“Homosexual ‘Marriage’” by John R. W. Stott, Christianity Today, November 22, 1985.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Stott has written a new book on social issues (race, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and CT has picked one chapter as a cover feature “Biblical Analysis” on “Why same-sex partnerships are not a Christian option”. But a CT-Gallup Poll found that 19 percent of evangelicals did not hold that “homosexuality is wrong”, CT president Billy Graham says it’s no more sinful than jealousy, and Stott himself avers that “pride and hypocrisy are surely worse”.
Commenting on Bible verses that Stott grants may only “appear to refer” to homosexuality, he concludes: “If the only biblical teaching on this topic were to be found in the prohibition texts, it might be difficult to answer objections” of scholars who read these texts differently. He admits: “It can be (and has been) argued that the Pauline condemnations are not relevant to homosexual adults who are both consenting and committed to one another”. Indeed, centuries ago, antigay churchmen did not use half of these texts and the other half are acknowledged even by conservatives today as not applying to homosexuality. So Stott – “the crown prince of Anglican evangelicalism”, popular conference speaker, but surely no particularly academic scholar – says that the best way to combat claims of homosexual legitimacy is by appeal to the creation narratives as the “universally applicable” principles of “heterosexual monogamy”. But as noted in REVIEW (Summer 1985), the creation narratives are not even mentioned by biblical scholar Paul Feinberg in his work on “Homosexuality and the Bible” in the Fundamentalist Journal. FJ senior editor Edward Dobson cautions: “Those who argue that Jesus wanted us to go back to the Garden of Eden and impose God’s ideal on everyone in our society have forgotten that we are still living in a sinful world”. Besides, there are, of course, many models of sexual or family lifestyle in the Bible, which Stott calls “ipso facto displeasing” to God, but which the Bible depicts either without moral comment or as divinely commanded: e.g., biblical bigamy, cohabitation, and so on. Even Martin Luther advised polygamy as a biblical solution.
Stott sees that “we are all sexual beings [with] a particular sexual orientation”, but strangely he says, “there is no such phenomenon as a ‘homosexual’.” As he calls for more same-sex friendships a la David and Jonathan, the “lifelong and loving” homosexual partnerships he so abhors are clearly the ones that involve specific genital touch. But isn’t he aware that most couple relating is non-physical (e.g., a warm smile at breakfast, sharing household chores, nursing each other through illness)? Doesn’t he know that most of even the physical is of the non-genital touching or hugging kind, just as for heterosexual couples? Unless he and CT are as revolted by handholding as by genital touch with which they – not gay couples – are preoccupied, what is it that is so objectionable about what is most cherished in a gay marriage? Jesus and modedrn sexology know that the brain is our most significant sex organ, but Stott and CT would apparently rather make idols of genitals as Paul saw the crazy cultists do in Corinth and referenced it in Romans 1.
CT is bent on forcing all homosexuals to forgo any genital expression of closeness, insisting that God approves only the genital expression most readers want. That’s a most effective way to drive homosexuals out into the horrors of promiscuity, unworkable “heterosexual” arrangements, the “ex-gay” fiasco (in which, Stott admits, the people “have not been delivered from their homosexual orientation”), AIDS, and worse. Where’s the spirit of the Golden Rule? Where’s the love that fulfills “whatever other commandment there may be” (Rom 13:9)? It’s unconscionable to blame people for seeking to do their best in a disciplined expression of who they are sexually when every sexual expression of who they are is summarily proscribed. That’s what’s wrong with comparing instead of contrasting the plights of all homosexuals with single heterosexuals as if both groups were permitted equal access to approved future sexual expression.
Stott says that his answer lies in accepting Jesus’ “standards and his grace”. Amen! But in the records, Jesus nowhere issued standards on homosexuality. He did, though, speak of standards of love and justice to apply to everyone and everything: as we would be done by, so to do. Surely “his grace” is the story of non-moralistic unmerited favor rather than a rule for one more “chastity” belt to be strapped on the few by the many. There is something suspiciously unbiblical, not Christ-like, about a powerful majority baptizing its oppression of a minority. When fundamentalists can get together with leaders of what they regard as “false religions” and “cults” (Moonies, Mormons) to terrorize gay people – many of whom share their doctrines of Christian faith and commitment to Jesus as Lord – we must all be suspicious. When evangelicals can cordially agree to disagree among themselves on matters they all would say are as clear to them as are the so-called antigay Bible verses and then unite to fight gay folk, refusing to tolerate any honest difference on this subject, we must all be suspicious. Where’s the spirit of Romans 14? Frankly, such critics are not coming from a wholistic reading of the Bible. They’re coming, Stott admits, from a priori notions, notions of what a “Family Bible” should say about a homosexuality they’ve been conditioned to reject within their social ethos.
In view of the complexity of environmental and (even intrauterine) biochemical factors in the etiology of homosexuality (Stott: “there may be a genetic factor”), the ambiguity of lately used clobber passages, and the beautiful gay relationships that flourish even in CT homes, what arrogance is displayed when the major evangelical magazine sacrifices obedience to clear commands to love and justice on the altars of a pet peeve it hasn’t yet struggled with long and hard enough to understand goes to the very heart of human intimacy!