The Whole Conversation Surrounding Homosexuality in Our Churches is Informed by the Myth of Redemptive Romance

The first thing that needs to be said to any LGBTQ individual in our churches is “Jesus loves you and we love you.  We want you to be an active part of this church community.  We believe that you need a relationship with Jesus, and that Jesus is reaching out to you.  God is not going to send you (or anyone) to hell just because of your (or their) sexuality.  And I’m sorry for over a thousand years of oppression and abuse in the church.”  We need to keep saying that even though it sounds trite.  If those words are not deeply heard, 24-7, in and out of the presence of our homosexual brothers and sisters, even when we’re joking, then we have failed before we have begun.  I know because there are friendships I have lost over this before I began the conversation.  And it was my fault.[1]  Even if we disagree on everything else, those words should still be true (based on any legitimate interpretation of scripture that I know of).  They should come out at the beginning of the conversation and it must be the foundation for any further discussion.  

It may be inevitable that the issue of homosexuality be used as a battleground on which we argue other issues including Scriptural authority and the role of sexuality in defining our identity.  While we must uphold Scriptural authority and uncover the destructive myth of redemptive romance, we must not allow those discussions to get in the way of caring about the individuals in our communities whose lives are most closely affected by these discussions.

What is the rest of the discussion?  As many people have pointed out (most recently Steve Chalke^[2]) the main Christian response to homosexuality in our churches has historically been to recommend celibacy.  This is not the only response that Evangelicals promote.  But with “reparative” therapies taking some (perhaps much deserved) flak lately, recommending celibacy has resurfaced as one of the main suggestions for the spiritual formation of homosexuals in our communities.  We have a long tradition of recommending celibacy to homosexuals (going back, at least, to Clement of Alexandria^[3]) but lately people have begun to feel uncomfortable with recommending celibacy. As though it is a cruel or unusual request to make. Though I am probably somewhere pretty close to a zero on the Kinsey scale, as someone who is actually celibate I feel that I might have a unique perspective to contribute to this discussion.  

In my last post I defined the heart of our Evangelical movement as total submission to our best interpretation of Scripture.  What makes an Evangelical view of homosexuality particularly tricky is that there are really only three New Testament verses that seem to relate directly to the issue.  However, all three seem to advise against homosexual actions (though they do not condemn homosexual attraction).^[4]  Some people (like Chalke) maintain that the Bible could not be referring to committed monogamous homosexual relationships since the writers of the Bible could not have been aware of the existence of such relationships.  I disagree with that belief on a fundamental level since it is based on the ridiculous implication that committed, monogamous, homosexual relationships are a twentieth century innovation.  There are many stories in Greek and Roman literature of non-abusive, long-term homosexual relationships, particularly among soldiers; Achilles and Patroclus in The Iliad are a great example.^[5]  I find it hard to believe that a well-educated, well-traveled, first century Roman citizen like Paul would not have heard of The Iliad.  Others contend that Paul was referring to homosexual rape that was apparently practiced as a way to dehumanize prisoners in the ancient world.  While such a practice seems worthy of condemnation, I think that Paul would have clarified his language (given that homosexuality was fairly common) if that was his intent.  Unless of course analysis of other ancient texts proved that the Greek word arsenokoitēs (the word that refers to homosexuality in the New Testament) was actually a shorthand commonly used in the ancient world refer to people performing this specific type of rape.  As far as I know, this evidence does not exist.  Nonetheless, while these arguments do not convince me, I do not maintain that people are stupid or ignorant if they are convinced by these arguments, or some variation thereof.  In fact many people who are smarter than I am, and whose walk with Jesus (I believe) is genuine, do believe some variation of them.  After all, we are really arguing over the interpretation of only a few words in three passages in the New Testament. 

The thing that I find most disturbing is that when I present the idea that the Bible is probably calling people with homosexual desires not to act on those desires, and to commit to a life of celibacy, it is generally looked upon as unfeeling or cruel.  This discomfort really has nothing to do with caring for homosexuals.  It is based completely on a belief in the myth of redemptive romance (to get a better understanding of what I mean by the term “redemptive romance,” read my first post).  For those who have not read my previous posts (or who have forgotten) what I call the myth of redemptive romance is the belief that a romantic relationship could give life fulfillment.  It is the idea that our broken lives (which are out of sync with each other, with ourselves, and with creation) would be made happy, meaningful, and productive through a romantic (and usually, but not always, sexual) relationship.  Of course, if the ultimate fulfillment of human life is found in a romantic relationship, then celibacy really is cruel.  If it is true, we must absolutely strive to find interpretations of Scripture that would allow for homosexuals to also experience romance.  Celibacy may be an acceptable decision for some rare, bizarre and misguided individuals who are uniquely gifted by God to live in perpetual frustration as a way to escape the world and follow God.  Since homosexual attraction is not a choice, God would have to be cruel to require such extreme asceticism of everyone who experienced it.^[6]  However, if we reject the myth of redemptive romance, and accept the reality that the life of a celibate person can be very full, it puts this recommendation in perspective.  I believe that the main impetus behind most (not all) people who support gay marriage in the church has very little to do with compassion and love for homosexuals and much more to do with a false belief in redemptive romance.  We Christians must resoundingly reject this line of thinking.  Our claim is that the ultimate fulfillment of human life is not found in any romantic relationship, but in a reconciled relationship with God.  We work with Jesus to try and reconcile or restore creation to the way it was meant to be.  We are happiest and our lives are fullest when we are engaged in experiencing and expanding the Kingdom of God.  Human romance, homosexual or heterosexual, is not a central part of this experience.

Consequently, redemptive romance really is a false hope in our society, and yet it is one of the most widely accepted myths.  Once we have rejected any false worship of romance, we can see celibacy not as cruel asceticism, but as a healthy life choice that, though difficult, is no more difficult than monogamy.  Furthermore, it has proven to be a healthy response to homosexual attraction for nearly two thousand years.  One famous example of this is the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins.  As a young man, Hopkins engaged sexually with other young men.  However, when he approached the church with a desire to follow God, the church welcomed him and encouraged him to devote his life to serving others as a (celibate) member of the Jesuit order.  That is what he did.  Then, while living and working among the poor in England and Ireland, he used his desire to glorify God (and I imagine, his unique perspective as a homosexual) as inspiration for his poetry.  He wrote poems that later became some of the most influential for poets of the twentieth century, especially T.S. Elliot.  He lived as a celibate single person in a larger, ongoing Jesuit story.  And from that vantage point, he changed the world. 

However, this is only the first question in a larger conversation.  It is where I stand on this controversial issue, and though it is not exact, I believe that it is pretty close to the position that the Evangelical Friends have taken as a movement.  This leads to the obvious question of what we should do with people who disagree with us on this interpretation.  There is a temptation right now for us to use this as something of a litmus test for inclusion in the community (if you agree, then you are includable).  On the one hand, even someone who might engage in a wildly promiscuous lifestyle is welcome to attend our churches.  But what if someone wants to become a member, or a volunteer, or a teacher, or a recorded minister?  The room for inclusion gets narrow pretty quickly.  I’m not saying that we should not exclude people from certain levels of ministry in the movement.  If they disagree with us on core issues, we should encourage them towards other movements that might fit their beliefs more closely.  A big part of what defines us is our emphasis on the authority of Scripture, and to a lesser extent, how we interpret certain passages and themes in Scripture.  However, it does seem to me like this emphasis on a proper interpretation of these three verses has been blown out of proportion. 

Take, for example, a much more central theme in Scripture: Jesus tells us that we should love our enemies (Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27 and 35).  He encourages us to find creative non-violent solutions to problems, even violent problems (Matthew 5).  After he told his disciples they should have swords and be prepared (Luke 22:36), he told his disciples not to use them against people (Luke 22:51) and that people who live by the sword, die by the sword (Matthew 26:52).  He demonstrated a victory through dying (1 Corinthians 15:54 and 5), and even while he was dying, he asked God to forgive his enemies (Luke 23:34).  He encouraged his followers to also be ready to take up their cross and follow in his footsteps (Matthew 10:38).  This seems to have caught on.  In one place Paul assures us that our fight is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), another time he tells us to bless those who persecute us (Romans 12:14).  This is a huge theme in Scripture with many more than three verses that we have to interpret.  The Friends tradition (and the tradition of the early church) included that we encourage people not to serve in the military of any government.  I think that the Bible is pretty clear in affirming us on this issue.  While I am about 70% sure that I’m interpreting the three verses that relate to homosexuality correctly, I’m about 90% sure that I’m interpreting the many verses that relate to military service correctly.

And yet, we have many people in our churches who are or have been soldiers, and who actively support the US military.  There is generally no restriction on them when they want to volunteer or teach.  In fact, we have even allowed a few people to be recorded ministers in our movement when they interpret these passages differently.  In general, people have interpreted these verses so that they do not apply when a person is a part of organized violence between governments, just as others say the admonitions against homosexual activity do not apply in the context of committed, monogamous unions.

As I wrote in the last post, the most significant time when we may really need to recommend that a volunteer or staff leader join a different movement is when they simply dismiss the authority of Scripture on the subject.  This includes people who choose to ignore the verses on homosexuality instead of engage and submit to them as well as the people who simply believe that Jesus did not really intend for us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek when our families or our country is being threatened.  On the other hand, if people desire to submit completely to Scripture but have a different interpretation of those verses, I would rather have them with us.[7]

We should be actively working against the effects of the myth of redemptive romance in our churches.  I believe that should recommend celibacy for homosexuals in our communities.  We should treat homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) who want to follow the risen Jesus and who have a high view of the authority of Scripture, but disagree with us on interpretation, the same way we treat soldiers at our churches.  We should continue to engage homosexuals and soldiers in dialogue as they continue to grow in submission to God, continuing to challenge their interpretation, and continuing to allow their interpretation to challenge ours.

---

[1] Ok, just one friendship that I know of.  But it was a pretty good friend, and I miss him.  And it really was my fault.

^[2] http://www.oasisuk.org/inclusionresources/Articles/MOIabridged

^[3] James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2000) 333.

^[4] The three passages are Romans 1:26-7, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.  I am not a Greek Scholar, but I have read that fact that the word arsenokoitēs (which is the word that refers to homosexuality) ends in koitēs implies physical action in the Greek.  So whatever it is that these passages are against, it cannot be saying that homosexual attraction is wrong.  Paul does claim in Romans that the attraction is unnatural, or a result of sin upon the created order.  However, if you read the passage carefully, it is the action of men having sex with men that he is actually against.  Even in the Romans 1 passage, which is the hardest on homosexuality, the attraction they feel seems to be a consequence of sin in the natural order not a sinful action on their part (in fact, the only action noted in the only verse that relates directly to men being attracted to men is that they choose not to have sex with women, something Paul applauds in different circumstances).

^[5] While some scholars maintain that this is intended to be the Platonic ideal for male friendships, most scholars agree that Achilles and Patroclus represent an ancient example of a consensual gay couple.  Even if this specific example does not apply, the prevalence of gay relationships in the Greek and Roman world is well documented.  Check out Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, Homosexuality in the Ancient World (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1992). 

^[6] For the record, I think it’s pretty clear that no one chooses their sexual orientation.  I have never heard any evidence to the contrary.  I’m not sure if this is relevant to the discussion at all, but I imagine it would be really hurtful if someone accused me of choosing my sexual orientation (especially if my orientation were not the norm). 

[7] Ok, I admit, there are some interpretations that are pretty destructive and we might do well to show a little healthy fear.  A few days ago I overheard a woman in a wealthy community talking about how it says in Corinthians that if people don’t work they shouldn’t eat, and all of our homeless ministries are just enabling stupid and evil people.  I came close to stopping her and saying, “First, that’s in 2 Theselonians not in the Corinthian books.  And second, it is written in reference to people who are mooching off the community as they wait for the second coming of Christ.  It cannot be applied to homeless ministry.  On the other hand, have you ever read about the cows of Bashan?”  What I actually did say (in the words of Mike Birbiglia) was nothing (which was probably a mistake).  Still, that woman should not be allowed to lead in any church anywhere.