Not only because the issue of same-sex relations and same-sex lifestyles have in recent years become an issue of controversy, not only in secular society, but within the very Church of Christ, as a minister, I also struggle with the issue relative to where I stand on it. I have a certain position on the issue, but at the same time, I realize that there are other positions which are just as valid, and that we should accord the same respect that we expect for whatever position we may adhere to. Does this mean that we compromise our position? Absolutely not! What it does mean, however, is that the issue of same-sex relations and lifestyles, like many other issues, is not one of "black and white." Like other issues, such as abortion, just wars, etc., it is a very complex issue. I will state my position and related matters on this. In doing so, I hope to learn from others who may disagree with me, and only God knows, may convince me to revise, or at the very least, reevaluate my position. Let me state in chronological order certain things relative to this issue. Others may have a chronological order of their own, and that is okay.
1. To base sexual morality exclusively on the basis of the Scriptural witness is complicated. We cannot deal with sexual morality in the Bible unless we take into consideration that the sexual morality in Scripture emerges from an agricultural context, where the woman is considered to the property of the man. In the Bible, marriage is an economic arrangement, not only between two parties, but also between families. The issue of arranged marriages complicates this even more. We are then forced to ask, what aspects of biblically-based morality are culturally-based, and relevant only to the context in which it appears, and what aspects of biblically-based morality are universally applicable in all times and in all places?
2. The rush to condemn homosexuality on the basis of the Sodom and Gomorrah debacle is "off the charts." A very careful reading of the story of the angels (or men, take your pick) at Lot's house will reveal that the issue there was not homosexuality at all, but rather one of lack of hospitality towards strangers, on the one hand, and attempted rape on the other.
3. The Scriptural injunctions against homosexuality are clearly directed towards those who go against their own nature and make homosexual relations and lifestyles a matter of choice. In those cases where there are Scriptural arguments against choice-based homosexuality, homosexuality is a sin like any other, including greed, murder, and social injustice. In that case, it is not to be singled out any more than any other sin.
4. To appeal to "nature," also presents a conundrum. For example, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about the length of the man and the woman's hair an issue by appealing to nature. The appeal to nature is also faulty in that it fails to take into consideration the many physical, physiological, and psychological deformities that some people are born with. And before any of my gay sisters or brothers jump to the conclusion that I am categorizing homosexuality as a "deformity," let make very clear that this is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that genetically and physiologically-based same-sex orientation should be weighed in this discussion. And since I am not an expert in these areas, I abstain from comments on whether this type of orientation is natural or not.
What are we to do then? How should this matter be resolved theologically? There are no easy answers. Since all theology is tentative, my personal position on this issue is also tentative. Based on the Scriptural injunction against choice-based homosexuality, and also on my very limited knowledge of science relative to sex, my position is as follows:
1. Choice-based homosexuality is a sin and violation of God's will for humankind. I think that nature as a whole points to homosexuality as a deviation from God's original intention.
2. Genetically-based homosexuality is to be evaluated on its own merits. Since as of yet, there is no conclusion that has been absolutely proven, it remains an open-ended question.
Is my personal position subject to reevaluation and to revision? At the present time, I am inclined to say that I probably will never change my position. But since I am not infallible by any stretch of the imagination, I give room to the possibility that further information may arrive that might lead me to revise my stance. If this were to happen, I would first of all, be grateful to God for making it possible for me to expand my horizons on this issue, and also to those persons whose knowledge contributes to critical analysis.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment