sexual ethic

In regards to homosexuality, various Christians disagree. At one poll we have those who believe that homosexuality is a sinful deviant choice made by some in our society. At the other poll are those who don't see any part of homosexuality as sinful or wrong. Moving toward the middle, some Christians believe that it is a sin to commit homosexual acts but not a sin to have homosexual attractions. And others who believe that homosexuality is not sinful so long as it is within a life-long monogamous relationship.

Largely the ethical divide centers around heterosexuality being acceptable according to scripture and homosexuality being unacceptable. The tension is found when thoughtful Christians wrestle between scripture and the testimonies of otherwise faithful Christians who practice a homosexual lifestyle. To add to the confusion are the testimonies of faithful Christians who feel as though they have been "freed" from the homosexual lifestyle and now live relatively normal heterosexual lives. A final ingredient is the ongoing discussion between psychology and genetics as to whether people are "born gay", have a "predisposition to homosexuality", are a product of a damaging familial environment, or a mixture of two or more of these factors. It's the old "nature vs. nurture" conundrum.

Politically, its an entirely different question altogether. Whether to allow same-sex marriages is influenced by your view of homosexuality, but it is not asking the same question. The political question is whether we are willing as a society to change the definition of marriage as we know it. And if we do change it, to what should we change it? If we allow "other" forms of marriage such as same-sex marriage, why not allow polygamy? Where do we draw the line and on what moral basis to we draw it. So while your view of the morality of homosexuality will influence your political view here, it is not necessarily true that if one is ok with homosexuality "morally" that they will be ok with changing the definition of marriage for our society. That's where the civil union option comes in.

There is a lot to take in when the discussion becomes so multi-dimentional. But I wonder what would happen if we shifted the primary ethical divide in the conversation. One of the problems with the main division of sexual ethics being "homosexual vs. heterosexual" is that it leaves out a driving theme in scripture. The danger here is that Christians who are heterosexual would feel free from the prophetic voice of scripture simply because they are not homosexual. And homosexuals would feel free from the prophetic voice of scripture simply because they are written off from the beginning of the conversation. The result would be the same in both cases: sexual immorality in the form of promiscuity.

What if, instead, the line in the sand was monogomy vs. polygamy/promiscuity? This seems to be an even harder command for our society to follow. Much harder than "don't be gay." A sexual ethic that demands monogamy demands the same of heterosexuals and homosexuals. It doesn't allow for scapegoats and it doesn't let anyone off the hook. Surely, elevating the conversation in a way that showed that Christians stand for monogomy rather than just heterosexuality, would be difficult. It may indeed have a more negative reaction in our culture than calling homosexually a sin.

Calling for monogomy in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities seems more radical and more prophetic than calling for the end of homosexuality. It forces each and every one of us to look into the mirror and see whether we have held up this sexual ethic. It seems to be what Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount. He said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27-28)

By saying this Jesus drew the line in the sand in a different place than the Pharisees. They wanted to condemn the adulterer and praise the person who hadn't slept with another man's wife. Instead, Jesus wanted to reveal the adulterer that lurks beneath the surface in all of us. He isn't giving his blessing to adultery. Instead, he is simultaneously calling us to a higher standard of living and making us all aware of our need for God's mercy and grace.

I wonder what Jesus would say to us today. Maybe it would be something like this: "You have heard that it was said, 'the homosexual offender will not inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Cor. 6:9). But I tell you that anyone who has slept with his girlfriend, had a one-night stand, looked at porn, cheated on his wife, or lusted after a co-worker will not enter the Kingdom of God."

I don't want to take this issue lightly. I am a Christian who views "homosexual acts" as sinful while "homosexual attraction" as a by-product of nature and nurture. But I also don't want to draw the line in the sand at the wrong place. I am thinking more and more that I need to be a champion of God's love and grace. And maybe this looks like taking a stand for monogamy in all its forms rather than a stand against homosexuality.