What does the church believe about Gay relationships?

Fr Steve Hardwicke, Rector of St Laurence Cowley?

Scripture - What do we believe Scripture to be?
Before we look at the Bible texts that are usually cited in discussions about same sex relationships, we need to think about how we treat the Scriptures. We can make two basic mistakes in our attitude to them. One is to see them as entirely God given, totally ignoring the fact that human authors have left their distinctive mark on them. The other is to see them as purely human, which is to deny the role of the Spirit of God in giving life to the letter of the word.

Scholarly study combined with the Church?s experience of God in Scripture, points us to the belief that the Scriptures are both human and divine. When we consider what the Scriptures reveal to us of God, this is entirely what we should expect. Though it does mean the Scriptures are sometimes incredibly difficult to interpret and understand. This is certainly true with the issue of same sex relationships.

Ideas about sexuality have changed over time
The first problem we have is one of language. Neither of the Biblical languages, Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew, have words to denote what we mean today when we use the words ?homosexual,? ?gay? or ?lesbian.? (The last one may seem odd, as it is drawn from the world of Classical Greece. It was never used by the ancients in the sense we moderns now use it).

The reason for this is that both cultures had very different starting points when it came to thinking about sexuality. In Hebrew thought everyone was (using our modern terminology) heterosexual. There was no idea that some people are intrinsically attracted to their own sex.

The condemnation of same sex physical acts is based on the idea that a person doing such a thing is doing something that is the opposite of their physical attraction and that they do so by choice. This does not in itself justify such condemnation but it does make a huge difference to our understanding of the passages.

In Ancient Israel same-sex sexual practises took place in pagan Temples with cult prostitutes. This was seen by the Jews to be a form of idolatry and therefore thought greatly offensive to God (a theme Paul takes up in a passage of purple prose in Romans).

For the ancient Greeks however, all men were understood to be what we call bisexual. Like most male dominated societies they had no real interest in women?s sexuality, besides them being there for male sexual needs. Words to make distinctions between what some would call gay and straight did not exist.* From the point of view of modern research into sexuality the Greek starting point is probably somewhat closer to the truth.

(*The Greeks did, however, have words to describe effeminate and passive men. This expressed the ancient fear of women and becoming like them ? or rather the stereotypes projected on them.)

Bible texts used in modern discussions about homosexuality - Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?
Behind these verses stands the idea that two men in having physical relationships would be going against their ?natural? desire and would be freely choosing to do so. Clearly that is not the case with folk where there is no such choice and such a thing would not be contrary to their ?nature.?

(The Hebrew Scriptures have nothing to say about women ? rather taking the attitude of Queen Victoria on the subject.)

Beyond proof texts?
Bandying proof texts about doesn?t get us very far. The real question is, what is the overall tenor of Scripture on the subject? Now this is a difficult one.

Fundamentalists would probably say that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And that when it comes to sexual relationships the Scriptures only speak of opposite sex ones. In a sense that is true, God can only communicate to us in the words we have. As we have seen, at the time the Scriptures were written, they did not have our modern words for homosexuality or our modern ideas. Now of course they do, and the Church is doing its best to discern what God is saying to his Church.

The Scriptures at their best see the union of a man and a women as a mutually supportive, intimate relationship of loving commitment, where children can be cared for and nurtured. When the Scriptures are at their worst, marriage is reduced to a legal property transaction, where the man (whether he be the father or the husband) is, or becomes the owner of the woman.

If we agree to pay attention to the best that Scripture has to offer us about committed male-female sexual unions, then we have to ask whether some of its teaching can also be applied to same sex relationships.

Tradition?
In its first millennium the Church held far healthier attitudes to sex and relationships than has sadly been the case during its second millennium. Contrary to what some folk like to imagine, in its early days the Church held very different and divergent views on many subjects (rather like today).

For example, on the question of whether it was necessary for gentile converts to keep the Jewish law, some Christian communities believed it was necessary and others that it was not. Others took an inbetween view that said no, but that folk had to abstain from non-kosher meat, meat offered to idols and fornication.

This was all part of the bigger debate at the time of how the Torah was to be applied. We have to remember in its early life, the only Scriptures the church had were the Hebrew ones translated into Greek. In this context many gentile Christians (with inherited Greek ideas about sexuality) would have dismissed the idea that it was an abomination to have physical relations with another man. They would also have dismissed the idea (found in Leviticus) that eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibres was an abomination. To them these prohibitions of the Torah would no longer apply.

There is now some good evidence to suggest that at certain times and in certain places, the early Church not only tolerated same sex relationships but actually blessed them. Slowly over time however, attitudes to sex and physicality in the Church changed for the worse (strangely enough under the influence of certain Greek philosophical ideas). It was not so much that same sex relations were considered to be bad, but that all sexual activity was seen to be dodgy.

By the time of the late Middle Ages the church?s teaching on sex can only be described as obsessive and neurotic ? a wonderful gift of God had been turned into something sordid and grubby. From the Second Millennium onwards the Church?s attitude to same sex relationships became more and more oppressive.

Early Penitentials (documents that list the penances for particular sins) show us that from this time on, such activities were generally considered to be a sin ? though not a terribly grave one, as is shown by the minimal penance given to offenders. A few hundred years later the ?sin? became a capital offense (as it is in Leviticus) and indeed remained so in this country until it became an imprisonable offence in the reign of Victoria.

Over time attitudes have changed. In the late 18th Century the notion arose that ?sodomy,? as it was called, was not so much a moral condition but a medical one, so the term ?homosexual? was coined to describe the condition (a reason why the Gay community described itself as ?gay? to negate the idea of sickness).

Recent genetic and psychological research has shown that same sex attraction is not an aberration, something odd that needs to be accounted for, but part of human sexuality and our genetic makeup.

Pastoral?
Cross cultural studies, studies of twins, and studies of the higher mammals have shown that sexuality isn?t a matter black and white, of gay or straight. What ?nature? gives us is a whole spectrum of sexuality between the two poles, with most people of course being somewhere between the two. Only a few folk are entirely by nature totally ?straight? or totally gay.

The majority of research has consistently shown that only 4 -5 % of any population are exclusively gay/lesbian ? this would be expected biologically from the inherent need for the majority of a population to propagate the species. Social-biologists point out that the fact that nature and natural selection preserve lesbian/gay offspring, means that in some way they must contribute to the well being of the species and its furtherance.

There is a building body of evidence that there is a genetic component to being gay. In Italy research seems to show that the ?gay gene? is passed through mothers and that where this is the case, nature compensates for loss of progeny by making mothers far more fertile; and with the younger the child in the sibling order, the greater the probability of it being gay or lesbian. This ensures not only that the families continue to have children but also the furthering of the ?gay gene.?

Pastorally, the attempts of some evangelical groups to ?heal? gays/lesbians from their sexuality is wrong on at least two levels. Firstly Scripturally. If they are to take Leviticus out of its original context and literally, then the passage does not treat the condition as a medical one but a moral one (in Leviticus it is about a refusal to live in what was thought to be the only natural way). Secondly our sexuality wherever it falls on the Spectrum is a given fact of our individual existence and therefore cannot be changed, though it can be positively developed, or negatively denied.

My own personal views on the subject have changed radically over time. My experience has convinced me that same sex, faithful, committed relationships are life enhancing in every sense of the word and that to force someone to deny what they are, is always destructive to their person.

In some of the same sex relationships of my friends, I have seen the love of God expressed and I cannot believe that he hasn?t blessed them with his grace. Personally I look forward to the time when we can have a bishop who is in a permanent, committed and faithful same sex relationship, so that they can be an example to all the Church (gay, straight, whatever) of the transforming power of loving relationships.

Source: http://www.stlaurencecowley.org.uk/2013/01/what-does-church-believe-about-gay.html

ben gazzara nfl hall of fame 2012 ufc diaz vs condit super bowl start time target jason wu gi joe jason wu for target collection