes of the law of not.
Once we have recognized LGBT persons as fully human, as full members
of the church, and as fully capable of living in faithful life-long relationships,
then we are ready to act on the issue of ordination. The governing bodies
that have always had the responsibility for ordination then can and should
judge whether people are living responsible lives as judged by their public
conduct. With a "moral equivalent" to marriage available to
LGBT persons as well as traditional marriage to heterosexuals, the ground
would be as level as the law currently allows. We will never have peace in this church until we apply the same hermeneutic,
the same interpretation of Scripture, to all. Presently we have a hermeneutic
of grace for heterosexuals and a hermeneutic of law for homosexuals. I
am calling for honesty and consistency in the proclamations and practices
of our church. We need a consistent interpretation of Scripture, one that
applies equally to gays and straights. We need a consistent interpretation
of our polity, one that applies equally to gays and straights. My experience of knowing gay and lesbian people, my study of the issues
related to homosexuality in the context of my home congregation, and my
own study of Scripture have convinced me that loving homosexual expression
between responsible adults is not sinful as such. All of us should be
judged by whether we express our sexuality in ways that are loving, respectful
of our partners' wishes, and contribute to our wholeness as people. The
best way for all people, gay and straight, to express sexual intimacy
is within the bounds of a covenant of commitment to another person for
life. All people, gay or straight, deserve the support of the church in
keeping that commitment.
|
I do not expect others to replicate my
journey of a decade in a matter of a few minutes. I do want |
That is where I have come since 1993. I do not expect others to replicate my journey of a decade in a matter of a few minutes. I do want to testify to the good it has done me. My heart and my head are now more congruent with each other. I believe that most Christian people, in their heart, respond positively to Christian LGBT people when they get to know them.
|
NOTES:
|