Homosexuality as a Theological Issue - Essay Example

Homosexuality as a Theological Issue Currently, homosexuality is social issue, and one that draws a lot of attention from different fronts. In the recent past, there has been an increase in the number of people associating themselves with homosexuality. Due to the increase in these numbers, there has been a wave of either acceptance or denial of these people by the society. Christians find themselves at the center of this wave, as people look up to them for guidance on the stand they are supposed to take. The commonality of this in theology particularly, is that people need to know Christian’s stand in this homosexuality issue. As such, different theologians have written different articles expressing their ideas on the homosexuality as a social issue. In my analysis in this essay, I will put into consideration three author’s writings, and their reasoning about homosexuality. A concise summary of each of these theological reasoning will form the basis of their comparison and contrast. Conclusively, I will draw personalized ideas and thoughts on the homosexuality issue. Koranteng-Pipim, in his article, “Three Conflicting Views on Homosexuality” seeks to find the church’s stand on homosexuality. The biggest issue is whether they should accept or reject these individuals whenever they join their congregation. Both stands have their unique ethical consequences. However, he singles out the case of seventh day adventurist church, which has assumed three approaches to homosexuality (Koranteng-Pipim 1). Despite the fact that the church in past has assumed a non-acceptance stand on this issue, the recent rise of pro-homosexual groups continue to amount the church on assuming a full-acceptance approach to these people. However, he notes that some segments within contemporary Adventism are moving towards the qualified-acceptance view in addressing homosexuality. Koranteng-Pipim argues that although these other views have emerged, the non-acceptance view remains the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist church (Koranteng-Pipim 2). Different tenets support these divergence views. The basic tenets in support of these views include the nature of homosexuality, morality of homosexuality, way out of homosexuality and response to homosexuality. The non-acceptance view holds that homosexuality is a distortion of human sexuality, it is sinful and sinful, and that God has the capability of changing any situation (Koranteng-Pipim 6). In their arguments though, those advocating for full acceptance have to agree to being born again and thus fully assimilated in the church. In his article, “Homosexuality and Christian Faith: A Theological Reflection” Jennings points out that homosexuals and homosexuality is one of the major importance deliberations of denominational bodies. This issue has drawn different feelings among the proponents and opponents of homosexuality issue. On one side are the supporters of the traditional sexuality; while on the other hand is the group in support of the emerging trends in sexuality (Jennings 137). However, he observes that theological reflection has conspicuously been missing from this conservative-liberal confrontation. He observes that people hold many biases in the issue of homosexuality in the society. He however does not propose a theology of homosexuality, but proposes how fundamental principles of Christian theology illuminate this question or complex of issues. He looks at different principles of theology, such as one by Karl Barth, which proposes that that Christian faith goes along with the gracious God, who is the Supreme Being (Jennings 137). The supreme intention is to justify, save and redeem humanity, but not on the basis of a discrimination between better and worse persons but solely on the basis of God’s own gracious election. He argues that in case of a violation of this theological principle, it places in human hands the capacity to implement our own salvation. The second principle as he points out is the universality of God’s judgment in relation to our fundamental human condition. He describes God’s judgment as unrighteous, regardless of us being observers or as violators of “the Law.” The two principles he argues, in their interconnection depicts that no absolute or ultimate distinction can be made between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Homosexuality, being a perversion of the natural order, is also a perversion of the law of God. Thus, all forms of human sexuality, which do not have procreation (generation of children) as its goal is in violation of the law of God. Such include masturbation, contraception, no genital sexuality between husband and wife and homosexuality (Jennings 137). As arguments on the natural law principle intensify, he seeks clarity from the scriptures. Grimsrud in his article, “A Theology of Welcome: Responding to the “Homosexuality” Issue”, he observes that in the Present-day, North Americans are struggling bitterly over sexuality issues. Grimsrud (133) observes that the biggest issues relates to the relationship between culture and lesbianism. He advocates for two perspectives; the restrictive and inclusive perspectives. In this point, he observes that there should be restrictions placed on the participation of all sexually active gays in the church. These restrictions range from total rejection to fully acceptance as participating non-members restricts the possibility of gays exercising ordained leadership in the church. The inclusive perspective holds that the “gayness” of a church person, including a commitment to the same-sex relationship, should have no bearing on church participation (Grimsrud 129). Typically, this perspective argues that moral values such as opposing sexual promiscuity, adultery, and sexual abuse, which the church affirms in relation to heterosexual sexual practices should apply to gays. Secondly, that the covenanted partnerships require support from the church (Grimsrud 166). He analyses the biblical texts and their implications on the issue of homosexuality. While some of the verses advocate for the same sex marriage for instance in Paul’s case, others advocate for the traditional sexual orientations. There are different illusions about homosexuality; yet, Jesus made an assertion that showed the exact stand on this issue. In fact, he quoted the book of Genesis, which holds that God requires the expression of sexuality in the context of male and female marriage relationships to make clear his rejection of all possible same-sex intimate relationships. This should act as a guideline, yet, science appears to disregard it now and then. He however concludes that we could reach a consensus that we need on-going, open, and safe discernment processes in which we recognize the diversity of perspectives that currently exists within our denomination. Secondly, he favors a movement toward a congregational polity perspective. There are similarities and differences among the three theologies of homosexuality. Although the three authors hold diverse thoughts and ideas on the issue, they rely on the biblical teachings and verses to draw their conclusions. There is no firm stand on the exact position on the issue of homosexuality, apart from giving the ethical and biblical interpretation of the marriage issue. While giving their assertions, these people agree on one fact; that homosexuality biblically is wrong. In these assertions thus, they seek to defend this analogy and Christianity stand. There is however a new class of emergent Christians whose stand on this point softens. Traditionally, homosexuality was unheard of, leave alone the thought of same sex marriages having an officiating person. It is happening, and these events bring into existence new considerations. By the virtue of its definition, homosexuality is essentially wrong, morally. This begs for the ethics of allowing either these people to be part of the churches or not. This is an issue discussed by the authors, though in different contexts. Their reasoning is similar, especially the approaches used in the analyzing the issues. Koranteng-Pipim looks at the different views that churches hold on the acceptability of homosexuals in churches, narrowing it down to the Seventh Day Adventist church. Initially, it held a non-acceptability stand on homosexuality issue. However, with time, there have been changes on this stand, and incorporates a Qualified-Acceptance View as well as the full acceptance view. He attributes changes in the socialization of the people as being the biggest contributor to the softening of this stand. Grimsrud considers the process of acceptability in two way perspective. He observes that different churches holds two major views on the issue of acceptability of homosexuality in their churches; restrictive and inclusive approaches. In the restrictive approach, prohibits homosexuals from joining the church. According to this perspective, not only is same sex marriage wrong, it is also evil and unethical. On the other hand, the inclusive approach holds that so long as these individuals show the willingness to change and undergo a transformational process, they than qualify for acceptance into the church indiscriminately. Jennings articulates homosexuality to a persons’ faith and beliefs. Although he stresses that, the Christian faith holds a negative perspective on the issue of homosexuality; he is keen to note that some of the verses in the bible contradict this stand. He agrees that differences in people’s beliefs and thoughts differ substantially. He also puts into consideration the role played by temptations in the change of behaviorisms among the people. His biggest advocacy principle however, is the obedience of God’s law. This law holds that Christianity recognizes same sex marriages. There are however differences in their views, as revealed by the different stands that they hold. While none directly gives an answer as to actions Christians need to take whenever faced by such a situation, they give different scenarios that try to analyze these situations. They leave the final decision to the actual person facing the problem. To write about their theological ideas, the authors use different approaches. While Koranteng-Pipim uses a case study of the views held by the seventh day Adventist church on the role held by the church on the issue of homosexuality, Jennings reflects upon the relationship between the Christian faith and homosexuality. Grimsrud opts to respond to the issue from a number of areas, and draws up his conclusion from these areas. His perspective, though seeking the best way forward to the acceptance of these people in the church, takes a different roue than that taken by Koranteng-Pipim. While Koranteng-Pipim mostly undertakes a moral and ethical study approach on the real issues affecting people in the society, Grimsrud does it in a biblical manner. With the knowledge that Christianity disallows homosexuality, Grimsrud digs up the bible for any verses that may either encourage or discourage homosexuality. The manner in which people interpret the bible matters a lot as to the stand he holds. Koranteng-Pipim though argues that the righteousness of the act that matter, as well as the morality of the act, justifies the act, whether sinful or right. Jennings on the other hand is mainly concerned with the contribution of people’s faith to their sexual orientation. Astute Christian believers he argues are less likely to engage themselves with homosexuality. Since they abide themselves to the rule and Christianity teachings, they are unlikely to fall into any type of temptation. Unlike the non-believers, whose faith has the ability to be swayed by any kind of temptations arising from within their midst. What is however conspicuously missing from these views is the scientific explanation of the events leading to the change of behavior and mannerisms. Ignoring the causal factors leading to these events is one way in which the church could successfully help these people out. True the fact that people, biblically, are born heterosexuals. Their childhood has little, if any, form of same sex attraction. Yet, as the people grow up, their perceptions keep on changing. What is the relationship between these factors, and their immense contribution to sexual orientation changes? While all the three theologies address the issue of acceptability and the Christianization of homosexuality, none touches fully on the consequences of homosexuality to the people. There are different myths held by people relating to homosexuality in the society. These myths try to interpret why some people decide on following a different path on their sexual orientations. Regardless of the amount of attention given to homosexuality by the churches, and despite the fact that most people agree to the conformity of Christian teachings in their sexual orientations, they hold diverse thoughts on the factors leading to homosexuality among the people. The most significant question that people need to put into consideration is the acceptability of the homosexuals to the church. What type of perceptions should we accord to these people? With the understanding that our actions affect them psychologically and socially, what measures, should Christians employ while relating to these people? Works Cited Grimsrud, Ted. A Theology of Welcome: Responding to the “Homosexuality” Issue. Herald Press, 2008. pp. 129-66. Print. Jennings, Theodore W. Homosexuality and Christian Faith: A Theological Reflection, Christian Century. 1977. Print. Koranteng-Pipim, Samuel. Three Conflicting Views On Homosexuality. Must We Be Silent?. n.d. print. Read More