Homosexuality and the Church: Using the Bible
Gettysburg Presbyterian Church
October 2, 2011
David C. Wright

          Many of you are aware that the Presbyterian Church recently changed its ordination standards in a way that allows presbyteries and local churches to decide whether or not to ordain sexually active gays and lesbians.  Previously, a denomination-wide rule prohibited their ordination anywhere.  This decision comes after decades of debates and follows the lead of other mainline churches like the UCC, Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church, that have made similar decisions.  Unfortunately, none of these churches are of one mind about this issue and all of them have seen significant fallout from the decisions that have been made.  Our own Presbyterian denomination has already lost a number of congregations and members with more sure to follow.  And, at a conference held in August, conservative Presbyterians tried to find ways to remain connected to the denomination but maintain the traditional standards regarding sexuality and ordination. 
          Several of you have spoken to me about this matter, expressing your opposition to this change, while others have voiced your gratitude that the denomination has taken this step.  Like the denomination as a whole, our own church is not of one mind on this issue.  
Divisive matters are not new to the church.  In the New Testament itself, the church debated several highly divisive issues like circumcision, special requirements for Gentiles who wished to join the church, and Jewish kosher laws.  The early church debated the nature of the trinity for centuries.  Papal authority and the nature of salvation were debated during the Reformation.  In the 20th century, Presbyterians debated whether divorced people can serve as pastors, the civil rights movement, the war in Viet Nam, and the ordination of women- all volatile issues.
          In all of these debates, people appealed to the Bible to support their positions.  And they do so in this latest debate, too.  Some conservatives charge liberals with disregarding the teachings of the Bible on this issue, but actually both liberals and conservatives appeal to the Bible to support their points of view.  However, conservatives and liberals use the Bible differently as they apply it to the matter of homosexuality.  To illustrate how the same Bible can be used differently by those who hold opposing points of view, I’d like us to journey back in time to the early and mid-1800’s to consider an issue that was deeply dividing the church at that time- slavery.  The first slaves were brought to this country in 1619.  By 1776, 12 of the 13 colonies had them.  Slavery was hotly debated in the Continental Congress, but Southern states threatened to pull out of the union if it were banned or restricted, so the issue was left unresolved in the Constitution.
          Slavery continued to evoke strong emotions in both Northern and Southern churches, deeply dividing them.  As far back as 1797 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church considered two questions regarding slavery.  The first: “Is slavery a moral evil?”  (They answered, “Yes!”)  The second:  “Are slaveholders guilty of a moral sin?”  (They answered, “No!”)  So even the same General Assembly couldn’t answer slavery questions consistently!
          So, let’s look at how both sides used the Bible, which may help us understand how people on both sides of the homosexuality debate use the Bible today.  Southern Christians tended to take a “plain meaning of the text” approach to the Bible.  They noted that slavery appears in both the Old and New Testaments without condemnation.  For example, in Leviticus 25, we find these words.
          44  As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.
          45  You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
          46  You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness. 
          From this passage and several others, Southern Christians argued that the Old Testament permitted slavery, actually regulating how it was to be practiced.  They pointed to the fact that heroes of the faith like Abraham and David held slaves.  Clearly, slavery was permissible in the Old Testament.  Then they turned to several New Testament passages like this one from Ephesians 6.
          5  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;
          6  not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
          7  Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women,
          8  knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
          9  And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. (Eph. 6:5-9) 
          Here, and in similar passages in Colossians and I Timothy, Paul lays out guidelines on how Christian slaves and masters should interact.  Slaves are to obey their masters and serve them with vigor.  Masters are to treat their slaves without threat; but nowhere is the practice of slavery condemned.  Southern Christians also pointed to Paul’s letter to Philemon, a Christian slave owner, to whom Paul sent back an escaped slave named Onesimus.  Finally, they pointed to the fact that while slavery was very common during the time of Christ, Jesus never said a word against it.
          The arguments of Southern Christians about slavery were based on a plain reading of specific texts of the Bible that dealt with slavery.  Northern Christians also used some specific texts, but they emphasized the broad themes of Scripture, and their theological implications.
          One specific text concerning slavery that they cited was in Deut. 15:
          12  If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free.
          13  And when you send a male slave out from you a free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed.
          14  Provide liberally out of your flock, your threshing floor, and your wine press, thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the Lord your God has blessed you.
          15  Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; for this reason I lay this command upon you today. (Deut. 15:12-15) 
Northern Christians pointed out that biblical slavery was very different than slavery in the South.  The Bible said that Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six years of service.  They were even to be given a generous “severance package” when they left.  Other passages tell us that the children of slaves were free, unlike in the South.  Christian abolitionists believed that the violence and oppression and racism that characterized Southern slavery was not the kind of slavery that the Bible seems to authorize.
          Turning to the broader themes of Scripture, they quoted passages like Micah 6:8.  8  He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?  Northern Christians argued that the practice of slavery in the South violated the biblical demands for justice and kindness that are repeated by all the Old Testament prophets.  Further, they quoted Jesus’ Greatest Commandments:
          27  (Jesus) answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27)  They argued that it is impossible to love your neighbor in any meaningful way when he or she is your slave. 
Several additional theological arguments were advanced by Northern Christians.  Quaker John Woolman wrote, “No human is saintly enough to be entrusted with power over another.”  He was taking the Christian doctrine of human sinfulness and applying it to the institution of slavery, noting that there needs to be some check on human power in any relationship.  Fugitive slave, James W.C. Pennington said, “The being of slavery, its soul and its body, lives and moves in the chattel principle, the property principle, the bill of sale principle; (The belief that slaves are merely property.)  the cart-whip, starvation and nakedness, are its inevitable consequences… You cannot constitute slavery without the chattel principle- and with the chattel principle you cannot save it from these results.  Talk not about kind and Christian masters.  They are not masters of the system.  The system is master of them.”
          It is clear that devout Christians, reading the same Bible, came to entirely different conclusions on the matter of slavery!  In fact, the divisions were so great, that many denominations split over the issue, including Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. 
          Let’s come back to the issue of homosexuality.  Devout Christians are divided over this issue, using the same Bible to support their points of view.  Like those 19th century Christians, we wrestle with the historical context of the Bible’s teachings.  They asked if the slavery described the Bible was the same thing as Southern slavery.  We ask the same question about homosexuality in biblical times and today.  They asked how the broader principles of the Bible regarding justice and compassion are to be weighed against its specific teachings about slavery.  We ask the same questions regarding homosexuality.  They asked which parts of the Bible should be regarded as universally binding, and which are specific to a given time and place.  For example, most of us regard the command to love our neighbor as our self, and the prohibitions against stealing, gossip, and murder to be universally binding.  But most of us don’t regard the Old Testament Kosher laws, or the New Testament prohibition against women wearing jewelry or cutting their hair to be binding.  How do we figure out which is which?  Are the biblical prohibitions against homosexual practice universally binding?  These are the biblical tensions that we face.
Does this mean that we can’t use the Bible in making moral judgments?  No!  The Bible is the cornerstone of Christian morality.  But we must be very careful in how we use the Bible in making moral decisions.  Next week we’ll look at some of the biblical and theological arguments being used in this debate, and also how we can live together given the differences that divide us.

Return to the Sermons Menu