This is a subject that Christians who are students of Social Science has much to say. The primary reason is because when it comes issues on interaction between governance and Christian ethics someone studying Computer Engineering or Geography or something of that sort is not taught in his or her classroom about governance or about Christian ethics. Students who study Political Science know better , or are supposed to, about governance than others.
But we need to first ask ourselves what the Bible say about homosexuality. Read the first few chapters of Genesis and one cannot possibly miss out that God first created one male and one female. And it is this one male and one female that God united them in marriage. In the New Testament Jesus went on to quote the Genesis account to make his point about marriage. If Jesus himself affirmed the authority of the Genesis account who are we, after all, to deny the authority of Genesis! To be precise, God's design is that physical union must be between one male and one female within the boundary of marriage.
Though this is the biblical teaching when one goes out to a pluralist society where people of different religion or lack thereof live together one cannot insist Christian moral principle for all. Similarly one cannot also insist Hindu ethics or Muslim ethics for every citizen. If Hindus insists that beef should be banned or Muslims insists that pork should be banned in the whole of India many people from the North East would rather tell this folks to leave India and form their own colony in some other planet. Decrimilaizing homosexuality is different from legalising it. For example, adultery is not a criminal act. An individual or family or a community will not say it's okay or legal but it's not considered a criminal act. Homosexuality, however, is a criminal act all over India except Delhi.
The issue is two edged. What should be the legal policy and what should be the church policy within its walls?
1. Should the Law decriminalize it since it is not crimilazing adultery or sex before marriage? Or should the Law criminalize adultery and fornication as well?
2. What should be the stand of the church for her members and priests? Can a church member practice homosexual act and be a called a Christian?
(The issue whether a Muslim man who has two wives can be given membership without having to ask him to divorce one or not will be discussed in the next post. Similar to that is a question whether a man who was a non-Christian and has already married a man can be given church membership now that he's become a Christian without having to ask him to divorce his partner. )
Comments
Straight in deeds and actions is the way to go. Cheers!!!
Regards
Robin
I think for us Brothers and Sisters in Faith it should be clear by now (through the Bible) what we intend to follow, the Law or the Love. Trying to formulate laws and dictum for everything is like replacing the Church with the State and that's certainly NOT what Jesus died and then got resurrected for. Whenever we try and bring in Law back into the body of Christ we run the danger of putting ourselves back into OT days.
God has given us Free Will and that in my opinion encompasses most of the things, you are free to do whatever you want....just be ready to face the consequences! Faith is a very personal thing, a person should be guided by his or her Faith and which is strictly between him/her and the Lord. For us believers its rather important to not tread the line of 'Intellectual pursuits' in Faith (or anywhere else for that case :)).
The state (many around the world) have legitimized same sex relationships/ marriages and when was the last time did we see the modern states asking the Church what to do and what not to? (...and I am pretty happy that way, going by the glowing examples of the churches of our Medieval times). So, the state and churches would always be in opposition because that's the way its supposed to be. However, the question was about 'within the walls of the Church' , well with Law comes persecution also (I believe..) so, does that mean Brothers and Sisters if they go astray should be dealt with Punishment/Persecut ion? I don't know how Christ like would that behavior be?
Believers are meant to be ruled and led by Love and not Laws. People (in or out of the Church) would continue to sin, our responsibility is to behave according to Christ.
****Abhishek Pawan***
I agree that “Faith is a very personal thing…”. But I would add to that and say whatever I believe (and hence practice) also have serious consequences to the society to which I am also a part of. And hence what we Christians believe and practice in the churches (or private life) would definitely have consequences beyond the four walls of the church. So I would definitely oppose such people from holding roles of church leadership or solemnizing or recognizing their marriage as acceptable marriage. But at the same time I am doubtful that such a person (say, a homosexual) should be debarred from church membership. Can he or she be called a Christian is still a difficult question. May be somebody will throw light on this.
I have seen churches where murderer, thief, adulterer, etc are disciplined. And I think it's biblical.
I don't know about the morality of eunuchs and not-by-choice-homosexuals, but if it comes to
going under the knive for sex-change, I think Christians must take a rigid stand in saying NO!
Thanks.
Ungshungmi Rungsung
It's so strange that in Naga and Kuki societies which are predominantly Christian you don't find gays whereas in Meetei society which is predominantly Hindu you find gays. What could be the reason? After all Kukis, Meeteis and Nagas all have more or less the same gene pool. I think it's because of the ethical teachings. In fact, polygamy is also not rare in Meetei society. And it's not really looked down upon as it is in Kuki and Naga society.
Recently in our Seminar with Faraday Institute, Denis Alexander said something like this: Sex ratio in prison all over the world is 20:1 generally speaking . This shows male are more violent prone than female. But what is there in male than female don't have? Chromosome Y. But for male to attribute to Y for their violent behavior is not really justifiable because all men have Y chromosome, and all men are not violent. So chromosome Y may have little role but one cannot attribute it to chromosome Y and justify violence because ultimately it's the way we are raised and the choice we make and so on that determine our conduct.
I think attributing to gene for gay behavior makes them somewhat like robot.