Tupper’s ‘Homosexuality and the Church’ option (2of4)
By Dr. Frank Tupper • Jul 2nd, 2009 • Category: thinkingOption 2. Deviation from God’s Intention in Creation: “Welcoming but Not Affirming”
The second option shifts the argument by distinguishing between homosexual behavior and homosexual persons. The advocates of this viewpoint generally accept the biblical warrants against homosexual activity characteristic of church tradition, but it does not reject homosexual persons as “perverts.” “Welcoming but not affirming” is an affirmation of Christian love that requires openness, receptivity, and kindness to all human persons—regardless of any other factor, including the particularity of any kind of human sin. Indeed, all those whom the Christian community welcomes into its worship and fellowship are sinners. The characterization of any human person as a “pervert” is a denial that all human persons have been created in the image of God and all persons are included in God’s affirmation of the creation of humanity with “Very good.” Like all persons who have failed in the intention of God in creation, the homosexual person is welcomed into the life of the church. However, like other patterns of habitual sin, the homosexual person must repent of his or her homosexual behavior and accept the intention of God in creation: the norm of heterosexual relationships. Repentance for this sin is mandatory, “to turn to” the recognition and that any homosexual relationship constitutes sin, requiring the forgiveness of God. Moreover, as all other forms of habitual sin, homosexual relations ultimately prove to be self-destructive. That is, homosexual relationships cannot provide the wholeness and productivity of life that God promises to heterosexual relationships grounded in monogamous love.
“Marriage” requires the union of a man and a woman committed to each other in a monogamous union. The affirmation of “marriage” has been defined through the creation of God and accepted in the social structures of common human history. The characterization of a “same-sex relationship” as a “marriage” rejects the action of God in creation and elevates a sinful human construct above the intention and purpose of God in joining male and female together as “one.”
Homosexuality is “an unfortunate deviation” from what God intends in creation, “a tragic given” that persons engaged in homosexual activity must accept. Sometimes persons who have been caught up into the practice of homosexuality are heterosexual, and these persons experience the healing of their perverse sexual behavior in the celebration of heterosexual marriage, i.e. the lifelong commitment to one another, male with female. In these instances it is quite clear, whatever the level of clarity, that the practice of aberrant same-sex relationships constitutes some measure of choice. To be sure, the measure of “choice” is shaped through human genetic make-up as well as the experience of their human environment. Like forms of sin, nonetheless, the person guilty of homosexual sins may not recognize that his or her behavior, attitude, and life orientation is sinful until he or she experiences it in the bondage of sin—a choice made without any awareness of the deliberation of choosing. Even after the liberation from sin through Jesus Christ, the continuing threat of homosexual sin remains a graphic part of life, the possibility of succumbing to the luring lust in homosexual activity a lifelong vulnerability (and therefore, for all practical purposes beyond the wholeness of healing). As with other negative predispositions, whatever the situation, the person living with daily homosexual temptation must exercise a “severe” discipline for the sake of the integrity of her Christian commitment, for participation in the goodness of creation, and for escaping an otherwise destructive form of life.
Although sexual identification is an essential part of human personhood, sexual gratification, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not essential to the wholeness of a person’s humanity. Neither the celibate person nor the single person can equate the absence of sexual gratification with human deprivation: Thanksgiving for the gift of life endures apart from sexual fulfillment. Granted, some persons remain celibate through the particular affirmation of the gift of their humanness, quite content with a wholesome life that does not include the element of sexual satisfaction. However, celibacy is not always a gift but the consequence of personal circumstances. Admittedly, many persons remain celibate despite their wholesome desire for sexual fulfillment in marriage. The intrinsic sexuality that significantly defines all human persons is only one dimension of life among other dimensions that remains unfulfilled, or perhaps better said, not actualized; but the specificity of one’s particular situation becomes an opportunity for God to bless a person in a fashion that would otherwise not be possible. Yet the hard truth remains: Fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness requires self-discipline and self-control, because the loss of self-restraint in self-indulgence, whether single or married, proves personally and relationally destructive.
NOTE: each of the four options posted are attempts to artuclate the perspectives on thier own terms and do not represent any particular individual’s view. Details can be found here.
Dr. Frank Tupper is an ordained Baptist minister and Professor of Theology in the founding faculty of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity. In 1973 he began a distinguished career teaching theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary before coming to Wake Forest University where he would get to have both Chad and Tripp in his theology class at the same time!!!
Email this author | All posts by Dr. Frank Tupper
[...] 2. Acceptance of persons but rejection of homosexual behavior: the norm of heterosexual marriage, the a… [...]
The characterization of any human person as a “pervert” is a denial that all human persons have been created in the image of God”. (I agree) “The homosexual person must repent of his or her homosexual behavior and accept the intention of God in creation: the norm of heterosexual relationships”. (I disagree) For me, it is not sinful to participate in a homosexual sexual act with a God blessed committed partnership. Sexual activity between man and wife or committed God blessed partners is not sinful but a God given gift to lovers. “Marriage” the word in the past has been a ceremony that joins a man and woman,and allows them to live together. Now whether the people joined together behave as “Christians” has always been left up to the individuals and God the judge. The couple decides all things. They usually participate in sexual activity to show their love for each other and for the purpose of having children. I have never seen a list that tells us, it’s not in the bible, of what sexual acts are sinful or blessed acts. Society has determined that caressing, kissing, intercourse, etc. entered into with love and respect, and consent, for the other is acceptable behavior. These acts between homosexual partnerships should be entered into with the same consent as any other partnership. “Sometimes persons who have been caught up into the practice of homosexuality are heterosexual, and these persons experience the healing of their perverse sexual behavior in the celebration of heterosexual marriage.” Now that is quite a statement. We all know that some people in heterosexual marriages engage in acts that are the same as homosexuals enter into. Now does that mean that one is participating in a sinful act and the other is not? Is it the acts (behavior) or that the fact that it is between man and man and woman and woman. I have know people who have been in a heterosexual marriage and then after divorce, entered into a homosexual committed relationship and vice versa. “Although sexual identification is an essential part of human personhood, sexual gratification whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not essential to the wholeness of a person’s humnity.” “Thanksgiving for the gift of life endures apart from sexual fulfillment.” Now how did this get into this particular part of the discussion. We are talking about SIN. The choice of being married or single could only come into this if we think that a homosexual person, in order not to sin, must live a celebate life. If anyone marries or enters into a committed partnership for me it would not be in order to have sexual gratification. There is never a guarantee of sexual gratification. These unions must be based on the deep love, respect and affection for each other. A natural gift from one to another in these situations is the practice of sexual activity that demostrates the oneness of their union. And the two of them are as one. This is a very holy picture. There is satisfaction in this participation whether you have an organsim or not. “Fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness requires self-discipline and self-control, because the loss of self-restraint is self-indulgence, whether single or married, proves personally and relationally destructive. (I agree). However, there is self-indulgence that I think has nothing to do with sin. Love is both giving and receiving. To be single or married is simply a personal choice or the right partner has not been found. The ultimate for me would be to be married to a man who loved me and thought of me as special and unique as God does.
[...] can find the opening post here and the 4 different views presented (1,2,3,4). Big Daddy Weave, Pop Theology, and Baptimergent have also blogged about this [...]
I was reading your post here and it generally paralleled your post on the other page. I have a question. When you wrote, “For me, it is not sinful to participate in a homosexual sexual act with a God blessed committed partnership.” How do you know that? How do you know that God would bless a partnership that he explicitly prohibited in the Bible? You make a lot of assertions but you don’t say what you base them on. Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Christ which is why they base their theological principles in the Bible and Christian tradition. You seem to accept the existence of sin but you write like that is just a subjective phenomenon meaning whatever you want it to mean. Do you have some inside track to the Holy Spirit that the gospel writers and 2000 years of tradition just missed?
How can one be a Christian and reject Christian teaching? You claim Christ is your pattern but reject the source from which you got the pattern to begin with–the Bible and Christian tradition. That is self-contradictory. You cannot have it both ways. If you believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable that’s fine, but in doing so you are making an argument that Christian belief is false because it contradicts your claims.