Homosexuality

Although the term homosexuality has emerged from the shadows into everyday conversation and is widely understood as referring to sexual attraction between members of the same sex, it remains a confusing term with multiple nuances. Some even prefer to refer to homosexualities to avoid the impression that it is one phenomenon and that it takes only one form.

A Recent Term

Sexual activities with persons of the same sex have been known throughout history and across all cultures, though much more is written about the activities of men than of women. The term homosexuality was coined only in 1892, while the activist terms lesbian and gay are still more recent (1970s and 1950s, respectively). These latter terms are not synonymous with homosexuality but were coined to express affirmation and to replace earlier terms (including buggery and sodomy, from biblical and legal language) that had become pejorative. Such changes mean that there is not only a change in the interpretation of same-sex behavior and attitudes but also ambiguity, when referring to earlier references, whether the same concept is being described. Many contemporary writers seek to interpret the biblical references as relating to temple prostitution and culturally endorsed practices rather than the homosexual acts of today. Hence cultural meaning is often advanced as a way of reinterpreting the morality of homosexual activity.

A Long Story

Homosexual acts have been recorded throughout history. Sociologists and anthropologists have identified many different expressions associated with rituals, initiation rites and use of power. These do not assume a lifetime orientation or even a predominant attraction to the same sex. No society in history has endorsed adult homosexual relationships of the kind advocated today. Evidence of exclusive homosexuality has been sketchy, probably due to its rarity. Much of the evidence relates to the enforced isolation of monasticism, denying heterosexual outlet.

Seemingly higher prevalence only received significant attention after the Kinsey reports (1948 and 1953) mistakenly suggested 4 percent of adult men are exclusively homosexual and 10 percent are predominantly homosexual (and fewer women). This apparently scientific work brought confusion both to science and to morality, since it made false claims yet appeared to challenge traditional morality. Kinsey’s study combined information about sexual attraction with reports of actual sexual behavior. Thus the traditional Jewish and Christian distinctions became blurred. A full, sensitive response requires a distinction between the person with a homoerotic attraction and the one who engages in homosexual behavior. This difference has profound implications for our response personally, pastorally, theologically and politically.

While earlier societies have often institutionalized homosexual behavior, either giving it limited sanction or developing strong taboos against it, homosexual behavior has never been incorporated as a “normal” or “natural” expression. Claims that the normality of homosexual behavior can be sustained by the observation of animal behavior do not hold up since this is never a sustained pattern, but rather an occasional variant where it occurs. The current ideology of the gay movement is to bring homosexuality into the mainstream of sexuality as one among several preferences of equal legitimacy. This is a radical alternative to traditional thinking and gains strength in the Western world not only from its appeal to civil rights claims but also from maintaining orientation and behavior as inseparable. By contrast the large number of nonpracticing homosexuals provide evidence that orientation does not necessarily demand a behavioral response.

Many Viewpoints

A fast-growing literature provides different and conflicting interpretations that arise from their varied starting assumptions. Represented in this literature are

• personal biographies of Christians and others advocating the endorsement of the gay lifestyle as largely predetermined, something to be accepted, not fought;

• personal biographies of those (especially Christians) who have experienced a reorientation away from their homosexuality and proclaim release is possible;

• accounts of therapy by clinicians, some arguing change is never real or lasting and others citing a growing body of evidence that real change can and does occur;

• moral and theological discussions regarding homosexual behavior with varying conclusions depending on the adoption of a conservative or liberal interpretation of the Scriptures;

• evidence from the biological sciences suggesting some fundamental difference (genetic or hormonal) that might indicate a built-in predisposition to becoming homosexual (with a clear political agenda of legitimizing the gay movement, this rush of studies has been shown repeatedly to be misleading and inadequate);

• evidence from the social sciences suggesting links with early relationships, parenting patterns and/or significant seduction experiences (these arguments take many forms, and their variety indicates that no one theory is sufficient for all presentations of homosexual inclination).

The absence of a single compelling explanation points to the complexity of the phenomenon and suggests at least that there are many possible precursors to becoming homosexual, as well as various forms of expression. Nature and nurture appear to contribute to differing degrees for any given man or woman, and stereotyping should be avoided.

Biblical Sources

There is wide disagreement about the meaning of biblical texts regarding homosexuality. Proof texting needs to be avoided. Such material as appears in the Old and New Testaments should be understood in the wider framework of teaching about creation and the purpose of sexuality. There is no support for the judgmental view that the Scriptures condemn the homosexual (as many activists assert), but there is clear teaching about involvement in homosexual practices. Hence the traditional distinction between orientation and behavior (or the sinner and the sin), which has been blurred by science since Kinsey, deserves to be reemphasized.

Homosexual practices do receive mention in both the Old and New Testaments, but such references are few. The conservative interpretation of passages such as Genesis 19:5-9; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Judges 19:22-28; Romans 1:26-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; and 1 Tim. 1:8-11 is that there is a clear condemnation of homosexual behavior that goes beyond the commands to Israel and has binding significance for Christians today. This interpretation comes from setting such specific injunctions into the broader context of sexuality generally, especially the creation principle of male and female.

A great deal hinges on the interpretation of the term natural as used in Romans 1. Confusion arises when natural is used to indicate “according to nature,” as a naturally occurring phenomenon, since there are many things, good and bad, that occur naturally. That something occurs naturally does not automatically vindicate it. However, Paul’s use of the term is undoubtedly in a moral sense—that is, natural as something in accordance with God’s purposes for creation and over against that which is unnatural, or morally wrong. Making such distinctions, we can assert that homosexual behavior is natural in the first sense (it occurs in nature) but unnatural in the second sense as used by Paul.

Such a position nonetheless needs to be balanced by the limited attention given in the Bible to this matter, suggesting that its significance should not be exaggerated. Homosexual behavior appears in the New Testament among catalogs of sins without any indication that it is more heinous than lying or greediness. Further, though we recognize homosexuality to be both male and female, there is almost no reference to lesbianism (except Romans 1:26-27). We should not automatically equate the lesbian and the gay experience, and current research suggests there are significant psychological differences between them.

Practical Responses

It helps to distinguish the individual experiencing homosexual attraction from the gay movement, which insists that this is entirely normal and morally neutral. Long-standing moral principles that have shaped cultures over centuries need not be abandoned because scientific findings appear to be generating new insights. In this area science is tentative, exploratory, biased and frequently shown to be wrong. Klaus Bockmuehl has cautioned against responding too hurriedly to the latest opinions:

The church of Jesus Christ has to resist the trend that would ironically make it the agent for abolition of its own ethical norms, and abolition for which neither the Old nor the New Testament offers the slightest justification. The biblical norms are relevant precisely because they deal with homosexual behavior, which is exactly the problem today. (pp. 12-18)

What About Change?

While the gay movement insists change is not possible and should not be attempted, such simple stereotyping should be resisted. There are wide varieties of expression and experience. While activists publicly clamor for acceptance, others quietly suffer and long to be different. Change, if sought, is achieved successfully by some, but for others the pattern is, humanly speaking, unchangeable. Acceptance of a celibate lifestyle is one legitimate option for those in that situation.

Defining what constitutes change is difficult. In the past a shift toward heterosexual interest and then marriage were claimed as adequate evidence for successful change, but some now argue that such changes are secondary to a more fundamental change. Some follow the argument advanced by E. Moberly (1983) that the underlying problem is not a problem with the opposite sex but with the same sex. Developmental theorists argue that a poor relationship with the same-sex parent produces a woundedness that can be healed only through development of strong, positive same-sex relationships. The issue, then, is not primarily one of sexual needs at all but one of unmet developmental needs. Hence successful change arises first in the establishment of good (nonsexual) same-sex bonding, out of which heterosexual relationships may flow.

A good deal of successful therapy has been reported following these assumptions for those, both men and women, who seek change. This developmental learning model stands over against the many efforts to demonstrate a biological basis for homosexuality. Without denying that some biological linkages may one day get beyond conjecture and speculative reports, it is most helpful to understand the biological contribution as one predisposing factor among many. The individual’s later life experiences combine with significant choices to determine the outcome. The gay movement strongly resists the possibility of choice these days (though it is not long since the term sexual preference came into fashion). Nonetheless, those who do change claim that choice is possible. And the research data clearly suggest that many with homosexual tendencies choose not to be active.

Hence we may conclude that change is possible for some, and the Christian gospel offers hope rather than condemnation. It is also clear that in our present state of knowledge, not all who wish to change can do so. A major theme when change does occur is a move away from the sexual focus to growth into personal wholeness and strong relationships. The Christian homosexual who seeks to live according to God’s purposes commonly experiences loneliness, frustration, alienation and depression but can be offered friendship and support without fear when the stereotypes are challenged. Within the churches there is need for clear teaching about sexuality and its expression in all its forms, combined with a strong pastoral response to those who have emotional, interpersonal and spiritual as well as sexual needs.

» See also: Femininity

» See also: Sexuality

» See also: Singleness

References and Resources

K. Bockmuehl, “Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective,” Christianity Today, 16 February 1973, 12-18; A. C. Kinsey, W. B. Pomeroy and C. E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948); A. C. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953); E. Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1983); T. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

—John Court