The Middle Way

Probably no subject in public life is more filled with fear, anger, and hatred than that of public policy and the Church’s ministry toward those who prefer their own sex in love. Part of it comes from the homosexual community, who having experienced many issues in their own lives, find a large portion of the Christian community seeking to exclude them altogether, not only from the life of the church; but even from participation in the political and social life of the community. And part of it comes from that part of the Christian community which struggles with how one can at the same time respect the entire written Word of God and still follow Jesus’ command to love one another.

Generally speaking, I am not afraid to tackle controversial subjects; but to write and publish on this one requires more than the usual courage, for its discussion takes us to sexuality, which lies at the very root of our being. I can still remember a time when our society absolutely forbade its discussion in public fora – it was considered too sacred and too personal. Many conservatives in our society still feel this way more than thirty years after the “sexual revolution.” Remembering this past, and wishing to respect the attitudes of many people in the present, reinforces my conviction that any public discussion of sexuality should be dealt with only after mature reflection. Consequently, while “fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” I have taken care to move slowly – this post has been more than three months in the making.

What about the authority of Scripture?

Evangelicals argue that the root issue is that of the authority of Scripture, specifically the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:8), the injunction in Leviticus 20:13, and Paul’s attack in Romans 1:22-27. Since the Evangelical position is that the Bible leaves little or no room for interpretation, they have painted themselves into a corner that places them in direct conflict with the most basic teachings of Jesus Himself, who commanded us to love one another, help the least and the lost, etc. The Gospels also make it clear that that we do not have the right to judge others, lest we be judges (Matthew 4:4).

However the Liberals come close to showing contempt for the Scripture, particularly on the issue of accepting practicing homosexuals to the ministry. In their zeal to include homosexuals within the Christian fold, they have interpreted Scripture so freely that they risk showing contempt for it.

Issues we need to sort out

So, how do we find a Middle Way that honors all the teachings of our Bible, while respecting the dignity and addressing the needs of homosexuals? I suggest that we need to work through several issues:

1. We need to define sin. Christians use the term very freely, perhaps carelessly.


2. We need to make sense of the confusing science. Is homosexuality a genetic trait, in which case it cannot be fairly considered a sin, since the individual presumably could not correct it with any amount of effort; or is it a behavior, in which case it may properly be considered a sin, or at least an addiction that can be cured, albeit with great difficulty? One website that I have found helpful in trying to sort this out is New Direction, a Canadian website that specializes in issues of homosexuality. In their view, science supports the view that homosexuality is a behavior. Their site also exposes scientific flaws in several studies that have suggested the contrary.


3. Confusion between homosexuality (the tendency) with sodomy (the act). A homosexual who never goes to bed with another commits no sin, just as an alcoholic who never takes a drink does nothing wrong. All of the Biblical references used in condemnation of homosexuality in fact condemn sodomy.


4. Accepting that sodomy is no greater and no less of a sin than any other. It is subject to God’s judgment, but the one who repents of sodomy is entitled to the same forgiveness that we all receive when we repent of our sins and seek to change our ways. I believe that transsexuals (those who have surgically altered their bodies to become the opposite sex) have created a spiritually difficult condition for themselves, since the operation obviously cannot be reversed; however, under Jesus’ teachings, all people, regardless of sins committed, are children of God, and have the right to be treated fairly and with dignity.


5. However, we must also accept that one who persists in committing sodomy, or any other sin for which one has not repented, makes him unfit for the Christian ministry. Since the purpose of ministry is to lead people away from their sins, why should the church accept those who do not at least struggle with their own sins. What kind of a message does this give about our respect for our own ministry and teachings?


6. Accepting that our Declaration of Independence did not exclude anyone from the sentiment that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, “all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.”


7. Making a distinction between the sacred and secular purposes of marriage. While both address the creation of a stable home for the purpose of raising children, the purpose of sacred matrimony is to sanctify the union of a man and a woman, to make their intercourse lawful and holy, and to provide for the care of children. The secular purpose of marriage is to grant certain privileges under the law – joint ownership of property, access to family as opposed to single rates for health benefits, joint rates for tax returns, etc. To grant a homosexual couple the status of marriage makes a mockery of the union between a woman and her husband. It contradicts the well-established need for all children to have both a masculine and a feminine presence in the home, for that child to have the best opportunity to grow up with a wholesome self-identity. However, a State may choose to grant something like a “civil union” to a homosexual couple for the secular purposes, if the State’s community standards allow it, and the legislature of that State believes it to be sound public policy. I personally dislike the idea, but disliking the idea does not make it immoral, nor does it make carrying it out bad public policy.

An excellent book, reviewed a few years ago by Good News magazine, tells the story of a homosexual man who found his way out with God’s (and his family’s) help into a new life that has made him much happier. He now is married and has children. The book is Mario Bergner, Setting Love in Order. The New Direction site lists several other books that may be consulted.

In summary then, I see the duty of the Christian to speak out against gay-bashing as a heinous sin against our own faith; to welcome homosexuals into our churches as we would welcome anyone who stands in need of the grace that God alone provides; but to uphold the Church’s standards for ministry and marriage to preserve the dignity of both. In the eyes of the State, a homosexual is just another person, deserving of the same protections and subject to the same responsibilities, as anyone else.

I have studied this topic in the Scriptures, in publications, and on the ’Net, struggled with the issues by considering the lives of five homosexual acquaintances (one a transsexual), and prayed over what I would write here. This is where I stand. I can do no other.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided this copyright notice is shown and the use is not for profit.