Sexual Orientation

Why the Church Should be Inclusive

Fraser Watts

Vicar-Chaplain, St Edward's Church, Cambridge

Sermon preached at the Goth Eucharist Cambridge on 24th October 2006

My central message tonight is that the Church should welcome people of different sexual orientations, bisexual, lesbian, gay and heterosexual. I believe all are welcome in God's house and around the altar. I want to make it clear that, as Chaplain of this Church, and in Jesus' name, I welcome everyone here, regardless of sexual orientation.

In the teaching of the Church about sexual orientation, bisexuals are probably the most misunderstood group. The Church often seems to imply that they are people who are perfectly capable of forming opposite sex relationships, and that is what they should do. They have also often been accused of promiscuity, but that is not necessarily true

Bisexuality is complicated, and there are different kinds of bisexual. Some bisexuals struggle with confusion, not knowing which way to turn, and not being entirely comfortable with either direction. For quite a lot of people, especially men, there is a tendency for physical attraction and emotional relations to split and, for bisexuals, that split often focuses around gender. There is a tendency to form emotional bonds with one sex, and to be physically attracted to the other. If so, relations with neither sex are going to be completely filling. The Church needs to show more understanding of bisexuals, and I want to make a particular point tonight of saying that bisexuals are welcome here.

Some Christians will see this as bowing to secular society, and watering down Christian teaching, but for me it arises from obedience to Jesus. Some will see it as not taking the Bible seriously, but it arises from an approach to the Bible that focuses more on its central message than on isolated texts. I believe that faithfulness to Jesus makes it necessary to welcome people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Christ came to break down barriers, not to build them up. Though the society of his day treated women as second-class citizens, Jesus is notably inclusive of women, in the way he treats them, and in his teaching. The Jews of Jesus' time maintained barriers between themselves and Samaritans. Jesus broke those divisions down, mixed with Samaritans, and held up a Samaritan as an example of neighbourliness to his fellow Jews.

St Paul is standing in this tradition when he says that in Christ there is no division between Jew and Greek, between slave and free, or between male and female. I believe that it is in the spirit of Jesus to add that in Christ there is no distinction between bisexual and heterosexual, gay and lesbians. All are one in Christ.

There are passages in the Bible that convey a negative view of homosexuality. However, the key matter for a Christian is what God reveals in Christ, and Jesus says nothing against homosexuality. That is significant. The purity code in Leviticus is against sleeping with someone of the same-sex, but Jesus is iconoclastic about aspects of the Jewish law, and Christians have never found felt bound by its every detail of it. Christians shave, eat pork, and do other things that breach the purity code.

It is particularly significant that the New Testament explicitly sets aside one important requirement of the Old Testament, that male children should be circumcised. There was a big debate about that in the early Church, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Was it necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised, in accordance with the requirements of the Old Testament? The New Testament records the debate, and the answer was No. The Old Testament is transcended in the New. What the Old Testament says about homosexuality is no more binding on Christians than what it says about circumcision.

The book of Genesis talks about a man and a woman leaving their parents and forming a bond with one another. I believe that serves as a paradigm for same-sex relations as well as heterosexual ones. Both involve a covenant between two people, parallel to God's covenant with humanity. Covenant relationships are an ideal for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

St Paul was certainly negative about homosexuality but, for different reasons, I don't think that is binding either. Not all forms of homosexuality are the same. When St Paul talks about homosexual practices, he is clearly thinking about those that he knew, those that were practised in his society. His focus is particularly on the homosexual prostitution that grew up around pagan temples. He was against that, and so would I be.

However, there is a vast difference between that and the stable, loving, committed relationships between people of the same sex that are a feature of our society.. You can't infer from the fact that St Paul was against homosexual prostitution in pagan temples, that he would be against loving, committed same-sex relationships. They were just not a feature of his society, and probably something he had never thought about.

Though St Paul clearly disliked homosexuality, it makes no sense to imagine that he was trying to legislate against it, or to set up a code of practice for Christians that prohibits homosexual relations. If there is one theme running through his teaching, it is that Christ has made law obsolete. Christ has inaugurated a new era in which what matters is human faith and God's grace, not the keeping of a code of behaviour. After all St Paul says about that, how could anyone imagine that he was setting up a new code of behaviour for Christians, and including within it a prohibition of homosexuality. I believe that he would be deeply shocked at the way his letters have been used by some Christians to try and establish a new code of behaviour. That is clearly not what he intended.

For Jesus, all the fine print of the codes of behaviour in the Old Testament is summed up in the love principle, love God and love your neighbour. For Jesus, everything boils down to that. The key test of sexual behaviour for Christians is whether or not it complies with Jesus' summary of the law. If sexual behaviour fulfils that love command, I believe that it is fulfilling Jesus' teaching, regardless of sexual orientation.

There was a time when Christians saw procreation as the primary function of sexual relations, and of course only heterosexual relations can fulfil that. However, Christian teaching has long been broader than that. Ever since the Reformation, there has been a growing recognition that one of the key functions of marriage is to build a relationship in which people help and support one another. That function of heterosexual marriage that can be fulfilled equally well in a same-sex relationship. I believe that same-sex relationships can be a means of grace, just as marriage can.

What does the Church expect gays, lesbians and bisexuals to do about their sexuality? All the evidence indicates that sexual orientation is formed at a very early age. Genetic factors are relevant, and early experience is probably relevant too. However, by the time people are aware of the issues, the pattern is set. Gays can no more decide to be heterosexual, than heterosexual could decide to be gay.

So what is to be done? The only realistic choice is between forming a sexual relationship of whatever kind is possible, or forming no sexual relationship at all. Some people are called to celibacy; for some it provides a very fulfilling life. However, no one familiar with the demands of celibacy would imagine for a moment that it was something to be imposed on people who had no vocation for it. For most people, regardless of sexual orientation, a sexual relationship can be a means of grace.

I realise, of course, that not all Christians agree with me on these issues. Though many of the points I have made are set out in the report of the Church of England Doctrine Commission, `Being Human', that report also makes points on the other side, which I have not mentioned this evening. I recognise that this is something that can be argued either way within Christian circles, though I hope that the Church will find a place of respect for those who, like me, believe that the arguments for inclusiveness are overwhelming.

I believe that I am being faithful to Jesus in welcoming people here regardless of sexual orientation. Let us be faithful to Jesus in breaking down barriers, and faithful to his over-riding command to love.