HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE
THOUGHT OF THE CHURCH
The Fall Colloquium of the Religion
and Philosophy Department
November 16, 2005
INTRODUCTION
In the past forty years Christian teaching on homosexuality
has come to the fore as one of the most divisive issues in the Church.
Traditional mainline denominations, as well as Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox Churches, have undergone repeated questioning of their historic
teaching on homosexuality, have agonized through polarizing debates, and have
experienced growing uncertainty about how to minister to homosexuals. While
evangelical denominations have not yet experienced the intensity of these
debates, every indication points to an ensuing struggle within their churches
as well.
This morning, our paper will explore how the Church
understands homosexuality from an historical and theological perspective. Our
purpose is to listen to the voice of the Church as spoken through the
centuries, not just the present, in order to create a larger context in which
to develop our understanding of homosexuality, our response to the current
debate in the Church, and our ministry to the increasingly visible gay
community. To begin, we will present a cursory sketch of the contemporary Church’s
response to homosexuality; then we will survey the Church’s historic teaching
on same-sex relationships, followed by an exploration of how the Church has
understood the causes of homosexual propensity; and finally, we will conclude
with a few summary remarks.
I. CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS OF
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CHURCH
Presently, as we survey the Body of Christ, from more
liberal mainline denominations to more conservative evangelical and
fundamentalist Churches, four general positions on homosexuality can be identified:
full rejection, partial rejection, partial acceptance and full acceptance.
While these positions are not rigid, they help to establish a spectrum of
opinion existing in the Church today, assist in helping us to determine where we
fall in the current debate, and provide a context in which to locate the
Church’s historical perspective.
The first and most conservative position on one side of the
issue is extreme rejection of homosexuality. In this perspective homosexual
practice and homosexual desire are condemned entirely and are barred from the
Church. Homosexuality in any form (desire, orientation, practice) is considered
incompatible with the Christian faith. Even people who possess homosexual
desires are categorically rejected as Christians and cannot be considered for
membership in the Church. Typically, this perspective sees homosexuality as an
“abomination” in the eyes of God, one of the most depraved sins, a manifestation
of absolute moral destitution, which left unchecked leaves society open to divine
judgment and wrath. As such, homosexuality must not be tolerated in secular
culture as well. Homosexuality is primarily viewed as a choice people make that
quickly leads to the establishment of a spiritual stronghold, which can be
overcome only by Christian conversion.
The second position expresses a full rejection of homosexual
behavior. In this, a distinction is made
between homosexual practice and homosexual desire or orientation. Homosexuals
are ultimately people who practice homosexuality, not people with gay
inclinations or orientation. While homosexual desire is not seen as God’s will
for human beings, an issue which God seeks to address, homosexual practice is
what is condemned. People who seek to keep their homosexual propensities in
check and seek to be released from their inclinations are recognized as
Christians and are integrated into the full life of the Church. The Church
seeks to act redemptively in the lives of people who have repented of their
homosexual practice and are seeking to live new lives in Christ Jesus, even if
they occasionally stumble. Typically, in this position homosexuality is treated
like any other sexual sin. Homosexual orientation is seen as arising from a
variety of circumstances – societal influences, personal choices, early sexual
trauma, family dynamics, and possibly, genetics. Because there are no simple
explanations for the cause of homosexual desire or orientation, homosexuals are
treated with respect and compassion. However, unrepentant homosexual practice
is not tolerated in the Church.
The third position expresses pragmatic acceptance of
homosexual behavior. While this position affirms God’s heterosexual intention
in creation, it also recognizes that the Church exists in a fallen world, where
human sexuality has been corrupted to varying degrees. The world does not
function as God intended and homosexuality is an expression of corrupted
sexuality. The Church functions to help
people live as close to God’s original plan as possible, however complete
realization of God’s intentions are impossible. As such, the Church encourages
people with same sex orientation and desire to approximate God’s ideal to the
extent they are able. Homosexuals who are capable of changing their orientation
or desires are obligated to do so. Homosexuals who can not change their desires
should attempt to live a life of celibacy. If this is not possible, then they
should seek to express their sexual desire in committed monogamous same-sex
relationships. Given the fallen state of humanity, and the entrenchment of sin,
the Church recognizes that Christians can exist in any one of these given
states. Typically, in this perspective homosexuality is seen as an inevitable
reality among some Christians. Homosexual orientation or desire is seen as
arising from a variety of circumstances, all of which are an expression of the
corrupted created order. The Church tolerates and supports only homosexual
expression it considers responsible and loving.
The fourth and most liberal position in the contemporary
Church is extreme acceptance of homosexuality. In this perspective homosexual
orientation is understood as a divine creation and its expression in faithful,
monogamous, loving relationships is ordained by God. God in His goodness has
specifically created diversity in sexual orientation by making people heterosexual
and homosexual. In response the Church recognizes the innate goodness of
homosexuality and readily accepts into membership homosexuals seeking to
express their sexuality in healthy monogamous relationships. Homosexuals are
recognized as Christians, are incorporated into every level of the Church,
including clergy, and have their relationships blessed as marriages. Typically,
this view treats homosexuality like racism and sexism. At one time the Church
condoned such prejudice. However, as the Holy Spirit has led the Church into
deeper knowledge and understanding, the sins of racism and sexism have been
repudiated. Likewise, as the Church recognizes its historic heterosexism and
homophobia it will repent of its sin and will eventually embrace homosexuality
as a good gift of God’s creation.
II. THE HISTORIC
UNDERSTANDING OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CHURCH
In order to ascertain the Church’s historic position within
the preceding spectrum, it is necessary for us to examine her historic
understanding of homosexuality. While the subject of homosexuality does not
occupy a prominent place in the history of the Church, when it is addressed,
there is a clear message: homosexuality is not God’s intention or will for
humanity. When homosexuality is treated in commentaries on Romans 1 by an early
Father, a Medieval Mother or a Reformer, when it is addressed in an early,
middle or late Church council, when it is listed in a penitential from the
sixth or sixteenth century, and when the Church’s teaching is cited as a basis
for civil law on sexual conduct in the Patristic or modern period,
homosexuality is portrayed always in a negative light.[1]
All references to homosexual acts between men, between women, between men and
boys and between women and girls are explicit in their rejection of such
behavior.
Primarily, the Church’s discussion on homosexuality focuses
upon the practice of homosexuality, rather than upon same-sex desire or
attraction. The sin of homosexuality is almost exclusively tied to the act of
engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same sex.[2]
This can be seen in the most basic vocabulary used in the Church to describe
homosexuality - sodomy. Sodomites are people who practice sodomy, engage in gay
sex, not people who simply experience same-sex desire or attraction. For
example, people who struggle with homosexual propensity, but never indulge in
sodomy, are not considered Sodomites. Likewise, people who commit sodomy,
repent of their actions, and never engage in homosexual behavior again, even if
they are sorely tempted or disposed, are not considered to be sodomites.[3]
Homosexuality is generally an “act” specific sin in the Church.
At the most basic level, the Church considers homosexual behavior
sinful because it is “contrary to nature;” it violates the created constitution
and function of men and women. For example, Patristic and Medieval theologians
teach that God created men and women to have strong sexual desires for one
another, created the male to give and the woman to receive in sexual
relationships, in order for their union to bring about children, ensuring
humanity’s survival. Men are not created to receive in sexual relationships and
women are not created to give. To reverse these relationships goes against
humanity’s created nature. Similarly, early Protestant theologians argue that
engaging in homosexuality is as contrary to the human body as idolatry is to
God. Just as idolatry dishonors God and is not God’s intention in divine-human
relationships, so the practice of homosexuality dishonors the human body in
human relationships. Homosexual practice uses the body in ways never intended
in sexual relationships. In the twentieth century Karl Barth, picking up the
idea in Genesis 1 that God created humanity male and female, proposes that the
image and likeness of God in humanity is never completed in an individual, but
only as the individual is in relationship with the opposite sex. Men and women
come into full humanity only in relationship with each other. Therefore
homosexual practice is a corrupted “substitute,” without hope of fulfilling the
purpose of the sexes – the realization of the divine image in each other. [4]
Because homosexual practice is “contrary to nature,” the
Church at times has used strong language in her denouncements, calling it an
“abominable” offence, more grievous than other sexual sins and moral offenses.
As such, Tertullian declares that homosexual practices are “monstrosities;”
John Chrysostom, that they are worse than murder, and Bernadine of Siena, that
they will be punished more extensively in hell than any other sin.[5]
However, the Church generally has treated homosexual practice no differently
than other sexual sins, like adultery and fornication. This can be seen in
Basil of Caesarea recommendation that Christians caught in homosexual behavior
receive the same discipline as an act of adultery, in the medieval
penitentials’ treatment of sodomy in the same way as fornication, and in the
Westminster Larger Catechism’s mention of sodomy in a long list of violations
of the seventh commandment, giving it no special place of prominence among
sexual sins.[6]
As has been intimated already, the Church has recognized
that homosexual practice exists among her members – laity and clergy. While the
Church has taken extreme measures at times to address homosexual conduct,
especially by our standards, the underlying purpose of the Church’s discipline
is to integrate fallen members back into the full life of the Church. Examples
of specific measures for penance and restoration include the Council of
Ancyra’s requirement of 20 years penance before full restoration, the Third
Lateran Council’s instruction for fallen clergy to be demoted and kept in
monastic reclusion and the Code of Canon Law’s allowance of a presiding bishop
to determine the discipline of an offending party, depending upon the “gravity
of the act.”[7]
In pastoral guidance to people who struggle with homosexual
temptation, the Church has demanded celibacy and offered the hope of healing
from homosexual propensity. While contemporary society sees sexual
gratification as a human right, even a scared right, the Church has not. As
such, the Church has affirmed that under the Lordship of Jesus Christ sexual inclination
need not dictate sexual practice. Homosexual desire and attraction does not
need to translate into action. Building upon a foundation established in the
New Testament, the Church has borne witness and continues to bear witness that
faithful Christians can live lives of freedom, joy and service without sexual
relationships. Furthermore, Christians with a homosexual orientation are
encouraged to seek deliverance from their propensities. While the Church has
never guaranteed complete healing of homosexual desire to every Christian in
the present life, it has been held out as a distinct possibility by God’s grace
in Jesus Christ.[8]
III. THE CHURCH’S UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY
At this point, let us explore the historic doctrine of the
Church to help us understand theologically the origin of homosexuality in
people. In the past two millennia as the Church has addressed the issue of
homosexuality, a variety of answers have been given to the question of its
cause. Some responses have attributed homosexuality to simple human choice;
others have argued that homosexual orientation originates in environmental
factors, such as an absent father, an overbearing mother or an early sexual
trauma; another group contends that it is rooted in a genetic predisposition;
and still others propose that human choice, social environment, and genetics
combine together in various ways to form homosexuality.
Presently, the most provocative answer, stirring the most
passionate response in the Church, is the theory that people are born with a
predisposition to same-sex attraction. Many in the gay community and their
advocates in the Church believe that if they can prove that sexual orientation
is innate, they can argue that God is the creator of homosexuality. In
response, conservative evangelical Christians, buying into the same logic,
vehemently deny such an idea. God would never create a human being with an
innate homosexual attraction. Unfortunately, both perspectives have a flawed
understanding of the Church’s teaching on divine providence, original sin and
the corrupted state of the created order.
Fundamentally, the Church has seen homosexuality (its
propensity and action) as an expression of the fallen order of creation and the
fallen state of humanity.[9] While
some Christian theologians have argued that God directly creates human beings,
fashioning them exactly as He wishes, the consensus of the Church has taught
instead that God is “indirectly” involved in the creation of humanity. Through
cooperating or concurring providence God empowers the natural procreative
processes of the human body, enabling men and women to generate human life
according to their nature, so that whatever constitutes humanity, human parents
are enabled to bring into being. As such, the uniqueness of humanity is not
found in how human life is generated, because human life comes into being in
the same way as other animal life, rather, it resides in the fact that human
beings bear the image and likeness of God, an aspect of humanity that parents
are empowered to transmit to their children in procreation. In a created order
untouched by the corrupting influence of sin, perfect humanity is empowered to
beget perfect humanity.[10]
However, human beings have been corrupted by sin, along with
the rest of the created order. Human beings do not exist as God intended and
they live in a world that does not function entirely as it should. Likewise,
the image and likeness of God in humanity has been extensively marred. Because
God still operates through cooperating providence, human beings are still able
to create according to their nature, albeit a corrupted nature and a marred
divine image. Corrupted humanity begets corrupted humanity. Therefore, when men
and women engage in sexual relationships, whether their relationship is within
the holy boundaries of marriage or not, whether they are consensual and loving
relationships or not, human life is produced bearing the marks of corruption,
with something intrinsically wrong.[11]
For babies this corruption is made manifest in a multitude
of different ways. Physically, it can be seen in neonatal deformities and
diseases, mentally, in learning disabilities and levels of retardation,
emotionally, in maternal bonding and agitative disorders, and spiritually, in rebelliousness
and a “bend toward sinning.” Likewise, human sexuality and sexual orientation
are not spared from the corrosive influence of sin. Human sexual predisposition
and drive for the opposite sex, originally created good and holy by God, and at
least present in nascent form in babies has been corrupted as well. This
corruption can be made manifest in different ways, including homosexual
inclinations, which, when combined with living in a fallen order, subjected to
the additional corrosive influences of society, and the consequences of
personal sin can lead to homosexuality. As such, the Church has recognized that
homosexuality is ultimately one manifestation of many expressions of the fallen
order in the world.
However, the Church has also affirmed that just because
people have been born with a homosexual inclination, exacerbated by the fallen
order around them, and fully materialized through personal sin, this does not
mean they are without hope of healing from this manifestation of
corruption. The redemptive work of
Christ made available to believers through the sanctifying work of the Spirit
can empower people to keep their homosexual inclinations in check and offer
hope of healing of their corrupted sexuality. The practice of homosexuality is
sin and same-sex orientation can be a manifestation of the corrupted sexual
drive, but both can be overcome through the grace of Jesus Christ made manifest
in the loving, disciplined ministry of the Church.
CONCLUSION
In summary and conclusion, the Church has seen homosexuality
and its propensity as an expression of the fallen order of creation and the
fallen state of humanity. The Church’s traditional understanding of
homosexuality and her ministry to homosexuals places her perspective closest to
the “rejection of homosexual behavior” position, outlined earlier in our paper.
While the Church has accepted that some Christians may struggle with homosexual
desire, some people even from birth, the Church has never condoned homosexual
practice. Christians with homosexual propensities are called to live celibate
lives while seeking to be delivered from their corrupted sexual desires, which
can occur through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. When Christians have
engaged in homosexual activity, the Church has endeavored to exercise
redemptive discipline with the goal of restoring them fully into the life of
the Church.
Christopher Todd Bounds, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Theology
[1] For examples see John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans 4, Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on the Epistle of Saint Paul to
the Romans 1:26, Catherine of Siena’s El diálogo in Obras de
Santa Catarina de Siena (Madrid: BAC, 1991), p. 292 , John Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 1, The Council of Ancyra’s Canon 17, The Third
Lateran Council’s Canon 11, The Justinian Code’s of 529 , Code of Canon Law (1917)
canons 2357-59, etc.
[2] For examples see Tertullian’s On Modesty 4, Cyprian’s Letters 1:8, Eusebius’ of Caesaera’s Proof of the Gospel 4:10, Basil of
Caesarea’s Letters 217: Canon 62,
Augustine’s Confessions 3.8.1, John
Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the
NewTestament Romans 1:26-27.
[3] See Gregory of Nyssa’s Letter to Letoius of Mytilene: Canon 4, Peter
Damian’s Book of Gomorrah, cols
174ff, Council of Naplouse: Canons 8-11, Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum: cannons
11-14, Code of Canon Law (1917) canons 2357-59, etc.
[4] See Lactantius’ The Divine Institutes 7.5-6 and On the Workmanship of God 10, 12-13,
John Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 1,
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the
New Testament Romans 1:26-27, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics III/1 and III/4.
[5] Tertullian’s On Modesty 4, John Chrysostom’s Homilies
on Romans 4, Bernardine of Siena’s Predica
39.
[6] Basil of Caesarea’s Letters 217, Canon 62, John T. McNeill
and Helena M. Gamer's, Medieval Handbooks
of Penance: A Translation of the Principal Libri Poenitentiales_ (Columbia
University Press, New York, N.Y., 1938), Westminster
Larger Catechism, Question 139.
[7] The Council of Ancyra’s Canon 17,
The Third Lateran Council’s Canon 11, The Code
of Canon Law (1917) canons 2357-59.
[8] For an excellent discussion of this
point, see Richard Hays’ article in Sojourners
(July 1991).
[9] See previous footnotes on the
Church’s exegesis of Romans 1:26-27. See also Richard Hayes’ similar treatment
in his book The Moral Vision of the New
Testament (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), 388.
[10] For an excellent discussion on the
Church’s understanding of providence and the traducian approach to the ongoing
creation of humanity, see Thomas Oden, The
Living God: Systematic Theology, Vol. One (San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1987), 270-316. In his theology, Oden endeavors to articulate the consensus of
the Church regarding all major Christian doctrines, including providence.
[11] Ibid., 293-311.