United Free Church of Scotland
|Home|
General Assembly|
Congregations online|
Church Directory|
History|
Press Releases|
Special Features|
Statement of Faith|
Stedfast Magazine|
Email|
Report of the Panel of Doctrine
on Homosexuality
approved by the
General Assembly 1995 "The General Assembly remit to the Panel on
Doctrine consideration of the growing concerns on the matter of homosexuality,
and instruct the said Panel to bring forward a report to the General Assembly
of 1995, in order that there may be a clear statement of the Church's position
from the Biblical and Christian standpoint."
1. INTRODUCTION
Homosexuality is only one of an increasing
number of ethical issues that have become the subject of widespread public
debate in recent years. It is one of many aspects of human sexuality in
which long-standing and sincerely held traditional values and attitudes
have been subjected to sustained and searching scrutiny, and a succession
of reports from a wide and representative spectrum of Christian traditions
has served to highlight not only the extent of the Churches' concern but
the diversity of their response to what remains a highly emotive, complex
and contentious issue. Given the nature of its remit, the Panel has been
obliged to focus attention on, and, consequently, give particular prominence
to the issue of homosexuality, but the decision to do so should not be
interpreted as an indication that the problems it reflects are different
in kind or importance from any other areas of human experience in which
men and women, created in the image of God, are required to make responsible
use of their God-given gifts. For many homosexuality will be an issue of
abstract theological interest and debate but it is the Panel's view that
debate cannot be conducted without constant reference to the profound practical
and pastoral implications of its conclusions. In addressing its task the
Panel was continually reminded of its responsibility to provide as clear
a guidance as the evidence permits; to interpret and apply that evidence
in the light of the belief that all have sinned and come short of the glory
of God; and to explore its remit within the context of the Church's primary
commitment to 'proclaim the gospel of the love and grace of God, wherein
through Jesus Christ
he freely offers to all men forgiveness and eternal
life, and calls them into the fellowship and service of his kingdom'.
2. HOMOSEXUALITY
Although the term is widely used there can
be no informed discussion without some agreed understanding of what it
means. Therefore the Panel was obliged to investigate a range of current
publications in an effort to establish how the term is used and the implication
of its usage for our study. >From that initial survey it became apparent
that there is a necessary distinction to be drawn between (a) the condition
of the person who is identified as homosexual or homophile, and (b) the
practices associated with that condition which may or may not necessarily
follow. Both aspects raise important questions and require further elucidation.
In respect of (a) the current debate centres
on whether or not the sexual orientation of the homosexual male or female
(variously described as homophile, gay or lesbian) is a 'given' an innate
disposition directly related to genetic factors or some deeply rooted tendency
implanted in the individual as a result of early childhood experiences
or a matter of genuine choice. On the basis of the former view, homosexuality
is regarded as a condition which may be controlled or directed but cannot
be reversed. More positively, some would argue that it is to be accepted
as part of the variety of God's creation, and, as such, to be recognised
as a valid form of expression for a minority of people who are, by nature,
incapable of entering into an intimate heterosexual relationship. However,
the reliability of such arguments and the moral attitudes associated with
them are largely dependent upon medical evidence which, for the present,
remains, at best, inconclusive. There is therefore no general agreement
about why a minority of people are homosexually orientated but there is
evidence to suggest that not all who engage in homosexual behaviour do
so from choice. Similarly it would be inappropriate to assume that the
homosexual orientation is necessarily a permanent or irreversible condition.
It is a tendency that not uncommonly manifests itself in adolescence, and,
sensitively addressed, will prove to be no more than a passing phase in
a person's growth towards adulthood and a mature heterosexual orientation.
(b) While the nature and cause of a person's
homosexual orientation clearly have far-reaching implications for his behaviour,
it is the practices associated with the orientation that have tended to
dominate the public debate. Even within Christian circles where it has
been traditional to identify homosexuality as contrary to nature and to
the will of God there has been a reluctance to condemn and even a willingness
to commend those with homosexual or homophilic orientation who, as a result,
choose to remain celibate and to eschew any form of active homosexual behaviour
or relationship. Therefore it should not be assumed that all homosexuals
actively engage in homosexual practices nor that those who do are necessarily
any more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts. To suggest that
all homosexuals are drug addicts or child-molesters is manifestly as untrue
and misleading as to claim that all heterosexuals are faithful and monogamous.
Many within the gay community would insist that the casual, irresponsible,
exploitative approach to sexual relationships with all its attendant dangers
is no more acceptable within a homosexual than a heterosexual context but
that where the relationship is stable it need be no less caring or committed
than a similar relationship between heterosexual partners. Given the seriousness
and sincerity with which they are advanced, such arguments cannot be lightly
dismissed but for a Church which acknowledges the Word of God contained
in the Old and New Testaments as the supreme rule of faith and life it
is necessary to examine them in the light of such guidance as the Bible
has to offer.
3. HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE
BIBLE
The Panel devoted considerable time to identifying
and examining the relevant Bible texts. There are, in fact, relatively
few passages that are devoted specifically to the issue of homosexual behaviour
a factor which may help to keep the matter in perspective and, not
surprisingly, none of which addresses the issue of homosexual orientation
as such. The following passages, however, were considered worthy of more
detailed consideration:
a) Genesis 19: 1-11, cf. Judges 19: 16-30 and
Jude v.7
The story of Sodom (paralleled by a similar
story relating to Gibeah and quoted in Jude), from which the term 'sodomy'
is derived, describes an enigmatic incident of gang-rape, and, as such,
reflects an indefensible but atypical form of homosexual behaviour.
b) Leviticus 18: 22, 20:13
Both verses contain an unequivocal condemnation
of same-sex intercourse but their more general application has been questioned
by some in view of its original context in the Holiness Code (Leviticus
17-26) and its possible links with outmoded practices associated with cultic
male prostitution as reflected in such passages as 1 Kings 14:26, 15:12,
22:46.
c) 1 Samuel 18: 1, 20:30
These verses have been adduced as evidence
in support of the claim that the much vaunted friendship between David
and Jonathon was a homosexual relationship. There is, however, no hint
of erotic behaviour in the Biblical text and the 'shame' described in 20:30
related to Jonathon's disloyalty to his father and family when siding with
David against Saul. Indeed it was the Panel's view that the current preoccupation
with homosexuality could devalue and cast unnecessary suspicion upon those
wholesome relationships that are possible between same-sex friends.
d) Romans 1: 26,27
The passage is interesting for a variety of
reasons. It appears unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexual behaviour.
It is the only passage in which reference is made to both male and female
homosexuality. It identifies homosexuality as one of the many consequences
of God's judgement upon human idolatry and disaffection, and places it
alongside such sins of the spirit as greed, envy, deceit, pride and gossip.
It also establishes the overall context for the breakdown as the disruption
of God's creative purposes. Despite suggestions that Paul's condemnation
is directed more specifically to heterosexuals who had abandoned what,
for them, were natural relations with women in favour of what, for them,
were unnatural relationships with men, and that the particular relationships
he had in mind had to do with pederasty (a practice which had no female
equivalent), it is hard to resist the conclusion that Paul's words were
intended to have a more general application.
e) 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, 1 Timothy 1: 9-10
Although the two words Paul uses in the first
of these passages are combined and rendered as 'homosexuals' in some translations
(notably RSV), the link between them is his use of the unusual Greek word
arsenokoitai. The word literally means 'those (males) who lie with
males' and contains clear echoes of the Septuagint version of Leviticus
18: 22. If, as some commentators have suggested the reference is a form
of male prostitution or pederasty it is all the more surprising that he
did not uses one of the established words with that more restricted meaning.
The fact that Paul uses two words malakoi and arsenokoitai
in Corinthians could well be interpreted as an indication of his desire
to include both active and passive homosexual behaviour in his comments.
The Panel is aware that two arguments are regularly
advanced against the use of Biblical passages as evidence against current
homosexual behaviour. In the first place, it is claimed that, in every
case, it is possible to demonstrate that the situations addressed were
quite specific and that it is inappropriate to apply these strictures in
a general way to the whole range of homosexual practices and relationships
in contemporary society. Secondly, it is frequently argued that it is misguided
to imagine that the Bible can be expected to provide absolute and timelessly
true directives from God on such practical issues as marriage and human
sexuality when the Bible itself reflects the influence of changing social
and cultural conditions. These are large issues that cannot usefully be
explored in the abstract but the Panel has sought to demonstrate how they
impinge on the passages under review and to indicate the limitations both
of the evidence and of the criticisms that have been advanced. But allowing
for the uncertainties surrounding the interpretation of some of the passages
and accepting that some will be more applicable than others to the issues
as they present themselves today, there seems little doubt that they are
unanimous in their condemnation of homosexual practices.
It, was, however, the Panel's view that these
passages and the negative attitudes they represent need to be seen and
interpreted in the light of more positive teaching about human sexuality
in Genesis 1: 26-29 and Genesis 2: 18,24 where the relationship of men
and women is clearly set within the context of the purposes of God in creation.
Genesis 1 establishes the sexual duality of humankind male and female
and identifies their share in the image of God as the ultimate source
of their bonding. But it is in Genesis 2 that the complementary nature
of that male-female relationship is more fully developed. Neither male
nor female is represented as being sufficient in himself or herself. Each
is depicted as necessary to the other. It is for that reason that a man
will cleave to his wife, thereby achieving that unity and fulfilment for
which they were designed. It was to these same verses that Jesus was to
appeal in later years when challenged to justify his attitude to divorce
an unsolicited testimonial to his belief that the difference of male
and female and their sexual matching are securely rooted in the creative
purpose and intention of God (Mark 10: 6-9; Matthew 19: 4-6).
4. CONCLUSION
As the Panel sought to fulfil its remit it
became increasingly aware of the complexity of the issues involved and
of the need to address them in a spirit of humility, understanding and
compassion. In that spirit it has tried to take account of the widely differing
views that are current both inside and outside the Christian community
and to treat them with the seriousness they deserve. The Panel acknowledges
that there are many areas of uncertainty and that medical and scientific
opinion remains divided on the nature and origin of the homosexual/homophile
orientation. However, the Panel cannot accept the view that all Biblical
judgements against homosexual practices are so socially and culturally
conditioned as to be irrelevant to today's debate nor agree that the condition
is to be accepted as a normal part of the natural God-given diversity of
creation. As a consequence, it cannot support the view that the homosexual/homophile
orientation and its expression in sexual activity are to be regarded as
a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality which, within the terms
of the created order, is as valid and complete as the heterosexual. However,
in rejecting the view that it is 'compatible with the Christian faith not
only to love another person of the same sex but also to express that love
fully in a personal sexual relationship', the Panel wishes to reaffirm
its belief that homosexual people are as valuable to and valued by God
as those who are heterosexual in their orientation and practice, and that
the church, as a Christian community, has a major pastoral responsibility
to all who find themselves in that situation. How that responsibility is
exercised and expressed will depend on individual needs and circumstances
but a readiness to accept people as they are is the first and most important
prerequisite for change. It is in such conditions of patient understanding
and openness that men and women are most open and responsive to the transforming
power of God's grace which alone can bring our lives into conformity with
His will as that is revealed in the Scriptures.
IN THE NAME OF THE PANEL
A. Douglas Scrimgeour Convener
John O Fulton Secretary
DELIVERANCE OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1995
1. The General Assembly accept the Report as
a clear statement of the Church's position from the Biblical and Christian
standpoint.
2. The General Assembly commend the Report
to the Church for its further study.
©
United Free Church of Scotland 2000 |