The past year or so has seen some well known evangelical leaders tell us that Scripture does not say all homosexual sex is wrong. For some this is a belief always held, for others it represents a change of direction. The media immediately seems to take this up and suggest it questions the validity of much, so called, evangelical theology. Courage Trust's recent and well-publicised change of direction towards a cautious approval of some homosexual genital activity seems to be one such instance. It has provoked a strong reaction from many TfT members who anxiously ask for reassurance that we are not going down the same road. For example, the Big Issue magazine in May 2001 quoted the Revd Richard Kirker (the general secretary of LGCM) as saying about Courage...
"This is a very well-established pattern and TfT will be next to go the same way."
We can assure our members that this is not a road we will be taking! We share in the hurt and confusion of seeing people we have admired making statements and moral choices with which we strongly disagree. It has happened frequently in my personal relationships and through those involved in TfT's ministry. Indeed, trying to understand why and how this happens has inspired many of our articles. It also encourages us to be more careful in what we express and of course to examine what we believe and why. It sounds trite to say it's all a refining and growing process, but that must be true. I want to share below something of what I've learnt through these many situations, and to identify some of the factors I believe are often involved when people change their beliefs. Obviously each case is different, involving unique individuals and experiences, and some factors will be more relevant than others to different people. But there are lessons to be learnt for us all.
Many people with homosexual issues have a low self-image and perfectionistic tendencies. Christianity - especially through 'healing programmes' - can seem to offer the chance to be perfect. We may say it isn't as simple as that, but our emotions think differently. If, however, we don't experience what we are seeking (ie the healing of homosexual issues), we think we have failed. We may acknowledge the theological truth of Christ's redemption, but our emotions (driven by low self-worth) make us feel we have failed. Failure is painful for us – it hurts. So, in an attempt to stop the hurting our Christianity appears to cause us, we then say, "It doesn't work, anyway!" or "God doesn't really say homosexual sex is wrong." What we are actually saying here is "I haven't failed!" - feeling that if something doesn't work, there is no failure. Then the pain of continual failure diminishes and we feel better about ourselves. The tragedy is that our perfectionism is encouraging us to deny the truth of Christ's redemption and our 'fallen nature'. Christianity is not about 'success or failure'. I guess it would be more realistic to say The Cross is all about failure, forgiveness and redemption. It could even be argued that we should want to be made even more aware of our failures in order to know even more forgiveness and redemption!
We live in a culture that demands answers and finds it difficult to accept mystery and paradox. I guess it's 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' philosophy. Our theology is affected by this and we expect the 'proof of God' to be primarily in the experience of Him. Of course this isn't totally wrong, but it means our spirituality is driven by our experience of God, rather than the truth of God's Word. I believe experiences of God's presence and His love should be a bonus or supplement to our faith and belief system, but not its major driving force.
Christianity that is based too heavily on experience or the 'feel good' factor can often become more theologically liberal. It frustrates me when I hear Christians struggling to find 'experiential' reasons why God says homosexual sex is wrong. They claim homosexual relationships will 'not work out' or 'not be very good for you'. But when their Christian friends or relatives find love and fulfilment in a homosexual relationship, they see the flaws in their own previously held beliefs and change their minds, now believing that gay sex is not always wrong because it can be loving and fulfilling. Some hate to see their homosexual loved ones return to the loneliness and frustration they knew before, and therefore wonder if a loving homosexual relationship may be the 'lesser of two evils'. When the force of a particular theological argument is disproved from experience, it can be tempting to distrust or even dismiss other theological thinking from the same source. This can be true for those who were previously led to believe all homosexual relationships are unfulfilling and then find this isn't necessarily the case. It is also true for those who find they strongly disagree with one area of theological thinking from a Bible Scholar they had previously admired. It does not mean we should dismiss or distrust everything else this person has said. This is certainly a temptation I have faced many times, but had to resist, albeit with some difficulty.
I believe that sex outside marriage, including all homosexual sex, offends God - not for any reasons of bad experience, but simply because the truth is it is not what He originally intended sex to be. Having said that, I would like to see much more scholarly biblical insight and research into this mystery. Perhaps the sexual act was originally intended to be partly an act of celebration – ie humankind celebrating the very act of God's work of creating man and woman in His image in a very unique way? It seems clear throughout Scripture that sex outside this male and female marriage union is condemned, especially through the words of Jesus and Paul. Those famous verses they both quote from Genesis 2:23-24 clearly have very special significance and mystery.
In the early days of TfT I used to believe God was saying 'no' to me having genital expressions of love with another man, but not to other ways of experiencing love and affection. I sometimes felt a bit awkward and defensive when people honestly said, "It sounds like you're describing a homosexual relationship without sex!" I would argue that it was different, but probably not very convincingly! I was also challenged by my heterosexual friends who said, "But I could not be that intimate with someone of the opposite sex!" I now recognise that although intimate physical, yet non-genital, affection may be possible in some situations, it is so easy to move the boundaries until we either feel frustrated at not taking it further, or 'accidentally' have an orgasm. Then maybe we question why it should be wrong and the boundaries are permanently moved. We can so easily compromise when it suits us to do so.
The moving of boundaries inevitably means a change of thinking in terms of Scripture in order to accommodate the compromise. For instance, one liberal argument claims only homosexual abuse is condemned in Scripture, but there is clearly no such distinction made. The original Greek words used to describe a homosexual act make no distinction in terms of what the situation may or may not be.
Some people claim that only genital penetration constitutes sex and therefore mutual masturbation is not necessarily wrong. I hear Christians (homosexuals and heterosexuals) say, "We didn't have sex, just heavy petting. OK we masturbated together, but we didn't penetrate!" But this IS a sexual act! It is a clear compromise and a deception that is easy to follow when physically intimate with someone. Furthermore, if one argues that non-penetrative sex is OK outside marriage there is a real problem with consistency. You cannot say it is OK for some (ie homosexuals) but not for others (ie heterosexuals). Likewise, if mutual masturbation is not regarded as sex, it would not necessarily be defined as adultery either - I guess most married couples would be horrified at this thought. Once we compromise the fundamental boundaries we are bound to end up with double standards. The truths of God's Word surely do not allow for compromise.
Many of us really want some tangible hope of what God is going to do for us and our sexuality. For instance, some people have said to me, "I wouldn't have contacted Exodus if they hadn't offered me the hope of becoming heterosexual." In a way, we are really conforming to a world that says there is something wrong with us if we are not in a sexual relationship. This, in turn, may drive many Christians to believe we must do all we can to enable people to have sex within marriage. If homosexuality makes this seem impossible for some, we try to enable them to become heterosexual and therefore get married. This may be a slight exaggeration, but there is a lot of truth in it. We know some people do experience a change in their sexual feelings towards heterosexuality, but to say this is what we should always expect to happen is setting many (maybe most) up for a sense of failure and disillusionment. Perhaps it could be a subtle ploy of Satan to persuade us that God will always make us heterosexual, knowing, if this does not happen, we may ultimately reject Christianity or embrace a more liberal theology. This is not unlike his tempting of Jesus (Matthew 4:1-11). I'm not suggesting God never does anything for us, this side of eternity. He is continually at work in our lives, but His ways are not as 'humanly logical' as we often want to imagine, or may sometimes be taught. (Isaiah 55:9).
Perhaps we are tempted to believe a life without sex is no life at all, even though we may be reluctant to admit this as Christians? Are we perhaps really pandering once more to a worldly philosophy and offering a hope that makes Christianity more 'user friendly'? Or perhaps we are seeking to offer Christianity as a 'good deal' for the 'here and now', rather than the hope of eternal life, through forgiveness of sins. Certainly this is the hope we see Scripture offering us. Perhaps one of our major problems is that we are not good at receiving God's Grace. Wherever possible we avoid identifying our sin, and thereby knowing how much we are loved and forgiven by God. This is of course related to the ongoing sense of failure, mentioned earlier, which Christianity may mistakenly seem to encourage, rather than what should be our experience of God's Grace In Christ.
Christians struggle to find value and identity, like everyone else. We know this can only come through a relationship with our Maker, but we are still tempted to find it mainly through our human relationships because they are clearly a very tangible way in which to find our sense of value and worth. Human relationships are, however, very likely to bring to the surface insecurities and responses that are driven by a low self-image. The same is likely to be true of the person to whom we are relating. As mentioned earlier, I used to encourage the development of close intimate relationships with Christians as a way to find fulfilment. We were clearly created to need such relationships, for when God said it is not good for man to be alone He was speaking before the Fall. This must mean that even when man's relationship with God was perfect, he was created to need others. However, I now realise this was when man's sense of value and worth was also totally uncorrupted - his relationship with himself, God and others was not affected by sin and sexuality. This meant he was not tempted to find this primary sense of value and security through other people. Nowadays we are tempted to find it primarily through others, who are also likely to have at least some hurts, fears and insecurities which may react negatively with ours. Our legitimate need for relationship with others should not be the primary way to find our sense of value and identity. If it is, many other issues, including at times our sexuality, will almost certainly be involved, sometimes therapeutically but often not. This is why our focus must start from the truth of our value, which we receive from God's love, and only then be complemented with our special human relationships. This must start with a choice to believe we are valuable and unconditionally loved by God, rather than reliance on an experience to prove it. If we don't believe this we are offending our Creator who cannot create anyone who is not valuable.
I wonder if many of the people who change direction in terms of their Christian beliefs are driven to this by feelings of anger, which sometimes might be buried. It may be the anger of feeling a failure – "I've tried Christian healing programmes and they haven't worked!!" It may be the anger of feeling hurt and rejected by other Christians. It may be the anger of feeling let down by God, through unfulfilled expectations. It may be anger related to some physical, sexual or emotional abuse we have experienced in our lives. It may of course be a buried memory. Anger can be the hidden root of so many problems and dependencies. It can and should also be the catalyst to growth and freedom when we carefully work with it, bringing it to God's love and not allowing 'the sun to go down before dealing with it' (Ephesians 4:26).
When a loved or admired one has a change in their belief system, which was originally the same as our own, it hurts and we may even feel betrayed. We may also be tempted to question our own beliefs. We therefore need to honestly seek the truth for ourselves from God. It is very easy for many of us to be drawn away from the costly narrow road of following Christ. It has been said by many Bible Scholars that it is easier for a Christian to be drawn away from Christianity, than for non-Christians to be drawn towards faith in God. It can be difficult to accept that truth, but I have seen it experienced in so many of my friends. I guess that is why I believe we are discouraged in Scripture from relating more to those outside the church, than those within. We can easily become vulnerable to joining unbelievers or disillusioned Christians, especially when we can see some justification for their feelings and hurts. We are also reminded in Scripture of the awesome responsibility we have for the way in which we can affect others. This makes sense when we accept the temptation for all of us to forsake the 'narrow road' and compromise. Are we all probably not guilty of doing this in other ways, even if not sexually? I wish I could say I never compromise, but to my shame I know I do at times. What is sin, after all, but compromise?
When those we love 'change direction' in their Christian beliefs, we must seek to understand and love them, but we must also guard ourselves with the 'armour of God's truth and love'. Perhaps we must ask ourselves the following
Is God encouraging us to be careful in what we say Christ offers?
Is Satan encouraging us to 'expect or demand' what God may not give us, knowing we will then reject Christ?
When we sin do we want to punish ourselves, therefore denying Jesus' love, rather than dealing with our sin through the Cross of Christ by leaving it there?
Of course God can, and sometimes does, enable us to change our sexual orientation. Sexuality is, however, much more variable and changeable than we often seem to appreciate - not only do some homosexuals find heterosexual feelings, but heterosexuals may also discover homosexual feelings for the first time. I believe a change towards heterosexuality must never be seen as a measure of our 'healing' or 'success'. Nor is it the source of our hope, which is only truly found in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life that Jesus Christ alone can give. In response to this hope, we can experience a joy and fulfilment that comes from knowing we are loved and valued in a unique way and also know our lives fulfil a purpose and direction within the Body of Christ. This is a vital part of the 'Truth, which sets us free'. This is the ideal and the hope of love for which we can all strive, and we need not compromise in order for it to be experienced. The real hope for growth and healing we should be sharing with others is not primarily to do with sexuality, but with the everlasting love and redemption of Christ, experienced within and through His Body now and forever.
Martin Hallett, July 2001