Understanding Church and Sexuality in our Generation (excerpts)

Understanding Church and Sexuality in our Generation (excerpts)

It is out of a sense of urgency that the church know on what foundations she is building and that her prophetic voice to wider society sound out with clarity to those who wish to hear.

More than a few in church and I suspect in wider society do not know how to make sense of the cultural shifts in society particularly around the gay marriage and wider relational and sexual issues that this current dilemma raises. Many Christians may be struggling to understand from a faith perspective how to approach this in the strange absence of a coherent voice of church and leadership.

The following is a brief excerpt, of an in-depth treatment of the issues at hand, historical, philosophically, psychologically and biblically and then ask the question of church’s response.

i. History

Some have sought to argue from Greco-Roman practices during New Testament times. It is true that many men from emperors through many strata of society would take an adolescent boy as a companion involving sexual experiences (“ephebic love”). The boy was not just a sexual object but the relationships included education, development physically, philosophically, spiritually, etc. However this practice is shown historically to be transient, with a beginning and an end. The homosexual experiences were not replacements for heterosexual relationships. The men generally had wives. The adolescent boy would upon adulthood marry a wife and himself take a boy. Society was underpinned by heterosexual marriage. The homosexual practices were “cultural trend.” Historically, no one can legitimately use this argument to substantiate homosexual relationships, marriages as replacements for heterosexual ones.

ii. Philosophy

Three major influential philosophies around from 3rd century BC through to 3rd Century AD embrace New Testament times: Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Gnosticism.

In all three sexuality is reduced to debase practice in opposition to the activity of the mind and spirit. The result is either an asexual existence where the passions were quashed or, because sexual activity was worthless and meaningless, they could do whatever they desired, it had no importance. These tendencies had major influence on 1st Century culture.

The philosophical points demonstrate that homosexual relationships were a transient and marginal form of cultural trend. We are not therefore dealing with an existential reality that has always been.

Other religions have varying standpoints:       

Judaism maintains sexual deviations as cheapening sex, eroding self respect. Marriage is perceived as providing companionship & family

Islam forbids homosexuality 

Hinduism adopts a similar position although it is expressed in the form of “a silent taboo.

Buddhism is against anything exploitative and destructive. Sexuality is not seen as part of human identity; however uncontrolled desire, misuse or destructive patterns would be condemned.

iii.      Psychologically

There are six explanations widely given to explain homosexual tendencies and the desire or need to live in homosexual relationships. Some of these would be embraced by Christians and Christian churches. They included arguments from genetic predisposition and disorder, handicap, free choice, human progress and personal trauma. The tensions lie in the confronting God’s original order in creation with cultural and environmental trends, shifts and influences.

Secondly, homosexual practices are not a sexual disorder. They reflect the difficulty in relating to the same and opposite genders during the span of time from infancy to adolescence. Some answers will lie in the relationships with significant people during that time and any traumatic experiences a child may have gone through and how they have adapted how they live to cope with that. We must distinguish between healthy same sex relationships and the sexualisation of these leading to homosexual practices.

iv.      Biblically

Throughout the Bible is a recognition and embrace of “God’s original creational intentions” and of regenerative transformation “a new creation in the image or likeness of Christ” typifying God’s desire and purpose to have a people among and throughout peoples, living distinctively according to God transformed lives. In

Mt.19:4-6, Jesus refers back to this creational order. His references are not personal, social or cultural orientated. The term reconciliation means “a return to an original condition, return to the first original intentions that God disposed towards us.” Our argument is to distinguish cultural trend from God’s original intentions where we can identify that clearly.

Sexual identity is defined by God in creation; it is influenced and shaped, for good or bad by environmental elements. However, the true sense of self is preordained and transcends culture. It is out of identity, inclusive of sexual gender, that a person brings a unique contribution with a blend of masculine and feminine attributes to wider society. I believe a key to true reconciled identity and sexuality originates in the reconciliation between the masculine and feminine in each human being in God.

Our aim is to help Christians be secure in their identity inclusive of sexual gender. We do not separate identity from gender as cultural is trying to do.

Marriage does not define sexual gender or gender roles. Marriage is the covenant promise –safe ground for two people expressing God intended male and female “otherness” and “complicity” to grow in a secure, loving environment where masculine and feminine respond to each other finding completion and fullness which is critical to growth and maturity, unique to each couple. God’s intention, (Ge. 1-3) establishes the principle of fullness, completion being bound to “otherness” as is reflected in human relationships. What brought the sense of completeness was ‘woman’ someone who combined likeness with otherness. Adam affirms, she is of the same substance and of the same nature yet, this “otherness” was the key to fullness, completion.

I believe that original, creational order does determine the nature and shape of relationships.

Biblical etymology provides insight into the intended meaning of words. 

Some have argued that Paul’s use of the terms relating to sexual deviations distinguish between healthy homosexual relationships, likened to heterosexual ones, and the more perverse expressions (e.g. Ro.1:21-32). If Paul had intended that very subtle distinction he would have employed other terms more widely to explicitly make clear such a distinction. As it is he does not, instead he multiplies inclusively various sexual expressions; along with other sins non-conform to His intentions for his people. 1Co.6:19, 1Ti.1:9-10 are the clearest indications that this bi-sexual or homosexual Greco-Roman practice was not aligned to biblical faith.

The distinction between the culturally normative homosexual practices and the excessive ones existed. It remains that no where do the texts speak of them in an inclusive, acceptable, or affirmative manner. The evidence from biblical etymology does not substantiate the subtle distinction of acceptable stable homosexual relationships and the excessive/ promiscuous genres, “... and such were some of you. But you were washed...” (1Co.6:11).

If cultural norms weigh in the balance against grappling with some biblical understanding then we are in a precarious place of subjectively redefining biblical values on the basis of our own interpretations or under the pressures of cultural trends and norms.

v.       What about Church?

Some see in texts like Galatians 3:26-7 grounds for all inclusiveness void of distinctions where by those of gender, race, social standing, and ethnic grouping are preceded by being baptised into Christ or putting on the new man.

Paul’s is explaining the way of faith that saves as being a process that is universally available to all who are baptised into Christ, ‘wearing’ the transformed nature that operates in believers. Paul does not separate this removing of distinctions from regenerative transformation.

If we accept that the grounds for homosexual marriage are cultural trend, transient, and lacking clear biblical support, then this passage cannot endorse inclusion without that vital element of transformation. I do not believe that this is licence to become or support sexual alternatives.

The challenge for church is to get Jesus’ approach into her DNA. Other faiths put acceptance as the product of good works, ritual practices, purity, holiness or righteousness. The scandal of Jesus’ ministry was one of acceptance as the starting point. This is the non-negotiable heartbeat of grace.

Jesus met people with a redemptive attitude. It is the absence of condemnation, guilt, shame, exclusion, inferiority, discouragement, but of compassionate love and faith for change that will see people experience the grace of acceptance and transformation.

Inclusion, if it is a church value has to be reconciled to redemptive attitude which sees transformation by God’s supernatural power as church’s distinctive hallmark.

CONCLUSION

We are facing an unprecedented step to normalize and integrate a pattern sexual of behaviour and relationship as authentic to the fibre and functioning of a healthy society. This has historically never been done before. We will be going through a period of massive rewriting of social values, ethics and practices that will deeply affect the philosophic, educational, religious, civil and cultural expressions of humanity.

We need a prophetic position of gracious readiness to help broken lives come into a place of restoration, finding creational intention in their identities. We are prophetically a banner of hope in the spirals of a society that appears to be succeeding at the cost of the true identity, dignity and destiny of unique human beings.

Also available from www.relationalchurchresources.com  

• A 12 page leaflet is available upon request. 
• The entire critical article