Yesterday I discovered a post on a popular pastoral blog that criticized a well-known evangelical pastor for not preaching more sermons on the topic of homosexuality. Their reasoning: since this pastor has a growing church in New York City, and ministers to lots of singles, it is sinful for him not to openly preach against “the wickedness of sodomy” (their words). The only reason for him not to, would be fear – fear of man and a desire to protect his own reputation.
At least that’s the argument.
This line of thinking assumes that there would be no other reason for a pastor to approach this topic with great care.
For many reasons, homosexuality has become the issue not only for contemporary culture, but also for the contemporary church – defining boundary lines and immediately sticking one in either the camp of “liberal” or “conservative” often depending entirely where they fall on this single issue. And sadly, it seems that the loudest Christians who receive the most publicity on this topic are the angriest; many doing everything short of waging war against the homosexual community.
So, should pastors never address the topic of homosexuality? Of course they should. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul contextualizes the Ten Commandments for Timothy’s current context. The only reason for him to bring up same-sex sexual acts under the overall heading of adultery or sexual immorality would be that it was a specific sin prevalent in 1st Century Ephesus. Paul was being a good pastor in using scripture to address the issues of the day. However, how did he do it? We can use the passage to mine some principles on how to talk about such an explosive topic.
1. Paul specifically mentions homosexual practice and not homosexual persons. It’s men who practice homosexuality (arsenokoitai).
As much as Paul says, however, he never says that being gay is a sin. Homosexual activity is clearly named as sinful, but not necessarily those that would identify themselves as gay or who wrestle with same-sex attractions. This is a small but important distinction.
This simplifies things. It means that when a staff member confesses to same-sex attractions, your first response is certainly not to fire him. It also means that homosexuals in our churches are called to the same grace-enabled disciplined abstinence that we would ask of any single person in our church attempting to walk in the light.
2. Paul talks about homosexuality in the larger realm of Christian sexual ethics. Homosexual practice in the New Testament isn’t a sin worthy of some sort of special censure. Any church that has people in it, is going to be a church filled with people who sin sexually in a variety of ways, whether its use of pornography, extra-marital affairs, or sex outside the bonds of marriage.
The church needs to be able to call people to repent and then to equip them, in loving community, to walk out of sexual sin of any and every type.
3. After naming “men who practice homosexuality,” Paul is quick to confess his own sin. Specifically.
He says, “the law is laid down for sinners. Sinners like me.” And then he names himself as the worst, chief, or foremost of sinners. Along with naming the sins of his culture, he names his own sin. This is unheard of in today’s evangelical climate.
What if every time a Christian wrote an article on the “wickedness of sodomy” they also had to say, “but, you know, I looked lustfully at a woman last night, spoke sharply to my children, and I’ve practiced a lifestyle of safely secluding myself from the needy in my area. I’m no better.”?
This would bring a level of humility to the subject that could really help defuse tensions.
4. In his “sin list” Paul does not discriminate. He weaves back and forth between classic “liberal” and classic “conservative” sins: immediately after “men who practice homosexuality,” Paul aims his guns at human trafficking.
This is one reason that use of the words “sodomy” and “sodomite” are particularly unhelpful when talking about homosexuality. Ezekiel 16 clearly indicates that the sin of Sodom was “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease” along with a failure to “aid the poor and needy.” To use the word “sodomy” for one group of people but not the other is intellectually dishonest. A word steeped in fear is used only to shame and marginalize those we don’t agree with.
In the recent past, I believe conservative evangelicals have put too much emphasis on homosexuality. I think this has been done partly out of a love for truth, but partly out of fear and partly because the “gay agenda” makes for an easy target. Because of this, we are in danger of losing our “prophetic right” to speak to this topic. Any honest words are lost among the white noise of angry, hate-filled, homophobic jargon.
Evangelicals Christians have marginalized, attacked, and shunned homosexuals. The gay community knows that evangelicals think that they’re wrong. They haven’t heard, with nearly the same force, that we love them. Because maybe we don’t.
What do I want gays and lesbians both those inside my church and those outside of it to know more? That I disagree with their sexual lifestyle? Or that God’s true message is different than they’ve heard… that in the gospel, we find a surprising message of a God in hot pursuit of sinners and rebels of all types?
And this question is so important, because if I lead with the first message, it will most likely eliminate any chance I have to communicate the second. As Jochem Douma says, “The direction of our moral argument(s) should be from love to law, not from the law to love.”
This is why any pastor reaching into his community would want to approach this topic with great care.
See, one message comes in sound bites and is easily printed on a bumper sticker. The other message takes incarnation. It takes life. A grace-saturated life that disarms and breaks through defenses, loving despite differences and labels.
There are a ton of lessons I’ve learned over the years about what went wrong and why, but I’ve distilled five of the most important.
This week I’ve been reflecting on this quote by my friend Bob Roberts found in 
By Orion Berridge
Let us not forget that there are many vested interests in the propagation of the Internet as a normative part of our lives – many of which I’m sure are not concerned with our mental or communal health.
