Ted Pecot's Discernment

I have changed in my view of what the Bible says in the last couple of months. In the last years, I have contented myself with the sense that Jesus’ love and acceptance was much stronger mandate, Biblically, than the condemnations of homosexuality. In fact, I have been convinced that the passages dealing with homosexuality (which are so few) are really about either idolatry – following a Greek and pagan view of body, politics and sexuality – or were about anti-assimilation, crucial for Jewish and Christian survival.

I have changed on this in the last couple of months, going back and reading and studying carefully. I think the arguments are compelling and need to be addressed, but I do not think they are accurate. I think, the Jews and Paul, in particular were quite critical of homosexuality and that the Bible authors, in general would be also.

However, there is so little that is said positively in the Bible about sex in any form that I come to the Bible with great suspicion about its sexuality and find within scripture more suggestion of what is wrong with us than what is right. This, all by itself, leads me to question the mandates of the Bible and look to other sources for clarification.

I also believe that there is an overriding value of producing children written into the Biblical record and its legal codes. This priority affect almost every ethical statement about sexuality in the Bible. In a time of overpopulation this needs modern review and God may call us to ethical stances that may be very different than in Biblical times in a similar way that in a day of modern refrigeration we may review many of the kosher restrictions.

In summary, I believe the Bible, for the most part (remember the Eithiopian) condemns homosexuals, and would condemn holy unions if it addressed them. However, this condemnation is perhaps motivated not by the Holy Spirit but is recorded in scripture as examples of laws made by persons fears and phobias. The Biblical restriction against homosexually is at least suspect and in need of modern review. Not only that, to take the further step and judge a group of individuals on their sexuality based on the Biblical record alone, I believe is a great mistake and something that I truly believe Jesus would be the first in line to oppose, even if he thought homosexuality was wrong.

I begin my discernment of my tradition from a series of paradoxes. First of all, it is clear that of two thousand years of Christian history, the most probably answer to the questions of holy unions is that it is not only not to be done but wrong or sinful. On the other hand, it was my tradition that taught me to be open to people different than myself and to love not only homosexuals, but some of the new lifestyles they are creating.

Some say that to open the door to homosexual unions is to threaten the family. Here, I think the United Methodist tradition is clear. Families have gone through so many evolutions in the last couple thousand years, that we might wonder what family means. At present almost half of all marriages end in divorce, What is there to be threatened. The United Methodist church already affirms many different kinds of families: single person families, heterosexual unions, and unions with children, single parents raising children, even groups of men or women raising children (institutionally this has been the model for many group homes. Men living together and women living together has been a foundation of Christian orders since the second century. About the only thing we are affirming that is different in a holy union of two gay men or women is the sexual part of their relationship, and even in this there is a raft of information on how orders have dealt with same gender sexuality within their communities that neither shuns the individual nor threatens their pastors.

And, apart from all of the rest, every single mentor, bishop, and district superintended that I have had since I entered the ministry was actively supporting the movement to include gays and lesbians into the church. The United Methodist Church in San Francisco did ground breaking work with the homosexual community thirty years ago that paved the way for greater equality for homosexuals everywhere in the world. It hurts me deeply when people tell me that I am breaking a covenant in this action, because I see myself sitting firmly in the midst of my teachers and colleagues.

Never before, in my life in the United Methodist church has dissent of conscience, which is accountable to the order, been considered disobedience.

I do not believe I am being disobedient to my tradition.

Does blessing homosexual unions in any way diminish our value of family and home. I cannot see how.

The most compelling issue raised by evangelicals for me is that homosexuality is a form of sickness and causes incredible amounts of pain within them and that they are much more happy in life and fulfilled if they are transformed in some way to heterosexuals. Certainly there is tremendous evidence for unbelievable pain within most homosexual communities. If it is true that this is due to aberant or sinful behavior, we should be helping our brothers and sisters to a whole life. But I have seen little from the evangelical community that makes any sense nor any evidence from scholarly research that would indicate this. I see a lot of evidence that this pain is caused by forcing natural homosexual tendencies into more socially acceptable heterosexual patterns, pain from incredible prejudice and societal abuse and stereotypes, and incredible pain from the need to have to hide, or closet, ones sexuality (also true of heterosexuals).

I don’t think there is even a paradox in this field of authority. We either simply don’t know the answers, or the ones we have validate the inclusion of gays and lesbians in my opinion. To not know is never an excuse to judge, and it is very possible (I think likely) that we have much to gain from blessing these relationships and seeing how they inform us as one whole community.

My experience with homosexuals leads me directly to an affirmation of their personhood and their sexuality. I see nothing in my experience that would make me think that their sexuality is aberrant or sinful. Nothing.

Furthermore, I see great value in it. My mentors and teachers have shown me this so my experience of tradition suggests inclusion. I have lived in two places that were influenced by a high concentration of gays and lesbians. In Berkeley, San Francisco and in Medocino the gay and lesbian communities have been able to live openly and not only questions some of the heterosexual life styles but create new forms of community that inform and bless the whole world. I have seen some choices in relationships that I don’t like and that I think are destructive. I have seen a deep and hungering hurt that leads some of my friends from relationship to relationship. A small minority of my gay friends (repeat, small minority) participated in a promiscuous sexual expression that I feel is as destructive as teenage male heterosexual promiscuity. However, I have been helped to see the historical place of this lifestyle to the point where even though I think it is problematic, I can also see something of the value it has had for the gay community.

So, even though I have some questions about individual cases, and some practices, there is nothing in my experience or in the experience of my teachers that would cause me to think of homosexual persons or their sexual practices as sinful by definition. It is simply not in my experience and because of the way I grew up, hardly ever has been. (Thank you Mom and Dad!)

It is only the divisions within the church that are now are making me question some things I have been settled on for a long time. That is, because my church is saying what it is saying, I must reconsider my position. Because my colleagues who are also faithful to Christ