In general, discrimination is admittedly big concern in the church. Racial and gender discrimination is still a persistent problem, but the vast majority churches at least recognize that these are wrong and that theologically we are equal in Christ. In actual practice, there is still so much work to be done towards actually treating everyone as equal. However, I want to focus on discrimination against gay Christians, as this an issue that is very divisive between various denominations and congregations.
One of the reasons I left Christianity was the discrimination against gay Christians, which exposes a lack of love and hypocrisy within the body of Christ. It was difficult for me to reconcile this “bad fruit” of discrimination with the love of Jesus. Eventually though, I came to realize that the issue is not very clear-cut, and there are faithful Christians which are open and/or affirming.
In terms of gay Christians, there are essentially 4 positions:
1. Affirming – churches that explicitly affirm gay marriage and pastors
2. Accepting and open – churches that do not explicitly affirm gay marriage or pastors, but will allow both to happen organically.
3. Accepting, but not affirming – churches that accept and welcome gay members, but do not affirm gay relationships and restrict gay members from being pastor or other leadership roles.
4. Not accepting – churches that do not accept or are hostile to gay members.
My preferred position is “accepting and open”. I have heard biblical-based arguments from both the “not accepting” side and “affirming” side, but I don’t think either makes a strong enough argument to defeat the concerns of the other side.
For the “not affirming” side, they often grossly overstate the strength of their case. Even looking at a strictly bible-based case, there are few reasons why they are likely wrong:
1. They wrongly assume that bodily compatibility is a priority over compatibility of mind and heart.
The best way to address this asumption is with a helpful thought experiment:
Imagine that someday in the future you are in a car crash and the only way doctors can save you is transplant your brain into a recently deceased member of the opposite sex. Assuming you are a single person, how would you approach relationships in your new body?
Would you find a partner of opposite sex (according to your body), even though your mind may feel revulsion at such a state?
Or would you find a partner who your mind is attracted to and compatible with, but would be of the same sex (i.e. a lesbian or gay person)
Or would you alter your body to match the gender of your mind?
Or would you remain celibate the rest of your life?
How you answer this question determines if you prioritize compatibility of the heart/mind or the body.
In the teachings or Jesus, the disposition of the heart/mind seems to always take priority over the body. For example, Jesus saying that we are not defiled by food: “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.”
Thus I would argue that it is more Christian to prioritize compatibility of hearts and minds, rather than compatibility of which body parts fit together. To prioritize the other way around is to risk making an idol out of the human body and procreation. Certainly there is inherent value in God’s design for procreation, but we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: was sexual procreation created so that mankind would exercise love, or was love created so that mankind would procreate?
Once again, I would argue that procreation was created in service of love. So (if we are forced to chose between the two) it should be more important to Christian values that a relationship is able to produce real love, rather than new humans.
Another Christian principle is that we should not out burdens upon others that we ourselves are unwilling or unable to bear.
As a heterosexual myself, if I suddenly found myself in a female body with my existing male brain (as according to the earlier thought experiment), I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to be intimate with a man. I don’t believe love genuine love would be possible in such a relationship. That is a burden I myself could not bear, and so I am in no position to place that same burden on those who claim that the sexual orientation of their mind and body are for some reason out of sync.
Likewise, I don’t believe that celibacy a burden that we can put on others either. Celibacy is meant to be a calling. Paul advises that it would be better for us to marry that to burn with passion, and I believe this same principle applies to homosexuals as well.
2. They wrongly assume that the main issue is due to sexuality, rather than abusive and unloving relationships.
There has already been a lot written about this topic by actual historical experts, but suffice to say that the majority of same sex relationships in the ancient world had some element of either abuse, power imbalance, sexual indulgence, or unfaithfulness. For example, adult males abusing younger boys, or use of male prostitutes or slaves, or having extramarital affair with the same sex. These were not relationships that would be capable of producing real love, as God intended.
That’s not to say there were no examples of mutuality loving and exclusive same sex relationships, but that they were either unknown to the apostles or so rare (or secretive) that it would not make practical sense to mention them and create confusion amongst believers regarding sexual ethics.
The problem then is that we shouldn’t be using the bible to pass judgement on something that was unheard of at the time. As an example, it would be like someone claiming that subway is unhealthy because an old health article says that all fast food is bad for you. If at the time the only examples of fast food were Burger King and Mc Donalds, then we can reasonably infer that the term “fast food” is referring to food that is highly processed, high calories, and with unhealthy oils. There is nothing inherently wrong with food that it prepared quickly, but at the time of the article there were only bad examples available. As such, we would have to judge a new type of fast food (i.e. subway) based on its own health merits.
Similarly, we can reasonably infer that the prohibition against homosexual relationships is primarily due to the abuse and absence of real love that was inherent in most examples of such relationships in ancient times. We shouldn’t assume that the bible writers are passing judgement on modern loving homosexual relationships, which is categorically different than the ancient examples of abuse of young boys, male prostitutes, and extramarital affairs. Instead, we need to apply the lov my of love compatible with Jesu
More reasons will be coming soon!
Christian Baggage 