Get It Straight =)

One of the toughest topics the church is currently facing is it's stance on homosexuality. Not the least because it has become a public dispute, reaching weight value beyond the question itself. It's presented as a demonstration of larger issues such as equally shared love and grace, modernity of faith, church's ability/willingness to focus on people rather than letter of law - to name a few. Some of them are justified connotations, some not, but that's where the public circulates.

The Bible - building on the millennial foundation of Old Testament faith - has a stand on the issue. The stand is extremely clear, as any reader of the Bible can see it - homosexuality is pronounced as misbehavior, sin, shame, and the list goes on. New Testament picked up it unchanged. It is viewed as unnatural human behavior and thus wrong before God.

However, the discussion today is not about what does the Bible say about it, but rather what would it say about it today. The presented questions are: has homosexuality changed between then and now; if yes, can we relate to it through the respective passages, or should it be looked at in the light a larger theological system. Namely, are love, equality and the humane tint of western-Christian worldview weightier than simple pronouncements of various verses. My still-being-processed-answers to these three are - changed?: probably yes - based on passage/theology?: interactively both in respect to the first "yes" - humane tint?: it should not be avoided, however shouldn't either overrun other angles.

All these questions are really hard to handle in public media - which generally attempts to shorten, simplify and exaggerate the answers. Despite that, it is important to notice that the questions themselves are valid, and deserve a thoughtful answer.

The summarized and simplified stand of the church - as I have it - has been "love the person, hate the sin." And that's a good one - generally applicable to anybody's life, but I think it's far from enough to answer the related questions. In addition to the questions above, we should also ask ourselves: in the light of the consistency of our faith - do we view all sins alike (or should we), do we relate to sinners of every area alike (or should we). This all is besides the practical question on whatever our stand is how can we express it understandably. (I strongly believe that it is the responsibility of a communicator of anything to do the best to provide the audience with a change to understand. It appears that some communicators do not share this.)

It's not going to be possible for very long to simply neglect the issue (as has been done at some churches) or just offer a punch-line without being able to back it up - consistently with other issues, as unfortunately has also been done.

A couple of miserable attempts to have a say in the discussion has lately been the intercessory prayer gathering held publicly on the stairs of the Finnish Parliament house during the parliament was deciding the law on registering same-sex relationships. Miserable so, because the slogan - love sinner, hate sin - became a hollow cry, their actions seem to shout too loud the hate part. Another - a punch-line type - was the case of the Swedish pastor's sermon that brought the man up in the law court accused of agitation against a minority. He was pronounced not guilty, but again it became useless to the church to elaborate more deeply on the issue. (I assume that he would stand behind the previous slogan, too.)

I'm hoping the churches that will stand up first in public will see what's the real issue at hand. It might be different to the question asked, but an inaccurate answer will taint all the future statements too. It should also realize and consider the backpack we've inherited from the previous spokesmen.

I think the conclusion stated so far are far from final and I'm expecting the discussion only to heat up in the next years.