How Then Shall We Behave Toward Homosexual Sinners (A United Methodist Perspective)

After the great sighs of both relief and disappointment following General Conference, it may be best to take a time out on the issue of homosexuality. However, it may also be an opportunity to reflect on how we approach this issue and how we might overcome divisions that seem to grow deeper every quadrenium. Are there any common means of loving gay and lesbian people? Is it possible to fashion new approaches to ministry with homosexual persons that transformationalists and reconciliationists can recognize as valid and progressing us towards resolution of this burdensome dispute? Is their a way to move forward without compromising one's convictions or denying another's ability to minister creatively in the same church family?
For the sake of discussion let us assume that the traditional teaching of the church on the issue of homosexuality is correct: all forms of homosexual behavior, whether loving and faithful or not, are sinful. Shall we allow them to enter our worship services and join as baptised and professing members? Of course, we should. Should we belabor a point of which they are already aware, namely, the church's condemnation of homosexual behavior? Certainly not. Should we assume that they can be changed in their orientation. No. Are all gay people permissive and exploitive in their sexuality? No, not anymore than heterosexual people are. Are many gay couples deeply loving and faithful towards one another? Yes, these couples do indeed exist more than the church cares to admit. Should we affirm celibacy as a joyous sexual discipline for both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike? Absolutely yes. Should we defend their human and civil rights in the secular world? Most definitely yes. Should we give them grace even when they refuse to repent? As we should do with all sinners, yes! These are but a few of the stances toward gay people in the church that are, or ought to be, agreed upon by both those who affirm an accepting position and those who hold to the traditional teaching of the church. But can we go further and build more common ground on this issue? Surely this is a very important issue in the church which touches upon other vital concerns the church has for all Christian disciples. Justification or the unconditional acceptance of the sinner just as she is, as a child of God, saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, sanctification or the growth in holy purity and wholeness in Christ, and the unity of the body of Christ under the shadow and shade of the cross....all of these critical issues come into play when we speak to this controversial subject. And yet as important as these issues are , where one stands on the issue of homosexuality is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. Orthodox Trinitarian Christians can and do believe differently on this as well as many other very important but secondary issues.
Recognizing this is critically important if we are to discover common ground and perhaps move toward a consensus. Recent talk of an amicable separation is premature. Perhaps one day we will arrive at the conclusion that regretfully, if we are to be effective in our ministries, we must part ways with the hope that God's reconciling and transforming grace will bring us back together. The thought of such a separation ought to trouble the Christian heart enough to lead us to do what work is necessary not just to tolerate one another or to win a position of power to enforce one's convictions on a minority but rather to find a real consensus that empowers us to love the homosexual sinner as fully as we love any other sinner.
If we are to require life long celibacy for gay people they need and deserve solidarity. We ought to encourage celibacy for heterosexual Christians and to bless partnerships in this discipline. We can recognize a union of celibate Christian friends without promoting temptation. Such unions could be those of both same sex and opposite sex persons. Every gay brother or lesbian sister in the Lord should have the opportunity to be supported in the discipline of celibacy by a heterosexual brother or sister instead of being told they must bear a burden for a lifetime which heterosexuals are asked to bear only until they are married. The point of such a union would be to transform the burden into a joy because it is shared.
Of course not all gay people will accept such an obligation and would insist on continuing to live in the loving unions which they have already established. Do we respond to this by refusing communion as well as marriage. Within our tradition we believe that holy communion is a converting ordinance to be received by all who love Christ. We, of course, follow this in the litany with "who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another." How do we love those who do not recognize their behavior as sin? I know of many United Methodists who receive communion and who play the lottery and participate in other forms of gambling even though our denomination considers it a sin and "a menace to society." And yet we would never consider refusing communion to such unrepentant gamblers. Why? Not because we are lax in condemning sin but because we believe that in the breaking of the bread one comes to recognize the Living Word, Jesus Christ, whom we tend to miss if we only receive the written Word. In receiving Christ we are converted and sanctified and gradually we come to recognize our imperfections as we encounter His perfect love. We allow sinners, repentant and otherwise, to receive the sacrament even though we are all unworthy to eat at the Lord's table because the Lord called sinners to repent and yet he joyfully ate with them and now calls all of us who are ignorant or obstinate in our sin to feast on His body and blood. It is, more often than not, only after we have received this reminder of Christ's sacrificial love that we are able to recognize our sin. Surely the grace we extend at the table of holy communion ought to lead us to gracious attitudes towards openly gay couples who enter our sanctuaries showing the same respectful affection that heterosexuals often show one another in the worship sanctuary. As we do so, we perhaps come to our own repentance and recognition of the depravity of our culture which, unlike the Biblical world and that of many Asian cultures, condemns the open expression non-erotic same sex affection, male to male as well as female to female.
As we are more accepting of our gay brothers and sisters and more cognizant in doing so of the beams within our own eyes, bonds of good will and trust begin to be formed. Such bonds make breaking the bondage of sin a less complicated process. What we do in Christian worship permeates how we love one another in the world. The issue of state sanctioned gay marriage has become a heated issue within the context of this larger ethical problem. Perhaps civil unions would be a fair legal compromise which grants gay couples all the rights and opportunities afforded to married heterosexual couples. Then again, as many legal experts are arguing, such an arrangement still treats gay people as second class citizens. If a civil union can serve as a legal alternative which , except in nomenclature, is in all measures of rights and benefits equal to legal marriage, then why not just put the state out of the business of recognizing marriages altogether and instead let it recognize various forms of sexual and non-sexual civil unions as the legal means of protecting rights and benefits of persons who give their lives to one another. If on the other hand we refuse to recognize any form of legal same sex union in the secular world, are we not infringing upon civil rights or forcing a religious opinion on people who believe differently. If that seems far fetched, consider the fact that most Christians discourage and often forbid inter-faith marriage as a violation of Biblical injunctions if entered into after being received into the Body of Christ and yet these same Christians would never consider criminalizing or making such marriages illegal.
As we respect the civil rights of gay people even though we may disagree with them on theological and moral grounds, gay people may come to see that traditionalists are not all homophobic and bent on discrimination and exclusion. Seeing this respect in the secular world could help gay people feel more comfortable about accepting invitations to worship and other services of the Church. While they come into the church and are baptized or received full membership in the Church, they will need support in various ways that call upon us to bless them liturgically and otherwise. Gay couples who are baptized need, as much as heterosexual couples, to have their baptism celebrated in and by the Church. We should not require their baptism be performed on different Sundays. We should greet them with the holy kiss or hug or handshake of fellowship as we extend both the Lord's table and the fellowship dinner table to bless them as equal and indispensable members of the Body of Christ . Gay people need not be excluded from lay leadership positions and celibate but self-avowed homosexuals called to ministry should be ordained when they are qualified. If gay couples have children, we bless their parental bonds as we would married or divorced parents. If they need counseling in their relationships we offer it to them even if we do not approve of their union. If they long for love from their families, we model that love for their families. If they never repent of their sin we give to them the same longsuffering, never failing love which Christ gives to us.
Obviously, we recognize as Christians that we fall short in how we treat sinners of all sorts. I notice how readily we go the second mile for many different sinners but when it comes to gay people we rarely complete the first mile with them. Going the extra mile softens the sinner's heart, brings him to acknowledge his need for Christ. Of course, there is also the danger that going the second mile will bring the benefactor to repentance as well. Some may object that my proposals here lead us down a slippery slope that eventually blesses immorality. We might come to view our insistence on absolute prohibitions against homosexual behavior as regrettable as forbidding slaves from seeking their liberation because the New Testament tells them to obey their masters, even those who are harsh. On the other hand, gay people who see that the church truly cares for their well being and is not bent on discrimination and exclusion but rather determined to be in solidarity with and hospitality towards them may become convinced that celibacy is a joyful obedience which honors God's design for human sexuality. Either way, these suggestions are given as a means by which unity can be preserved while new opportunities to minister to and with gay people are expanded. A creative solidarity which both transformationalists and reconciliationists can endorse might be the beginning of deeper dialogue and more thoughtful communication if not renewal of communion between two deeply divided factions. One could hope for more but certainly not any less.