In and Out: Homosexuality and Church In a world that is all too dualistic, homosexuality stands as a trap-door; an increasingly accepted pathway to an existence which refuses to conform to the simple heterosexual norm. Yet for gays and lesbians within the church, a war is raging. Battling apparent biblical condemnation and the conservative right, the fight has escalated to the point where ordination is no longer the main issue. The rights of open access to the church and even freedom of thought have now become the spoils of war. The Baptist Church in Victoria recently held an Assembly in an attempt to deal with this issue. The Rev Jim Barr, minister of Melbourne's inner-city Baptist church, and the Rev Dr Laurence Simpson, past president of the Baptist Union of Victoria, examine the intricacies of a debate that is about to engulf most of Australia's churches. Rev Dr Laurence Simpson In considering the issue of homosexuality and Christian practice and beliefs, the critical question relates to our understanding of the Bible, as to its veracity, its relevance and to its authority as our guide in matters of faith and Christian standards. One may even ask in relation to its authority as to whether it is merely a guide, or whether the Bible conveys God's absolutes for Christian living. In the teaching of Scripture, homosexuality is sin; it is contrary to nature, and to natural law. It is wrong, not because God condemns it as sin, rather God condemns it as sin because it is wrong. The evidence is found in the various lists of offences. For example, 1 Cor. 6 in regards to homosexual offenders (those who engage in homosexual acts), and I Tim.1:10 (Perverts-arsenokoitai-homosexuals). Paul states that this homosexuality is 'contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.'(I Timothy 1: 10-11) The prohibition against same sex erogenous love occurs in Leviticus 18 & 20. They are part of the holiness code, and not one-off statements. They are consistent with the teaching of holiness not only for the priests, but for the people of God and, as such, consistent with the nature of a holy God. This was to be one of the behavioural characteristics of God's people to distinguish them from their neighbours. The evidence of the New Testament theological statements in Romans is likewise striking. Here Paul is describing the sinful results of losing reverence for God: Although they knew God, they neither glorified Him not as God, nor gave thanks to Him as God. They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts exchanging natural relationships for unnatural ones. (Rom. 1: 28) God's permissiveness in giving them over to shameful lusts was not out of compassion or concern, but was of God's judgement. Homosexuality, among other sins, was seen as the result of human life lived outside of the plan of God for His people. Thus the Scriptural perspective is represented by both Old and New Testaments, and across different genres of Biblical literature, and in the lives of God's people of both the Old and New Covenants. Furthermore, there is no Scriptural reference to any contrary view which may suggest that homosexuality is an acceptable practice for the people of God. Although homosexuality is practised by human beings, this practice is not in the natural plan of God and not to be pursued if one seeks to be faithful in serving our God & His Son Jesus Christ. There are many Scriptures that deal independently with this, and all are contrary to homosexual practice. Compassion for the victimised The authority of Scripture cuts both ways, and there are many who would counter with the assertion that, not only are we called to holiness and to purity of life but also we are called to compassion. Many Christians are deeply motivated by Scripture that calls all of us to defend the victimised, and to bind up the wounded. It is also about Scripture ruling over a culture, a social ethos that at present tacitly observes a homophobic stance, and denies homosexuals fundamental human rights. For us to offer less than this is to walk by on the other side, as we see in Jesus' parable. The acceptance of, and outreach to the outcast, the isolated, the sinner is one of the characteristics of the ministry of Christ. And we are called to be like Him. Therefore, if we are not as desirous and passionate in our search for compassion, as we are for holiness, we are not Biblical. In this situation two equally valid, but seemingly opposed Biblical concepts are held in constant tension in a paradox. Only by living out such a paradox, can we be truly Christian. We are thus seeking a way to speak about both aspects of Scriptural authority regarding homosexuality. At the same time passionately upholding the Scriptural truth that homosexuality is contrary to the Holiness of God, while just as passionately upholding the truth that all sinners are worthy of our compassion. Selective blindness We are inconsistent in our cultural mores, that we are intolerant of homosexuality, yet tolerant of other sexual sin, which is equally condemned in Scripture: fornication, premarital sex, adultery, and bizarre sexual behaviour. It is difficult to integrate the Biblical position of compassion and understanding at one extreme, and the Biblical position in relation to the offence of homosexuality (and other aberrant sexual behaviour) at the other. Grasping one extreme to the exclusion of the other denies the balance of this paradox. We can see in the responses and in the attitudes of many the problems of the extremes. At one end there is an angry homophobia and lack of love, while at the other there is an insipid cultural conformity; a judgmental, Pharisaical exclusiveness at one extreme and at the other a tolerance of cultural norms, where the behavioural standards God has set are no longer honoured in the community, nor by many in the church. When either extreme is grasped to the exclusion of the other, positions and attitudes are quickly polarised, and there is a bias, on behaviour and interpretation of all involvement, with breakdown in relationships. The easy way is to develop the Aristotelian mean: that the truth can be found in the mean between contrary extremes. This is difficult here, and inconsistent with both views. An example of the difficulty can be seen in the paradox of the deity and the humanity of Christ: the futility of such an answer that the truth lies somewhere between, when both are totally correct - 'He is fully God, and fully man'. By the same token, either extremity on its own, would be equally incorrect. How can we reconcile the two? In the words of the old saint, Charles Simeon, the truth lies in the paradox. As in many of the aspects of the life of Jesus, the truth lies in the paradox of perplexing extremes. May we be given grace to see those extremes, to fully grasp & understand those extremes, to acknowledge the truth of Biblical teaching that homosexual practice is sin, and not to be accepted as part of the behavioural patterns of the people of God, in New Testament parlance, the Church. But at the same time, we are to reach out to the homosexual in love and understanding, offering the salvation of Jesus Christ in the same way that it was offered to us as sinners; needing that salvation which brings forgiveness, but is also able to transform lives. Rev Dr Laurence Simpson chaired the Baptist Union's Taskforce on Homosexuality over the past two years. A copy of the deliberations and conclusions of the taskforce can be found in the Whitley College Library, 271 Royal Pde, Parkville 3052; or contact the BUV on (03) 9818 0341. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rev Jim Barr I've always believed that the controversial Assemblies of the Baptist Union of Victoria are events to which you could sell tickets. On a good night there is nothing more engrossing, nor emotionally involving, than the BUV Assembly! Such Assemblies deal with matters that raise serious issues in which different elements of the Union hold passionate and conflicting commitments. So it was in the recent Assembly which considered the report of the Homosexuality Task Force. For some, like me, the report didn't go far enough. The Preamble expressed an admirable statement on human sexuality but failed to then reflect that thinking in a bold embrace of the acceptance of homosexual people in all aspects of the life of the church. For others, it failed to express strongly enough a condemnation of homosexual practice, and even orientation, as outside the will of God and something to be totally opposed by the church. As the final overwhelming acceptance of the report and all its recommendations without alteration would indicate, to many the report was a sensitive and faithful expression of where our Union of churches is at the moment. The theological politics of homosexuality Of significance to me were the nuances of the debate, particularly around some of the amendments that were proposed. I think it fair to say that every amendment came from the more conservative side of the Union, who wished to stiffen some of the resolutions. In an interesting procedural move some delegates successfully sought to have the Preamble debated before the substantive resolution against the ordaining of practicing homosexuals. An alternative set of propositions was offered by one delegate which affirmed that 'heterosexuality' was a gift from God (rather than 'sexuality') and sought to include homosexual orientation (rather than practice) as that which debarred one from the kingdom of God. I actually think this proposition had some intellectual and moral integrity. At least the movers are not wanting to live with the kind of split between 'being' and 'doing' that seems to be the only way that many in the church can accept homosexual people. The movers of this amendment have seen that, in the final analysis, it is inconsistent to accept the orientation but not the practice. The difference, however, is that they want to deny both, whereas I argue we should accept both. Another amendment attempted to broaden the concept of homosexuality to include'ideas'.The intention was to move beyond a narrow definition of homosexuality to include a 'mindset or culture'. In debate on this amendment I pointed out that the wording, if carried, would bar a person like myself from ordination. While I am irredeemably and enthusiastically heterosexual, my 'ideas' would fall under the proposed proscriptions and hence there would be no place for me within the Baptist ministry. My appeal was to the Baptist principle of freedom of conscience: we must never attempt to outlaw ideas that are held in good conscience. After all proposed amendments were voted down in this part of the debate the Preamble was put and carried by a healthy majority. Removing all dissenters When we came to the resolution that the BUV 'not ordain any person who engages in homosexual practice' I expected little debate and an overwhelming majority. I was stunned when an amendment came from the conservatives to change the phrasing to "any person who engages inor supportshomosexual practice." Such a resolution was clearly aimed at any person who had come to the position of accepting the place of the practicing homosexual within the church. Suddenly many people's place within the church was on the line, not as an unintended byproduct of a clumsily worded amendment but as a specific resolution of the Assembly. The experience of shock and pain that some of us in the ordained ministry carried through that brief debate is still largely hidden. I was deeply moved by the speeches of two ordained ministers who expressed their support of homosexual people. I was too shocked and distressed to speak. I suddenly felt a strong identification with homosexual people and the discrimination that they are experiencing in our society. During this part of the debate I listened to the speeches being made while mentally checking my job skills for alternative careers! Yet the arguments against the resolution again revolved around the Baptist principles of freedom of conscience, and in the end the vote was the closest of the night. The President assured me later that it was a 'comfortable' margin to reject the amendment but on my reading of the figures if 20 people had changed their vote I'd probably be driving taxis today! Freedom to choose reaffirmed for individual churches The only real contention after that was the recommendation that re-expressed the freedom of the local church to call whom it will under God as ministers, even if that person is a practicing homosexual. Strong opposition was expressed to this and again the debate focussed around Baptist principle. A magnificent speech in reply by one of the panel members concluded this debate and the resolution was strongly carried. There was some discussion around the submissions received from churches, particularly the high numbers of churches (around 30%) who would offerno hospitality or welcome to homosexual people at all.The recommendation that called on such churches to reconsider their position was strongly carried. Yet I was left with a deep sense of grief over how this decision will be interpreted and experienced by my homosexual friends within and without the church. Will they understand that we have done the best we could at this time and that these decisions do represent real progress in the churches' understanding and acceptance of homosexual people? One speaker on the night confessed to having only been a member of a Baptist church for about 12 months. 'If I had heard this debate beforehand I might not have become a Baptist at all!' she declared. It is true that many difficult things were said on the night, but the over-riding outcome for me was a renewed sense of excitement about being a Baptist. At several points of the night the debate focussed around a strongly held moral view in direct opposition to the Baptist principle of freedom of thought and conscience. At every point freedom of conscience won out! This says a great deal for our denomination for I am sure that to most of the members of that Assembly the view that I and others hold on these matters is not only morally repugnant but intellectually incomprehensible. That they are committed enough to allow it to remain in our Union says a lot for who we are as a Christian tradition. It has also reawakened my commitment to defending the rights of those whose viewsIfind intellectually offensive and morally indefensible. The Baptist way of church is one that is incredibly fluid and open. There are no tomes of Canon law that must be negotiated to bring about change, no church courts nor heavy ecclesiastical structures to ensure continuity of doctrine or practice. We are dependent upon the voice of the people sent to Assembly and have dared to say that we believe the voice of Christ can be heard in and through the voice of the Assembly. While I think that on this matter 'the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from his Word' I have renewed confidence that in due time the voice of Christ will truly be heard. Rev Jim Barr is minister of Collins Street Baptist Church, Melbourne.
top of page