A Pastoral response to 'the homosexual question' (two responses)

Thinking maturely about the Christian faith

Search

// you’re reading...

Theology

A Pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’ (two responses)

By Rowland Croucher and others ⋅ February 6, 2007 ⋅ Post a comment

Soundings No. 46 – 5 February 2006 A pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’ by Brian McLaren

Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent’s constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric-and we’re pastors, evangelists, church-planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors. Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.

<>

A:

That’s the main reason I tend to avoid discussions on the topic. There is no dialogue, only a whole lot of simultaneous ideologically-driven monologues, in which nobody listens to anyone else, but while someone else is talking they are thinking up what to say next.

Until people are prepared to explain their owen assumptions, and not regard them as self-evident, and listen to other people explaining their assumptions, rather than telling them what their assumptions are, there is really little point in discussing it in public forums like newsgroups.

B:

There is a degree to which ALL people need to be more open-minded about their own assumptions, in addition to being prepared to listen to others. Rigid mindsets are the ‘enemy’ to understanding. It is through discussion on the newsgroups that I have recently come to appreciate that I was being too rigid – so I personally DO think there is a lot of point in discussions of this type, in public forums.

One of the problems is, people think they can see a solution by searching for unequivocable ‘proof’ that their particular position is the “right” one. For example, if ‘gay rights’ people can prove that sexual orientation is ‘hard-wired’ in the brain in some way (whether genetically, due to pre-birth conditions in the womb, or as the brain develops), then they think they will have ‘won’, and that their case should be considered on a par with, say, skin colour or race, ie a non-choice characteristic of how they are. On the other hand, if the “conservatives” (for want of a better word) can prove that sexuality can be changed, or does change, they will believe they had ‘won’, and that it was a “lifestyle choice” and therefore something a person can by choice, change.

If the causes and nature of homosexuality are complex, then there may well be a mix of people in the gay population, ie some who truly can never change, and some who could change with some form of intervention, and even some who will change over a period of years. (With this last group, I wonder if the apparent change is caused by an abatement of sex drive as age advances, until the person becomes more ambivalent to physical attraction and more driven by social attraction?)

If, instead, we become more open-minded, and accept that it might well be impossible to ‘prove’ either position unequivicably, then maybe it would be possible to move forward to a greater position of understanding and tolerance on both sides. Perhaps how we deal with this is a test of our Christlikeness?

I can’t see that any proof can ever be found that would resolve the issue. For instance, research has failed to unearth a single, simple cause, and that suggests the nature of a homosexual orientation is complex, and perhaps there are many types of homosexual oritentation. Also, some research suggests mutability of sexual orientation – but if that shows that *some* people can and do change, it still does not necessarily follow that ALL gay people could, nor does it necessarily show that treatments or therapies are likely to succeed with any particular person, or whether attepmting them carries unacceptable risks. In short, it doesn’t follow that it would be right or desirable to attempt a change, just because it might be possible.

My point here is, any apparent solution would only lead to further debates on what action (if any) should be taken, and whether individuals should be encouraged to put themselves at risk by attempting such treatments, or whether they should be left as they are.

February 2007