What does a Baptist understanding of biblical authority and Christian compassion bring to the debate over same-sex relations, asks Nigel Wright, Principal of Spurgeon's College, London.

The discussion of same-sex orientation and practice has been one of the most painful experienced by the church over the last two decades. Whereas a number of denominations in the United States of America and Australia have found ways of giving validation to same-sex practice within a limited set of circumstances, usually described as committed and faithful partnerships, those British denominations that have entered into the debate have found themselves so divided and uneasy on the issue that they have in effect settled back into traditional affirmations and by default or decision embraced the status quo ante. At the same time sufficient exposure has been given to the issue to enable active gay and lesbian Christians to organize themselves and make it increasingly likely that their presence in the denominations will be recognised and accepted, if not yet theologically validated. Although generally recognized to be conservative in their approach to personal ethics and so more reluctant to address contentious issues, Baptists also have faced these debates or will face them progressively. It is appropriate to ask therefore whether there are any distinctive Baptist perspectives on this issue, what they might be and how they might impact upon our own experience of this discussion. The debate on same-sex relations is both symptomatic and representative. It is one of several issues of private morality in which contemporary society is at variance with biblical morality as that has been traditionally interpreted by Christians. The control of fertility through contraception, allied to a strong sense of personal autonomy that encourages people to negotiate their own sexual decisions, allied to a social liberalism that sees no point in interfering with matters that remain in the private realm and do not impinge upon the freedoms of others, has led to a major shift in sexual attitudes and behaviour. For Christians they lead to a tension between moral and pastoral theology. On the one hand there is the expectation that the churches will offer clear moral guidance. On the other hand, churches are also agencies of pastoral care in which empathy with people's needs is a high value. If churches hold back on the moral theology in order not to stigmatize individuals they are accused of not giving a lead. If they give a strong lead they are accused of being judgmental and of alienating the needy. How is it possible to do both? The issue of same-sex relationships is worth examining in its own right, but also as a case study of moral and pastoral existence in our changed world. It is objected that it is unfair to single out this one topic for special discussion when there are many other topics that are of greater importance. Is this not an expression of the church's obsession with sex? The answer to this must be two-fold. Firstly, this topic has come up for particular discussion because there are influential lobby groups both beyond and within the Christian church that have campaigned intentionally to shift the consensus in this matter. If it has come on to the agenda it is because these lobby groups have put it there. Secondly, this is an issue that, once more, is tied up with the matter of identity. Instinctively many in the churches know that what is decided about this issue, in terms of church policy, will define for a generation the kind of church or denomination we intend to be. What is at stake is an understanding of what it means on the one hand to be a church that 'lives under the Word' and on the other to be open to those who are 'different' and inclusive in our practice of community. There are many who desire, of course, to be both these things, and just here is the challenge of this issue. Baptist Christians will mirror and reflect those responses found in other parts of the church. However, distinctively Baptist perspectives may indeed affect the way in which Baptists handle differences of belief and judgment between them as it may also affect the way they advocate their views. At this point our traditional respect for individual conscience, the autonomy of the local church and the separation of church and state may shape our approach. However, in addition to discussions of process, we must touch significantly upon matters of content. We shall find it necessary to rehearse in summary form some of the positions taken in this debate. As this discussion can raise the temperature to quite high levels, it may be helpful to indicate at this point that my own position on this topic is traditional and conservative. I remain unpersuaded and unconvinced by what I have read calling for a revision in Christian thinking. I will not be attempting to conceal my own position - in fact I shall be advocating it. While striving for fairness I am not overly confident that I, any more than others, will achieve it. At the same time I cannot claim that I have remained personally unaltered or unchallenged by the discussions as I have so far understood them. I struggle with the tension of how to hold fast to the teaching and how to be fair and generous in its application. Like others I have had to ask myself quite demanding questions about my own instincts, attitudes and commitments. By means of introduction I begin with several reflections on why this debate seems often to generate more heat than light.

More heat than light?

What is at stake in this debate is profoundly personal. When we speak of our sexual desires, instincts and aversions we are tapping into the roots of our personal and physical identity. Although we may approach the debate rationally and apparently objectively, it is not long before we encounter in ourselves some gutsy feelings one way or another about what is good and right. We need to face the fact that this is not a purely rational debate (but what is?) but one that for all of us will be rooted in strong feelings and energies. For those who stand in traditions that look to normative authorities in Scripture and/or in tradition the debate has become invested with a wider significance. It has come to be seen as benchmark or test of faithfulness to Scripture. The fear is that if we are able to shift position on this issue, there is no issue on which we might not conclude that the church has previously been mistaken and the Scriptures misleading. Indeed, approaches to sexuality are frequently among a bundle of concerns often seen together (I mention the reimaging of God as one other) in which what is felt to be at stake is the nature of the Christian faith itself. Those who affirm traditional positions on this question are likely to see themselves as struggling for faithfulness to Scripture and to the Christian tradition in general. Inevitably this produces great passion. To accommodate acceptance of same-sex relationships feels profoundly destabilizing both to Christianity and to society as we have understood it. On the other hand, those who want to revise Christian sexual ethics to accommodate certain kinds of same-sex behaviour understand themselves to be struggling in the cause of justice, the fair and equal treatment of individuals according to their given sexual orientation. They would be anxious to express that the church has been known to fight on the wrong side - in the case of slavery and the emancipation of women for instance - and that once more it has chosen the wrong side in resisting legitimate updating of its position. The paradigm here is justice, itself deemed to be a fundamental biblical concern. Those who affirm traditional positions are considered to be colluding in injustice and oppression. Although they may not themselves participate in acts of hatred and violence against gays, they are providing ammunition and support at long distance for those who do: 'If you are not for us you are against us.' Justice requires that the church change. We find ourselves straying here into a further field in which heat is generated. It is not long in this discussion before we encounter the phenomenon of rhetoric, the use of words, images and associations that are intended to undercut or disadvantage one's opponents in the debate. So, on the one hand, we quite quickly find use of the words 'homophobia' or 'homophobic' such that those who state their convictions against same-sex practice are deemed to be guilty of irrational hatred towards gays. On the other hand there is a ready association of homosexuals with paedophiles, with the insinuation that one is about as good as the other. There are, of course, valid points to be made about irrational hatred of gays and about the nature or prevalence of paedophilia, but it becomes impossible to discuss them on their own terms. The intention in such language is to hurt and to disempower, not to enlighten. A further area worth pointing to in these preliminary remarks concerns the sheer complexity of the issues associated with this discussion. The bundle of personal, pastoral, hermeneutical, theological and civil issues that comes to the fore around the subject of same-sex relationships is too complicated to be tackled through the blunt instrument of adversarial debate, which is the usual method of church or denominational councils. When it is so debated it is no surprise that both wisdom and time are lacking both to distinguish and to unravel the issues and work them through to any degree of conclusion. The debate exhausts the best of human energies and those who insist on prolonging it come to be seen as squabblers. Finally we indicate here the divergence to be seen in the relative concern shown between North and South, East and West. As already indicated, for some the issue at stake involves faithfulness to Scripture; others fail to comprehend why there is such resistance to justice and equality. For a church tradition such as our own that believes in a clear link between ethics and ecclesiology there is a profound challenge. Do we have the resources within our church councils at local, regional, national and international levels to debate this issue in a mature and responsible way? In theory this is precisely what our understanding of a discerning, hermeneutical community commits us to. Here we begin to encounter the issue of distinctively Baptist perspectives that we are committed to addressing. To approach these properly we need to approach them slowly. In the next section I address, albeit in summary and somewhat superficial form, the substance of this debate.

A framework of responses

How Baptists respond to the content of this debate is unlikely to differ significantly in outline from the responses of other Christians. I suggest that the following positions are all to be found among Baptists, although I have no doubt that some of them are majority views and others those of a distinct minority. I intend here to follow James Nelson, who helpfully and concisely identifies four consistent Christian responses to same-sex attraction and relationships. Whereas I owe the framework to Nelson, the way I elaborate these positions and summarize them goes beyond his own description and therefore his own responsibility for them. Nelson identifies what he calls:

1. The rejecting-punitive position. In this response homosexual orientation and practice are unconditionally rejected as being corrupt and sinful, in no way capable of Christian or theological validation other than as sin. Furthermore this position is accompanied by a punitive attitude towards lesbians and gay men, both in projecting stereotypes upon them and in seeking to penalise or discriminate against them in the civil realm. Homosexual behaviour is regarded as undermining and eroding the social and moral fabric of society. As a consequence those who feel themselves to be homosexual find it difficult to be open and honest about it and live in fear of ostracism or penalty. Homosexuals are presented with stark decisions in relation to Christianity - to reject it, adopt a covert lifestyle within it or stand out against it as hostile to their interests and identity.

2. The rejecting-non-punitive position. Advocates of this position might rather describe it as 'rejecting-compassionate'. Homosexual acts are rejected as violating the divine intention but a distinction is drawn between orientation and acts. The divine intention set out in Genesis and in the teaching of Jesus centres on the complementary nature of the male-female partnership on both the physical and spiritual levels. Homosexual acts are rejected as irregular and unnatural both when judged against this benchmark and when looked at from a simple physical perspective. Anal intercourse can find no biblical or theological legitimation. Negatively, whenever the Bible refers to same-sex acts it does so to condemn them. Positively, the only form of sexual behaviour that is affirmed is heterosexual. Homosexual acts are never held up for admiration or acceptance. However, homosexual orientation is seen as a flaw rather than a sin, as a consequence of the profound disorder m which we all share, whether heterosexual or homosexual. For this reason homosexual persons are to be treated compassionately as they wrestle with this disorder and given all assistance to overcome or come to terms with their particular struggle. This is the kind of grace and mercy we all need and so no discrimination should be made against homosexuals as a class of people within the church. The call to live a godly life is one that comes to all of us and poses its own challenges to each of us in distinctive ways. In terms of civil and criminal legislation those espousing this position might support legislation that was directed against propagating homosexual lifestyles or oppose legislation that treated homosexual partnerships as equivalent to marriage. In that the very continuance of the human race depends upon heterosexual marriage this must be privileged within society and by the state.

3. The position of qualified acceptance. This position agrees with the two former headings in affirming that God's intent in creation is heterosexual in nature. God made humankind as male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Marriage provides the basis for the continuance of society both as the context for reproduction and for nurture and personal growth. Heterosexual and homosexual partnerships can never therefore be regarded as equivalent or equal. If we were to universalize and ask what kind of world this would be if all were committed to heterosexual and faithful marriage, the answer would be 'a better one'. If all were to engage in homosexual partnerships, the answer would be 'a non-existent one'. Clearly, these forms of sexual behaviour are not equivalent. However, we do not live in a perfect or ideal world but in a broken and distorted one. Human bondage to sin should excite not our condemnation but our compassion. In such a world people are often faced with situations they cannot change and with choices that are highly ambiguous. Often they are asked to choose not between good and evil but between the bad and the worse. This is a principle that informs various areas of Christian ethical debate, not least our approach to war. All Christians would agree that war is evil, that participation in killing renders us guilty before God. Extreme pacifists have argued that under no conceivable circumstance ought one to participate in war and killing. But most Christians have argued that such a purist position is not possible in the kind of world in which we share. Criteria have been devised not to validate war and make it right but to identify the conditions under which Christians might participate in that which, though wrong, is apparently necessary or inevitable. In a somewhat analogous way, those who find themselves homosexual in constitution, whether through genetic conditioning or early nurture or both, need to be supported in their struggle to live holy lives. It may be that for some reorientation of their sexuality is possible and can be made to work. It may be that for others the gift of celibacy is given. But for yet others reorientation may not work and celibacy might prove to be a counsel of perfection and is not given to them. Could it then be that faithful same-sex relationships may be the least worst option open to some people in an imperfect and unredeemed world? And would this not be infinitely preferable to promiscuity? And is it not part of the church's responsibility to help those who feel themselves to be what they are to live with a high degree of ethical discrimination? Whereas there is nothing in my reading either of Scripture or of the Christian tradition to give theological validation to same-sex relationships, might it not be possible to draw upon the Christian tradition 's understandings of marriage as faithful and enduring partnership to inform how responsible homosexual persons might make ethical judgments? Those who adopt this position of qualified acceptance would in all likelihood hesitate to ordain practising homosexuals to the pastoral office on the basis that this is an exemplary role and those who occupy it should exemplify as best they are able normative ethical behaviour. Whereas the logic of the position resists accepting gay partnerships as having equal status with marriages, it does not preclude there being some way of recognising in law the value of faithful and abiding partnerships, and undergirding them with such support as the state can bring.

4. The position of full acceptance. According to this position sexual relationships should be evaluated according to their 'unitive' rather than their 'procreative' purpose. Sexual acts are not primarily a means of reproduction but of human bonding. All sexual acts are tested ethically according to their relational qualities. The same criteria apply therefore to heterosexual and homosexual behaviour. In so far as sexual activity promotes bonding, it is good. The ethical debate is not essentially about who has sex with whom but how sex promotes and sustains love between persons. In this sense same-sex activity that is loving can be infinitely superior to exploitative heterosexual behaviour. This position does not commit people to a sexual free-for-all. It is essential that sex express values of mutuality rather than selfishness, partnership rather than domination, giving rather than greed, commitment rather than promiscuity. All of these values are deeply Christian and a true understanding of the Christian revelation would see that this is indeed the tendency of Scripture. Re-examined and re-exegeted, those passages of Scripture that condemn same-sex practice are condemning behaviours that the responsible and Christian gay person would also wish to condemn, whether this be the gang rape of Sodom, or the male prostitutes of Canaanite religion or the exploitative pederasty of the Greeks and Romans. Indeed, once carefully examined the Bible is found not to be addressing at an the issue of loving and faithful same-sex relations but forms of sexual activity that an sides of this debate can agree to be unacceptable. What the Bible might have said had it been able in its world to envisage the same-sex relations that are now being recognized remains a matter of speculation, speculation that we must turn to the broader themes of Scripture to answer: themes such as love, faithfulness, compassion. To recognise this should lead to equal treatment for gay people in the church, expressed in the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of practising but faithful gays and lesbians as well as full civil equality. Indeed, the church should have a concern most of all for the marginalised and the vulnerable and should be in the forefront of such a struggle. At the same time, the gay communities need the church's ethical guidance just as much as heterosexuals do. It is worth noting that although this position is the most liberal of those we have outlined, even here there is the characteristic Christian restriction of sexual activity to faithful relationships. It does not represent a sexual and permissive free-for-all.

Some evaluations

The effect of outlining this framework is to demonstrate that there is not one simple response to the question of homosexual practice. Rather, there is a field of responses. Although I have followed Nelson in identifying four types, there is room for some manoeuvre between the types such that actual responses will be more complex than even they suggest. My judgment of the British Baptist scene would be that all these positions are represented in our churches, although not in equal measure. The considered minds of most churches would at an educated guess predominantly affirm the second position. But practical pastoral and civil involvement and realism in these areas would lead to some oscillation towards the third position. Indeed, it is the interaction between the second and third positions that seems to me to allow scope for a fruitful conversation. I personally would reject positions one and four. In the case of position one this would be on the grounds that it fails to have sympathy for people in the way that is properly Christian. Admittedly there are few Christians who would put themselves in the category of being 'punitive', but even so Nelson is right to discern that it is an observable position. Position four is also, in my view, inadequately Christian, in the doctrinal sense. Whereas re-exegeting the biblical texts that bear upon this issue certainly has shed light on what those texts mean and in some cases leads to a rereading of them, this seems to me to leave the basic issue unchanged. What revisionists must contend with is not four relatively isolated texts that prohibit, but a whole biblical witness to human sexuality that permits and affirms. But what it permits, affirms and leads us to admire is the vision of male and female in the complementary and productive union for which their bodies equip and prepare them. No other vision is offered. We are fundamentally engineered for reproduction and Scripture bears testimony to that which our bodies confirm. However, I am all too acutely aware that pastoral practice is often concerned with enabling people to choose the least worst options for their lives and to live with the reality given to them in which there is not always room for change. This would be true for instance of divorce. My public position is one of the affirmation of marriage as lifelong and faithful union between one man and one woman. But my pastoral practice would allow for divorce and remarriage since as a matter of given fact we are often faced with broken and messy situations that we are called upon to repair and redeem to the limits of our capacity. We call people to live with and to improve upon their situation. I do not see it as my task to advise people to divorce, but if this is the decision they take I must often work with them to make the best of what is inevitable. I advocate marriage but I deal with divorce. If I were to advocate divorce I would risk undermining marriage. We live in the realm of the penultimate, not of the ultimate, and we live by grace. I confess therefore that whereas I have always sought to live and work as a theologically principled pastor I have not infrequently found that being pragmatic is necessary to see people through in ambiguous and uncertain times. So in the case of same-sex relationships to take the second position as a stance of principle does not for me preclude some oscillation towards the third position either as a pastoral approach within the church or as a way of addressing the civil realm in which laws and practices need to be framed to take account of many things of which personally I might disapprove. As already indicated, Baptist attitudes to homosexuality are unlikely to differ markedly from those of the wider Christian community. However there are several concerns which are of particular note for Baptists. As a people who have stood for the rights of individual conscience, to what extent do we allow for the conscientious disagreement and dissent of the individuals who comprise our churches on this matter? As we believe in the autonomy of the local church, to what extent are we content for churches to hold different views and what does this do to our fellowship? Conversely, in that we also believe that the discerning community exists in councils, associations and assemblies, to what extent are we content to allow there to be a regional and a national policy and what do we do when we dissent from such a policy? Finally, as those who have believed historically in the separation of church and state, to what extent do we distinguish between what voluntary communities of Christians may embrace as their own ethic and the need of the state to allow for and regulate acts or lifestyles Christians might find unacceptable? If not uniquely Baptist this complex of questions is at least characteristically so.

Conclusions

Is there then a distinctively Baptist perspective on homosexuality? In terms of substance almost certainly not-we share a range of responses with other traditions. But in terms of process, how we deal with debate and decision, probably so, not uniquely but characteristically so. Let me now summarize what these might be:

* There will be a presumption that conscientious people may judge differently on this contentious issue as they do on others and that they have the right to do so. * There will be a presumption that local congregations will seek to discern the mind of Christ and may come to different positions within their own jurisdiction. This too is to be respected. * There will be recognition that although conscience is free it is not anarchic and that the wider church may test the judgments of individuals and congregations, but not in a punitive or oppressive spirit. * Where there is difference there will be the attempt to come to agreement about what boundaries to the debate can be agreed upon. Across the span of positions one to four previously discussed, for instance, there will be agreement that casual and promiscuous sex without commitment or compassion are to be rejected. * Within this there will be a debate about what the mind of the majority is and whether this can be a declared position of the communion of churches as a whole. * Churches and individuals dissenting from this, or from the mind of local churches, will face hard questions as to whether to sublimate their own views to the discipline of the wider mind in a spirit of submission or whether to dissent from it in the spirit of prophecy. * As conscience is both individual and corporate it will not always be possible, as it is not on other issues, to avoid hard decisions about the relationship between agreement and cooperation. How much agreement does there have to be to support what quality of co-operation?

I have indicated my own preference in principle for position two with some oscillation in pastoral practice towards position three. It does seem to me that this offers a realistic, principled but sympathetic way forward in a tense and difficult debate. It also seems to strike the right notes in offering moral guidance rooted in moral theology while not losing sight of the persons whose struggle with this issue is all too real. I suggest it could be a meeting ground upon which Baptist Christians with their particular set of instincts and with their differing points of view might find a way of thinking and working together. But the debate needs to be seen also to be about our own identity as a movement. If position four were to be validated, for instance, we would, in my judgment, be defining ourselves as a denomination that sits loose to biblical authority and the consequences of this would be disastrous. However, if we do not maintain the openness to the 'other' and to the struggles people have to maintain their own sexual integrity (expressed in different ways by positions two and three) we would be defining ourselves as a reactionary movement out of touch with real life. A formula to help us in this process might be as follows:

* concerning position one - we reject it. * concerning position four - we decline it. * concerning position two - we affirm it. * concerning position three - we note it.

The final word has to do with ethics and ecclesiology. All the signs are that as ethical judgments become more and more complex, so the church of tomorrow will have to learn the skills of careful ethical consideration and debate. This requires maturity, wisdom and skill. If the subject matter of this article is any indication, the challenge to be genuinely discerning and interpreting communities is one of the greatest we face.

Rev Dr Nigel G. Wright is the Principal of Spurgeon's College, London, and President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain 2002-2003. This article is an edited version of a chapter in his book, New Baptists, New Agenda (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), pp. 131-149, reviewed in the previous issue of Mosaic. Used by permission. This article appeared in Mosaic 5 (3), 2003, edited by Rod Benson. To subscribe, contact