There are
two issues in the popular culture and media that are of the gravest concern to
followers of Christ. The first is the
whole issue of homosexuality, specifically same-sex marriage, and the other is abortion. We are going to look at the first today, and
next time will engage the second. The
reason these two issues have become so important is not because they are new
issues – they’ve been around a long time – but with shifting cultural mores the
orthodox historical Christian position on these topics has come to be seen as
more and more out dated and intolerant.
Indeed, the pressure coming from some segments of society are so great
that many Christian are re-evaluating their views on these issues, so it’s important
that we start with the Bible and see if the Bible has anything to say on these
issues. Let’s begin with the issue of
homosexuality broadly, and finish with discussing same-sex marriage.
TfY’d – The Bible and Homosexuality
What seems
really odd to us about this whole issue is just how many Christians seem to be
wavering or uncertain on what is apparently clear in scripture. So the first thing we need to do is see if
scripture actually is clear on this issue.
Let’s start in the most obvious place, the place most often referred to
– Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not
lie with a male as one lies with
a female; it is an abomination.” This is
the text most often used by Christian in making a Biblical case against
homosexuality, but there are some pretty significant problems with using
it. Let’s watch a short clip from The West Wing to make these problems
clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ. As is made clear in
this clip, the problem with using this part of Scripture is that it is right
beside other directives that we don’t apply today because we recognise that
they were only given to a certain people group in a certain period of time and
were not intended to be applicable to all people in all times (this is called
the Mosaic Covenant – the agreement God made with the people of Israel through
Moses). So it would be best if we could
make a Biblical case from other parts of the Bible that don’t have the same
liability as Leviticus.
Long before Moses even existed, the Bible records God’s
judgement on two cities for their sexual practices – the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah. This story is recorded in
Genesis 18:16-19:29, but the key verse is 19:5, “and they [the men of the city]
called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight?
Bring them out to us that we may have
relations with them.’” It is clear from
the whole story that these were the practices of which God had heard and the
two men (actually angels) were investigating to see what was actually going on
and because of what they found they told Lot to get his family out and the city
was destroyed by God (19:23-25). So what
we have here is a clear case of God’s judgement on a city because of their
sexual practices that shows us God’s opinion of this apart from the context of
the Mosaic Law.
Skip forward to the New Testament book of Romans, chapter 1
and we see Paul issuing a condemnation of homosexual practices after the
conclusion of the Mosaic Law:
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the
natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the
natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
(Romans 1: 26-27)
It is clear here that
Paul is speaking against homosexual practices.
So what we have in the Bible is the clear instruction that God looks
upon homosexuality as a practice that is sinful and should not be carried out. Because this is condemned both before and
after the cultural, temporal Mosaic Law, it seems fair to describe it as an
enduring moral principle, unlike some of the things we find in Leviticus (like
wearing cloth of two types of materials).
Is this all that the Bible has to say?
Not at all.
Let’s look at 1
Corinthians 6:9-10,
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor homosexuals,10 nor
thieves, nor the covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Similarly, in 1 Timothy 1:8-10:
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made
for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or
mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever
else is contrary to sound
teaching, 11 according to the
glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
The same Greek word that is translated as ‘homosexual’ is used in both these places, and
it’s the word arsenokoitais, which means “a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity.”[1] Aside from these two New Testament passages,
there are also a few
places that speak indirectly against same-sex unions.
When setting out the
qualities of both Elders and deacons in the Church, Paul says this:
3 It is a trustworthy
statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine
work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be
above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent,
respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious
[argumentative], but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of
money. 4 He must be one who manages his own
household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not
know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that
he will not become conceited and fall into
the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation
with those outside the church, so that he will not fall
into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine
or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of
the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first
be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all
things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own
households. 13 For those who have served
well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great
confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:1-13)
In
this passage we see that those who would lead the Church are to be of the
highest moral standing including being engaged only in heterosexual, monogamous
unions. This list of qualifications is
reiterated by Paul in his letter to Titus (1:5-9). Similarly, when speaking about marriage in
Matthew 19:1-10 Jesus says that, “Have you not read that He who made them at
the beginning ‘made them male and female’” from which we see that the union of
male and female was God’s intention from the beginning and anything that strays
from that ideal is outside of God’s design.
These are three other areas of Scripture in which the importance of
heterosexual, monogamous unions are taught as God’s ideal from His creation
order.
At
this point, it would be good to engage with some of the criticisms that this
approach attracts. Some, when hearing it
laid out like this, will point out that Jesus never directly says that
homosexual practice is a sin, and therefore we cannot say that he is opposed to
it. One of the ways to engage with this
idea is to simply refer to his teachings on marriage mentioned above and show
that he is reinforcing the original created order. The other is to ask this question: “Are you
saying that whatever Jesus doesn’t directly speak against is permitted?” If that’s the case we need to point out what
other things Jesus never directly spoke about, things like slavery and spousal
abuse for example. Jesus never directly
said not to beat your wife…does that mean it’s permitted? Of course not! There are lots of things that Jesus never
directly discusses, but that doesn’t simply mean that his silence indicates
approval of those things.
Further,
this objection seems even stranger when it comes from a Christian as it shows a
very low view of both Scripture and Christ.
A High Christology, like that expressed by John in his Gospel, shows us
that Jesus was not merely a man, but was God himself. Therefore, as God, whatever God is recorded
as approving/disapproving in the Old Testament can be held as Jesus’
views. As we have already shown, the Old
Testament is clear on God’s views on homosexual practice and therefore we know
what Jesus would have said if he had addressed the issue. Also, the Christian view of Inspiration is
that the Bible is in some sense from God.
We don’t hold Jesus words to be more authoritative than the writings of
Paul, or John, or Peter or any other Biblical author; all of their writings are
inspired by God. Therefore, Paul’s
opinion is as valid as Jesus’ because he was writing under the influence of
God!
Two
more objections that are raised against the Biblical account are worth
mentioning. The first is that the word
‘homosexual’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible. This is not a serious obstacle, however, when
you understand that the English word was first recorded in the very late
1800s! Until then, other terms were used
to refer to the practice, most of them pejorative. Further, what difference does it make if a
particular word is used? If the act that
word signifies is condemned, as Paul does in Romans 1, then it doesn’t matter
what you call it. It’s worth noting that
the word ‘koala’ isn’t in the Bible either…
The
final objection is that God is love, and since God is love we shouldn’t be
telling people that they are finding love in an inappropriate way. This objection completely ignores the
Biblical data above, and further ignores the fact that there are many events
recorded in the Bible that indicate that God is also a just and holy God who
punishes sin! Sodom and Gomorrah are
testament to that, so are the Amalekites, the Egyptians etc. The person who advances this view is forced
to ignore huge sections of the Biblical narrative. Further, if taken to its logical conclusion,
this line of reasoning would mean that God cannot tell anyone that anything is
wrong! But this is contrary to what the
Bible reveals about God.
Born this way…really?
At
this point, we need to move away from the Biblical data and look at this issue
from a different perspective. What can
we say to someone who claims that homosexuals are born that way? This is the premise of Lady Gaga’s song Born This Way which contains lines like,
“I’m beautiful in my way/’Cause God
makes no mistakes/I’m on the right track, baby/I was born this way/Don’t hide
yourself in regret/just love yourself and you’re set.” Whether she is actually talking about
homosexuality here or not (and we think she probably is) this idea is rampant
in society today. First reaching
prominence back in 1990 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their book After the Ball: how America Will Conquer its
Fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s where they state:
To suggest in public that
homosexuality might be chosen, is to open the can of worms labelled ‘moral
choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents [extremists] a stick to
beat us with. Straights must be taught
that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is to be
heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.[2]
What this shows is that the idea that
sexuality is inborn began as a PR campaign to try and normalise the practice in
the eyes of the public and divert criticism away from homosexuals. Since then, the idea has become so widespread
that it is taken as fact by most people in society, both within and without the
gay community; it is frequently cited as a defence of homosexual practice. But is it true? There seems little evidence that it is, and
mounting evidence that it’s not.
If sexual orientation was entirely a matter of
nature, not nurture, then reorientation would be impossible…but it’s not. Thousands of homosexuals have been
successfully reoriented to heterosexuality over the past few years, proving
that it is, in some way at least, a matter of choice, not genes. Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason discusses
this issue in more detail in his July 2, 2011 edition of his Thinking Out Loud podcast in which he
tells of many former homosexuals that he knows.
These testimonies are powerful evidence that sexual orientation can
change.
There is in fact mounting recognition amongst
the medical community that reorientation is possible. Despite long holding to the view that sexual
orientation was in some way inborn, the American Psychological Association now
holds that:
There is no consensus
among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a
heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has
examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural
influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit
scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular
factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual
orientation.[3]
This admission from one of the world’s peak
psychological bodies is an important step towards dispelling the myth that
people have no control over their sexuality and is backed up by the Journal of Human Sexuality which states
that:
125 years of clinical and
scientific reports which document that professionally-assisted and other
attempts at volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality has
been successful for many and that such change continues to be possible for
those who are motivated to try.[4]
Further, the latest edition of Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment
(a text used by medicine and psychology students) references studies which show
that:
While
many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed
considerable [sic] skepticism that
sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that
therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical
evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically
changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional
harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008;
Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).[5]
Note that the
key in all these studies has been the desire of the person to change.
Thirdly, there
is some reluctance from within the same-sex research community to the idea of a
‘gay gene’ because they realise that even
if it’s true, it doesn’t prove that the behaviour is moral. Researchers have discovered genes that they
believe lead to alcoholism, unfaithfulness, violence, etc. Are we to believe that because there’s a
genetic contribution to these behaviours, or even if they are genetically
determined, that somehow they should be regarded as morally appropriate? Of course not. So proving that homosexual behaviour is
appropriate by appealing to a genetic determinate is equally unjustified. In fact, finding a genetic cause worries a
lot of gay rights activists, because not all genetically induced
characteristics are normal or healthy. Down
Syndrome, cancer, etc, are genetic conditions.
So if a genetic link to homosexuality is discovered the next question is
“what sort of genetic condition is it? Is
it an abnormal expression or does it perhaps even represent some sort of
disease process?” If a cause could be
identified directly, then it could also be targeted by genetic therapy or other
methods that ‘cure’ that condition.
Testing could be done that would detect homosexuality in utero which could lead many to abort
these ‘gay’ foetuses.
Fourthly, a recent study of 25,000 sets of
identical twins, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University in Illinois found
that homosexuality only occurred in both twins one time in nine. Bailey concluded that the data “did not
provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic
factors” for homosexuality. Since
identical twins are, well, identical, the rates of both being homosexual should
be higher than this if just genetics were at work.
Lastly, some will try to appeal to the
homosexual behaviour of animals to show that it is a normal and natural
behaviour. This line of reasoning is
fundamentally flawed because there are all kinds of things that take place in
the animal kingdom that we don’t condone amongst humans. For example, a female praying mantis will
kill the male she mates with. Are we to
then condone the killing of men by their wives because ‘it happens in nature’? Lions will fight and possibly kill rival
males for mating rights, but we don’t allow men to fight and possibly kill each
other over mating rights, do we? This is
an argument that proves too much; if it works for homosexuality, it also works
for other behaviours that we would never consider allowing in our society.
This leads us finally to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Since we have been able to
show that the Biblical data is clear that homosexual practice is immoral, and
that God’s design for marriage was from the very beginning monogamous,
heterosexual unions, it seems clear that as Christians we should stand opposed
to same-sex marriage, as we should anything that is against the will of
God. Some Christians are uncomfortable
with this because they say we are forcing non-Christians to live like
Christians, which seems like a fair point, but it’s never been persuasive to
us. When we get the opportunity to
influence the things that our society decides to accept, through a vote maybe,
or through our elected representatives, it doesn’t seem that we can, in good
conscience, vote in favour of
something that God clearly stands against.
After all, we are His ambassadors on Earth (2 Cor 5:20) and the job of
an ambassador is to faithfully represent the wishes of those he
represents. Note that we are not
campaigning for the criminalisation of homosexuality; God has given people free
will and the right to choose how they behave.
What we are saying is that when we are asked the question, we should be
prepared to defend God’s will. Are there
other moral issues that the church doesn’t stand as strongly against? Sure: things like adultery, pre-marital sex,
drunkenness, etc. So why doesn’t the
church stand against these as well?
We’re not sure, probably most churches do and it simply doesn’t rate the
front page, but these are all just as sinful as homosexuality and the church
should be taking an equal stand on these issues too. It is our job as Christians to stand for all
that God stands for, not just the things we particularly agree with.
In conclusion, it seems clear that the
Biblical data show unequivocally that homosexuality is a sinful practice and
that there is little evidence for the idea that a person’s sexual orientation
is the product of their genes alone.
Having said all this we still need to discuss one more issue – how we
should interact with homosexuals.
Firstly, we need to understand that while homosexuality is a sin, so are
some of the things that we do. We’re not
perfect! We need to keep this humble
attitude when discussing the Christian position on homosexuality and keep in
mind that all of us are sinners. It will
at times be appropriate to raise the moral nature of homosexual practices with
non-Christians and it will sometimes be inappropriate. We need to be sensitive to the
particularities of the circumstances.
What should we do if a Christian friend or relative is struggling with
this issue themselves? Our primary goal
should be for them to live as disciples of Christ, dedicated to holiness in
every area of their lives, just as we are.
Perhaps it would be helpful to point out that there are Christians who
have same-sex attractions but live celibate lives, like Anglican priest Vaughn
Roberts who has been open about his struggles with same-sex attraction in his
book Battles Christian Face or the
stories of others like Catholic Steve Gershom a ‘pro-Catholic, pro-chastity man
with same-sex attraction’ who has found nothing but support in his local church
and family. Perhaps the studies
mentioned above about re-orientation would help a loved one who has unwanted
same-sex attraction. Whatever our
response, it should be guided by love and compassion, but we simply cannot
legitimise their behaviour, anymore than we could any other sin. This is
sometimes a very difficult thing to do, and it might force you to draw a line
in the sand that separates you from some of your family or friends, but we do
not have the liberty to endorse that which God does not. Jesus warned us of this in Matthew 10: 34-36
when he said, “Do not
think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a
daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his
household.” Sometimes taking the side of
Jesus costs us, sometimes dearly – this is the price we pay for being lovers of
God and not man. However, we need to do
our very best to separate the practice from the
practitioner and show love and grace to all around us who struggle with sin –
it’s what we’d want them to do for us!
This is becoming the public policy issue of the 21st Century, and we need
to know exactly where we stand and why.
Claiming that homosexual practice is immoral is not hatred or
homophobia, though you will likely be charged with both these things; it is
being faithful to God! And that is
something on which we can never compromise!
See this
Piece on-line at: http://www.translatedforyouth.blogspot.com.au/
