NAGALAND BAPTIST CHURCH COUNCIL
Throughout history, the Christian Church has faced the issue of Homosexuality and made her stand clear on the issue. The 2000 year history of Christian tradition has consistently opposed homosexual behavior as sin and a direct violation of the Biblical teaching on sexuality and marriage. But it is only recently in history that the issue has become more and more pertinent and a divisive force in social, political and even within the Christian community worldwide. Today, culture and society are progressing and changing rapidly, leaving many Christians perplexed and confused about whether the values and teachings of the Bible are still relevant for today, whether a 2000 year old tradition can still provide a framework for Christian Discipleship.
True Biblical Christianity is alive and well. The 2000 year history of Christian tradition still has its continuum among faithful Biblical churches and Christians. They span denominations and church affiliations. We are encouraged because there are many in Nagaland who belong to the group of faithful Biblical Christianity. We believe that there is nothing in the Bible that needs to be readjusted, deleted, toned down, or tamed. But rather, we believe that our personal lives and our collective faith need to be readjusted, reformed and enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that we fit into the framework of the Biblical teachings.
Biblical View on Marriage and Sexuality
We are the creation of God. Therefore on issues that are pertinent, we go back to the Bible to confirm and affirm the way in which God has created us as individuals and as a collective body. As believers we should not make the mistake of deciding what to believe and accept basing on the information gathered through media and contemporary culture no matter how appealing and convincing they may be. But we should base our belief firmly on the Bible, and only then respond to contemporary culture with grace, love and care without compromising on the Biblical framework for marriage and sexuality.
In the first book of the Bible, Genesis, we find God’s purpose for marriage and what it is meant to signify. God created man and found that he was lonely and needed a partner. This is significant because even when Adam (the first man) could commune with God in the Garden of Eden, he was still lonely. There was something missing. And so God created a woman-Eve, and they were to become as “one”, multiply and fill the earth. This word “one” used in Genesis is the same word that was used when God declared one of the most important concepts About God in the Old Testament “The Lord your God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy). Marriage is a divine covenant between a man and a woman, and their sexual union in marriage (becoming as one) is a spiritual one. This marriage relationship between a man and a woman is a reflection of the unity of the Divine Godhead-the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Any other relationship or arrangement is a direct violation of the divinely ordained institution of marriage.
There are verses in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13) which speak directly and rather harshly against homosexual behavior and practices. There are those who claim that the passages forbidding homosexual sex are part of the “purity codes” (for example, eating pork), and not the “moral codes” (example: the Ten Commandments). We know that the purity codes found in the Old Testament are no longer binding on Christians today. Jesus transcended the purity codes, and to be fair, we admit that the New Testament does not document Jesus talking about or against Homosexuality. But the test to determine whether any of the Old Testament codes are still binding on Christians is to see whether they have a continuum in the New Testament or not. With regard to Homosexuality, we find several passages in the New Testament forbidding Homosexual sex even between consenting adults (1 Timothy 1:9-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9). Another such prominent passage is in Romans chapter 1.
“…exchanging the glory of the immortal God for an image shaped like mortal man, even images like birds, beasts and reptiles. For this reason God has given them up to their own vile desires and the consequent degradation of their bodies…women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion.” Romans 1: 23-27.
There are many today who claim that this passage is taken out of context by homophobias to form a case against Homosexuality as a perversion and a sin, and thereby deprive them of their rights and privileges in society. They argue that in this passage Paul is condemning sexual eroticism, both gay sex and heterosexual orgies, that goes on in pagan religious rites and he is not necessarily condemning homosexuality per se. But as you can see, Paul does not specifically mention heterosexual sex in the passage although it is equally forbidden outside of the marriage relationship, which shows that this is a passage specifically addressing and forbidding Gay Sex. Another problem is that such modern day interpretations dare to differ with 2000 years of Christian scholars who have consistently read this passage as one of the clearest passages that addresses the issue of homosexuality without apology-that Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural human sexual desires. We cannot afford to make the mistake of reinterpreting the truths of Scripture to fit in our “modern” and “progressive” agendas. This does not mean that we are anti-modern or anti-progressive. In fact there is nothing “modern” or “progressive” about homosexuality or standing up for it. It is not like one of those issues which did not exist during Biblical times, and on which the Bible is silent and we have to assume a stand which we think is in accordance with the Bible. The Bible speaks very clearly on this issue if only we are reading and listening. As Mark Twain once quipped, “It is not the parts of the Bible which I don’t understand that bothers me. It is the parts which I do understand all too well and cannot live by”.
But even if for a moment we decide to put aside the Bible and reason from a purely logical point of view, we find that even a quick observation of the human body tells us that the male body is designed for the female body and vice versa. We find no hint from our natural bodies that men are supposed to satisfy men, or women to satisfy women. “Male” and “female” are not social or cultural terms, to be dictated by society and culture as to how and where they must find personal bodily fulfillment. Their essential difference is that they have physical sexed bodies outwardly visible and not inwardly determined by the emotional makeup or upbringing of the person; the male organs made for and different from the female organs and vice versa. And in this union of the sexed bodies in marriage, the wonder of God’s creative force is released to create new life. Homosexuality negates all these natural laws of the human body, male or female. It also negates the one important purpose of marriage – procreation. Of course the option of adoption is also available to many same-sex couples. But again this negates the very purpose of the family where a male-father and a female-mother nurture a child by reflecting the complete image of the Godhead in their marriage bond. All cultures, Christian or otherwise, have the concept of a male-father and a female-mother forming the most basic and fundamental of human institution-marriage and the family.
It can also be noted that while “male” and “female” are not social and cultural terms, their roles and sexual identities can often be dictated by social and cultural environments. Consequently, we believe that the confusion of sexual identities can also be prevented by promoting proper social and cultural environments. In our Naga society, the church has a big role in making sure that these positive environments exist.
A Gay man once argued that any behavior that is sufficiently exposed will become “normal” in due course of time. But how do we distinguish the normal from the abnormal? We come to know that something is abnormal, only because we know what the normal looks like. The unnatural and the abnormal can be defined only with reference to the natural and the normal. And as long as the normal and the natural order of things exist, what is abnormal and unnatural can never replace the normal and natural, or even gain equal status. Gay sex can never replace the normal cycle of life as noted earlier. Gay Sex is a perversion of the natural order of things. Any attempt to redefine the normal and natural will result in rejection of God’s order for creation. Therefore the Church must always strive to promote positive environments so that the normal and the natural will flourish as God intended.
Orientation and Behavior
There are those who differentiate between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They accept that there is an undeniable and unchangeable orientation in some toward homosexuality, but do not endorse homosexual behavior (the act of gay sex or gay marriage). And there are those who, although they have the orientation toward Homosexuality, have restraint themselves and remained celibate their whole life without turning it into a sinful behavior. Then of course, there are those who celebrate their orientation toward homosexuality by turning it into a regular behavior and lifestyle. While we acknowledge that there is an undeniable homosexual orientation in some, we do so carefully on the grounds that all humans do have a natural orientation toward sin, and that we will continue to struggle with sin for as long as we live on earth. But we struggle and often succeed by continually drawing resources and strength from God’s promise of forgiveness, restoration and the power of God’s transforming love. Homosexuality cannot be classified as an unpardonable sin.
Can orientation be changed? Let’s be honest. There is no definite answer and the debate is still on. But those who believe in the transforming power of God’s love and grace should never say never. At the same time, it would do us well also to remember that forcing change on others, and imposing our perfect ideals on them can turn out to be very unchristian and can damage the individual person, as well as our social relationships. May God continue to grant us wisdom in these matters.
Amendment of Section 377: Decriminalization of Gay Sex
Gay marriage is not legalized in India and it may take many more years if that were to happen at all. As for the judgment delivered on 2 Jul 2009, Amending Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, Delhi High Court overturned the 150 year old section, legalizing consensual homosexual activities between adults. This simply means that Gay sex is now not a criminal offence. This step was taken for several reasons. Some of them include the following facts: (1) That much of Section 377 is unconstitutional. Criminalization of Gay sex would violate Article 14 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law. (2) Jeffrey O’Malley, director of the United Nations Development Program on HIV/AIDS, said that “…countries protecting homosexuals from discrimination had better records of protecting them from getting infected by the disease. But unfortunately in India, the rates of new infections among men who have sex with men continue to go up. Until we acknowledge these behaviors and work with people involved with these behaviors, we are not going to halt and reverse the HIV epidemic. Countries which protect men who have sex with men... have double the rate of coverage of HIV prevention services—as much as 60 percent.” It should also be noted that 86% of the HIV AIDS affected men in India are Gays. If Gay sex remained illegal, even doctors treating Gay AIDS patients could be punished under the law. (3) It is also about protecting a minority group from discrimination.
While voicing our opposition toward Gay Sex or Gay Marriage, we need not unduly worry about the decriminalization of Gay sex in India and rush to issue moral statements. Rather, showing our sympathy for a discriminated minority is in tune with the example of Jesus. In fact the church ought to be able to extend her ministry to all sections of the society without distinction, discrimination or favoritism, totally regardless of sex, position, wealth, sexual orientation, etc. However, this does not mean that we endorse the behavior and lifestyle of the Gay community, or that we are open to members of such community holding leadership positions in our churches. The church cannot be open to Gay Marriage. We firmly believe in upholding the standards God has set for us in the Bible, and commit ourselves to live within the framework provided therein, and to help others to do the same. Living by these standards requires us to speak the truth, but to speak it with love.
Conclusion:
It should be noted that it is not the intention of the Church to take away the rights and privileges of a certain minority group. In fact, the Church today is a small minority in India. But we do not rely on our “minority” status to coerce people to get them to do what we want. Nor do we want to assume a Christendom stance and insist that all the laws passed must be in accordance with Christian principles, or that all lawmakers must be Christians. Christianity will survive with or without support of the Government or the Law. But we are called to be salt and light to the world. Salt is most effective when used in a modest quantity. Light is most useful in darkness.
We call upon all Christians to be salt and light, neither manipulating others by pulling the strings of our “minority status”, nor by assuming a majority status and become domineering, but by walking in the path of Jesus, to speak the truth in love, to love mercy, to act justly, and to walk humbly with our God.
Reference:
1. Lutzer, Erwin W. 2004. The truth about Same Sex marriage.
2. Dobson, James. 2000. James Dobson Answers your Questions about Marriage and Sexuality.
3. Campolo, Tony. 2004. Speaking My Mind, Chapter 5: Are Evangelical handling the Gay issue wrongly?
4. Campolo, Tony. 2006. Letters to a Young Evangelical, chapter 12: Being Straight but not narrow.
