Homosexual “Identity” and Biblical Ethics

Hello Pastor J

Thanks for tossing out a ball at our last cluster meeting by sharing chapter 7 of Anne
Krabill Hershberger’s book.1 I’d like to keep the ball in the air for a while. There is really
little in the chapter I could disagree with, but one statement seems problematic as
follows: “We can agree that we should not define gay persons by their sexual orientation,
Joe is a pastor, Jane is a teacher, and Pete is a farmer; but Henry is a homosexual,….”
This sounds like, “Don’t compare apples and oranges,” and that’s fine. But this whole
thing of identity bothers me. We hear homosexuals say something like this. Look,
homosexual is who I am. If you don’t like that, then you are attacking me. On one hand
we are supposed to respect the “identity” of a homosexual while at the same time not
make homosexuality an identity. Here I find myself between the devil and the deep blue
sea.

The issue reflects a desperate problem no one seems to be dealing with. In American
culture, identity is something earned. In the Kingdom of Heaven identity is something
bestowed by grace. People who make an activity the foundation of their identity face a
crisis when they no long can do that activity.2 Gender is infinitely harder to change than a
job or particular activity, and that fact should in itself reveal what is more basic to
identity.

Therefore the question: Is homosexuality an identity? Many homosexuals seem to be
saying so. If so, to their credit homosexuals are implicitly challenging the American
system of a works based identity that needs to be challenged. But on the other hand, this
does not answer the question of whether homosexuality is an orientation or
disorientation. Is homosexual orientation a third new identity bestowed by grace
sometime after creation, or is it a loss of the gender identity originally bestowed on all
humankind. The fact that science has been unable to “cure” homosexuality says nothing
about whether it is good, given by God, or something bad that happened.

The Bible says a great deal about identity. The original human identity was bestowed by
creation upon humanity identified in two genders. The two-gender form of human
identity empowered the human race to fill the earth in order to govern the animals and the
world. The male/female construct is essential for the fulfillment of God’s plan for the
race. It is essential for being the image of God.

In the Biblical story of the fall we became disoriented from our most basic identity as the
icon of God on earth. This is not an individualistic identity. It is a collective identity
rooted in the male/female construct, a fact emphasized by repetition, first in the climax of
Genesis 1, and again as the climax of chapter 2. This physical/psycho/spiritual
relationship on earth eventually becomes the culminating metaphor of God’s relationship
to his people at the end of the canon in Revelation 19. This construct is absolutely
fundamental for what is means to be human.

Under the pre-fall Biblical scheme, homosexuality cannot be an orientation. It must be a
disorientation. This, of course, does not provide any clues as to how homosexuals
participate or do not participate in the life of the church, but it is a piece of Biblically
accessible reality essential for discussing the issue, one to which scientific investigation
lacks access by its method and its secular starting point.

I think Romans 1 is quite clear that homosexual acts fall short of God’s intentions for sex,
regardless of what one does with the other texts that touch on homosexual activity.
However, in the context of Romans, Romans 1 is not a condemnation of individual
homosexuals. Romans is not the kind of individualistic book for personal salvation alone
that the protestant reformation and especially American individualism has made of it.
Rather, Romans 1:18-32 should be seen a commentary on the sin of the human race. The
text describes a disoriented state of humanity with mere animal sensibilities about sex
under which human sexual relationships resembled that of animals (the image of animals
rather than God) instead of the Genesis 2 description. In this scene the sex drive took
over, resulting in a downward spiral of sexual disorientation that over time, plummeted to
a point so low that some people born and raised in this kind of social order could not even
discern whether they were male or female, finding no way to integrate their gender with
their felt need for relationship as sexual persons.3 I strongly object to the notion that God
ordained some people to be homosexual as strongly as I object to the notion that God
wanted some people to be born blind or without limbs.4 Our being  sinners in a sinful environment certainly had something to do with that.

It would help me a great deal in this discussion if those arguing for the inclusion of
practicing homosexuals would at least stop saying homosexuality is their God-given
identity. If we could agree on that, I think we could begin talking about the participation
of practicing homosexuals in the life of the church, at least from my point of view. (I
discuss the place of practicing homosexuals in my previous letter to Cynthia, which is
online at Galileanfellows.org). I wonder whether Jesus may not have had homosexuals in
mind for inclusion when he talked about eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. It seems to
me that in a sexually healthy and supportive social environment where issues are defined
Biblically, where friendships are real, and lonely people find a safe place to identify, a
life of celibacy would not be the impossibility it appears to be now.

I am fine with accept practicing gays into fellowship, as I am also ready to accept a 5 star
general and a polygamous family into fellowship, but there are certain caveats to be
noted. Personal salvation is one thing. Inescapable social arrangements in a given culture
of this fallen world are another.5

I believe the best argument pink Mennos have is the Cornelius argument. When the Holy
Spirit came upon Cornelius the church concluded that Gentiles come into fellowship on
an equal footing with Jews, and many homosexuals do appear to show the evidence of the
Holy Spirit and the Spirit’s gifts in their lives. But there is also the military issue.
Cornelius was not asked to resign his military commission or denounce the godless and
brutal Roman occupation. There was still something wrong with Cornelius’ social
arrangement that needed confrontation. It just wasn’t yet the time or place to make that
confrontation.

I think Cornelius is a valid model on how we relate to homosexuals in a committed,
sexually active social relationship. Sometimes social arrangements may not be
reversible without doing more harm and injustice than leaving them intact for a time—
like the passing of one generation, but social arrangements do affect one’s suitability for
Christian leadership, and that is why I wholeheartedly support the current statement of
faith on marriage and the CPMC’s current stand on credentialing. If ever marriage needed
clear definition and unqualified support as it stands in the Mennonite statement of faith,
that need is now in our “adulterous and sinful generation.”

I’ve tossed the ball back. It’s a heavy one to lift, and feels to me like playing catch with a
bowling ball. I’ll understand if you don’t respond right now, but I’m putting this on my
blog, and I hope our community of faith can continue to play catch without serious injury
from the ball.

1 Sexuality: God’s Gift edited by Anne Krabill Hershberger (Herald Press, 1996)

2 The so called “Mennonite Game” of who is related to who is, in fact, a healthy activity that helps maintain
identity. Unfortunately this can turn destructive when the deeper identity we have been given in Christ is
ignored and the body of Christ is divided by these lesser identities.3 Elizabeth Moberly calls this the “eroticisation of unmet, childhood needs,” (Homosexuality, a New Christian Ethic), and I’ve seen nothing written that effectively responds to her work. Don’t all of our relational problems relate in some way to unmet childhood needs— perhaps? I think the social sciences do point us in that direction.

4 My mother spent the last 40 years of her life in next to total paralysis. Were it not for the Up-and-Down-
Bed invented by my Dad (yes, there is a patent on this machine in Washington, D.C.), my mother could not
have gotten out of bed to hobble painfully around the house on crutches as she did when she and dad raised
me. Given her triumphantly cheerfully spirit and the powerful impact of her testimony, I can believe God
called her to suffer in order to show the power of his grace in her, but that doesn’t make her condition any
less a work of Satan. I believe the same applies to a homosexual disorientation.

5 I hope we can find some other basis for discussing this issue than the American social ideal of equality.
For my side, I maintain that the Holy Spirit’s presence, gifting, and anointing itself does not justify all
social arrangements of those so gifted. Soldiers facing battle may well find the Holy Spirit poured out upon
them in a great revival of faith, and I know of godly men whose demeanor in battle revealed the peace of
the living Christ and brought honor to his name, but that does not mean we must accept this social
arrangement that orders people to kill each other as though God willed it.