The issue that I was assigned for my blog post this week was the area of ‘difference’ and particularly in relation to disability. At first I decided I would write about the negative connotations and consequences of having disabilities or disorders in New Zealand. But the other day I came across an article from 2004, which asked the question; “Is homosexuality a disability?” Now I think that the Western World has changed considerably in their perception of homosexuality since then. But there is still a negative stigma associated with it, especially in the church. It is one of the taboo topics which is frequently thought about, but infrequently taught about in church circles. For that reason I’ve decided to thrust it into the Christian community.
Up until 2009, New Zealand applied the “Gay panic defence” in a court of law, when the law was abolished after being used in the defence of Clayton Weatherston. Prior to that case it had been used in Ferdinand Ambach’s defence, after he brutally killed a gay man Ronald Brown (aged 69) who apparently made sexual advances towards him. Although there was substantial evidence against Ambach he was found guilty of manslaughter and not murder. The gay panic defence was also used in 1964 after 6 teenagers kicked to death a gay gentleman called Charles Aberhart. Although those prosecuting had proof that the youth were at Hagley Park (the crime scene) for a “spot of queer bashing”, they were nonetheless found not guilty after alleging that Mr Aberhart had provoked them by making a sexual advance.
I am glad that this ‘get out of jail free card’ policy has been rightfully removed. The issue is that it was Christian values which were at the core of law and society which supported this law. This was at a time where there was no separation between church and state. But now that there is separation, and both state and society have shifted in their values, we need to ask “What went wrong?” This is the easy part as the public have no issue in being brutally honest in pointing out our failings. The hardest part is convincing them to give us a second chance, to prove ourselves as relevant in today’s society.
Ironically it is the Christian homosexuals who are our saving grace through saving face in this issue. We need to love and support our fellow brothers and sisters, as they maintain a Christian faith while being ostracized on numerous fronts. We need to disregard our outdated outlook and remember that Christianity convictions aren't perfect. The slave trade was endorsed by generations of Christians before a conscience developed against it. Antisemitism was accepted for centuries before people developed a heart after Hitler's Holocaust. The point being that even Christian's consciences are fallible.
I would like us all to recognise that we are all made in God's image and how can we call anything 'unnatural' which God has made. I have to wonder whether we are guilty like Peter of calling something impure which God has made clean through the death of Christ. Since God is not capable of creating or committing sin and if homosexuality is genetic in nature (which I acknowledge is debatable) then how can we say that God created a person who is unnatural. Also since all people are sinful, why should homosexuals be given less grace that the rest of us?
The following links can't be viewed for some reaon:
ReplyDeletehttp://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2004/05/is_homosexualit.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2852443/Keep-provocation-defence-for-now-Law-Society
I would also thoroughly recommend reading the following article:
http://myoutspirit.com/index.php?pag=article&id=44&p=what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality.html
Hi J.J.,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking on this issue which is certainly contentious in church circles. I have two comments as follows.
First, regarding creation; I agree with your comments to a point: God does not sin and we are not to call what he has made and instructed unnatural. However since God made a man and woman, and not two men or two women, we have to be careful not to assume that homosexual relations of any kind are necessarily natural. I know the public jury may be out on this but I think scripture on the whole is clear.
Second and perhaps more importantly, if we are to take your title "...Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!" seriously then we have to look at the whole verse in context. Sure we all sin whether it is homosexuality, adultery or whatever, and therefore none of us have the right to pass judgment on others - I have no problem with this so far. But Jesus then goes on to say "... then go and sin no more!" I agree we are not to judge homosexuals any more than those committing adultery but if the adulterer is to sin no more, then surely the same applies to the homosexual.
Hi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
I had the same debate with my family the other night. I'll admit that my argument is weak in that point, God did indeed make man and woman. The thing is that when God created man and woman everything was idealised and sin did not exist. I put homosexuality as one of those things which were brought into this world potentially because of the Fall. Like the introduction of pain or work (things which have both the potential to be good and evil), likewise how the Fall brought on a sudden awareness of our nakedness and by extension of sexuality.
Another point is that God didn't first create man and woman for reproduction, but for relationship with each other and God. So I don't think that was the epitome and purpose of creating both (and solely) males and females. Also on that note when people present the unnatural card because of how homosexuals can't produce offspring, what do they in turn say to people who are unable to conceive? Or the people who choose or are called to live a life of being single?
That being said I see the dilemma of this stance.
As for my title I thought long and hard before making it my title. For the reasons that you've just brought up. It's not apples for apples, as it was a case of infidelity/adultery and not homosexuality. I also did notice "...then go and sin no more!" The thing is that I did include the title as I think if homosexuals are in a monogamous relationship, rather than polygamous relationship then it's more acceptable. The thing is that Jesus knew she was going to sin again, I believe he was referring to the specific sin that she had been accused of adultery which fits in the vain of what I mentioned earlier regarding monogamy.
In many ways I only wrote this post to get the ball rolling and stir conversation about this controversial topic. So I don't have all the answers, I only have opinions.