Rudy Carrasco links today to this lengthy and thoughtful piece on homosexuality by well-known pastor Gordon Hugenberger. It’s a readable summary of contemporary conservative evangelical thought on the subject of homosexuality.
It includes tough stuff like this:
Despite the lack of explicit teaching from Jesus on the topic of homosexual practice, I think we can safely infer that Jesus condemned it in any form.
But it also includes this:
I do want to emphasize that I do NOT consider homosexuality to be worse than any of the zillion sins I commit every day. In fact, it is tribute to the infinite grace and mercy of God that the sanctuary roof stays up each day that I walk into the room. In any case, we are not on some kind of crusade to single out those who may be dealing with this issue. Although I want the liberty to be honest with the Bible and to address this topic from time to time, I have no intention of so stressing it that the many homosexual guests and visitors who are not interested in changing will feel put off or unwelcome (or at least no more put off or unwelcome than the many materialists who are not yet interested in changing).
Oh, I do like that last parenthetical aside. If all conservative evangelicals would see materialism as a sin worthy of being preached against, American Christianity would be a darn sight healthier. I disagree with Hugenberger, of course, but I like the way this particular pastor refuses to prioritize it as the “great social issue of our time.”
But at the start of his essay, Hugenberger does make the serious mistake of arguing that evangelicals in America are monolithic on this issue:
If we take the National Association of Evangelicals, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, Navigators, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Evangelical Theological Society, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, Phoenix Theological Seminary, Bethel College, Calvin College, Wheaton College, Gordon College, World Relief, World Vision, Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, Christianity Today, Focus on the Family, etc., as well-known organizations which are representative of the convictions of the mainstream of Evangelicalism in America today - ALL of these groups in official documents or writings by their leaders of which I am aware universally reject homosexual practice (NOT homosexual orientation) as a departure from the will of God. The same is true, at least to my knowledge, for every single Evangelical denomination in America or elsewhere in the world…
(Gosh, you would think someone higher up at Campus Crusade for Christ would have asked me to step down as adviser to the Pasadena City College chapter by now, given my well-known stance on homosexuality. Funny, the kids in C3 on my campus seem quite unconcerned…)
Well, the good pastor isn’t entirely fair in the way he constructs his list of what constitutes American “mainstream evangelicalism”! I note the conspicuous absence of Fuller Seminary (probably deliberate, given the stance of some of the faculty there on homosexuality) and my own Mennonite Church USA (which certainly thinks of itself as evangelical), not to mention my dear friends at Christ Chapel of the Valley. Above all, I would refer pastor Hugenberger and his fans to the ministry of Evangelicals Concerned.
In the house of evangelicalism, there are many rooms. And in some of them, it is possible to be committed to Christ, to be committed to Scripture, and to be committed to affirming gay folk and gay relationships — all while retaining the same degree of intellectual consistency and theological fidelity exhibited by Hugenberger.
In looking at the Mennonite website, it seems they do not affirm homosexuality. Is that accurate? How much diverstiy on the isssue do the Mennonites tolerate? Because of their history of being persecuted, it seems they are less judgemental.
Here’s Fuller’s offical stand from the website: “Fuller Theological Seminary believes that heterosexual union must be reserved for marriage and insists on sexual abstinence for the unmarried. The seminary believes premarital, extramarital, and homosexual forms of explicit sexual conduct to be inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture.”
There is some diversity on the campus because of all the Presbyterians (of which I belong).
That sounds awfully like pluriform Sufi-Rumiesque fields beyond right and wrong to me. All interpretations of the Bible are theoretically equal (after all, Jesus didn’t say anything about cannibalism either), but some are more equal than others. Sorry, mate, still unconvinced. (You are no doubt suprised indeed! ;-))
Oh, I meant to add that I agree with him about materialism. I can get just as worked up about that as some of my wackier left-wing friends in the Anti-Capitalist Society. Some of my rants on the subject are Knoxian in proportion. ;-)
Thanks, both Johns! The Mennonites are split on the issue; though indeed, the MCUSA official position is not yet affirming, several Mennonite congregations are in fact affirming, and even bles same-sex unions. (Germantown Mennonite in Pennsylvania was the pioneer in that…)
At Fuller, the late Lewis Smedes led the way in a different understanding of homosexuality — arguing for a change in the conduct code at the time. His “Sex for Christians” certainly indicates his divergence from the “mainline” of evangelicalism. And I think we both know anecdotally of plenty of gay folks at Fuller, though most are closeted…
And of course, for every person not struck by lightening, there’s one that is…;-)
Hugo,
From my experience, Hugenberger’s attitude is a fairly standard evangelical one. (My agreeing with it may lead to some bias, of course, but I have heard such a view quite a bit in nearly 20 years within evangelical circles.)
And while not all who label themselves “evangelical” take the same side on this issue, I think you’d agree that where the differences exist, there are also differences in terms of how we look at Scripture and other issues.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
I agree absolutely, Chip. Where I disagree with Hugenberger is on the notion that a non-affirming position is the only plausible, biblical evangelical position. It is the majority position, to be sure. It is one from which those of us who do dissent should do so with reason, charity, and humility. But there are evangelical dissenters, and their numbers are growing.
Peace indeed!
H
Glad someone said that, Hugo. This is a common fallacy that I think will take some time to shift.
The problem I’ve found is that many of these folk have “against homosexuality” as a litmus test of ones evangelical credentials. So, when I’ve pointed out to people certain evangelicals who are not anti-gay the response has almost been, “Well, they can’t be evangelical then.”
ho hum.