Chapter Three
Rev. Dr. Joerg Rieger

Joerg Rieger is a United Methodist minister and assistant professor of systematic theology at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He has written and edited several books, including Remember the Poor: The Challenge to Theology in the Twenty-First Century (Trinity Press International). His latest book, Between God and the Excluded: Reshaping Visions and Blindspots in Contemporary Theology (Fortress Press), is scheduled for release in fall 2000.

When, sometime ago, I mentioned to a colleague that I was writing about the relation of homosexuality and sin, his response was not exactly encouraging.

"Good luck," he said, "that’s a lose-lose issue."

Perhaps comments such as his are the reason there are virtually no reflections on this matter. But it seems to me that we lose even more if we continue to dodge the question of sin. Liberals are sucked more and more into some amorphous concern for inclusivity where "anything goes," and conservatives are stuck with definitions of sin that not so long ago also included dancing and going to movies.

Let me propose three understandings of sin that might help us to think once again about sin and human sexuality, and to reframe the question of whether committed homosexual relationships are inherently sinful.

In its most fundamental sense, sin signifies the separation of humanity and God and — as a consequence — the separation of human beings from one another. To sin is to turn in upon oneself. This sort of sin is best overcome by learning how to live in mutually committed relationships with other human beings and with God — relationships that include body and spirit. Such relationships have traditionally been exemplified by monogamous partnerships. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, everyone has the same potential for sinfulness; both types can fail and both types can, as we now know, resist self-centeredness and be a model for mutually committed and unselfish relations.

In another sense, sin is a cover-up of how we fail to live up to God’s intention for us: creations for relationship with God and with other human beings. We are called to connect with one another in love, trust, and respect. Yet often we misuse others for our own selfish purposes; we try to shape each other in our own image. In marriage, in particular, haven’t many of our relationships become exactly the kind of cover-ups that hide, and therefore perpetuate, the quest for superiority and self-aggrandizement of one of the partners? Again, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike possess equal potential for this sort of self-centered, abusive behavior. In the same vein, both are equally capable of expressing God’s intention. We can overcome this sin not by finger-pointing but by developing self-critical awareness, which will lead to repentance.

Finally, sin must also be understood as failure to keep the rules of the covenant — in other words, to obey the commandments. But here we still need to engage in serious theological discussion about which Levitical codes of conduct are relevant for us today. Readers of the Bible know that it makes little sense claiming all the rules put down there. Unfortunately, well-meaning Christians and the church have — often unconsciously — selected those rules that support their own way of life and have neglected others. We have elevated the 10 Commandments, for instance, but dropped the regulation that requires the restitution of property every 50th year; this is a regulation that might be quite relevant today, considering the debt of many Third World countries.

In order to choose more wisely in the future, we need to clarify how we select the rules we will follow. Where are the blind spots? Is our selection once again eliminating the concerns of those who are different, those who have less power, those who are not in a position to defend themselves? As United Methodist Christians, we must clarify for ourselves once again how we hold ourselves accountable to God’s will.