United Methodist Church Doctrine on Homosexuality - Research Paper Example

? Section/# Homosexuality in the Bible: A Reinterpretation of the Stance of the United Methodist Church Throughout the years, the church, in all of its manifestations, has been responsible for answering many of the time’s most difficult and relevant questions. For instance, the church has found it necessary to speak concerning the efficacy and righteousness of slavery; an issue that split many churches. Moreover, the church found itself at the center of the controversy for whether or not women should be allowed at the pulpit and should be ordained as ministers. Accordingly, the manner by which the church as been called to weigh in on moral and ethical issues that relate to the modern era has been profound as society has grown and evolved over the centuries. A single and intractable stance is not only not realistic, it presents a stoic entity that is unable and/or unwilling to deeply analyze the trends and needs of current society and seek to reconcile them in the light of Christian doctrine. For purposes of this brief analysis, the author will seek to consider whether or not the United Methodist Church should broaden and expand the manner by which doctrinal factors define the relationship between Christian beliefs and whether or not homosexuality should be permissible or not. Whereas it is true that a literalist approach to the issue from a scriptural standpoint lends on to only one conclusion concerning homosexuality, the same cannot be said with respect to a contextual understanding of the practice of homosexuality within scripture. Due to the fact that either of these approaches necessarily yields a foregone conclusion, this particular response will seek to engage the reader by taking a mixed methods approach; thereby leveraging the strengths of a literalist approach as well as the strength and determinacy of a contextualist approach to scripture. As it stands, the current doctrine specifies that the church is accepting of homosexuals; however, a more nebulous interpretation of the “sinful” nature of homosexuality exists. Moreover, ministers are prohibited from marrying individuals of the same sex. Due to the fact that the United Methodist church places scripture at the core of its understanding and teaching with regards to the importance of developing and maintaining a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ and seeking to the individual for salvation, a scriptural approach to the issue is the only approach that would be both relevant and necessary to seek to answer the question at hand. From an interpretation of Scripture, there are approximately 5-8 verses (depending upon the means that are employed to count these) that deal specifically with homosexuality and deem it as “unift” or an “abomination” in the eyes of God. Not surprisingly, most of these texts, and/or references as noted above, are found within the Old Testament. Whereas it is not the view of the United Methodist Church that the Old Testament is merely a fanciful story book that has little if any current day application, the fact of the matter is that a great majority of the Levitical laws cannot and should not be meant to apply to the current time. One might just as easily consider the Levitcal injunction against a woman aiding her husband if he is in mortal combat with another.1 By the same token, one could point to the way that Levitical law promotes an understanding that the female gender is somehow during their period. Naturally, although some of these may seem as somewhat comical during the current time, if a particular church or group of believers sought to take these directives literally, then truly a miserable interpretation of the love of God as exhibited elsewhere throughout the Bible must necessarily be reflected. By very much the same token, one can and should integrate with an appreciation for the way in which slavery is represented throughout the Bible, in total, there are over 100 texts concerning the legality and rules overseeing slavery as an accepted and moral practice. Even the story of Onesimus in the New Testament is one by which the Apostle keeps and instructs a runaway slave for a period of time; only to ultimately give him up to his master with a plea for leniency and forgiveness. Engaging in an exploration or defense of slavery based upon the Bible texts concerning then is quite easy; and something that countless slave holders within the South engaged in during and leading up to the Civil War. Not surprisingly, the Bible was utilized as a moral justification for the practice and as a means of furthering it among believers. However, from a current and even past standpoint, it is abundantly clear that the practice of slavery is morally, ethically, and scripturally abhorrent.2 No man or woman should be placed in subservience to another by force of power; rather, the subservience that the scripture indicates should be the natural outgrowth of the love of God encouraging all humankind to subjugate their needs to others. Within such an interpretation, it can be very well indicated that although scripture seemingly promotes the practice of slavery, it is in fact fundamentally opposed to this by very virtue of the core teachings that it represents. In effect, what should be understood from the example of slavery is the existence of even a large number of Bible texts seemingly putting forward a particular idea should not be taken as divine canon; rather, they must be integrated with existing understandings of how God is understood and how the scripture as a whole integrates morality and virtue within the mind of the believer. As indicated within the book of 2 Timothy 3: 16-17: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work”.3 As such, rather than stating that scripture is fundamentally flawed as a result of its seemingly ironic stance upon the issue of slavery or many other points of Christian understanding concerning ethics and morals, it must be said that a greater and more complete interpretation of Biblical concepts and values is necessary. Rather than pointing to a mere handful of texts and indicating that each and every individual that falls into such a category is bound for the fires of hell or somehow unfit with God’s holy communion, the more accurate and reasonable interpretation must consider scripture as a whole in making any type of discrimination such as this. Another clear indication of how a litany of texts within the Bible can mislead a moral and or ethical interpretation of society and life if one takes these out of context. For instance, when one considers the means by which women are discussed and defined within both the Old and the New Testament, it is clearly understood that the current norms and morality of gender equality are wholly and entirely incongruent with the norms and Biblical mores of how women should integrate with society. Beginning in the Old Testament, women had little if any part in the worship service and were in continual and complete subjection to the needs and whims of their male counterparts. Even though this was an obvious deviation from the equality of the sexes as was designed by the Creator since the dawn of time, such a more of discrimination and second class status was perpetrated within the New Testament as well. Ultimately, the Apostle Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 1:6-10, “For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.  For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.  Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.  For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels”.4 Although it is possible to interpret this text within the realm or context of the society at that time, seeking to extrapolate it to a broad and categorical directive lends one to realize that such texts have little if any place within a broader understanding of New Testament theology or Christianity in general. In keeping with a discussion and analysis of how homosexuality is presented within scripture, it is necessary for one to realize that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, so oftentimes cited to express God’s frustration and righteous rage with the practice of homosexual intercourse, cannot necessarily be inferred in such a way as it has traditionally. For instance, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as defined by the prophet Ezekiel is the following: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy”.5 As can be seen from this above text, the direct mention of “unnatural” or same sex acts is not mentioned whatsoever; rather, it appears as if God had the city destroyed due to its haughtiness, pride, and gluttonous lifestyle; all seemingly of far greater importance with regards to sinful behavior than the “sin” of homosexuality. Indeed, the sin of pride and gluttony are referenced numerous times within the Old and New Testament and are even both referenced within the listing of the 7 deadly sins; a list that finds homosexuality conspicuously absent. Moreover, still seeking to find realistic and actionable information on the nebulous and not specifically defined “sin” of homosexuality within the Old Testament, one might consider the Biblical story of David and Jonathan. Although this story has traditionally been interpreted as one of “brotherly” love, man of the texts, specifically 2 Samuel 1:26 in which David states, “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”.6 Naturally, such a statement might be merely a form of metaphor; however, from a contextual reading of the verse and the way in which this relationship existed and developed over time, it can at least be tacitly understood that there was more than a mere brotherly bond between these two young men. The point of such an analysis is to reveal the fact that one of the most beloved of all of the Old Testament characters, King David, displayed a definitive level of emotional affection, beyond mere brotherly love, for a member of the same gender. Moving along to an interpretation of how this is evidenced within the New Testament, it can be said that there are even fewer texts within the New Testament that specifically deal with what can be termed “homosexuality” or “homosexual behavior”.7 The first of these is with regards to a rather nebulous and cryptic discussion in the book of Romans which states the following: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error”.8 Although this text does not come directly out and state that homosexuality is a sin and is punishable under the law of God, it references man to man lust and woman to woman lust. However, it must be appreciated that “lust” in and of itself is something that is prohibited within the Bible even within normative heterosexual relationships. In such a manner, the prohibition on lust between a man and a man or a woman and a woman should not be seen as earth-shattering or something of a surprise. Continuing on in the New Testament it can be stated that the story of the Centurion’s servant has perhaps the strongest homosexual connotation as does any story within either the Old or the New Testament. This is due to the fact that the word in Greek that the Centurion uses to describe his servant had a strong sexual connotation. However, rather than merely healing the young boy, as Christ was expected to do, there was no discussion or lesson given by Christ to the individual to correct him in whatever form of “sin” he may have been committing. From the points that have thus far been presented, it should be clear that the view towards homosexuality within the church requires a degree of refinement. Rather than integrating with a broad and culturally accepted version of how past views have been defined and accepted, a more nuanced and appreciative level of discernment must be applied. This is not to say that as culture changes it is necessary for the doctrines of the church to necessarily change; however, when the beliefs and inherent understandings are called in question by the times and cultural norms under which we live, it is incumbent upon believers to engage in a thoughtful conversation with regards to how scriptural interpretations relates to such issues. As with many churches, the United Methodist Church is an entity that is composed of clergy and parishioners; however, unlike the Anglican, Orthodox, or Catholic churches, there is no single individual that can speak for the doctrinal interpretations of the entity as a whole. Rather, instead of a Pope, Metropolitan, or Queen/King, the means by which doctrine within the United Methodist Church is differentiated is via a doctrinal exchange and spiritually minded dialogue between stakeholders. As such, this dialogue, such as has been engaged briefly within this research analysis, is not something that can be forced or implemented from a “top down” approach. It must necessarily come from the bottom up as a means of representing the greater good and integrating the church into an era of societal relevance and normalcy. Though it is oftentimes true that a particular doctrinal approach may not ascribe with the popularity of the remainder of society, it is incumbent upon the church to seek to measure these issues not based upon whether or not the church is out of sync with the remainder of society but whether or not the church can approach the issue from a Christ-like perspective and seek to promote the broader tenets of the faith; rather than merely focusing upon a few dispersed and nebulous texts as a means of differentiating an entire world view. From the analysis that has been engaged, it is the strong belief of this author that the United Methodist Church should seek to re-evaluate its stance upon homosexuality and whether or not they should continue to deem it a “sin”. Ultimately, the body of Christ is not one that should differentiate Jew from Gentile, slave from free, or heterosexual from homosexual. Moreover, from an analysis of scripture, the linkage between homosexuality as a sin worthy of exclusion or a practice so abhorrent that ministers are not allowed to marry individuals of such an orientation is weak to say the least. Accordingly, opening the entire interpretation of the “sin” of homosexuality is a necessary activity in order for the church to more closely represent the needs of all societal stakeholders and promote the love of Christ; as indicated throughout the entirety of the Holy Bible. References FRIEDMAN, RICHARD ELLIOTT. "The Bible Then -- The Bible Now." Biblical Archaeology Review 37, no. 5 (September 2011): 26-67. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 20, 2013). Jenkins, Philip. "Unholy Communion." New Republic 237, no. 7 (October 8, 2007): 10-14. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 20, 2013). The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version Townsley, Jeramy. "Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26–27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and “Sex Contrary to Nature”?." Journal Of The American Academy Of Religion 81, no. 1 (March 2013): 56-79. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 20, 2013). Read More