When it comes to homosexuality and its acceptance* by the Christian community, it seems that people talk all around the issue.  What is the basic problem with this topic?  Why does the church struggle with it so much?  Why do congregations split on the issue?**  Why do some line up against it [seeming to condemn it] and others take the position that homosexuality does not disqualify a person from full participation?  I would like to comment on the root causes of all this polarization with my thought based on writing by Peter Gomes.

Gomes does a wonderful job of discussing all of this in the pages of his book entitled The Good Book, in particular Chapter 8 “Bible and Homosexuality.”  In this chapter, he gets to the heart of the problem with these words: “homosexuality is not about the Bible or texts.  It is all about sex, and that is what tends to make it rather difficult to talk about in polite society” [166].  I have been in these types of discussions and I think he is one hundred percent right.  As a culture, we are squeamish about this topic.

Why is this so?

It seems that we can deal with some aspects of sexuality [in the “proper” context].  Advertising uses sexual imagery frequently in order to sell products.  Daytime dramas portray characters in sexual situations.  Some movies have sexual activity as part of the story line.  Yet despite all this exposure, we as a culture struggle to have an open discussion of sexuality (especially homosexual sexuality).  Yet when one expresses disgust (a strong word) with homosexuality, it is the sex act that homosexuals engage in that causes the most negative feelings. 

Gomes says this is deeply rooted in the Jewish morality of sex and the early Christian church’s attitude toward sex.  When the Hebrew Bible commanded that humans be fruitful and multiply, the Hebrew writer meant “from the posterity of Adam would come the Messiah.  Fecundity was not simply to replicate the race but to provide the means for the Messiah to enter the world….any sexual activity that interfered with the possible birth of the Messiah was forbidden” [167].  Non procreative sex was destructive (masturbation, coitus interruptus and of course homosexual sex). 

With this as a background, the Christian church emerged.  Of course the Messiah had lived on this earth by that time so the wasting of human seed to interfere with the birth of the Messiah was not the utmost concern.  What did bother early Christians was the existence of pagan sexual practices (“private pleasure and satisfaction, together with aspects of exploitation and degradation at the expense of the best interests of society”).  Early Christians felt that a line had to be drawn between their faith practice and the “anything goes” attitude toward sexual activity.   There was no need for a difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex.  Same sex relationships were common and usually equated with social status, especially among nonbelievers (a wealthy older man would take a younger partner and have sex with them without any societal restrictions).  This type of activity was open and not condemned until Christians began to think this practice should not be accepted in the Church. 

It is interesting that Gomes points to the influence of the early church fathers as instrumental in the attitude toward heterosexual sex and the church.  They realized that celibacy would not sustain any religion because children raised in the church were necessary for future growth.  They were very aware of pagan sexual practices and the lure of lust.  They knew they had to develop “Christian sex” as a viable alternative to “pagan sex.” 

To begin, church fathers sought to minimize carnal pleasure, assuring church members that intercourse had the burden of shame.  Augustine labels the organs of sex (the genitals) pudena from the Latin pudere (to be ashamed).  The sex organs for the Christian were therefore necessary to procreate but they were shameful and disgusting for the simple act of sexual pleasure.  Gomes writes of the wildly successful change of attitude in the Christian community: “sex within marriage was tolerated not for pleasure but for the morally worthy purpose of producing more Christians” [169].  In the twelfth or thirteenth century, marriage was made a sacrament which means that it could not be dissolved.  The idea of sexual pleasure outside of marriage was abolished: “One marriage…should supply enough companionship for any man; second marriages were adultery, third fornication, and fourth nothing short of ‘swinish’” [169***] 

To make matters more clear, homosexual sexual pleasure was a threat to the moral order, “the equivalent of a heretic in the church or a traitor to the state” [169].  Over time, homosexuality was more than a sin; it became a crime and finally an illness.  This all stems from the sex act of the homosexual.

Gomes cites a refreshingly clear moment from a television talk show where the conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan confronted a gay Roman Catholic editor of the New Republic magazine.  The editor was defending same-sex marriage and Buchanan was opposing it.  Buchanan cut to the basic point with these words: “Andrew it is not what you are. It is what you do!”  Everyone knows that what they do is have a form of sexual pleasure where procreation is impossible.  Within the definition of sex for the church, this is “unnatural.” 

This is the crux of the problem.  Homosexuals engage in sex for pleasure, not for procreation.  Gomes writes “are we able to advance beyond the moral hypothesis of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas that the sole natural function of sex is procreation?” [171].

For many in the church, the answer is no, we cannot.  In 2024, where is our culture on this idea?  When Gomes penned his book (1996) he did not anticipate today’s attitude toward pleasure within the Christian marriage.  One can type “sex websites for Christian marriages” and see plenty of products to enhance “Christian” intercourse.  This seems to be a very different attitude from the Church fathers idea that sex within the Christian marriage is only for procreation. 

For the homosexual, this may seem to be a double standard.  If heterosexual couples can engage in intercourse and have fun, what is wrong with our efforts to have sex for pleasure?

If heterosexual couples can do this and be viable members of the church, why can’t we?  Why the stigma?

Gomes goes to the heart of this issue, the idea of “it is not what you are. It is what you do.”  What the homosexual does is have sexual pleasure.  Today (in contrast to the First Century) there is such a thing as permanent, monogamous, faithful, intimate homosexual relationships.  In those days there was no conception of a monogamous homosexual marriage; there was no need.

As we examine the history of sexual attitudes within the church, the idea of affirming today’s “new sexuality” within the culture boils down to whether today’s Christian is willing to accept that sex can go beyond the need to procreate.  I find it very interesting that Gomes goes directly to the act of sex to make his argument.

The big question that all Christians must deal with is this: does he make a good argument?

*When I say “acceptance” I mean that same-sex people are allowed to preach from the pulpit as ordained ministers and assume leadership positions in the church hierarchy.  When I say “acceptance” I mean that same-sex couples are allowed the sacrament of marriage within the church.

**Most recent evidence is the split within the United Methodist congregation over this very issue.