An Introduction

Few who reside in the San Francisco Bay Area would describe homosexuality as a sin. Since the area represents one of the largest contingents of the gay population in North America, very few would question the legitimacy of homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle.” In fact, homosexuals now claim legitimacy based on the equal rights that are afforded to people of different color or gender. They see no difference between the racial distinctions of African-Americans, Asians, Native Americans, etc., and sexual orientation since they contend that both the ethnic distinction and the sexual orientation distinction is an inherent trait. Thus, to the homosexual being gay or lesbian is no more out of place than being a woman, or being black.

How is the church to respond? Recently, major denominations like the Episcopalian Church, Presbyterian Church USA and the United Methodist Church have battled within their particular denominations a rising tide of homosexual influence and power. CNN.com (CNN. “Episcopalians Approve Gay Bishop.” 2003) had reported on the acceptance of the first gay bishop in the Episcopalian Church. Christianity Today discusses the increasing schism with the Presbyterian Church USA due to the homosexuality issue. Leading Christian journals and magazines have wrestled with the issue. The controversy has affected government as well. (See Christianity Today, July 19, 1993 and Christian Research Journal, Summer 1992 and Winter 1993.) Former President Clinton implemented his now infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military, a compromise in accepting homosexuals in the military so long as those who choose the gay lifestyle do not reveal their sexual orientation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay marriage, leading to a constitutional challenge in the Massachusetts state legislature. And not to be outdone by Massachusetts, San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsome’s has unilaterally proclaimed the legitimacy of gay marriage and the local government’s responsibility to officiate such unions. This of course has led to President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage solely between a man and a woman. There is no area in American culture, society, and life that will be left untouched by this matter. Homosexuality, its acceptance or rejection, is deeply personal because so many Americans find the issue to be the core of what they believe to be most sacred, the family. Even bastions of conservatism, like the Southern Baptist Convention, have dealt with this issue on the convention floor, with the expulsion of a few churches known to accept gay clergy. What was known in the past as both taboo and hideous, a mental disorder, has now been accepted as reasonable and respectable. Is this an issue of human rights? If so, what impact does this have on the Evangelical world? Are gay rights movements of the 1990’s and 2000’s the equivalent of women’s rights’ movements of the 1920’s and 30’s? Does it have the same philosophical power of the 1960’s civil rights’ movements on racial equality? How should the church respond to the growing tsunami of homosexual ideals and values which will not so easily disappear? Should it embrace the movement? Should it vilify it? Should it promote change and healing?

There is now no denying that Christians have been forced to take a deep look upon this critical issue. In the past homosexuality has been regarded as a sin and a moral evil. It has been held in disgust and any homosexual or even homosexual tendency was driven from the church. But whether the church is ready to confront homosexuality or not, homosexual issues are already impacting the church in ways it cannot deny. Can Christians then continue to ignore homosexuality in and outside of the church, simply because they find it to be distasteful? Jesus’ exhortation to be the “light of the world” and the “salt of the earth” would seem to rebuke such a stance. Christ came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), and it would be right to assume that Jesus’ ministry today reaches into the AIDS hospices and the gay bars. Jesus broke all cultural norms by eating with “sinners” like tax-collectors and prostitutes. Whether or not one holds the position that homosexuality is a sin against the Lord or not, the cry for ministry and gospel preaching to this group of people is still relevant and necessary. John Cardinal O’Connor, whom many considered to be the “Pope of New York City,” was vehemently opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. He preached against homosexuality as that went against the standards of God. Yet, he volunteered in hospitals caring for those dying of AIDS. His service was often unheralded as even his patients did not recognize who he was. Yet, the secular press lambasted him as a man of contradiction. But for Cardinal O’Connor it was far from being a contradiction. Sin is based on the standard of Scripture. This does not remove, however, the compassion and love that is required of all Christians to care for a lost world. Jesus sets an example for us by saying, “Love your enemies,” and then forgives His executors as He died on the cross. As a fallen people, it makes sense that sinners should show mercy to sinners. Henry Fairlie correctly states that “sin is the wreckage of the love of which we are capable. To acknowledge it in ourselves is to recognize what loving creatures we might have been, to realize how pitifully we diminish our capacity to love.” Today’s Christian, particularly the conservative Evangelical has been quick to condemn, yet slow to embrace. As a result the gay community and the Evangelical church have become so polarized, that gays and lesbians consider the presentation of the good news of Christ as nothing more than mere politically conservative rhetoric.

The question whether homosexuality is a sin is a legitimate one. In fact it is one that must be weighed heavily if there is to be honest dialogue between both sides. Henry Fairlie points out that a lack of love has been the ultimate cause of our sin. (Henry Fairlie, The Seven Deadly Sins Today, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979), 193) For the church to disengage the gay community and condemn them as “sinners” without love or a desire to see genuine restoration is to be blinded by the speck that Jesus defines as hypocrisy (Matthew 7:3-4). Homosexuality must not be viewed through human lenses, but through God’s lenses. If it is a sin, then God will deal with this sin as He does with all sin, with the utmost severity. But like all sin, in light of the cross, where sin abounds, grace abounds more. This does not, however, give Christians license to sin wantonly so as to abuse the grace provided through the means of the cross. Sin must be confessed as sin, placed at the cross, or the sinner will face the just retribution of God’s wrath. Thus, if homosexuality is not a sin before God, then obviously God will not punish the believer for a homosexual lifestyle. However, if homosexuality is a sin before God, and a certain contingent within the church denies homosexuality as sin, then it will be judged as unconfessed sin, a sin where there will be no mercy remaining. Much is at stake then in defining homosexuality in the context of sin. For the Christian, the Word of God is the absolute standard and without it, all things become relative to humanity’s fallen standards. Thus biblical theology becomes the key to unlocking the future of the gay movement in the church, whether it must be embraced or rejected. If homosexuality is a sin, then it is to be condemned as such. But like all sins, through God’s mercy and grace, there is forgiveness and healing available to those who genuinely repent. So the fundamental issue of homosexuality’s sinfulness, a position that supporters of homosexuality in the church vehemently disagree with, is a crucial one. If it is proven that homosexuality is a sin, then, It will determine not just the biblical and theological ramifications of the ethics of homosexuality, but it will also set the tone of ministry to a group of people who might possibly need to hear the gospel.