Opinion: Perspectives from readers

How issues are framed often determines the outcome of the debate; and sometimes those engaged in argument discover that they are really concerned about overlapping but different aspects of the issue. We have learned in the last decade of debate that the current framing of the issues has not really advanced the dialogue. So perhaps we need to stop and examine our perspective on the question before us.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. Maybe we are focusing on issues rather than people. Have the “them” we are talking about become “issues” rather than real living, breathing, loving people? Should not our concern be on the quality of relationship rather than the gender of those relating to each other? Should not our concern be about the character of the people rather than their choice of sexual mates? And to be honest, how many of us, hetero- or homosexual, are ready to have our privacy intruded upon when our intimate sexual “practices” are involved?

Maybe the sexual issue we should be most concerned about is not orientation but sexual fidelity, respect, responsibility, genuiness of love and mutual development of each other’s character. Maybe the primary concern should not be about the exact possible meaning of a biblical text written thousands of years ago but its authentic application to our modern situation.

In the broader interdenominational debate about sexuality, the sticking point is clearly the definition of homosexual attraction itself as a “moral flaw.” The National Association of Evangelicals statement puts it plainly—”it [homosexual orientation] is not an inherited condition in the same category as race, gender or national origin, all of which are free from moral implications” (italics added).

When we insist that same-sex attraction in itself has “moral implications”—a claim it does not make for opposite-sex attraction—we are actually classifying it as a moral/sinful flaw, however we attempt to qualify it. Thus any same-sex love that might include sexual attraction and expression is by definition illicit, and covenant partnering is taboo. Do we want to go that far?

Denominations such as Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans and Episcopalians recognize the fine but crucial distinction between the honest expression of an inherited gender identity and its abusive expression.

The moral question then becomes not the gender identity of covenanted partners or the physical expression of their sexual attraction (caressing, touching, kissing, massaging, intercourse) but the character or moral quality of the relationship.

Just as the loving, responsible expression of a man and woman’s sexual attraction is “natural” to the heterosexual majority, so the same loving, morally responsible expression of same-sex erotic attractions is “natural” to the homosexual minority.

Thus, these denominations state, while marriage between males and females is normative, they recognize the right of local congregations, which have more intimate knowledge of the relationship, to “recognize and bless same-sex unions.”

While there is general agreement that the biblical texts disapprove of same-sex behaviors, there seems little likelihood of arriving at unanimous agreement on the nature of that disapproval or its significance for our context.

There are too many ambiguities and unknowns in the ancient biblical texts and too much disagreement in the religious community about their modern application to expect unanimity to emerge in the near future. But does not such sincere difference suggest a need for a different approach to the issues?

If we frame the question as how the institutional church should handle conflictual situations where there is genuine and passionate disagreement on the meaning and implications of Scripture texts, then the issue is not homosexuality as such, and we can search for cultural and hermeneutical precedents for resolution.

This is not the first moral/sinful issue the church has dealt with in the last two centuries. It was illegal and immoral for whites to marry blacks. It was unbiblical and immoral for legally married couples to divorce. It was unbiblical and highly improper for women to usurp the role of men. It was considered immoral for both men and women to sexually advertize their bodies.

Thus far we have given little attention to an analysis of our modern situational context. We have been hesitant to give the social and psychological sciences or the actual experience of sexual minorities a place in the discussion. Thus far it has been a conversation among “us” about “what the Bible says about them.” Let’s at least reframe the discussion to give “them” a respected place at the table.

C. Norman Kraus is a member of Park View Mennonite Church in Harrisonburg, Va.