Unsatisfactory Situations

(I wrote this essay for a final examination last quarter. I'm afraid I find myself between a rock and a hard place on this issue. I'm too liberal for ol' Jimmy Dobson and I'm a shade to conservative for, say, Archbishop Rowan Williams [does anyone else struggle not to call him Rowan Atkins?] I hope that it will generate conversation, though, and that my position will be challenged, buttressed, dismantled or tweaked as you, noble readers, deem appropriate. It may be of interest to note that all three arguments I attempt to refute are the professor's position on the issue and the apologies I call for stem from said professor's faux pax in class.)

I should begin this essay with a statement of affirmation for the CRC’s position on the issue of homosexuality. I do believe that we are called to love people and hate sin. Trouble is, I don’t think that we, as a denomination, are living up to our own precept. Annie Proulx writes in a short story about two gay cowboys who live double lives as socially conventional husbands and fathers all the while carrying on a secret homosexual relationship of great intimacy and depth. Near the end of his life, the one man turns to the other and says, “What we have here is one god-damned bitch of an unsatisfactory situation.” I think this is exactly where the CRC denomination finds itself today.

For example, we invite “non-practicing homosexuals” as full members of our ecclesiastical communities. What does it mean to be a “non-practicing homosexual”? Is it possible for someone to not practice his or her sexuality? I haven’t been on a date since June; does this make me a non-practicing heterosexual? Obviously, we don’t talk in these terms about heterosexuality, how can we insist on such categories in relations to homosexuality?

It is precisely this request that people of same-sex attraction somehow turn off their sexuality that leads to depression, loneliness and confusion. One in three teen suicides or suicide attempts is committed by a teen struggling with their sexuality. And many homosexual persons who struggle with the onset of depression are also those who are simultaneously attempting to live chastely within the perimeters the church has laid out for them.

I will briefly refute three faulty reasons, given, I believe, in good faith, for maintaining the CRC’s position on homosexuality and then provide my own alternative rationale.

1) Some argue that sexual desire and anatomy is given for the procreation of children ergo out of line for homosexual persons. It logically follows, then, that fulfilling sexual desire is also out of bounds for all people using birth control (can I get an amen from the Roman Catholic contingent?) and women post-menopause. This argument fails to embrace that sexuality is more than sexual desire and anatomy. Sexuality permeates every relationship from the first time you took a shinin’ to that special someone on the playground to every friendship between persons of opposite and, even, same sex. Celibate homosexual Roman Catholic priest and academic, Henri Nouwen argues that our sexuality, especially when it entails unfulfilled sexual desires, gives us energy toward God’s Kingdom tasks. Our sexuality is about more than desires, which find consummation in procreation.

2) Some argue that homosexuality is hopelessly narcissistic because it does not embrace “the other.” This requires a narrow definition of “the other” as someone XY vs. XX chromosomes. Suppose that it is an interracial homosexual relationship – is that “other” enough?

Cornelius Plantinga, in his book, Not the Way Its Supposed to Be: A Breviary on Sin, makes a crucial distinction between lust and love. Lust is self-gratification whereas love is self-giving. Although it would be convenient, let’s not delude ourselves. Heterosexual relationships are fallen too and therefore easily deteriorate into self-gratification and narcissism. Likewise, two persons of the same sex are capable of self-giving love. To assert otherwise only demonstrates a failure to really know and seek to understand persons with same sex attraction.

3) The argument from natural law and inherent consequence of disease for homosexual persons is fallacious, to say the least. This argument only concerns anal sex. A recent survey by Glamour magazine tells us that 35% of women ages 25-44 have engaged in anal sex. This practice is, therefore, not unique to homosexuality. Secondly, the people least likely to get an STD are lesbians living in monogamous relationships. This seems, then, by the same criteria, to support homosexuality, not refute it. Third, looking globally, the people most likely to get AIDS today are not homosexual men but married, faithful women and children. Drawing a correlation between disease and homosexuality is simplistic and, in a word, wrong.

Okay, now that we are clear on how I am not going to argue in support of the CRC’s position on homosexuality, what’s left? What am I saying? What arguments still hold water in my opinion?

The primary argument I am making is from creation order. In Genesis 1:27-28, we hear that God has made male and female in God’s image. There is something about the masculine and the feminine together in relationship that, ultimately, images the Divine. This is worth fighting for. (Side note: this church could do a much better job defending this if they, once again, lived up to Synodical precedent, and defended the feminine inherent in the Divine.) Secondly, Ephesians 5 re-emphasizes the primacy of man and woman in relationship as the image of Christ and the Church. But this image is far from a new creation at the hand of Paul. Hosea invokes it, as does Solomon in his popularly libidinous song. This, too, is worth fighting for.

Beyond creation order, or rather, in fleshing out creation order, we have Scriptural prohibition (Romans 1, I Cor. 6, etc.) Exegetes have, in true exegetical fashion, worked some slight of hand to diminish these passages and their relevance for us today. Lauren Winner writes about this phenomenon in her book, Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity. She contends that it is only in the context of creation order and broader, Scriptural metanarratives of covenant and kingdom that these imperatives make sense.

I do believe, therefore, that homosexuality is a result of the Fall because it was not present in creation order. Problem is that homosexuality is not the only distortion of sexuality. This is a truth for which the church has some apologizing to do. All to infrequently, have we failed to place ourselves under the same scrutiny and condemnation that we use on our homosexual brothers and sisters. When/if we preach against homosexuality, it ought to be in first person plural rather than second or third person.

That is the first apology we owe. The second is this: we have fallen victim of James Dobson’s Fetish on the Family and afforded very little respect to celibacy as a holy and viable lifestyle choice. Laura Smit writes eloquently on this point in her book, Loves Me, Loves Me Not: the Ethics of Unrequited Love. It is ironic how quickly the church jumps on Paul’s bandwagon in Romans 1 or on issues against women in office yet fails to live as though Paul actually meant what he said in Romans 7. Speaking as a celibate, single heterosexual I see the advantages and disadvantages of my current state. On the Saturday nights when the disadvantages seem weightier than any supposed advantages, I can always console myself, “well, this isn’t forever.” My single, celibate homosexual friends have no such recourse to comfort.

The third and final apology the church owes to her homosexual members is our failure to keep our word. We have promised to love people and then use rhetoric of “insanity” and “suicidal.” We call homosexuality “an agenda of death.” Henri Nouwen would disagree and yet he would not be welcomed into our churches despite the fact that he abided by Synodical precedent. This inhospitality is our sin, not theirs. So I adhere to Synod’s decision but that doesn’t absolve me from feeling its inherent tensions. This is, ultimately, a “god-damned bitch of an unsatisfactory situation.” We are asking a costly discipleship from our homosexual brothers and sisters, one that I am uncertain we would be willing and/or able to match. To sit high on the vantage point of invisible heterosexual privilege is not Incarnational or Christlike. By all means, let’s abide by Synod’s decision but let’s never pretend that it is an easy, comfortable answer. We don’t have it all figured out yet.