Another Reflection on Homosexuality

So, I recently started translating through the Didache, mostly just because I haven’t really done it before. The Didache was written between 70-80 C.E. and it is essentially an early church catechism used for teaching new Christians. The thing which intrigues me most about the Didache, and probably confuses most modern theologians, is that it is entirely practice and not theology based. There is no exposition about God, the nature of Christ, or justification. All the things we deem so important in the modern Church weren't even in the basic catechism of the late first century. Instead, it was all about how to follow the path Jesus taught and repeats His teaching from the Gospels, especially the Sermon on the Mount, almost verbatim from the start, calling it the “Path of Life.”

When I’ve been going through it,one of the things which has caught my attention in this work is in the first chapter or so where among the "you will nots" which it repeats is found a word which means "you will not corrupt boys." Given the widespread Greco-Roman practice of pederasty, I think it's pretty clear as to what it is referring, that is, child molestation. However, there is no mention of any word which we would normally translate as "homosexual" such as “arsenokoites” or “malakos.” This, in my opinion, does lend credence to the idea that the homosexuality to which Paul was referring in 1 Corinthians 6 was of the pederasty kind when he used those terms, as within 20 years of Paul's execution, this and not what our society would consider acceptable homosexual relations was what was warned about. This being said, the religious practice and standard within the early church was still chastity or celibacy outside of legally recognized marriage.

It seems to me that the churches would not have ousted someone for their sexual preferences, but for expressing them in any other way than what was sanctioned by the church, being marriage. Within marriage is the capability of the sacrificial love and the expression of Christ lived out towards one another. It isn't about one's happiness or self-fulfillment, but about one's identification with Christ in His death, being co-crucified with Him. The seeking of multiple uncommitted partners, regardless of sex or gender, is all about one's own pleasure and personal happiness, and is incompatible with the Path of Jesus Christ. I think there is still much discussion to be done on this topic, but the goal and guiding principle to our Christian practice must always be remaining in Christ and shedding those things which are impediments to this.

The only sexual relationship recognized by the church since the beginning is a marital relationship. As I have written, marriage within the church is a devotion to Jesus Christ and it is a special focus of surrendering and sacrificing yourself for your spouse as Christ did for the church. It is, in effect, a church sanctioned special dispensation from the rule. Otherwise, the standard within Christian practice is total celibacy. Any kind of promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation, is an impediment to remain in Jesus Christ. As Paul recognized, there are two or three reasons for this special dispensation. The first mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7 is that "it is better to marry than to burn", presumably referring to one's natural sexual drive overtaking a person. Otherwise, there were family duties and obligations to consider to produce children and heirs. But it is this first one which I want to consider here, as it is clearly a legitimate reason for Christian marriage according to Paul, and even Jesus said not everyone can accept being made a eunuch for the kingdom of God.

We now know through various studies that homosexuality is more than a person's choice of lifestyle. There are real differences when comparing a homosexual person's brain with a heterosexual person's brain. And, from what I understand, among these people, it is either very difficult, or simply not possible for them to become sexually aroused or interested by the opposite sex in the same way that it would be difficult or impossible for a heterosexual person to be. This does not mean, however, that they do not have a sex drive, or that they will not struggle with that sex drive. But laying out for them that the only way they will be able to resolve that struggle in a way which does not form an impediment to remaining in Christ is to be joined with someone of the opposite sex to whom they are not sexually attracted does not solve this problem and only creates far more. I am thinking of a recent story I read where a homosexual man who was a Christian married a woman, had children with her, but struggled so much that he ended up divorcing her so that he could go be with men romantically. This story is, to my understanding, not unique, and this situation could have been avoided completely if he had been permitted to enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex, and applied the same understanding of Ephesians 5 to that marital commitment.

These are questions that pastors and theologians who are sincere and want to teach the Path of Jesus Christ with compassion and truth need to be able to address honestly. We cannot, as followers of Jesus Christ, embrace promiscuity on any level, regardless of sexual orientation, as it is clearly not about remaining in Christ but about fulfilling one's own fantasies and desires. But neither can we honestly set a person up to fail like this either. This is not compassion, and certainly not loving these people as Christ taught us.