am i biblical? am i ethical?

a group of colleagues recently sent out a letter which begins like this:

in these days of moral and spiritual uncertainty the Church must give clear direction to her people, not least in the area of sexual morality.

while i commend them for their sincere concern for the witness of our church, i find their assumptions difficult to accept.

one of the total misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of an "inclusive" position with regard to same-sex relationships and the church, is the "so you're saying anything goes" argument. besides being a logical fallacy (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html), it also underestimates (or is disrespectful of ) the strong biblical and ethical basis for the position that supports full acceptance of people in same-sex relationship within the life of the Christian community.

on what basis do I support people in same-sex relationships and desire that they be fully embraced by the Christian Community?

1. the story of God relating with people (what biblical scholars call "salvation history") which is recorded in scripture is an unfolding story of grace and mercy.
the whole of scripture moves from limited experiences and expressions of grace to more and more wide and embracing expressions and experiences of grace...

• God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - a tribe
  
• then the God of Israel - who mercilessly slaughters other nations to establish the nation of Israel in Canaan
  
• then the One True God (a shift from polytheism to selective monotheism)
  
• then the God who has mercy on other nations (jonah)/uses other nations to punish Israel (most of the prophets)
• then, the God who will be revealed to other nations as God, by Israel who will be a "light to the nations" (Is 51:4)
• then the Only real God (true monotheism)
• then the God of the Gentiles and other groups (no jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female - Gal 3:28)

the overarching sense you get as you read "Salvation History" in scripture is of a people coming to terms with a God far beyond their wildest imaginations - they imagined that Yahweh (Jehovah) was their God, but Yahweh keeps surprising them with just how open he is to embracing the "other". This powerful trajectory in scripture is accented by the ministry of Jesus. He actively seeks out the marginalised and the persecuted, the powerless, voiceless and rejected ones in a first century Palestinian society, motivated by raw compassion and some powerful prophecy in Hebrew scripture: "He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners... etc (Is 61, Luke 4) But in so doing, Jesus underlines this narative thread in scripture... that God is always stretching beyond the boundaries we would like to set up as the limits of His Kingdom!

One may ask, but what about the passages in scripture that regard homosexuality as detestable to God? I would simply ask whether you believe God finds slavery detestable. If not, then we don't have much common ground from which to continue our conversation! But if you, like me, believe that God is opposed to slavery, then we would have to reflect on why the Bible regards slavery as a taken-for-granted part of life, and even, in places calls on the slave to be obedient to his master! If scripture represents an unfolding revelation of God, which is becoming increasingly clear, then it is easier to understand that there are aspects of the scriptures which are not to be regarded as "rules for living" but rather as a part of the larger story of God's work with people to bring them to a fuller and greater understanding of God's purpose with people. How do we decide what is to be followed and what is to be ignored? My answer is: nothing is to be ignored, everything should be carefully considered, but always in the light of two interpretative principles:

1. How does this verse/idea fit into the broader trajectory of scripture? i.e. is it an example of the expanding understanding of God's grace to humanity (e.g. Paul in Gal 3:28) or is it an example of humanity's difficulty in embracing the fullness of God's grace and mercy (e.g. Paul's comments about women in 1 Cor 14:34)?
2. How is this verse affirmed (or not) by the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus? (because not everything in scripture, both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, is "Christian"!)

There are a lot of places where scripture is remarkably "supportive" of common prejudices in society. But this "support" is always short-lived, as the wider trajectory of grace always turns back to challenge that prejudice. In the case of slavery, which took another 1700 years to properly condemn, Paul (incredibly for his time) proclaims "no slave nor free"... and in the case of sexism (which is still not fully condemned by the Church) Paul is able to muster "no male nor female"... As a colleague of mine wrote a while back "once a prejudice is named, it's only a matter of time until that prejudice is overcome"...

2. the second strong reason why I would work to encourage the community to fully embrace Gay and Lesbian people is that I believe the Church (what I have been referring to as the community of faith) is called to be a prophetic and counter-cultural community. Paul writes: " Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world..." Most "conservatives" (if this is not a respectful word to describe the group of people opposed to the full acceptance of same-sex relationships, then please help me to find a better one!) would argue that "if the church accepts same-sex relationships, it would be conforming to the pattern of the world". I think an argument can be made for the opposite stance... the world i live in is full of hatred, prejudice, war and violence. While "conservatives" are certainly not advocating or supportive of violence against Gays and Lesbians, our violence and bigoted society is responsible for many incidences of hate crimes. Gays and Lesbians have been murdered. Less violent but much more prevalent, Gays and Lesbians are rejected, fear the loss of their jobs, or opportunities because of their sexual orientation. Even family members of Gay and Lesbian people fear that they might be shunned if they reveal their acceptance of their children/siblings... In this society of prejudice and rejection, to "not conform to the pattern of this world" is to stand in solidarity with and plead for the dignity of people who are often our gentle, silenced family members, colleagues, friends and neighbours... Churches have rejected Gay and Lesbian people so as to "honour the moral teaching of the Bible" - but in so doing have affirmed and encouraged the very prejudice that the majority of the society in which we live still holds on to. Imagine taking Paul's challenge seriously and standing boldly to in non-conformity...

This argument - which I would refer to as the "solidarity" argument can only be understood in terms of an Ethical Value - I am not saying "anything goes" - but quite the opposite. I am arguing from a strong ethical basis which regards the witness of scripture very highly and which regards the ethical example of Jesus (his solidarity with the marginalised) as exemplary for us as followers.

3. another assumption which I believe some people make about the position I am presenting, is that I do not have strong ethical values surrounding sexuality. But I experience myself to have very strong ethical values around the issue of sexuality. I believe that we are created for relationship - with God and with other humans (a principle best expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis). The nature of these relationships may differ, but a deep current underlying relationships is the quest for intimacy. We may not experience the same level of intimacy in all of our relationships, but the heart (passion/motivating factor) in a relationship is intimacy - the enjoyment of connection. Relationships are not just a theoretical connection of minds. They involve our bodies and therefore touching. There are different levels of appropriate touching, which express various kinds of intimacy, but in romantic relationships of passion, this touching takes on a more strongly sexual nature. (this is not to say that sexuality is not a part of other relationships, but that it is not as overtly present.) Our growing relational intimacy with another person is therefore mirrored (very naturally) by a passionate and demanding physical desire for intimacy, which can be expressed most fully in sexual intercourse. For many reasons, we may choose NOT to enter into a sexual relationship with someone we feel attracted to, either because it isn't the right time, or because it isn't matched by a growing committed relational intimacy. (Much harm is caused, i think, by people who move more quickly in the realm of physical intimacy without paying enough attention to the development of relational intimacy! This is probably what is most often referred to as promiscuity.)

The above description of relational and physical intimacy is entirely based on my understanding of the Bible's stories about creation - about the way that God makes human beings, reflective of God's own image. God's image is not male or female but relational: capable of intimacy. I believe that all people are made in God's image: they are relational beings, capable of forging strong relationships of care and intimacy. But nothing that I have stated here is necessarily opposed to such relational or physical intimacy being expressed by two people of the same-sex, who are naturally oriented in toward each other.

I therefore make the following observation:

I am making my appeal on strong biblical grounds. (Of course, there are those who would disagree with my interpretation of scripture, but I ask hope that they will acknowledge that I am in fact making a sincere and thoughtful appeal to scripture!)
I am making my appeal on strong ethical grounds, both from the ethical perspective of solidarity (a strong value of Jesus) and on the basis of an ethical understanding of healthy sexuality which includes both relational and physical expressions of intimacy, but which is not necessarily limited to heterosexual expressions of such intimacy.