Questions of whether same – sex relationships are germane in matters of ordination and marriage are once again being raised in the church. Just how these questions will appear at the spring assembly in Vancouver is still unclear, but the relevant overtures have either been passed or are under consideration in at least three presbyteries.
Unsurprisingly, much anxiety has already been expressed online, including fear that the denomination will split as a result of whatever decision is taken. Fearfulness is inevitably self – fulfilling, so we should all take steps to create grace – filled conversations instead.
When Jesus was facing difficult decisions he prayed. He didn’t rush to the synagogue to pore over the scrolls. Rather, he went off, either alone or with a handful of his closest friends, and sought God’s will in prayer.
What is God’s will? What does God want of the Presbyterian Church in Canada at this time?
I think listening prayer is what is needed to answer that question.
Rev. Phil Reinders has been writing eloquently about various kinds of prayer in the Record this year. His September column, “A Quiet and Attentive Spirit,” and June’s “A Listening Heart” (both available on our website) are excellent places to seek guidance in this type of prayer.
We need to quiet both our emotions and our thinking in order to create a holy space where the Spirit can speak to us and help us discern the way forward. Only then should we reverently approach scripture to see what it has to say. We may find that the salient passages and themes are not the ones we at first expect.
We also need to accept that both sides of this debate are trying to be biblically faithful. And we have all read our Bibles carefully. That said, there is little in scripture that is friendly towards anything same – sex. On the other hand, there is little in scripture that can be clearly said to prohibit committed same – sex relationships.
(People will be using different translations, so it’s worth noting that the first recorded use of the word homosexual in English is the early 1890s. The word and concept is entirely modern. Until that same period, the word lesbian referred to something entirely different than sexual orientation.)
When trying to discern what a given passage of scripture means, the first step is to consider who wrote it and why. That’s not my opinion, but the church’s, perhaps most eloquently expressed by St. Augustine in the third volume of his book On Christian Teaching (published in 397). Context is crucial.
Secondly, when it comes to interpreting scripture as far as this particular debate goes, most of the heavy thinking has been done already. That’s not to say a fresh interpretation isn’t possible. But it’s unlikely.
Thirdly, there are far fewer verses on sexual behaviour (no matter how we interpret them) than on slavery. Or the role of women and their relationship to men. And on both these points, scripture is far clearer that slavery is acceptable and that women shouldn’t be teaching men than it is that committed same – sex relationships are wrong.
Despite this, the church decided—absolutely rightly—that either our understanding of scripture was defective or that the context was different. Whatever the reasons, we now accept that slavery is wrong and that gender is not an issue for those seeking ordination as ministers.
Neither do we believe in executing criminals. In fact, many Christians actively campaign to prevent people being stoned to death in other parts of the world, despite the fact that scripture clearly demands this for certain breaches of the Mosaic law.
Moreover, if it is important to take into account the context of biblical passages, the Spirit also expects us to take our own context into account. That is the perpetual challenge of evangelism: expressing the Good News of God’s love in the context of every culture.
It’s simply an historical and cultural fact that stable, loving, committed same – sex relationships were never considered by those who wrote or edited the various books of the Bible. And, contrary to what many naysayers predicted when gay marriage was legalized in Canada more than 10 years ago, neither homosexual nor heterosexual families have fallen apart as a result of that decision. Children with same – sex parents are growing up just fine.
Lastly, as far as context goes, it is important to weigh how the wider community will see this debate. Not that it should be the deciding factor, but wilful naïveté would be irresponsible.
We know that the institutional church is declining. Religion is not declining, but the vessel that has nurtured and carried Christianity is. We have to decide, therefore, which issues are worth going to the mat for.
Notably, many evangelicals in the United States have decided this issue isn’t the one. Among other things, they realize that the majority of under – 30s don’t see sexual orientation as a question.
The cover of the Oct. 11 issue of The Economist puts it bluntly: “The Gay Divide: Half the world has leapt forward… but too many countries are going backwards.”
Again, it’s not whether you agree that God approves of same – sex relationships, it’s whether you think God really wants the church to go down opposing them. And scripture suggests God does not shun any part of creation and surely would not deny love and companionship to people because of something intrinsically part of them.
Jesus didn’t shun those who were considered outcasts in his day. Samaritans—heretics to Israelites—figure prominently among those he engaged with. Nor was he hard – nosed about keeping what was regarded as God’s law—his law, in other words. As he said: “The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath.”
Rev. Stephen Farris concludes his moderator’s column this month with these words: “This isn’t about winning a debate. It is about God’s will and God’s children.”
