The Church’s Changing Attitude Toward Homosexuality
Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 6:00 pm
The following is an email I received today, followed by my response:
Hi Steve
I'm wondering if you have any resources you could point me toward or have any insight on the issue of homosexuality and biblical authority. I have several friends that belong to a church in the Seattle area that has made a complete 180 on the issue and has accepted homosexuality and gay marriage. I'm sure you've heard many of the arguments made by those that teach such things.
Often I hear them say that the Levitical laws on homosexuality do not apply because such homosexuals are not exchanging their orientation, but are "born that way", and that the prohibitions in Paul's letters were referring to pederasty, not the "loving, monogamous relationships" that homosexuals claim to have in modern times. The issue gets so twisted by these teachers that it seems we must first go deeper to a discussion of the authority of the Bible before using scripture as a guide. I appreciate any help you may be able to give me, Steve.
Thank you and God bless you, JP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi JP,
I do not have a teaching devoted specifically to the topic. However, I would make the following responses to the Christians who seek to harmonize same-sex coupling with scripture:
1) The Bible warns Christians not to succumb to the pressures of conforming to the world's mentality (Rom.12:2), which is described as "having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness" (Eph.4:18-19). The fact that the recent change in moral perception concerning homosexuality was led by the world, and sheepishly followed by some churches, should raise suspicions that it is not a Christian standard of morality, but a worldly one to which the church is conforming.
2) The objections to homosexual behavior in the Old Testament do not make exceptions for "loving, monogamous,” life-long unions. The laws condemn the very act of a man having sex with a man: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Lev.18:22). "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev.20:13). It would seem to be the act itself that is abominable in God's sight.
3) It is sometimes argued that the Levitical laws are not binding, since they also include restrictions concerning many activities (like eating shellfish) which the New Testament abrogates. However, one must distinguish between those Levitical laws that the New Testament re-enforces and those that the New Testament does not. Paul specifically wrote about the difference between dietary laws and laws of sexual conduct, saying that the former are of no concern to Christians, but that the latter reflect a permanent moral standard (1 Cor.6:13). Jesus (Matt.15:19-20) and the New Testament writers (1 Cor.5:11; 1 Thess.4:3-5; etc.) condemned fornication—even saying that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-10; Gal.5:19-21). The Greek word for "fornication" (porneia) means any unlawful sexual act. Jesus' audience would be expected (unless instructed otherwise) to recognize which sexual acts were lawful and which were “fornication” from their knowledge of the laws given by God (in Leviticus) governing such things. By what other standard would their definition of "fornication" be informed?
4) The only sexual activity that is not condemned in scripture is that which occurs between married partners (Prov.5:15-19; Heb.13:4). The original definition of marriage (Gen.2:24) is confirmed by Jesus (Matt.19:5) and by Paul (Eph.5:31). Jesus specifically said that this involves a "male" and a "female" (Matt.19:4). God invented marriage, and reserves the right to define it. Societies (whether secular or ecclesiastical), because they did not invent marriage, do not possess the authority to redefine it. To do so is to rebel against God's design and His authority.
5) To say that some people are born with a same-sex orientation is a vacuous argument. First, because such a birth condition remains to be proven scientifically, and, second, because it is irrelevant. Some people think they have inherited alcoholism—and some certainly are born with an inherited drug addiction—but this is not an argument in favor of normalizing these activities. Most people are indisputably born heterosexual, but this provides no justification for them having sex with whomever they find sexually attractive. Christians who are not in a biblical marriage relationship must remain celibate, whether they are straight or gay. There are a larger number of unmarried straights than gays, to whom this restriction would apply.
6) It is sometimes argued that this comparison is bogus, since straight people can enter into traditional marriages, if they wish. Well, so can gay people. Many gay men have married women and fathered children. This is an option for gays and straights alike. If it is further objected that gay men generally do not find women sexually attractive, so they would not choose to enter into traditional marriages, it can be countered that there are many heterosexuals who also remain single because they never find someone who is both sexually attractive to them and otherwise available (e.g., single, mutually attracted, or willing to marry them). When my wife divorced me against my wishes, I was forced to live a celibate life for ten years—and would have had to do the same for the rest of my life, had I remained unmarried, which seemed a genuine possibility. In truth, unwanted singleness is thrust upon many people, regardless of orientation, and always involves the difficult obligation of celibacy (Matt.19:10-12).
7) The fact that some gay men manage to marry women and successfully father children with them means that this is not an impossibility for some gay men. Even if they find men more attractive to them than women, so what? Many married men find other women more attractive to them than their wives. This should not be taken by them as a mandate to forsake their wives and pursue their latest lust-interest. Christian discipleship calls men and women to exercise an often-inconvenient self-control. Churches need to be communicating that truth to those in their membership who may be sexually frustrated and compromising.
8) The church in America has compromised long ago on the Christian definition of marriage, in that we have taken a light view of divorce. This is sometimes pointed to as an argument for further compromising the Christian definition of marriage, so as to allow for same-sex coupling. However, I would see it as suggesting the opposite. If the church, by embracing unlawful divorce, has lost its moral credibility to speak on the proper meaning of marriage, instead of this being a call for further compromise, it should be viewed as a call to repentance and to the reaffirmation of biblical norms (that is, a rejection of unbiblical divorce).
9) The truth is, American Churchianity has long-since forfeited its former cultural authority by abandoning its very determination to stand for Christ against the world's drift, in general. The lordship of Christ no longer commands the conscience of the average pastor or church member—which is another way of saying that the average pastor and church member have ceased to qualify as Christians, by definition. The kingdom of God is taken from them, and given to a people who will bring forth the fruits of it.
This would be a pretty concise summary of my thinking on these issues.
Blessings!
Steve Gregg
Hi Steve
I'm wondering if you have any resources you could point me toward or have any insight on the issue of homosexuality and biblical authority. I have several friends that belong to a church in the Seattle area that has made a complete 180 on the issue and has accepted homosexuality and gay marriage. I'm sure you've heard many of the arguments made by those that teach such things.
Often I hear them say that the Levitical laws on homosexuality do not apply because such homosexuals are not exchanging their orientation, but are "born that way", and that the prohibitions in Paul's letters were referring to pederasty, not the "loving, monogamous relationships" that homosexuals claim to have in modern times. The issue gets so twisted by these teachers that it seems we must first go deeper to a discussion of the authority of the Bible before using scripture as a guide. I appreciate any help you may be able to give me, Steve.
Thank you and God bless you, JP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi JP,
I do not have a teaching devoted specifically to the topic. However, I would make the following responses to the Christians who seek to harmonize same-sex coupling with scripture:
1) The Bible warns Christians not to succumb to the pressures of conforming to the world's mentality (Rom.12:2), which is described as "having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness" (Eph.4:18-19). The fact that the recent change in moral perception concerning homosexuality was led by the world, and sheepishly followed by some churches, should raise suspicions that it is not a Christian standard of morality, but a worldly one to which the church is conforming.
2) The objections to homosexual behavior in the Old Testament do not make exceptions for "loving, monogamous,” life-long unions. The laws condemn the very act of a man having sex with a man: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Lev.18:22). "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev.20:13). It would seem to be the act itself that is abominable in God's sight.
3) It is sometimes argued that the Levitical laws are not binding, since they also include restrictions concerning many activities (like eating shellfish) which the New Testament abrogates. However, one must distinguish between those Levitical laws that the New Testament re-enforces and those that the New Testament does not. Paul specifically wrote about the difference between dietary laws and laws of sexual conduct, saying that the former are of no concern to Christians, but that the latter reflect a permanent moral standard (1 Cor.6:13). Jesus (Matt.15:19-20) and the New Testament writers (1 Cor.5:11; 1 Thess.4:3-5; etc.) condemned fornication—even saying that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-10; Gal.5:19-21). The Greek word for "fornication" (porneia) means any unlawful sexual act. Jesus' audience would be expected (unless instructed otherwise) to recognize which sexual acts were lawful and which were “fornication” from their knowledge of the laws given by God (in Leviticus) governing such things. By what other standard would their definition of "fornication" be informed?
4) The only sexual activity that is not condemned in scripture is that which occurs between married partners (Prov.5:15-19; Heb.13:4). The original definition of marriage (Gen.2:24) is confirmed by Jesus (Matt.19:5) and by Paul (Eph.5:31). Jesus specifically said that this involves a "male" and a "female" (Matt.19:4). God invented marriage, and reserves the right to define it. Societies (whether secular or ecclesiastical), because they did not invent marriage, do not possess the authority to redefine it. To do so is to rebel against God's design and His authority.
5) To say that some people are born with a same-sex orientation is a vacuous argument. First, because such a birth condition remains to be proven scientifically, and, second, because it is irrelevant. Some people think they have inherited alcoholism—and some certainly are born with an inherited drug addiction—but this is not an argument in favor of normalizing these activities. Most people are indisputably born heterosexual, but this provides no justification for them having sex with whomever they find sexually attractive. Christians who are not in a biblical marriage relationship must remain celibate, whether they are straight or gay. There are a larger number of unmarried straights than gays, to whom this restriction would apply.
6) It is sometimes argued that this comparison is bogus, since straight people can enter into traditional marriages, if they wish. Well, so can gay people. Many gay men have married women and fathered children. This is an option for gays and straights alike. If it is further objected that gay men generally do not find women sexually attractive, so they would not choose to enter into traditional marriages, it can be countered that there are many heterosexuals who also remain single because they never find someone who is both sexually attractive to them and otherwise available (e.g., single, mutually attracted, or willing to marry them). When my wife divorced me against my wishes, I was forced to live a celibate life for ten years—and would have had to do the same for the rest of my life, had I remained unmarried, which seemed a genuine possibility. In truth, unwanted singleness is thrust upon many people, regardless of orientation, and always involves the difficult obligation of celibacy (Matt.19:10-12).
7) The fact that some gay men manage to marry women and successfully father children with them means that this is not an impossibility for some gay men. Even if they find men more attractive to them than women, so what? Many married men find other women more attractive to them than their wives. This should not be taken by them as a mandate to forsake their wives and pursue their latest lust-interest. Christian discipleship calls men and women to exercise an often-inconvenient self-control. Churches need to be communicating that truth to those in their membership who may be sexually frustrated and compromising.
8) The church in America has compromised long ago on the Christian definition of marriage, in that we have taken a light view of divorce. This is sometimes pointed to as an argument for further compromising the Christian definition of marriage, so as to allow for same-sex coupling. However, I would see it as suggesting the opposite. If the church, by embracing unlawful divorce, has lost its moral credibility to speak on the proper meaning of marriage, instead of this being a call for further compromise, it should be viewed as a call to repentance and to the reaffirmation of biblical norms (that is, a rejection of unbiblical divorce).
9) The truth is, American Churchianity has long-since forfeited its former cultural authority by abandoning its very determination to stand for Christ against the world's drift, in general. The lordship of Christ no longer commands the conscience of the average pastor or church member—which is another way of saying that the average pastor and church member have ceased to qualify as Christians, by definition. The kingdom of God is taken from them, and given to a people who will bring forth the fruits of it.
This would be a pretty concise summary of my thinking on these issues.
Blessings!
Steve Gregg