the anglican gay dilemma

Categories: forty-blogs-of-lent

Tags: Church, Jesus, Bible

Date: 29 March 2012 22:36:55

Forty blogs of Lent

33

The gay debate rages on - and I mean rages. I for the most part have kept out of it, having suffered the wrath from both sides of the debate for trying to come up with what I see as a balanced perspective. In the Anglican church this presents a particular dilemma. Anglicans hold that Tradition, Reason and the Bible should be what we base our theology on. Let us look at them individually:

Tradition

Traditional Christianity  has taught for many centuries that homosexuality is a sin.

Reason

Modern sociological thought says that homosexuality is normal. In fact no one chooses to be gay, it's the way they are. The nature versus nurture debate continues.

Bible 

So the scores stand at one each. It looks like the Bible has the casting vote. Now at first reading, especially in English translations, it would appear that the Bible is anti-gay. But lets look at it again. The sin of Sodom was homosexuality? No. The Sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Here's how a prophet sees it:

Ezekiel 16:49-50 NIV Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

No mention of homosexuality there. What I find amazing about the Sodom = homosexual point of view is that if the sin was homosexuality, then had Lot's guests been female to gang rape them would have been OK, wouldn't it? Now onto the OT Law, isn't Leviticus 18:22 NIV "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" clear? Again no. Not in context. If you read chapters 17 to 20 for context you will find it among things like dietary laws and not planting two kinds of crops in one field. I don't see anyone condemning people for eating clams from Christian pulpits. (I blogged about Jewish dietary Laws last week.) Now for the New Testament. Please read this passage. Romans 1:18-26 v21, They did not acknowledge God. v25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator. So far it is about worship. the vext two verses mention lesbianism and homosexuality. Could it be that these acts, which were practices in the pagan temples at that time, were wrong ways to worship rather than always wrong? Both readings are possible. 1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV  Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. Up until the 14th century the term translated here men who have sex with men was translated to mean masturbation. So for the majority of its history it was not understood to be about homosexuality at all. As for the words of Jesus on this topic. If he did say something it wasn't deemed important enough for the Evangelists to write it down, So which side of the debate do I fall on? Well neither  really. Both sides of the debate are claiming that their understanding is absolute. I think it is more nuanced than that. That the church has failed to be welcoming to homosexuals that I am sure about. I find that this talk by Tony and Peggy Compolo to be worth while looking at.