HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE
A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics

Loren L. Johns

This article is reprinted, slightly modified, from an Internet version found at http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm. There Johns also provides a chart that (1) helpfully overviews Scripture passages with a bearing on homosexuality and (2) summarizes the various interpretations of such texts.

Introduction

Although my attempt here has been to represent fairly and honestly the best arguments on both sides of this issue, I would like to say at the outset how I personally approach this matter. This issue has proved to be one of the more intractable issues the Mennonite church has faced. Official church documents clearly call for celibacy on the part of gays and lesbians while also calling the church to remain in loving dialogue as we continue to study the Bible on this issue.

Unfortunately, the clarity of each call has been obscured by the presence of the other. Meanwhile, loving dialogue on this issue has become increasingly rare in the Mennonite church even though the Purdue and Saskatoon statements call for it. May God have mercy on us!

I believe that individual church members must recognize and honor the authority of church discernment (Matt. 18:15-20) even as the church humbly admits its limited capacity to understand God’s will on this side of heaven. I take seriously the importance of careful ethical discernment by the church on such a matter, as well as the authority of such discernment made. I accept and support Article 19 in the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, where it says:

I am not an advocate for the "gay agenda." I do not find the term very useful. In the secular press, it usually means advocating for gay rights without imposing the "burden" of ethical or religious considerations. I do not support that agenda. Others use the phrase "gay agenda" to refer to the full blessing of gay or lesbian marriages without regard for the wisdom of the church on the matter. I am not there either.

I take seriously and support the 1986 Saskatoon and 1987 Purdue statements, including their call for careful Bible study and loving dialogue. "Loving dialogue" has sometimes been used as a smokescreen or an excuse for ignoring the call to celibacy. I do not use it in that way; I mean loving dialogue.

If "gay agenda" means paying careful enough attention to the homosexuality issue to keep reading the Bible together, or if it means caring genuinely for the gays and lesbians among us, rather than avoiding the issue, then I am an advocate for gays and lesbians in that sense. The possibility of any real loving dialogue in the church has become increasingly difficult in recent years, but I want to stand with rather than over against the church in its ethical discernment.

I believe the church has benefited little from the efforts of both extremist conservatives and of extremist liberals in this area in recent years. Some conservatives have wrongly (in my opinion) blacklisted certain individuals and congregations for contributing to the dialogue on this issue, and some liberals have wrongly (in my opinion) taken far too lightly the discernment of the church in calling for celibacy on the part of gays and lesbians. Further, many have confused the ethical agenda (the task of making moral judgments) with the pastoral agenda (responding redemptively to gays and lesbians, based on such moral judgments).

I continue to hope that God will yet bring healing to the Mennonite church on this issue. God cannot have been glorified by the blood-letting we have seen. But I am not yet ready to become cynical. If I were, I would simply remove this web page and withdraw from any attempt to speak to the church on this issue.

Speaking out on the matter is politically risky, no matter what one says. But I am unwilling to allow reactionaries—conservative or liberal—to set the tone or the rules by which the matter is discussed. I do not believe the church can afford such withdrawal. I trust the grace of God and of the church to protect from attacks of others those who truly wish to know the mind of Christ on this matter.

There is admittedly little room for naïveté on this matter; the matter is far too volatile. But the church cannot afford to let discussion on this matter be hijacked by a few individuals who are driven more than they know by fear, insecurity, or a will to power. On that I must take a stand with conviction, and I believe other seasoned leaders in the church need to do so as well. I offer my web page as a resource to build up the church and help it in the ongoing loving dialogue to which we committed ourselves in 1986 and 1987.

Despite many unanswered questions about homosexuality, several points do seem reasonably clear. It seems to me that the Purdue and Saskatoon documents agree explicitly or implicitly about these points:

1. There is a key difference between homosexuality as an orientation versus as a lifestyle. Homosexuality as an orientation is not and cannot be wrong—it just is; at issue is whether gays and lesbians should be celibate or may express their sexuality within a loving, committed relationship;

2. Gays and lesbians deserve as much love and respect as do heterosexuals, and that means listening and loving before passing judgment; gay-bashing in word or deed is clearly wrong for anyone who wishes to identify with Jesus;

3. Although related, ethical discernment and pastoral care are also separate issues: Christians need to consider the ethical propriety of homosexual marriages so that they can know how to be redemptive. While it may be true that one should hate the sin and love the sinner, such a statement does not contribute much to ethical discernment in the church;

4. Christian ethics is for Christians: ethical discernment and discipling (based on biblical principles) are appropriate primarily among people who claim to follow Jesus. It doesn’t make much sense to ask, "What is God’s will for people who have chosen not to submit to God’s will?"

5. Such ethical discernment properly belongs with the Christian community as a whole, not the Christian individual by himself or herself.

Straight Christians should welcome the help of both (1) gays and lesbians and (2) social scientists in addressing this issue, even though Christians cannot give to others their responsibility for discerning God’s will in light of Scripture, tradition, and science.

—Loren L. Johns, Elkhart, Indiana, is Dean, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary.