Appendix 3: Homophile orientation

Homophile orientation is the term used here to distinguish the same-sex inclination from homosexual activity and "gay" lifestyle. In any person inclined thus it can be a source of much grief or much blessing, depending on how it is understood and managed. With the gay ordination issue rending the church, especially in UK and USA, and gay marriage being canvassed more widely, the evangelical response is reasonably well defined at a political level. But at the pastoral level it is much less clear, and indeed is fraught. This is especially a problem at churches with a very large population of unmarried people in their 20s to early 30s. But the basic dilemma is no different elsewhere.

In respect to discerning and thinking about different kinds of love, C.S.Lewis' The Four Loves is admirable - if only he had written it 30 years later so as to include more on homophile affections. As a starting point we need to accept the well-documented fact that for three to four percent or so of our society (and presumably a similar proportion of Christians) this is an issue fairly central to their existence and even sense of identity. So is it a sickness/ disability/ ailment, or should it be seen more as something like a gift? - albeit not one that anyone would seek, and certainly distinct from the charismata of Paul's writings. But as part of one's giftedness nonetheless that is akin to and related to various kinds of abilities and sensitivities. It needs to be perceived in the light of God's sovereign grace and of Paul's reminder that "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose"⁷⁴. It is something which probably requires a lot of effort to manage in a godly way - a hard gift, since it precludes the 'one flesh' relationship and physical-emotional intimacy of sexual union in marriage. It means therefore that the homophile Christian will often be offering to God thoughts and affections which are unworthy and asking him to transform them and use them, indeed to sanctify them, constrained by his Spirit.⁷⁵

Of course the question of sexual orientation is not absolute, there are well-recognised gradations across a spectrum. Alfred Kinsey came up with a basic but useful 7-point scale which describes a person's sexual orientation at a given time. It runs from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual), with 3 being equally hetero and homo. A person's position on the scale may change during their life.

As to whether homophile orientation can be changed by psychiatric intervention, the effluction of time, or by God's power alone, the evidence is equivocal. Evidently in some cases it can, perhaps not so much by removing it as by it being overlaid with heterosexual desire, but that prospect certainly cannot be held out to all who would wish it, especially those who are well towards the homo end of the spectrum. Possibly it depends on how it has arisen, and that question is beyond the scope of these few words, not to mention their author. Don't ever limit the potential for God to change a person, but also don't presume that he will do so as readily as say healing a lame knee or a bout of depression by medical intervention.

I see two outstanding examples of individual men (both now dead) who I understand to have been driven by homophile affections and have so managed and constrained those that they were used powerfully by God to positively influence the church and bring major blessing to many in it. So I default strongly to the view that it is no accident or mere affliction, but in fact best seen as a gift (or at least potentially so - any gift can be misused). Will Vaus in Mere Theology - a guide to the thought of CS Lewis says that Lewis "makes the point that every disability, homosexuality included, conceals a vocation. To discover this vocation the homosexual must accept sexual abstinence." This view is supported in both the theological and autobiographical sections of Holiness and Sexuality - homosexuality in a biblical context, edited by David Peterson. The autobiographical section, by Martin Hallett, is frank and helpful - his True Freedom Trust⁷⁶ in UK is one outcome.

Such a perspective raises the question of what the church (or Christian peer group) does to support such people since they do not have support from a marriage relationship - the most basic support for most of us, and they are arguably more vulnerable. (Any single Christian is in similar position, but most have options that their homophile brethren don't. They still need substantial care and support, of course.)

A church men's weekend brought this idea out well (though not in relation to homophile situation specifically). Roy McLoughry talked about seeing "ashes experiences" - times when things seem to fall apart, such as a marriage problem, redundancy, physical adversity etc. - as "strange gifts", not thwarting us but making us wiser and more open, perhaps presenting new opportunities, turning a problem into blessing, even making us changed people. Of course, this is far easier said than done or experienced, but it contains much wisdom nevertheless.

It is often said in Christian circles that the situation of the homophile young person is really no different from that of any peers who are unmarried - both need to exercise self-control, etc. In fact of course there is a major difference between a young person who looks forward to the intimacy of the marriage bed as part of God's plan for them, and the one who simply cannot - knowing that such wonderful bliss is for them illegitimate and off the agenda. Their options and aspirations are really very constrained on that particular front, and one cannot even assume that they will see their future in the same way as the heterosexual person who decides to remain unmarried. However, having said that, not being called to heterosexual marriage "does not represent a new and unique experience that requires a change in the Church's teaching and practice. Some people attracted to the opposite sex also submit to the disciplines of singleness throughout their life. Many of these do so reluctantly and with no personal sense of divine call, though initial resentment may, by God's grace, be transformed over time to a greater acceptance or welcoming of their single state as indeed a divine charisma. A whole range of personal characteristics and/or circumstances (some nothing to do with homosexuality) may signal to a person that they are not called (and likely never shall be) to marriage." ⁷⁷

So, as youth turns into middle age, there may indeed be some similarity between the homophile person denied marriage for that reason and the heterosexual person who is denied marriage for many possible reasons other than personal choice. Both need to look beyond the hurt and resentment to worship a loving God whose purposes in this particular matter may be as clear as mud.

John Stott notes that homophile individuals have "a deep loneliness, the natural human hunger for mutual love, a search for identity, and a longing for completeness," and that like others who remain unmarried they should be able to find these things in the church family, if that term means anything in providing "a Christian environment of love, understanding, acceptance and support." ^77a They should not need to disclose their sexual orientation to everybody, though of course they do need to be able to talk very frankly with at least one wise confidante on what in this book we have called an accountability basis, with very specific and reliable prayer support.

Deploying their emotional energies as a solo gift will not necessarily be the calling of all homophile Christians and the balance between social expression of same-sex relationships and genital restraint (on the basis that any "one flesh" understanding of such relationships is inappropriate), can be delicate. These Christians are locked out of the main expression of physical intimacy which others take for granted as an aspect of life which is basic for emotional wellbeing. If sexual expression is unacceptable, in what ways is it appropriate for homophile Christians to express their affections towards other individuals of both sexes and enjoy meaningful intimacy in so doing?

This is an important question for any church to address, so that it can give positive and not merely negative guidance to its homophile members. Too often the church is seen or portrayed as wagging an admonishing finger at homophile Christians, focused solely on what they should not do. In effect they can be saying that homophiles cannot expect any emotional fulfilment and intimacy, rather than helping them see the positive possibilities within God's loving purposes for them and others. A partial answer is that homophile affection - as with any other celibate love - is appropriately expressed in a number of relationships relatively equally, not primarily in one, that it does not seek to own or possess the ones loved (as eros appropriately does mutually in marriage) and that it is not genitally-driven. In the case of relationships with younger persons they should respect and not diminish or overshadow that person's family and peer group relationships, nor seek to monopolise their affections.

There are Christians who rationalise what I see as a clear expression of God's mind on the subject as found in Scripture and who embark upon full homosexual relationships. My view is that while those relationships continue as an attempted facsimile of marriage, their enjoyment of such (insofar as it is that beyond the short term) is likely to preclude their greater enjoyment of God's purposes for them in remaining abstinent. But this is hard, when many around them are following their instincts - albeit also having to live with the consequences. Many homosexuals find that steady exclusive long-term relationships are agonisingly elusive, and Christians tempted to try that option need to be aware of it. But how readily do they find an affirming alternative in Christian community at some level? "Singleness can only be a path of human flourishing when set within the context of loving community."⁷⁸

Tim Bradshaw's book The Way Forward? collates the feedback from dissenters (mostly) to the St Andrews day statement on homosexuality, preparatory to 1998 Lambeth Conference.⁷⁹ He adds a couple more very valuable contributions, and rounds out with a summary.  It is excellent (notably the summary) and provides much food for thought.  (Even the liberal contributions are valuable, being more nuanced than might have been expected, and some being quite extraordinary.  The True Freedom Trust input is worthwhile.)

Bradshaw uses the Eros-Venus distinction of CS Lewis, which is valuable (though the term eros connoting 'erotic' misleads). But if we distinguish intense emotional affection and attraction from sensual genitally-oriented indulgence ('venus'), then we can consider how the eros might apply in the present context. Obviously its possessing and exclusive belonging aspects do not apply, nor any singular exclusivity at all - these being properly part of the normal expression of eros. The challenge for the church is to affirm what expressions of eros are appropriate, whether homo or hetero outside marriage, and help people put the brakes on expression of the 'venus' aspects (this would mean all genital homosexual expression in terms of Bradshaw's two vocations - marriage and single-celibate, and the well-established definition of chastity).  There is plenty of scope for the self-giving agapé love with this intense emotional affection, especially as it is spread around several people.

Thus for most Christian homophiles, the intimacy of a single exclusive marriage relationship can be replaced by a number of relatively intimate but non-genital same-sex relationships.⁸⁰ Undue focus on what is foregone misses the key respects in which some degree of homophile orientation may be a gift from God, and how it might be (and long has been) applied in ministry.  We need to be more positive in the church than simply avoiding homophobia on the one hand and not condoning homosexual practice on the other - where does that leave those affected? It seems that often the church does not deal with the issue or the individuals affected at all well, perhaps due to a mixture of fear and ignorance. For his or her part, the homophile Christian can easily feel condemned to eternal frustration and denial rather than simply challenged by the need for self-control and one non-negotiable constraint.

So how does one of these relationships with someone very close to a homophile Christian differ from a "normal" unconstrained homosexual relationship? The most important way is probably in that there is no sense of ownership such as is implicit in eros. Any sense of belonging is more like that of siblings or a quasi parental relationship. More obviously, there is no genital focus or shared genital activity. And any such relationship is most unlikely to be unique over many years, as marriage certainly is and as many gay homosexual relationships aspire to be. Here, love is expressed not in the security of exclusive mutual commitment or even in being together a lot, but in encouraging independence and growth in the other. It should be the same as any very close same-sex friendship such as need to be encouraged without fear of being seen as a bit queer.

The main biblical example of deep same-sex love and friendship is David and Jonathan⁸¹ , which is represented very positively, including its demostrative aspects - perhaps because it was in the context of a society where any erotic homosexual practice was intolerable, thus conferring greater freedom. Incidentally this is also a covenanted relationship, but without eros overtones. Others are between Ruth and Naomi, and Paul and Timothy, without any hint of homophile aspect.

Bradshaw also says that "There is a sense in which we all have the potential for sexual relations with either sex." This seems to me to be substantially overstated. As I understand the situation, while the great majority are firmly heterophile, there is a substantial minority of people spread along the spectrum between unambiguous hetero and homo positions. However, Bradshaw from this makes two important points: that sexual orientation is not entirely a fixed category but is often significantly changeable over time (which I take to be years to decades)⁸², and emotional lives are shaped by social context and experience. Both of these insights are valuable in understanding the possibility of change and hence in our allowing or encouraging it pastorally and prayerfully (while not equating change or the expectation of it with God's blessing).

Christians with homophile disposition or orientation cannot be expected to do much about the way they are "wired", but they can and must live holy lives and ensure that all their relationships are edifying. It would be optimistic to expect all homophile attraction and inclination to abate, but it is very realistic to expect - in the context of faithful prayer by self and others - for the main pastoral and other relationships to be largely free of lust or inappropriate aspects of affection, and certainly not suborning vulnerable others. Accountability partners have a vital role here, as in so many other areas. The important thing is that each individual can go forward faithfully, in the power of the Spirit, to experience God's blessing in line with their own gifting and calling, including those aspects discussed here.

A 2004 book, referred to above, is very valuable in bringing together biblical perspective, theological reflection and the practical experience of a celibate homophile man together with a medical perspective on causes: Holiness and Sexuality - homosexuality in a biblical context, edited by David Peterson, Paternoster Press 2004.

Finally, we can note that the homophile condition, along with unrequited love, homophobia and much else that reflects the disorders of our fallen world, will not exist in the new heavens and new Earth.

IHL

Back to top

Goto chapter   Previous  a, p, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5  Next