Thoughts on Homosexuality

I had a friend facebook me about an article she read in the local paper about a local Presbyterian church splitting from its denomination (PCUSA) over the denominations changing stance on homosexuality.  The article is here.  She wanted to know my thoughts on it, and what it meant for our church (UMC).

 

I gave my friend this short answer initially:
"My small answer is this: it strikes me as an attempt to hold on to the past, where we were 100% sure gay was bad. Springfield is going through a transitional time as a whole, and this is one manifestation. Christianity worldwide is changing in many ways. Change is hard, and change in church is harder."

Her response was basically that she didn't know what to think about homosexuality, because she wasn't sure what the Bible actually said about it, but that she didn't see any reason to discriminate politically or socially, and so she didn't really care about the issue.  I hear that a lot. And I totally understand where that comes from.  But we should care.  We should care for ourselves and for our LGBT friends who are being hurt and being told (directly by some churches and indirectly by our apathy) that God doesn't care about them or condemns them.

So here's my longer answer, for anyone else who is interested in my personal opinion:

"I think it's about a lot of things, but I think homosexuality is at the core of it. I think people honestly desire to be faithful, but I think the call to scripture and the outcry against universalism are covers for a (perfectly understandable) fear of change.

I don't think Jesus or God care about homosexuality (money and security on the other hand...that would be a better use of our arguing time/efforts). Most of the words that have been translated as "homosexuality" weren't translated that way until the mid 1950s. The word 'porneia' is the one most often used (and even then it's only used about 6 times) has to do with profane/pornographic stuff--immorality on a broad scale, not particular acts.

In academic circles there's still some debate on accepting homosexuality, but most biblical scholars who argue for accepting homosexuality do so based on the translation of 'porneia', and based on the argument that the shame in homosexual acts is about the power dynamic. Greek and Roman culture had no problem with male/male relationships as long as one of the partners was a young man. In fact, it was considered part of the mentoring "this is how you be a man" process. The issue was when the young man grew up and still was on the receiving side of gay sex. The man who is on the receiving end of such actions should be ashamed because someone has power over him. Women are less powerful than men and so they receive. Men who receive are feminine and are, then, shameful. It's not about the act itself.

Sexual immorality is something that Jesus talks about, but he doesn't talk about homosexuality. Paul (and whoever else pretended to be Paul when writing the epistles) talks about porneia and power dynamics (written to Gentiles, who culturally would have had no problems understanding the relationships described above). The undisputed writings of Paul actually promote celibacy. We seem to forget that. Paul argues for celibacy because he believes Jesus' return is immanent, and so all of our energy should be going toward preparing for his return. Paul does say that if you can't manage purity on your own that you'd better go ahead and take a partner, because that will help keep you pure--keep you away from immorality. We discount Paul's argument for celibacy because after 2000 years, we've decided Jesus' return maybe wasn't as immanent as Paul thought.

One interesting argument I heard recently was that due to our laws about homosexuality we're actually forcing immorality on LGBT people. We've told them they legally cannot be in long-term, supportive, loving relationships and so they've developed a culture that is abusive, clandestine, and unhealthy. I think there's some merit in that. I'm not sure I agree entirely, but I can see how our dominantly heterosexual culture has made it very hard to be openly gay and in a long-term public relationship.

As for gays in the UMC. I think we have a long way to go, and I think that's a shame. I do think the church will split over it in some way. The PCUSA language of "diverse convictions" or something like that seems like an attempt to make room for congregations in favor of and opposed to homosexuality, and though I believe the folks who wrote the statement believe it (and I believe it too) all it seems to have done is appear to be a platitude that ticks people off. I can see the UMC trying something similar, and it going similarly awry.

The UMC's problem will likely be its world churches though. The churches of the "Central Conferences" (anything outside of the US--Africa, Asia, South America, and Europe primarily) are far more conservative than the US is. I have a friend from El Salvador who said to me, "You sent missionaries and told us we had to believe this, and now that you've changed your minds you tell us we have change our minds too?" I think that's a very fair argument. The churches of the Central Conference will soon outnumber us, which means that at General Conference (probably in 2020) the US won't be in charge. We won't be able to dictate like we're used to. And that is going to be a wake-up call in a lot of ways.

The Central Conferences are set up to accommodate local culture within their polity, and what seems to make the most sense is that we change the language of the discipline to make all conferences "central conferences", able to make adaptations for local culture. So, for the US (and probably Europe) homosexuality could be a cultural thing (which it largely is). The issue is that within the US there are still some areas and churches who would not accept a gay pastor. How do we handle that? And the language in our discipline is unclear and clunky to begin with--what does "self avowed and practicing" mean? Can we have "non-practicing" gay clergy?

The thing that will definitely be different from the PCUSA is that all of the deeds, etc. of property for the UMC are clearly set up with the larger church as owner. The local congregation will have no recourse to try and take/own their building or money. It's clearly stated in all legal documents and in our polity. Now, that said, it will still be devastating.

One of the other trends at play here, and worldwide, is that churches as a whole are getting more conservative. The pentecostal and fundamentalist churches are growing and the mainline and more liberal churches are shrinking. This happens when there is uncertainty in the world--the theologies that can offer security, that offer black and white answers, grow because people need the comfort and assurance that that certainty provides. For example, "If I do X I will go to heaven. You don't do X therefore you will go to hell." Churches who demand that their people be thinking, questioning, acting, faith-filled people ask more of their congregants (in terms of wrestling with their own faith), and offer less concrete answers. The certainty and security is different and more abstract. In times of crisis, this is hard stuff to process.

Those are some initial thoughts--probably more than you bargained for. I'm glad you are interested and thinking though, because it's you and not me that will be spearheading the change. I really do believe that in the next generation this won't be an issue (there will be another issue I'm sure). The UMC has a history of splitting and reuniting, particularly over social and cultural things, and always using the Bible to back our varying opinions (and it's good and right that we do so). We did it over women's ordination, we did it over slavery and the black church. It's part of being human. But it's a shame that we have to hurt each other and our witness as God's people in the process."