Straight and Narrow?

It has been hard to avoid the 'Homosexual Debate' in recent days with the prominence in the news of Section 28 and the effects of the Government's wish to repeal it. The church has, in the most part, been advocating the retention of the law, but it touches a raw nerve with the church and raises again the question which has been debated for many years — what does it mean to be a gay Christian?

At the Lambeth Conference in 1998, this was an area of heated debate in the bishops' plenary sessions which was, although voted on, left very much unresolved, and left the Conference divided. The official Anglican stance on homosexuality is that: the Lambeth Conference 'rejects homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture' and 'cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions.'

It is important to contextualise the pat verses which come out at every Christian condemnation of homosexuality. For every Biblically based argument against homosexual practice, there is a negating explanation as to why, if that verse is looked at in a certain light, it is not condemnatory. The whole of the Bible was written in a completely different cultural context to ours, and we will never fully understand the social attitudes and values and the reasons for them that are the premises of it authors. We must be very careful to see no verse as complete in itself, but as part of a chapter of a book or a letter, perhaps written in response to a specific query or to fulfil a specific need, and we cannot be inconsistent in what we choose to interpret as culturally irrelevant to us and what we choose to hold as universally true.

There are many examples in the rules set out in Leviticus which we see as entirely redundant now. If we are to use Leviticus 20:13 to support a condemnation of gay sex, surely to be consistent, we should also condemn all those heterosexual couples who have sex during the woman's period (Lev 20:18), which neither the church nor the House of Lords seem to be particularly concerned with. Even the damning words of Paul, 'Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion' (Rom 1:27), if looked at in context, are not describing acts of love, but the practice of prostitution at pagan temples. Paul does not condemn homosexual love, but idolatry and prostitution.

Translational difficulties also arise in the Scriptures. For example, it is well known that homosexuality was acceptable in ancient Greece, and vocabulary developed to describe these relationships, which could also hold true with New Testament Greek. How, in the vocabulary of a culture which condemns homosexuality, can equivalent words be found to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' homosexual practices while retaining the social values attached to each, especially when translating from a dead language? This is especially important to consider when reading 1 Corinthians 5:9, as the NIV translation refers to 'homosexual offenders' implying that there was some negative connotation in the Greek word, rather than a neutral word being used, for which we simply do not have the vocabulary.

The story of the destruction of Sodom (Gen 19: 1-13) is a complex and confusing one, but is more about the responsibilities of a host, or gang rape, than gay love. The need for a single defining act to which to attribute the need for punishment and the subsequent destruction of the city and to explain the story has led to deeply prejudiced associations with 'sodomy' ever since the word was invented (in the 11^th century), leaving a huge cultural scar.

The celebration of sexual love in the Song of Songs can leave no doubt as to God's intention for us to enjoy sex on a far deeper level than the procreative alone.

The intimacy and love shared in sexual relationships can be an end in itself, and thus looking at same-gender sexual relationships as 'unnatural' based on the fact that they cannot produce children seems irrelevant - how often, even within marriage, is sex a means to procreation? The Bible condemns homosexual promiscuity and prostitution, but it also condemns heterosexual promiscuity and prostitution, as with anything that is demeaning, disrespectful or potentially harmful, emotionally or physically, to anyone.

To acknowledge ourselves as God's creations and to enjoy fully the way we have been created, sexually and otherwise, within the framework of Jesus' commandments to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength and with all your mind' and to 'love your neighbour as you love yourself' (Matt 22:7-8) is surely God's will for us, and it is not for any of us to condemn those in loving and faithful relationships, whatever their genders. The church should be helping us all to celebrate the way we have been created, whether male or female, straight, gay or bisexual.

Christis Magazine are well aware that the views expressed in this article are not the views of all Christians, nor are they necessarily the views of the editorial team. To read a full range of responses to this issue, please see page 29 (the 'Thinker'). As with all our articles, if you have a view, please write for the next issue (see inside front cover). Ed.


	Contents page \| Christis archive \| Submissions \| Advertising \| Links page \| Meet the team \| Cartoons \| Subscribe \| Christis timetable \| Search Christis