lesson_plan_on_homosexuality.rtf | |
File Size: | 644 kb |
File Type: | rtf |
homosexuality.doc | |
File Size: | 52 kb |
File Type: | doc |
CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TO HOMOSEXUALITY
Christians continue to be divided over the issue of homosexuality – the term coined at the end of the 19th century describing the sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. For some it is the ultimate taboo and homosexuals should not be welcomed into the Christian fellowship, still less into the ministry, but for others it is the natural way that some individuals have been created by God. Arguments are often biblically based but are also strongly influenced by personal opinion, conscience, experience, and the way in which society has viewed homosexuality over the centuries.
The causes of homosexuality
Much scientific research has gone into attempts to understand the origin and causes of homosexuality. It was not removed from the US list of psychiatric disorders until 1973 and attempts are still being made to establish a fundamental medical cause – a hormonal imbalance or a genetic predisposition. Attempts have also been made to identify a ‘homosexual gene’ which would establish that homosexuality was a natural predisposition for some. NINA ROSENSTAND (2000) argues that should this be established, then traditional objections to homosexuality – that it is a moral choice that goes against nature, and (in relation to male homosexuality) places adolescent boys in danger of seduction – would no longer be valid. She observes that it may open up new doors to discrimination: parents may seek screening of their children for homosexuality, in the hope of finding a ‘cure’ if they tested positive.
FREUD claimed that male homosexuality was a personality disorder as a result of failing to develop fully into adulthood, and he traced the causes to the relationship between a child and his parents. ELIZABETH MOBERLY (1983) supports Freud’s view: ‘A homosexual orientation does not depend on a genetic predisposition, hormonal imbalance or abnormal learning processes, but on difficulties in the parent-child relationships, especially in the earlier years of life.’ However, the jury is still out on the origins of homosexual orientation, and little research has been carried out on bisexuality.
Christianity and Homosexuality
§ Whatever the origins of homosexual orientation, religious believers are deeply divided over how to deal with it. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement maintains that: ‘human sexuality in all its richness is a gift from God gladly to be accepted, enjoyed and honoured…’ while the RC Church states that: ‘In sacred scripture homosexual acts are condemned as a serious depravity and presented as a sad consequence of rejecting God.’ On the other hand, the Methodist Church declared: ‘For homosexual men and women, permanent relationships characterised by love can be an appropriate and Christian way of expressing their sexuality.’
The Roman Catholic Church
The RC Church’s teachings on homosexuality are summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2357-2359). It maintains that there is no sin involved in an inclination towards a member of the same sex, as such an inclination isn’t freely chosen and is a trial for the person. The homosexual person should be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, and unjust discrimination should be avoided. The Church teaches that such people are called to chastity with the help of friendship, prayer and grace to achieve Christian perfection.
However, the Church maintains that homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. The acts are sinful because of the biblical condemnation of homosexual acts as depraved and intrinsically disordered and the natural law ethic, which notes that no life can come from the acts. Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory advocates or prohibits actions depending on whether they advance or inhibit their purpose. Sex that doesn’t allow for reproduction is unnatural and wrong, and so homosexual sex is wrong. The function of sex is either fully or partly to do with reproduction, and any sexual activity that doesn’t allow for procreation is immoral. Natural law passes no comment on homosexual inclinations, because they aren’t freely chosen and are not actions. It’s the actions themselves that are sinful.
There are difficulties with the natural law approach to homosexuality:
Ø It’s arguable that the unitive act between a loving couple is a good enough purpose for sex, despite being non-reproductive. Many sexual acts – such as sex in the non-fertile part of the menstrual cycle, sex after menopause, sex when one or both partners are infertile, and sex when the women is pregnant – can’t lead to reproduction. If we reject the reproductive imperative in sex, then natural law no longer opposes homosexual sex.
Ø BURTON M. LEISER, in his article ‘Homosexuality, morals and the law of nature’ (1997), notes that a screwdriver can be used for a number of purposes. Sexual organs are suited for reproduction and for the production of intense pleasure in oneself and others. Leiser argues that if the purpose of sexual organs is reproduction, then marriage between elderly couples who can’t have children is unnatural. To condemn people for using their sexual organs for their own pleasure reveals the prejudices and irrational taboos of our society.
Ø In their book Catholics and Sex (1992), KATE SAUNDERS and PETER STAMFORD cite views of some Catholic cardinals about homosexuals which may fuel intolerance. In 1991, the Polish primate CARDINAL GLEMP referred to homosexuals as ‘backyard mongrels’, while CARDINAL RAZINGER has written that ‘the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people’. While the Church advocates tolerance and understanding, it approves discrimination against homosexuals in matters such as adoption and teaching. Arcigay, an Italian gay rights group, has linked the Church’s teaching with violent expressions of intolerance. Arcigay estimates that, each year, between 150 and 200 gay men are murdered in Italy because of their sexual orientation.
Anglican Churches
Within the C of E, many high-ranking clergy have admitted to being homosexual, although this has not always had a happy result. In July 2003, CANON JEFFREY JOHN, an openly homosexual (though celibate) priest, reluctantly withdrew his acceptance of the post of Bishop of Reading in order to avoid a worldwide split in the Anglican Church. On the one side, evangelicals were pleased, taking the view expressed by DR PHILIP GIDDINGS of Greyfriars Church, who argued that the appointment of Jeffrey John was wrong in the first place because: ‘We are not free to discard what is said in the Bible, however unpopular…’ On the other, it dismayed many liberal members of the Church, including the Dean of Southwark, the Very Reverend COLIN SLEE who said: ‘Canon John has become the victim of appalling prejudice and abuse which has its main proponents within the Church of England…the news will hurt thousands of Christian people who are not gay but believe in God’s love and redemption for all his children equally.’
Caught in the middle, and anxious to avoid a division in the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, DR ROWAN WILLIAMS, said: ‘This has been a time of open and painful confrontation in which some of our bonds of mutual trust have been severely strained.’
Later in 2003, a schism developed within the Anglican Church worldwide between the liberal churches of the west and the traditional churches in Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Uganda where homosexuality is illegal and offenders are sometimes stoned to death. The Nigerian Church, which has 17 million members, openly opposed the ordination of a gay bishop, GENE ROBINSON, in the USA. A few months later, President OLUISEGUN OBASANJO of Nigeria said of homosexuality: ‘Such a tendency is clearly un-Biblical, unnatural and definitely un-African.’
In September 2005, Archbishop PETER AKINOLA announced that the Nigerian Church was to break away from the Western Churches because they had strayed so far away from biblical teachings concerning homosexuality. The man at the centre of the controversy, Bishop Gene Robinson, said: ‘I believe that the acceptance of gay and lesbian people into the life of the Church is something that is going to happen…it will happen in God’s time.’
The Bible and Homosexuality
The biblical concept of marriage suggests that the only divinely ordained, legitimate sexual relationship is one between heterosexual partners who voluntarily give up all other potential sexual partners to ‘cleave’ (Genesis 2.24) to their spouse. The creation narrative describes woman as being created specifically and specially for man – ‘a helper fit for him’ (Genesis 2.18). By implication, this suggests that another of exactly the same kind, a man, would not fulfil this requirement. The ‘one flesh’ principle indicates that the primary characteristic of the marriage bond is the sexual relationship between partners, and with it goes the creation ordinance, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1.28). A homosexual partnership does not have this potential, and could this be said to be ‘unnatural’ according to the principles of natural law.
The biblical writers understood that marriage is more than procreative. The use of the marriage analogy to describe the relationship between God and Israel (Hosea 2.16) and between Jesus and the Church (Revelation 21.2) affirms the unique and exclusive nature of marriage. Israel and the Church are both described as female figures – a wife and a bride – and the relationship they share with God is to be monogamous and free from the perversions that characterised pagan worship of the Canaanite gods. The exclusive commitment which Israel and God share singles the relationship out from all others, and is appropriate only to the bond of trust that can be established by marriage.
The biblical writers are also swift to condemn homosexual practices. In Leviticus 20.13, the Israelites are warned that homosexuality carries the death penalty, and the story of Lot and the angelic visitors suggests that it was an even worse sin than heterosexual rape (Genesis 19). All who participate in homosexual acts are condemned, including Canaan who appeared to have taken sexual advantage of his father, Noah, while he was asleep (Genesis 9.25). His descendants, the Canaanites, are cursed for following the same practices, and any Israelite who ‘lies with a man as with a woman’ (Leviticus 18.22) will be ‘vomited out of the land’.’ D.S. BAILEY(1986) wrote of these passages: ‘It is hardly open to doubt, that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion.’ Homosexuality was seen as being violent as well as perverse, as in the case of Sodom – ‘Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down’ (Genesis 19.9). There is no biblical reference to lesbian relationships, even though they existed in the ancient Middle East.
The people of Israel had good reason to avoid the homosexuality that characterised the Canaanite cults and the land they were setting out to conquer. Participation in their practices was a gross violation of the covenant relationship with God and did not increase the fruitfulness of the people, which was essential if they were to dominate the land. This theme is continued in the NT, especially by Paul, who included homosexuality in the list of moral evils that jeopardise a man’s salvation (1 Corinthians 6.9-10). The most specific teaching against homosexuality is found in Romans, in which Paul suggests that it was a result of the Fall after which ‘Men…gave up natural relations with women, and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men’ (Romans 1.27). Despite the fact that Jesus is not recorded as addressing the problem himself (perhaps because he preached in a predominantly Jewish culture, whereas Paul ministered in a Greek society where homosexuality was more commonly practised), there is a strong biblical argument against homosexuality. This is sufficient for many Christians to argue that homosexuality is sinful and can only be dealt with through repentance, forgiveness, prayer and healing.
Countering biblical arguments
D.S. Bailey offered a re-evaluation of these traditional arguments against homosexuality, drawing attention to the use of language and the culture from which biblical teachings emerged:
1. First, the sin of Sodom, which seems to lay the foundations for condemnation of homosexual practices, is ambiguous. Although it is possible that the Hebrew verb yada (‘to know’) may refer to sexual knowledge, it could simply mean ‘to become acquainted’. If this is the case, then the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but lack of hospitality, as Ezekiel 16.49 suggests. Isaiah 1.10 suggests it was hypocrisy and social injustice, and Jeremiah 23.14 cites deceit and general wickedness.
2. Condemnation of homosexual acts in the Bible often appear to relate to pagan practices, and many of these passages seem to condemn idolatry (1 Kings 14.24, Deuteronomy 23.17).
3. Paul says of his own teaching on marriage that he has ‘No command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy’ (1 Corinthians 7.25), so it is conceivable that with no corroborating account in the gospels, Paul may have been speaking entirely from his own viewpoint. Since it is clear that some of his teaching no longer has cultural relevance – the instruction to women to cover their heads in church, for example – it is possible that his teaching on homosexuality may also be culturally relative.
The former Bishop of Edinburgh, RICHARD HOLLOWAY, asserts that Christians are called to break down barriers, to be social campaigners for the Gospel of love. He states that far from being in the vanguard of change the Church has often been trying to defend ideas that society has already abandoned.
GARETH MOORE argues that Paul’s criticism of homosexual lifestyle comes from his assertion that it is a product of a godless people. While that may have been Paul’s perception in the 1st century CE, the existence today of pious homosexual Christians doesn’t fit his reason.
Some Liberal Christians take their ideas from situation ethics. Joseph Fletcher’s concept of agape inspired a generation of Episcopalians to take up the mantle of social reform. Bishop GENE ROBINSON, who is openly gay, regards love as the central theme of God’s moral law. He believes that Christians have a duty to practise God’s fundamental law – the Golden Rule of Jesus. Situation ethics judges every case on the litmus test of agape. For Robinson, agape reflects itself in commitment to your partner. Therefore sex should be judged in terms of the type of relationship that an individual has. Sex is morally wrong if it is promiscuous or for money. Homosexual acts should be judged morally on the same criteria as those of heterosexuals.
Other arguments defending homosexuality are more tenuous – the suggestion that David and Jonathan shared a homosexual relationship (1 Samuel 18.1), or even that Paul’s acceptance of a celibate life was because he was gay.
Group Activity Adam 22
I just came out to my parents last week. Needless to say they didn’t take it well. I’ve been spending the last few years coming to grips with whom I was and feeling positive about myself. Now in one weekend trip home, my parents have made me depressed, ashamed and suicidal. I see the hurt in their eyes and I just want it to make it go away. They want me to see a shrink, to find my 'true' sexuality. If I go I’m admitting I am 'sick' and need help. If I don’t then I will hurt them more. All of my friends are straight. Their parents were cool about me coming out.
What advice would you give Adam? Any ideas on what you as a group can do or where Adam can go for help?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Group Activity
Lorna 19
After breaking up with my boyfriend, and having to attend a family Thanksgiving in Dublin, I decided I couldn't live a lie any longer. After a bit too much to drink, I decided to tell my family. My Mom sort of knew what was coming. Some of my brothers and sisters happened to be in the room. I came out. My two older brothers walked out of the kitchen in disgust. My younger brother said he couldn't care less. My only sister looked really sad. Finally, she looked at me. "I looked up to you so much and now you do this to me . . ." she said mournfully.
My two older brothers are slowly getting got over it and I am feeling more comfortable with them. My little sister can’t look at me in the same way. She is heartbroken and so am I.
What advice would you give Lorna?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Definition-Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him’
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him’