If I may briefly respond to the letter by Jean Dix posted on the Outlook Web site in response to my earlier comments. I think the following insights will be helpful to the ongoing discussion.

Ms. Dix seems not to realize that the point of my comparison is not saying that homosexuality is a disease like alcoholism, but to raise the issue that proving some sort of genetic predisposition for homosexuality may not be the positive event that many gay and lesbian ordination advocates think it is. Just because something is genetically predisposed in a person, that in itself does not make that thing right, good, or helpful. It must still be evaluated and judged according to some standard. According to the majority interpretation of the standard we have in the church for faith and practice, Scripture, homosexual behavior is sinful and against God’s revealed will for humankind.

Ms. Dix makes a huge leap to compare the struggle of gays and lesbians with those of African Americans. On what basis? Prejudice against African Americans has been unrelated to behavior; they have been hated by racists simply because they are who they are. But no one I know of in confessional, orthodox, historic Presbyterianism is urging action against gays and lesbians because of who they are. But instead the concern is with specific behavior that appears to violate Scriptural and confessional norms. We have the same concern with church officers who are engaged in heterosexual extramarital affairs, church officers who embezzle, church officers who show a history of untruthful dealings with others, and on down the line.

I agree that the religious connotations of the word “marriage” indeed are a stumbling block. Ms. Dix and I may see eye to eye here. Civil unions do not bother me. They happen already for heterosexual couples who go to the justice of the peace but never darken the doors of a church. I can see a number of valid reasons why some sort of legal framework might be helpful. But these would not be marriages in the eyes of the church, from my perspective. My concern is with the equating of a gay union, civil or otherwise, with the covenant of marriage as described in Scripture. Such equating goes beyond what Scripture allows.

The reason that homosexual behavior does not fit in the categories of women’s ministry, slavery, Jewish dietary laws, and other issues that have evolved through the years of Christian conversation about them is that there is not one single solitary statement in Scripture affirming any sort of homosexual action. We have found in Scripture sufficient warrant to amend our views on these other issues. That warrant does not exist in Scripture for homosexual practice. There are times I wish the Scriptures were not so clear, for it would make my life much easier (not better, mind you, but easier). But the Scriptures say what they say, and I am under their authority.

From a human perspective, I’m not all that happy with Jesus saying that he’s the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and only through him can one come to the Father, for example. I would love to be able, humanly speaking, to affirm many ways to God. It would make living in our pluralistic world be far less bumpy, wouldn’t it? But I’m called to be faithful to what God has revealed through his Word, whether or not I like it.

My educated guess is that one of the primary motivations for Ms. Dix’s perspective is what she mentions at her letter’s end: her son is gay. I know this motivation is strong, for I too have a close family member who is gay. I love and support this family member, as I hope this family member loves and supports me, even though we disagree strongly on this and other matters. But our experiences and anecdotal stories are not sufficient to overturn the witness of Scripture, our confessions, and the universal Church through the centuries.

Clay Brown, pastor
First Church
Mooresville, N.C.