Home » Board

Sexuality & Homophobia

Throughout our history, the Student Christian Movement has long drawn controversy because of our prophetic stands for justice for all - whether it was the rights of workers, women, immigrants or people of colour.

No less controversial has been our support for the rights of LGBT people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender - also referred to as ‘queer’). Not only do we welcome LGBT students into our movement, but we see diverse sexualities as gifts from God and thus essential to a justice movement rooted in our faith.

Dialogue is important, particularly on issues that tend to divide Christians. Please read more about why we feel this is a Christian faith issue in our Queer & Christian Without Contradiction campaign and feel free to leave comments on any page or in the forums.

The policy below, SCM’s Resolution on Sexuality & Homophobia, is associated with our Anti-Oppression Covenant, which recognizes that all forms of oppression are linked and interdependent.


RESOLUTION ON SEXUALITY & HOMOPHOBIA (1990)

The Resolution on Sexuality and Homophobia was radical and ground-breaking when it was written in 1990. As we increase our solidarity with queer communities, we recognize that today this statement no longer reflects our intent or stance as a movement because it is not inclusive on a number of levels, including anti-oppressive language and theological diversity. Please post comments below as the statement is being reworked by SCM’s Documents & Policy Working Group (DocWorG).
(Disclaimer passed by consensus, National Council 2008)

WHEREAS because we in the Student Christian Movement believe:
that sexuality implies a whole way of being;

that sexism is an assault on the physical and emotional well-being of
women;

that sexism pervades our economic, social, political, and religious
structures;

that like sexism, heterosexism does violence to gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered people;

that all of us, men and women, gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans or heterosexual
experience alienation because of sexism and heterosexism;

that at the same time , we are all incarnations of God and that our
sexual and spiritual lives merge into holiness when we seek right relations;


AND THUS AS A MOVEMENT WE PLEDGE…
to struggle to overcome sexism and heterosexism in all aspects of
society;

to challenge each other within the SCM to be in right relation;

to express with creativity and passion our conviction that women and
men are fully equal;

to affirm the holiness found in the diversity of ways we express our
sexualities;

and to proclaim that all of our body-selves are precious aspects of
God


Resolution adopted at National Council May 1990

By davidb at Mar 9 2005 - 6:05pm | Board | Issues | add new comment

I've had the privilege to rea

I've had the privilege to read several forums concerning homosexual issues on this site so far. All have been really informative and thought provoking. Some commenters have at several times posted on all these forums that those who think homosexuality is a sin (note: this means they hate the act, but not the actor) may be reading their bible through culturally-tinted, historically based lenses or interpreting the Bible to support their own biases. I find this really interesting because when Paul wrote in Romans about the "unnatural relations" occuring between man and man that displeased God, it was during a time when it was actually the norm in Greece and maybe even in Rome for men to have young boys as providers of sexual pleasure. I mention this because it shows that at the time Paul wrote these words, it was culturally and historically similar to modern times in that homosexuality was known of, practised, and even accepted by mainstream soceity. And yet Paul still called it "unnatural relations." I don't know about you, but that means something to me. I know in many ways the culture and time and stuff like that will raise up comments quibbing that the two times may be incomparable, but they can't deny that the practise of homosexuality did exist openly during this time.
I mention this because I want to emphasize that the argument "Christian negativity toward homosexuality is culturally and historically bounded and thus has no legitimacy during modern times" (aka we should accept the act of homosexuality) is not supported. History shows that when Paul's words against homosexuality were written, it was during a time when it was present and even thriving in mainstream Greek soceity. This is a comment I hope in some way will spark some discussion. Or make people think. I really believe God has blessed us with other disciplines (e.g. history, math, science, economics, etc) so that we can use these to understand and tackle such big issues as homosexuality.
Although there are different views, I'm glad we can share them openly. I'm even more encouraged because I'd like to believe we're doing so because we want to understand the Truth of God's Word and with joy spread it across all nations. So may God see our discussion and debate and bless it, making much fruit come from it. May Truth reign, Wisdom guide and love be supreme. Spirit work. This is our prayer. Lead us to the rock higher than ourselves.
By anonymous at December 28, 2007 - 1:57am | reply to this comment

Resolution on Sexuality and Homophobia

I read your declaration on the above subject with great interest. It made me wonder the following:
1. the place of the Holy Bible in the definition of SCM Canada's beliefs
2. the stand of God's word on Homosexuality and SCM canada's Resolution on homosexuality.
3. What really is SCM Canada? Is it a Christian Organisation whose faith is built on the Teachings of Christ and the Apostles or is it a group of people posing as Chirsitians yet denying the very basic teaching of Christianity.

No matter what we say and declare, Homosexuality can never be more or less than what it is, that which the Holy Bible says - " A perversion of God's intent for and definition of Sex.
By anonymous at April 12, 2007 - 3:58am | reply to this comment

inclusion and compassion

As a Christian, I see myself as a follower of Jesus. Although he lived his days two millennia ago, when I read the Bible, his teachings still ring true for me, and his way of life is an example that I want to emulate. I believe the key to Jesus' teaching, and to his healing power is that he Lived Love. I use a capital "L" for both those words, because divine Love was manifest in Jesus' life as deep respect, and acceptance of all people. Jesus met each person he encountered with life-giving power; through conversations, through deep knowing, transformation and healing took place. I believe that is still true today.
What is "homosexuality"? In the dictionary, it is defined as "feeling sexually attracted only to people of the same sex as oneself." It says nothing about perversion.
I am more inclined to read the Bible for spiritual guidance, and to read my dictionary for definitions of temporal things.
By anonymous at November 19, 2007 - 9:07pm | reply to this comment

The Bible is better seen as t

The Bible is better seen as the glasses through which we interpret life, its story informs our stories, but doesn't write them! There is a danger to take the Bible SO LITERALLY that we put its value above the law of loving your neighbour as yourself and Jesus ultimately.
Congratulations on reading the posting and showing that you had interest in something very different from what you have grown up believing.
We are Christians, our lives are rooted in and informed by Biblical story and Jesus attributes and life. Is the very basic teaching of Christianity that homosexual behaviour is sinful or the law that Jesus said sums up all the law and the Prophets.."to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neigbour as yourself"? I am not saying that homosexual behaviour is positive or negative but neutral, not more or less than heterosexuality, they are two equally valid ways of being that people simply are...I challenge you to meet Jesus in the living flesh of today instead of simply relying upon cultural historical tradition to bring him to life for you. The Bible is only a part of the whole picture...look BIggeR and you will see MorE.
Peace to you
By anonymous at September 2, 2007 - 12:57am | reply to this comment

Responding to "Anonymous"

Thank you for taking an interest in our statement on Sexuality and Homophobia. In future, it helps debate if you can identify yourself (you are more than welcome to register a login name and participate in some of our forums on scripture, theology, etc).

I can attempt to address your concerns, but I don’t speak for the movement, just how I understand it.

1) Read out mission statement. The first line is “We are the Student Christian Movement because we feel called to engage the prophetic teachings of the revolutionary Jesus of Nazareth.” Obviously, since almost the entirety of our knowledge about Jesus is in the Bible, we look to the Bible to discern what Christ calls us to, and also “God’s will for the world and to understand our role in it.”

2) If you wish to understand how we understand God’s word on the question of homosexuality, see our pamphlet on Homophobia in the Churches - it has scripture resources (also available on our scriptures forum). All of the passages supposedly condemning homosexuality are, in our understanding, actually condemning sins of inhospitality, collusion with the Roman Empire, or contextual aspects of ancient Hebrew society.

If you believe homosexuality is ‘perversion’, then do you wear clothing of multiple fabrics? When was the last time you cut an animal in half and walked between it? It seems you are critiquing us for selective reading of the Bible… but I don’t think anyone can claim to follow it 100 per cent. Correct me if I’m wrong.

3. What is the “very basic teaching of Christianity” of which you speak? For me, this teaching is the liberation promised in Jesus. That’s built on the teachings of Christ (found in his Sermon on the Mount, his proscription to “love your neighbour as yourself” as one of the highest laws, and throughout the Gospels).

Even St. Paul warns against judging others’ lifestyles and beliefs, when our arrogance itself is called into account. (see Romans).

I hope you are interested in discussing this - feel free to continue this conversation in the spirit of reconciliation and love.

In Christ the Liberator,
david

By davidb at May 18, 2007 - 5:13pm | reply to this comment

Using language of incarnation is not appropriate.

I am in full agreement with this statement's intention and purpose, and I agree that these interlocking oppressions must be resisted because we encounter "holiness when we seek right relation." Absolutely!

I have to admit, though, that I find the use of incarnation, as in "we are all incarnations of God" and "all of our body-selves are precious aspects of God" inaccurate and problematic for two reasons.

1) Within Christian theology, "incarnation" refers to the unique status of Jesus Christ - he is the "Word become flesh" - the full presence of God-as-human. The Spirit that created all things and fully whole humanity coexisted completely and without conflict in Jesus. Thus, whenever we reach for this integration for ourselves, our theology and praxis can be termed "incarnational." To say that we are all "incarnations of God" in effect says that all human beings are God, when the Christian tradition can only affirm this about Jesus the Messiah.

2) If "all of our body-selves precious aspects of God", then we are arguing, in effect, that all of reality is God, or that all human beings are God. But since human beings oppress each other, this would mean that evil/oppression and good/being in right relation are simply flip sides of the same coin, even indistinguishable from each other. And if this is true, there is no theological or philosophical basis from which to fight oppression.

Since I don't think the statement is trying to say this (someone correct me if I'm wrong!), may I suggest that the more appropriate language is that of "the image of God"--humanity as a mirror of God. This takes seriously both that we often distort what others see of God when we oppress each other, and the hope that there is something good inside of us, something which longs to be in right relation with each other, and with God.

I would suggest the following word changes: "we are all made in the image of God" [instead of "incarnations of God"] and "our body-selves are precious to God and made in God's image" [instead of "precious aspects of God"].

What do you all think?

In peace,
Rob
By daywalker at February 7, 2007 - 10:04pm | reply to this comment

Let's propose a change for National Council

Thanks for your comments, daywalker!

I would suggest we propose to National Council to amend the statement to take these considerations into account. I think we’d be saying what the board had meant to say, but without making a particular theological statement I don’t think we could really defend.

If someone is really attached to “incarnation theology” and has a justification, then what do you think? Otherwise it just sounds like we didn’t really know what we were talking about.

Of course, if you’d like to be AT national conference in May, you could propose it beforehand! (What do you say?)

By davidb at February 19, 2007 - 3:19pm | reply to this comment

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

Post new comment


anonymous