Opening Statement by John Rankin

Homosexuality and the Church

Opening Statement by John Rankin

Neil: John, you still with us?

John: Oh, I am indeed.

Neil: Good to have you with us, I appreciate you being a part of the conversation. John Rankin is head of the Theological Education Institute in Connecticut. And he travels the country doing what are called Mars Hill Forums, dialogues of a sort on controversial issues. Homosexuality is one I think you did recently in Rhode Island.

John: That's right.

Neil: And of course Mel White is still on the line with us. And we're going to get to some calls in a few minutes. But I want to give the microphone over to you for a minute to respond to some of what Mel has said, namely, that homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible. You probably have some other things you want to adjust. But thanks again for being with us. Why don't you just take it from here for a moment. Let's hear some response from you on some of these things.

John: Oh, thank you Neil, it's my joy. What I'll try to do is just give a synopsis of some thoughts I have in response to Mel. And then after I do that I'm glad to have Mel cross-examine me or what not. But let me just run through a few thoughts.

First of all, I came from a different background than Mel. I was raised as a Unitarian. And the Unitarian church perhaps more than any other church is affirming of homosexuality as a gift of God, in terms of their view of God. I came to Christ some 27 years ago in high school. And as I have come to the ministry and did my theological work I did a post-graduate degree in ethics and public policy at Harvard Divinity School and my particular thesis focus was on feminist ethics.

Now the reason I did my degree there after graduating from Gordon-Conwell, which is the evangelical seminary on the north shore of Boston for whom Billy Graham is the chairman emeritus. After coming out of an evangelical school, I deliberately went to Harvard Div where by their own estimates back in the mid-1980s, as many as half the students there were avowedly homosexual or lesbian. And I did my degree there purposely to listen, to make myself accountable to, and to be sure that before I would make any convictions known, that I listened to those who would challenge me. Consequently I did my thesis and did my work in the very context. And I was perhaps getting to know about a dozen or fourteen lesbian students who taught me more about the nature of the issue than almost anything else.

And I have come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are an ersatz relationship, that is, a fake or a substitute relationship that approximates but does not equal God's intent for sexuality from the beginning.

And just real quickly here in terms of the last comment about this pastor in Seattle who wanted to see homosexuals killed. This pastor, God bless him, doesn't have an understanding of biblical theology. Let me sum it up very quickly.

The Levitical law is based on a theocracy. It's a theocracy that's inaugurated when the Israeli tribes, the Jewish tribes, take Canaan following the book of Joshua. And there are only two theocracies in all of human history. Number one is the theocracy instigated by the law of Moses, and was over with the exile to Babylon. And number two, the theocracy when Jesus Christ returns.

Both theocracies are communities of choice and this is the way Joshua addressed the issue. His last words in Joshua 24 in his sermon on Shecham, he said to the Israelites who had seen God's work in the Passover and the Red Sea and the manna and the water and so forth. He said, if it seems more reasonable to you to stay to serve the gods across the river, or the gods in the land of the Amorites among whom you now are, then choose for this day whom you shall serve.

As we walk this through what we find out is that the blessings and cursings of obedience and disobedience of the Levitical law, the Mosaic law, was given to the Jews. And they were given the power of informed choice. And God said, if you like the laws, then come in and be protected. But there are also severe penalties if you transgress the laws. But the point was, you didn't have to come into the theocracy unless you wanted to. And you could leave any time you wanted to, unlike a lot of the pagan nations around there, where you would leave their nation on the pain of death. So that's the first observation.

Secondly, the only other theocracy there is, is when Jesus Christ returns. And the whole redemptive history in between is to bring us to a choice as to whether or not we want to enter that theocracy. Now what this means is that in a democratic republic, which is profoundly based on biblical ethics and the freedom not to be coerced into a religion not of your own choosing. In a democracy we have no basis imposing God's final judgement on people. The only basis we have is to give a positive view of God's laws, in a pluralistic society where people can vote and choose what they want.

So for example, I will disagree with the Puritan law that had laws against homosexuality, against even bestiality, fornication, and adultery. Because what they were doing was they were providing a larger secular society with a snooping privilege into people's lives. What I would much rather be in favor of are laws proscriptively in favor of the family, heterosexual, faithful marriage, and anything outside of that, people can not expect social support for. That's how I would approach that.

So I think that this fellow in Seattle did not understand scripture. I think the same is true with those of a theonymous, or reconstructionist theology. I think they are misinterpreting the place of the Old Testament. So that's the first thing I want to say.

Secondly, I want to look at this whole question about homosexuality as a gift of God. And Mel, I will be interested in your reply when I'm done with my thoughts.

If we believe that we're Christians, if we believe in the love of God, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, and his atoning death, resurrection, and second coming, we have to have some reason for believing that. Namely, we have to accord scripture some authority.

Now, if we give scripture any authority, no matter what perspective we come from, it is my experience in both conservative and liberal theological circles, that everyone agrees that all scripture is based on the three doctrines of Genesis 1, 2, 3: creation, sin, and redemption. Namely, that God gave us an order of creation, sin was our willful choice to reverse that order, and redemption is the reversal of that reversal made possible through Jesus Christ and faith in Christ. Accordingly, everything that is in the order of creation, that's Genesis 1 and 2, is God's positive nature revealed to us. And the trajectory, or the goal of redemption, is to bring us back to the promises in the order of creation.

Having said that, I then come to Genesis 1 and 2, where everything God gave is laid out for us. In fact, in Genesis 1 and 2 there are four issues talked about. As I have said in many university arenas, these are the only four issues that every other issue in life revolves around. These issues are God, life, choice, and sex.

Now in the order of creation they come in that order. "In the beginning God," his sovereign creation. And number two is human life, the whole creation structure for human life. Number three, choice, the power to choose relationships and aesthetic value and moral decisions is uniquely human and distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. And that's the height of humanity. And finally, is sexuality. And in sex, in marriage -- one man, one woman, one lifetime -- we have the highest place in which choice needs to be expressed, namely, whom shall we marry. Reason being, is that in sexuality, in the intimacy of husband and wife and in the procreative power that comes out of that, we possess the highest power that all scripture gives to human beings, and that's the power to pass on the image of God. That uniquely and completely fulfills the image of God in Genesis 1 and 2. So therefore, when we have children, we pass on the gift of life, choice, and sex to our offspring.

Now the reversal, or sin, is going to reverse that. Instead of God, life, choice, sex, it becomes sex, choice, life, God. Through the history of sacred prostitution, through abortion rights today, and through much of the homosexual rights movement, and even in secular humanism.... I found this out in the recent forum that I did in Buffalo. I find consistently, that whenever there are definitions of sexuality outside of monogamous marriage, they are those that employ choice as a servant to such sexuality, which can't afford the destruction of life in one form or another, which is an affront against God.

Now what I believe has to be shown from a homosexual position, if they are going to maintain any place in scripture, is that there is the provision on positive terms for homosexuality within the order of creation. There is none and I believe this relates to the nature of the trinity, the nature of sexuality, and the larger issues that surround that. So that's my next point.

The other point after that in terms of sexual orientation not being a choice. I found it interesting that Mel said that there is no biological evidence, which I believe also to be the case. It is determined in the womb or in the first three years. Well, if we look at the majority opinion of psychologists today, they will tell you the first three years is important in shaping a person's life, self-esteem, self choices. And so regardless of someone's experience in those three years, since I can not judge what someone says unless I have direct knowledge, what we're saying here is that there are many patterns of choices and self identity that can be pre-cognizant, in other words, even before we are aware of them, that are shaped in the first three years. And there are many addictive patterns, there are many attitudes which we seek to have people change that can likewise be formed in those early years. And so on that basis I think that if we're Christians we have to come back and say, OK, what is it that has shaped or misshaped someone's identity in the womb, or in the first several years. And no matter how difficult or how painful those issues may be for people, and I know they are, we still have to then come back to scripture and find out what is the original nature of male and female to begin with.

And then a few other quick points. First of all, Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude makes it a point that the sin of Sodom was sexual perversion. Fact of the matter is that even though all the men of the city came in and violated, or tried to violate the two guests, they demonstrated not an intrinsic homosexuality but a pan-sexuality. Romans 1, like Leviticus, makes it's appeal against homosexuality, not based on cultic ritual, not based on rape, or something like that, but based on intrinsic nature. Because Paul says, in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women, and were inflamed with lusts for one another. You see, before the word "lust" comes in, he says they abandoned natural relations, and this is an appeal back to the order of creation.

In terms of the fact that there is no word for homosexual, that's true. There are only words that describe lifestyles and do not describe intrinsic humanity. This is a powerful argument for me. Because what it is saying is that we are all made in God's image, and we may sin, or fall short in various ways, it could be heterosexual or homosexual context. It could be ways of being liars, or cheats, or being fearful people. And what we have in the homosexual rights movement today, is the identity is based on sexual orientation. It's not based on a prior reality of humanity. So I say the absence of that designation actually ratifying the heterosexual nature in the order of creation.

And finally, in terms of the whole question about condemning homosexuals, I think one of the most important passages in the New Testament is John 3:17. The Son of Man came not to condemn, but to save. Condemnation is ultimately self-imposed by those who want to live in darkness, versus those who want to live in the light. And my entire agenda is not to bring condemnation. The devil does enough of that, and we ourselves do enough of that. My entire agenda is to set forth the positive value of heterosexuality as God's gift. And from that point forward, I have gone out of my way, will continue to do so, to make myself accountable to the toughest questions that homosexuals or other people would want to throw at me.

And despite points of disagreement, I think that Mel will find, I think that those in other contexts where I've been involved have found, is that I will never treat another human being made in God's image as worth anything less than being that image bearer. It's their choice between themselves and God. I'm not their judge. But, if we do believe there is a God who has revealed himself, we do have to accord ourself with the scriptures.

Next