Homosexuality & Fellowship (1): Hermeneutics
by Harry Osborne
December 6, 2009

The "Stone-Campbell List" was facilitated as an online discussion list by Abilene Christian University intended to enhance communication of topics related to the "Restoration Movement." Participants have included individuals from a wide spectrum of views -- conservative to very liberal with most being of a more liberal persuasion. Though all have claimed to be influenced by "Restoration" figures and principles, it is obvious they strayed from that historical influence. A few years ago, I joined the list to read it, though I had no time to participate in exchanges. It was an education to read the ideas advanced. In some cases, it was a look into the future as loose principles advocated by some non-institutional brethren have now been carried to their logical end.
The idea that anyone would seek a moral or biblical justification for the acceptance of homosexuality is unthinkable to most non-institutional brethren. On the contrary, there is virtual unanimity regarding the fact that homosexual conduct is a sin not to be tolerated. They rightly appeal to the clear teaching of Scripture to condemn such. One teaching to the contrary would be strongly opposed as an opponent of the plain language of inspired Scripture. However, that unanimous opposition to homosexuality is not shared by all claiming the so-called “restoration plea.”

The Times Are Changing - Acceptance of Homosexual Conduct

In the discussions about this subject on the Stone-Campbell List, I found that a large portion affirmed a willingness for more tolerance of homosexual conduct. Included in that number is the following statement by an avowed homosexual:

Since the church community is experienced as anything from blandly neutral ("don't ask/ don't tell") to outright hostile, many gay and lesbian people fall away and become totally lost. The core problem is that church is inhospitable to who they truly are. I suspect a few drift into accepting church environments outside the CoC, but most leave religion entirely. I personally have known two gay people with strong CoC backgrounds who feel unable to return and unmotivated to try another church.

This is a sorry record that needs to be addressed as an immediate priority. There are real people whose spiritual, emotional, and physical lives are at stake. Elders, ministers, and other leaders need to examine the substance of their teaching, and how it is carried out in day-to-day church life.

In our Restoration Movement, the Disciples' Open and Affirming congregation program is a bold new initiative to take a fresh look at scripture, scientific understanding, societal issues, and specifically the role of gays and lesbians in the church. The O&A process assumes that scripture is subject to ongoing interpretation in the tradition of a living church. Having been through a study process which covers both the Old and New Testaments, I have enhanced my own understanding. We do families a serious disservice to "defend orthodoxy" simply because we feel it has "worked" for so long. Based on a revitalized understanding of scripture and a growing faith, an O&A church is prepared to publicly welcome and affirm gay and lesbian people, not in spite of who they are, but for who they are. O&A churches welcome them not only into the baptistery but also the pulpit, as ministers and congregational leaders.

When one participant dared to remind the list that the Scripture called those engaged in such activity "sodomites" and condemned it, the above writer responded claiming those opposed to homosexuality are the real sodomites:

My earlier observation was that, by and large, RM churches have been unwelcoming and inhospitable places for gay and lesbian people, and as a result, there have been destructive physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. As in the Genesis account, gay and lesbian members stand at "the gate" of our churches seeking refuge, but instead, are scorned with epithets. Here's the irony. Short of outright physical assault, I think our churches have practiced certain elements of "sodomy."

...I think of two couples in my own congregation. Howard and Brett have been together for over 25 years. Both serve on our church's mission and outreach board. Last Sunday, Howard read the scripture lesson from the pulpit, and at Christmas he has played Santa Claus for the Sunday school kids. Since he's a retired schoolteacher in his 60's and has a white beard, he fits the role perfectly. Somehow I have difficulty conceiving of Howard and Brett as "sodomites."

And I think of Carol and Terri, a lesbian couple who pledged a lifelong commitment in March, 2000. I was honored not only to be present at their commitment ceremony, but also at their housewarming. The two of them met a few years ago while volunteering on the Minneapolis-to-Chicago AIDS Ride. They're into the AIDS Ride not so much for the cycling as their way to connect with the stranger at their own "gate." Sodomites? Not in the legal or biblical sense of the word. (Do lesbians count as auxiliary ones anyway?)

Now, if the guardians of orthodoxy would have their way, then maybe the church should give these two couples a come-uppance. We could put them into "Christian counseling," persuade them of their unfitness, and ask them to detach from their partners. (Maybe they could even swap for mixed doubles. I'm joking.) Howard and Brett are gay. Carol and Terri are lesbian. To chart them on a "reparative" course would be for them a "perversion." Instead, my church affirms these folks for what they are, relies on their talents and treasures, prays for them when they need it, and rejoices with them when there's cause for celebration.

Do you see what I mean about the times changing? But how did they get here?

Hermeneutics of Uncertainty

Despite clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Scripture, those seeking acceptance of such behavior tell us that there are other alternative explanations to these verses if we will merely reinterpret them in light of other factors. Notice the following plea for such from another writer in the discussion:

If Scripture were just one unbroken and unchanging set of laws and rules from Genesis to Revelation, life would be much simpler. But most RMers view revelation as an unfolding of divine purpose where rules that were binding in one era must be avoided in another time in order to be faithful. Everything from animal sacrifice to instrumental music has been attacked using various that-was-then, this-is-now hermeneutical schemes. That's why historical discussions like this S-C list can be helpful in determining what is the difference between giving in to cultural pressures (an accusation used by both sides of the sexual orientation issue) and trying to discover how to be as faithful in our own times as earlier persecuted pioneers were in theirs.

One thing I think all on this list can agree on is that there's no future in simply pointing to verses here or there that condemn a particular practice. In this regard, changes in interpreting the Bible on acceptance of all races in the church is somewhat ahead of accepting women in all spiritual leadership roles, which is still ahead of understanding whether sexual orientation matters in the church.

Along the way, we can seek to shed more light than heat through a deeper respect for each other as we try to decide what to do today when God apparently gives gifts to people we've been taught all our lives to exclude. Respect and civility and patience still are core biblical principles follow, while confrontational tactics tell us more about their users' personalities than about their correctness on an issue.

My friend John White is fond of saying you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. That's why I expect a generation or two from now the consensus on sexual orientation will be that it's not an issue, except for the same fringe temperament which today singles out other practices as signs that the church is losing the courage of its convictions, failing to see signs of spiritual maturity.

Count me out of that consensus "maturing" to accept homosexuality. Despite efforts to deny it, the Bible clearly condemns homosexual conduct and all who would tolerate it (Romans 1:26-27, 33; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10; Genesis 19:4-11; Jude 7; Leviticus 18:22-30; 20:13; 1 Kings 14:22-24; 15:11-12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).

Next week, we will examine similarities between efforts to advance this agenda and efforts among our own brethren to justify a broader fellowship, increased tolerance for error, and a reinterpretation of plain Bible texts on other issues. The more liberal churches have taken it farther, but some brethren in non-institutional churches are on the same road.

< Back to Article List