In this extract from Same Sex Relationships, John Stott addresses an argument commonly posed in favour of same-sex relationship…
A common argument in favour of same-sex sexual relationships borrows from Scripture the truth that love is the greatest thing in the world (which it is), and from the “new morality” or “situation ethics” of the 1960s the notion that love is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship (which it is not). Yet this view is gaining ground today.
Quality of love is not the only yardstick by which to measure what is good or right.
Back in 1979 an Anglican working party issued the report “Homosexual Relationships: A Contribution to Discussion”. Its authors did not feel able to repudiate centuries of Christian tradition, yet they “did not think it possible to deny” that in some circumstances individuals may “justifiably choose” a homosexual relationship in their search for companionship and sexual love, “similar” to those found in marriage. Surely any relationship characterised by mutual commitment, affection, faithfulness and support should be affirmed as good, not rejected as evil? It rescues people from loneliness, selfishness and promiscuity, and it can be just as rich and responsible, as liberating and fulfilling, as an opposite-sex marriage.
In the spring of 1997, in a lecture delivered at St Martin-in-the-Fields in London, Bishop John Austin Baker gave his own version of this argument. Formerly Bishop of Salisbury, he had chaired the Church of England’s Doctrine Commission, as well as the drafting group which in 1991 produced the report “Issues in Human Sexuality”, which argued that while same-sex relationships could be permitted among the laity without church discipline, they were not appropriate for clergy, who were expected to live out the teaching of the church. In his lecture, he astonished the church by his apparent volte-face. The goal of Christian discipleship, he rightly affirmed, is “Christ-likeness”—that is, “a creative living out of the values, priorities and attitudes that marked his humanity”, especially of love. Now sex in marriage can be “a true making of love”, and “erotic love can and often does have the same beneficial effects in the life of same-sex couples”.
However, the argument based on the quality of same-sex love is flawed.
Love needs the law
While it is of course true that love is the only moral absolute, even love needs law to guide it. Not in the sense of keeping the Old Testament law in order to be saved, or in terms of observing the various requirements of the Torah which have been fulfilled in Christ. But for Christians, the moral Law has not been abolished. In emphasising love for God and neighbour as the two greatest commandments, Jesus and his apostles did not discard all the others. Indeed, the rest of the Law and the Prophets “hang” (NIV) or “depend” (ESV) on the commands to love God and neighbour (Matthew 22:40). All the other moral commands flow out from and express the commands to love God and our neighbour. They spell out more specifically how we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Or, as Paul puts it, love “sums up” and “fulfils” the Law (Romans 13:8 and 10 and Galatians 5:14). Love and Law cannot be separated. Indeed, Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my command” (John 14:15).
So then, although the loving quality of a relationship is an essential criterion, it is not by itself a sufficient criterion to authenticate such a relationship. Let me give you an illustration, drawn from my own pastoral experience. On several different occasions a married man has told me that he has fallen in love with another woman. When I have gently remonstrated with him, he has responded in words like these: “Yes, I agree, I already have a wife and family. But this new relationship is the real thing. We were made for each other. Our love for each other has a quality and depth we have never known before. It must be right.” But no, I have had to say to him, it is not right. No man is justified in breaking his marriage covenant with his wife on the ground that the quality of his love for another woman is richer. Quality of love is not the only yardstick by which to measure what is good or right.
Similarly, we should not deny that homosexual relationships can be loving. But the love quality of same-sex sexual relationships is not sufficient to justify them. Indeed, I have to add that in a sense they are incompatible with true love, because they are incompatible with God’s law. Love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved. And our highest human welfare is found in obedience to God’s law and purpose, not in revolt against them.
This is an extract from Same Sex Relationships by John Stott, a revised and updated section from Issues Facing Christians Today.