LGBT and Christianity
by
Charles Graves
The initials stand for Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexuals and Transgender persons and obviously as a feature of sexual belonging the subject-matter interests theology. Many Christians are aware of these types of identity and are agreed that all of these have their place within the church but other Christians believe such identities and their recognition take people away from Christian practice and belief. In general, psychologists accept these categories of sexual orientation and perform their psychological or psychiatric services to each person accordingly.
In fact, the categories of LGBT are not necessarily ‘fixed’ – some persons (because of a certain balance of estrogen and testosterone or other hormones in their hormonal structure are more or less heterosexual but mildly lesbian, gay etc.. If the tendencies are notable, however, the person involved may wish to ‘come out’ (saying publicly that they are of one or another of the LGBT grouping.) There is also a fifth category called ‘queer’ which some persons may wish to identify with.
But sexual self-identification may divide community spirit, namely through ‘homophobia’, This is where individuals are upset by the phenomena of gays, lesbians etc. and consider that their own self integrity is at risk because of these categories being publicly expressed. Homophobic people are almost a sixth category. What should a Christian think about all these categories and the phenomenon of ‘Coming out’?
The categories in the LGBT world are almost like skin color or shape of the face or body – categories of types of persons – a way of delineating the different types of persons in society. That is all they are – there is no good nor bad in these categories, they are simply descriptive titles.
But the types do have a definite repercussion on social life which may upset the normal ways, when the different types create families, for example. A gay or lesbian couple cannot produce children so this challenges the usual family structure of society. Does this mean that gays should not have a family if they wish to live together and create a family? These issues are all being worked out today in societies with a ‘liberal’ outlook, but for traditional societies they are a problem: The Christian church and, in particular, the present Pope Francis I have spoken out in favor of respecting each person’s sexual orientation. The sports or military personnel with LGBT orientations are becoming more or less acceptable for the general public in their public roles and their rights are being accepted. The churches have more or less followed this, although ‘fundamentalist’ Christians or extreme Roman Catholic groups remain intolerant.
In any case, a person’s sexual orientation is inherited and each individual must take responsibility for one’s own tendencies based upon one’s own hormonal patterns. Prof. Dick Swaab has shown clearly in his book the development within the womb of a child’s sexual orientation and the hereditary-based development of sexual orientations after birth - one can hardly claim nowadays that a person ‘decides’ - as they develop into adults - to be homosexual or lesbian-oriented. They will only identify as such if they already have a hormonal structure which leads them in such and such a direction.
How does the LGBT phenomenon influence theology? If everyone, according to religious belief, is ‘created’ in the ‘image of God’ this means that sexual orientation is god-given and not based upon human wish fulfillment. Most people can know what are the erotic desires and towards which sex they are directed, or their hormonal drives and where they are directed. So, also, almighty God knows about each of these if we believe God is all-knowing. The main issue is what does a human do with one’s sexual proclivities? In most cases there is no problem – having a wife, husband or companion of the opposite sex is the usual path. The choice of companion usually follows the sexual orientation but not necessarily since some individuals have not really known or yet discovered their orientation. But because of the homophobes there are those who are afraid of finding or discovering such matters, ‘coming out’ as one species or another is not easy and, in general, society protecting heterosexual-based families impede a frank discussion of the sexual-orientation phenomenon.
In reaction ‘gay pride’ marches and demonstrations often combat the public reluctance to freely discuss sexual orientation differences. We might, as theologians, look at the issue from the point of view of the DNA – each individual by genetic procedures has been given his/her biological type underlying the kind of hormones being expressed in the sexual-orientation aspects of one’s human body. The result, created while in the mother’s womb, is not of ‘our own’ making but is, so to speak, inherited from our parents through DNA. When we are born, sexual orientation is already, in its primitive essence, in existence, ready to be awakened in us, at a particular time as in puberty and beyond. And in adolescence our orientation will probably be more obvious if not before. As we look forward to marriage or having children our sexual orientation will determine our social actions with the ‘opposite’ or ‘same’ sex partners. Meanwhile we are ‘spiritual’ beings, and our spirits will be searching for fellow-spirits, companions which may be of one or another sex. The hormones will be obliging us to do all this and we should probably, in our mental evaluation of this, direct our actions in the best way possible for ourselves and others. For this reason, many young people learning how their hormones are working in sexual orientation, ‘come out’ expressing themselves as gay, lesbian or bi-sexual or some even may begin to imagine a ‘change of sex’ as trans-sexuals. And such self-discoveries may lead to unexpected decisions which upset the usual provisions for a heterosexual society where marriages are between men and women and where no provision has been made for persons not heterosexually oriented.
It may be noted here, however, that various events may frustrate such ideal self-evaluation e.g. traumatic experiences as a child or strong homophobic ideas in the parents.
So, ‘coming out’ (i.e. expressing openly one’s sexual-orientation) is not ‘against nature’ or anti-social but it is a reasonable activity which can be respected although often shocking. The ’right wing’ distaste for this phenomenon can be accepted only if that branch of society does not hinder such ‘coming out’ and accepts it as one of the features of social life. To oppose ‘coming out’ should not allow any more than some vocal opposition and certainly not violent physical opposition. The question might be asked, moreover, what is the orientation of homophobic persons? From where comes their ’phobia’? If this is discussed, there might be a new chapter in the LGBT debates.
I am a member of an organization which promotes a certain literary author’s works and debate has occurred about the bi-sexuality of this author. For some years homophobic members denied this feature of their beloved author and the group was caught in a quandary. But when it was publicly accepted that one could discuss the issue the conflicts were stilled and a new acceptance of the author’s bi-sexuality more or less became the norm.
The same was true with gays being accepted as USA military personnel. Public pressure obligated the American Congress to pass laws protecting persons of all sexual orientations in military service. The same is now happening in professional football and basketball. Members of the USA government administration are of all variety of sexual orientations.
How does a LGBT person react to various theological tenets met in the Christian church liturgy and parish life? Gay persons are no longer prevented from becoming clergy or bishops. In general, the churches have been able to look at the sexual preference issue rather reasonably and not discriminating against non-heterosexually-oriented persons in its leadership roles. This is not the case for all religions, for many still hold heterosexuality as the theological norm for believers, particularly in Islam. But DNA research will probably undermine the ‘patriarchal attitudes’ which discourage ‘deviations’ among Muslims. Also, right-wing Christian groups still hold on to a concept of Christian marriage which can only be heterosexual and are firmly opposed to any other type.
If, as Christians are taught to believe, Jesus Christ dying on the cross and rising again into life died in this way to redeem all mankind, and this redemption or justification of everyone was meant for the process of the DNA which appears in everyone who is born. Hence, the human DNA has, as an integral element, according to Christian belief, a redemptive element in it, so that whichever human sexual orientation exists, it is redeemed from the old condition which has befallen humans because of their free will to chose God as their creator or to choose themselves as creator. If anyone wants to believe the Christian message then it results that every human, by the very fact of being born, can be an object of redemption, i.e. can be freed from ‘no-god’ i.e. rejection of God. Religion is a choice that can be made by everyone since it is so-to-speak ‘inscribed’ in human procreation, i.e. in the centuries of DNA. This is a wonderful gift that the church and religions offer to each new human being: he or she can contact God and all their past ‘sins’ can be forgotten (as well as all those which have passed to them in their DNA). This happens no matter which sexual orientation the individual may have been born with in embryo. So, the sexual orientation issue becomes one of many issues which the growing person can deal with when the time comes for some decision. It in no way affects the redemption offer which the DNA also brings to the young person. In this sense sexuality is parallel to godliness and not opposed to it.
Sexuality can be seen in the context of godliness as one of the many issues human face while living this life. It is like skin colour or nationality – it is neutral as far as final justification of our life is concerned. Like any other ethical issue to be decided upon, it requires our free will choice and the resulting action depends upon that choice. With God’s help we might be able to treat our sexual orientation correctly in the best way for ourselves and others. That is what really matters – how we deal with anything that is presented to us in life regarding some choice which we must make. The Church is mainly alongside us to help make ethical decisions which promote our happiness under the Creator God. So, Christian ethics is not about how we accept our sexual orientation but, rather, about how we use it is our life’s progress. One particular aspect of it is the love attached to it. And since love is also a feature of God, our human love can be guided by God’s similar type of affection.
Sexual orientation then can enter into God’s plan of ‘loving the world’. This provides an ethical context in which sexual orientation and ‘love’ can operate. If God’s love and our love coincide then the ‘ethical choices’ can be helped. God has prepared love between human beings and our sexual orientation can participate in God’s love (which is greater than ours and is a category in which human love can grow).
As far as ‘Gay pride’ and public manifestations of our sexual orientation is concerned the world in general has accepted such manifestations and persons may freely chose to manifest by taking part in them. It is helpful when Christian institutions support any kind of truth-recognition activities but oppose certain anti-social movements which deny the truth about human nature. Because sexual orientation differs between individuals it is a truth-linked reality the church must accept. That is, the existence of such a fact of our biological nature is self-evidently something which the church should not deny and it should help its members deal with the reality of this as it does with other aspects of human existence and human free will.
In fact, the categories of LGBT are not necessarily ‘fixed’ – some persons (because of a certain balance of estrogen and testosterone or other hormones in their hormonal structure are more or less heterosexual but mildly lesbian, gay etc.. If the tendencies are notable, however, the person involved may wish to ‘come out’ (saying publicly that they are of one or another of the LGBT grouping.) There is also a fifth category called ‘queer’ which some persons may wish to identify with.
But sexual self-identification may divide community spirit, namely through ‘homophobia’, This is where individuals are upset by the phenomena of gays, lesbians etc. and consider that their own self integrity is at risk because of these categories being publicly expressed. Homophobic people are almost a sixth category. What should a Christian think about all these categories and the phenomenon of ‘Coming out’?
The categories in the LGBT world are almost like skin color or shape of the face or body – categories of types of persons – a way of delineating the different types of persons in society. That is all they are – there is no good nor bad in these categories, they are simply descriptive titles.
- Cf. Dick Swaab, We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimers. Penguin Books 2014, 417 pp.
But the types do have a definite repercussion on social life which may upset the normal ways, when the different types create families, for example. A gay or lesbian couple cannot produce children so this challenges the usual family structure of society. Does this mean that gays should not have a family if they wish to live together and create a family? These issues are all being worked out today in societies with a ‘liberal’ outlook, but for traditional societies they are a problem: The Christian church and, in particular, the present Pope Francis I have spoken out in favor of respecting each person’s sexual orientation. The sports or military personnel with LGBT orientations are becoming more or less acceptable for the general public in their public roles and their rights are being accepted. The churches have more or less followed this, although ‘fundamentalist’ Christians or extreme Roman Catholic groups remain intolerant.
In any case, a person’s sexual orientation is inherited and each individual must take responsibility for one’s own tendencies based upon one’s own hormonal patterns. Prof. Dick Swaab has shown clearly in his book the development within the womb of a child’s sexual orientation and the hereditary-based development of sexual orientations after birth - one can hardly claim nowadays that a person ‘decides’ - as they develop into adults - to be homosexual or lesbian-oriented. They will only identify as such if they already have a hormonal structure which leads them in such and such a direction.
How does the LGBT phenomenon influence theology? If everyone, according to religious belief, is ‘created’ in the ‘image of God’ this means that sexual orientation is god-given and not based upon human wish fulfillment. Most people can know what are the erotic desires and towards which sex they are directed, or their hormonal drives and where they are directed. So, also, almighty God knows about each of these if we believe God is all-knowing. The main issue is what does a human do with one’s sexual proclivities? In most cases there is no problem – having a wife, husband or companion of the opposite sex is the usual path. The choice of companion usually follows the sexual orientation but not necessarily since some individuals have not really known or yet discovered their orientation. But because of the homophobes there are those who are afraid of finding or discovering such matters, ‘coming out’ as one species or another is not easy and, in general, society protecting heterosexual-based families impede a frank discussion of the sexual-orientation phenomenon.
In reaction ‘gay pride’ marches and demonstrations often combat the public reluctance to freely discuss sexual orientation differences. We might, as theologians, look at the issue from the point of view of the DNA – each individual by genetic procedures has been given his/her biological type underlying the kind of hormones being expressed in the sexual-orientation aspects of one’s human body. The result, created while in the mother’s womb, is not of ‘our own’ making but is, so to speak, inherited from our parents through DNA. When we are born, sexual orientation is already, in its primitive essence, in existence, ready to be awakened in us, at a particular time as in puberty and beyond. And in adolescence our orientation will probably be more obvious if not before. As we look forward to marriage or having children our sexual orientation will determine our social actions with the ‘opposite’ or ‘same’ sex partners. Meanwhile we are ‘spiritual’ beings, and our spirits will be searching for fellow-spirits, companions which may be of one or another sex. The hormones will be obliging us to do all this and we should probably, in our mental evaluation of this, direct our actions in the best way possible for ourselves and others. For this reason, many young people learning how their hormones are working in sexual orientation, ‘come out’ expressing themselves as gay, lesbian or bi-sexual or some even may begin to imagine a ‘change of sex’ as trans-sexuals. And such self-discoveries may lead to unexpected decisions which upset the usual provisions for a heterosexual society where marriages are between men and women and where no provision has been made for persons not heterosexually oriented.
It may be noted here, however, that various events may frustrate such ideal self-evaluation e.g. traumatic experiences as a child or strong homophobic ideas in the parents.
So, ‘coming out’ (i.e. expressing openly one’s sexual-orientation) is not ‘against nature’ or anti-social but it is a reasonable activity which can be respected although often shocking. The ’right wing’ distaste for this phenomenon can be accepted only if that branch of society does not hinder such ‘coming out’ and accepts it as one of the features of social life. To oppose ‘coming out’ should not allow any more than some vocal opposition and certainly not violent physical opposition. The question might be asked, moreover, what is the orientation of homophobic persons? From where comes their ’phobia’? If this is discussed, there might be a new chapter in the LGBT debates.
I am a member of an organization which promotes a certain literary author’s works and debate has occurred about the bi-sexuality of this author. For some years homophobic members denied this feature of their beloved author and the group was caught in a quandary. But when it was publicly accepted that one could discuss the issue the conflicts were stilled and a new acceptance of the author’s bi-sexuality more or less became the norm.
The same was true with gays being accepted as USA military personnel. Public pressure obligated the American Congress to pass laws protecting persons of all sexual orientations in military service. The same is now happening in professional football and basketball. Members of the USA government administration are of all variety of sexual orientations.
How does a LGBT person react to various theological tenets met in the Christian church liturgy and parish life? Gay persons are no longer prevented from becoming clergy or bishops. In general, the churches have been able to look at the sexual preference issue rather reasonably and not discriminating against non-heterosexually-oriented persons in its leadership roles. This is not the case for all religions, for many still hold heterosexuality as the theological norm for believers, particularly in Islam. But DNA research will probably undermine the ‘patriarchal attitudes’ which discourage ‘deviations’ among Muslims. Also, right-wing Christian groups still hold on to a concept of Christian marriage which can only be heterosexual and are firmly opposed to any other type.
If, as Christians are taught to believe, Jesus Christ dying on the cross and rising again into life died in this way to redeem all mankind, and this redemption or justification of everyone was meant for the process of the DNA which appears in everyone who is born. Hence, the human DNA has, as an integral element, according to Christian belief, a redemptive element in it, so that whichever human sexual orientation exists, it is redeemed from the old condition which has befallen humans because of their free will to chose God as their creator or to choose themselves as creator. If anyone wants to believe the Christian message then it results that every human, by the very fact of being born, can be an object of redemption, i.e. can be freed from ‘no-god’ i.e. rejection of God. Religion is a choice that can be made by everyone since it is so-to-speak ‘inscribed’ in human procreation, i.e. in the centuries of DNA. This is a wonderful gift that the church and religions offer to each new human being: he or she can contact God and all their past ‘sins’ can be forgotten (as well as all those which have passed to them in their DNA). This happens no matter which sexual orientation the individual may have been born with in embryo. So, the sexual orientation issue becomes one of many issues which the growing person can deal with when the time comes for some decision. It in no way affects the redemption offer which the DNA also brings to the young person. In this sense sexuality is parallel to godliness and not opposed to it.
Sexuality can be seen in the context of godliness as one of the many issues human face while living this life. It is like skin colour or nationality – it is neutral as far as final justification of our life is concerned. Like any other ethical issue to be decided upon, it requires our free will choice and the resulting action depends upon that choice. With God’s help we might be able to treat our sexual orientation correctly in the best way for ourselves and others. That is what really matters – how we deal with anything that is presented to us in life regarding some choice which we must make. The Church is mainly alongside us to help make ethical decisions which promote our happiness under the Creator God. So, Christian ethics is not about how we accept our sexual orientation but, rather, about how we use it is our life’s progress. One particular aspect of it is the love attached to it. And since love is also a feature of God, our human love can be guided by God’s similar type of affection.
Sexual orientation then can enter into God’s plan of ‘loving the world’. This provides an ethical context in which sexual orientation and ‘love’ can operate. If God’s love and our love coincide then the ‘ethical choices’ can be helped. God has prepared love between human beings and our sexual orientation can participate in God’s love (which is greater than ours and is a category in which human love can grow).
As far as ‘Gay pride’ and public manifestations of our sexual orientation is concerned the world in general has accepted such manifestations and persons may freely chose to manifest by taking part in them. It is helpful when Christian institutions support any kind of truth-recognition activities but oppose certain anti-social movements which deny the truth about human nature. Because sexual orientation differs between individuals it is a truth-linked reality the church must accept. That is, the existence of such a fact of our biological nature is self-evidently something which the church should not deny and it should help its members deal with the reality of this as it does with other aspects of human existence and human free will.
Photograph: ‘rock painting’ in Australia photographed by Graeme Churchard, Bristol (UK)
