Reformation21
Arguably one of the most contentious and divisive issues confronting contemporary culture involves whether to regard homosexuality as an acceptable alternate lifestyle and, if so, what rights should be extended to gays. Given that most recent estimates place the gay population in the United States at 1-2%, one might be excused for concluding that the intensity of the current debate represents much ado about nothing. After deep reflection however, some authors regard this as one of the most important issues of the early 21st century. Schmidt (1) begins his book “Straight or Narrow?” with the following statement, “I sit…looking for words to introduce a moral issue, an issue so important that it increasingly appears to be the battleground for all the forces seeking to give shape to the world of the next century.”
...
The rhetoric is so inflamed that one seems justified in concluding that very different views of the world are behind the conflict. Orthodox Christians, following consistent church teaching over the past 2,000 years, have rejected this lifestyle as contrary to scripture. This is in contradistinction to contemporary approaches.
Unless orthodox Christians make the effort to understand and defend biblical teaching on homosexuality and in addition to study the biological and psychosocial implications of this lifestyle, the issue will simply be decided in the court of public opinion where tolerance and autonomy trump all other considerations.
...
Before addressing particular scriptures, let us consider how significant this disagreement really is. What effect can such a minority have on the greater society? Unfortunately, the answer is that the effect can be quite far-reaching and deleterious. One of the most basic threats is the danger that acceptance of alternate or same sex lifestyles will undermine the family defined as one man-one woman in marriage according to God’s word. While some homosexuals may truly desire a “live and let live” attitude on the part of our society, many gays realize that their lifestyle represents a fundamental challenge to an orthodox understanding of the basic family unit. The contemporary homosexual movement is deeply tied to philosophical postmodernism with a resurgence of a pre-Christian pagan sexual ideal (2).
...
Feminist theologians have objected to a biblical understanding of marriage as being sexually biased against women. More recently gay interpreters have further charged that there is a heterosexual bias in Scriptures that leads to social oppression of their lifestyle. This is a thoroughly postmodern attempt to assert that there is no way to find truth in these writings and therefore we can allow the bible to say whatever we want it to say. This would expand the expression of human sexuality far beyond the boundaries of the family and would legitimize same sex acts as well as other forms of sexuality previously considered taboo by our society. The whole idea of gay marriage is destructive of Christian understanding of the family. While maintaining that marriage is a special desirable relationship, the arguments that favor extending marriage to same sex couples, must of necessity destroy its transcendence. Christians, for 2,000 years, have viewed marriage as having supernatural significance because God established it. In this view, the State does not shape marriage but only recognizes what God has ordained. In order to the give the government the authority to redefine marriage to include same sex unions, gays must argue that marriage is essentially a construction of society and that government has the power to redefine marriage however it wishes. By this stratagem, they destroy the sacred goal they wish to obtain. A different but related problem is that social acceptance could lead to more individuals adopting this lifestyle. The proclivity to adopt this sexual orientation varies widely. In some homosexuals the orientation may be related to various factors. The danger is that adolescents, lacking any of these predisposing factors but with unresolved questions of sexual identity, could be drawn into this lifestyle. In ancient Greece, for example, where homosexuality had social acceptance, the incidence of this behavior was much greater than in contemporary society. The larger number of practicing homosexuals in pagan Greece suggests that this behavior can be learned or acquired. If same sex acts are contrary to our God given nature, then Christians have a responsibility to struggle against these current trends. ... Genesis 1:27-28—So God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 2:18-24—And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beast of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was asleep he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Verse 1:27 indicates not only that man is made in the image of God but that women bear the divine image as well. The terms “male and female” highlight the sexual distinctions within humankind and prepare for the blessings of fertility in verse 28 and the institution of marriage in Genesis 2:18-24. This designation of “male and female” have far reaching implications in regard to normal sexual function as Jesus clearly realized when he coupled Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 to form the twin pillars of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6) (5). The series of verses starting at Genesis 2:18 begin with a moment of tension in the narrative. After the seven fold exclamations of Chapter 1 that God’s individual acts of creation were either good or very good, we now have God surveying creation and identifying a situation that was not pleasing to Him. His statement, “It is not good that man should be alone” is a jarring note that something is amiss. It reveals to the reader the importance of suitable companionship for man and of God’s loving intent to provide the appropriate remedy. These passages also make clear that the sexes are complementary. This can be seen from the language used. God creates a “helper fit for him” or literally translated “a helper opposite to him.” (5) The designation of woman as helper does not infer inherent inferiority. The word “helper” is used nineteen times in the Old Testament and on sixteen of these occasions it is used to describe God. The word signifies the woman’s contribution and not inadequacy. (6) God intends marriage to include intimacy and sexual relations. This marriage has Trinitarian overtones in that it is modeled on God’s triune nature—diversity in complete and perfect unity. The idea of complementarity stands in direct opposition to male sameness of identity. By God’s will, man was not created alone but was designed for the “otherness” of the opposite sex. The ideal intended by God is fulfilled not in the male alone but in the relationship of man and woman. Brunner comments on the idea that God’s full meaning is revealed in man and woman designated for each other by noting, “That is the immense double statement, of lapidary simplicity, so simple indeed that we can hardly realize that with it a vast world of myth and Gnostic speculation, of cynicism and asceticism, of the deification of sexuality, and fear of sex completely disappears.” (7) Clearly implied in Genesis and made explicit through the Old and New Testament is the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Jesus confirms this impression (Matthew 193-8) in his dialogue with the Pharisees. “So while it is true that the overview of creation in Genesis does not provide explicit commands about sexuality, it provides the basis for other biblical commands and for subsequent reflection on the part of those people who wish to construct a sexual ethic to meet changing situations.” (l ) ... Romans 1:18-28—The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things, rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ... It is important to realize that Paul’s overall theme in the beginning of Romans centers on the gospel of God’s righteousness. Here Paul’s main concern is to affirm God’s justice and integrity. In 1:18-20 Paul explains how God can be just and yet inflict his wrath on mankind. Paul begins with a general indictment of all men and women and asserts that it is perfectly reasonable for God to be wrathful against sinners. Paul’s point here is that humans are not simply ignorant of God but in direct rebellion against him. No one can be excused on account of ignorance because of God’s revelation of himself in nature and the presence of the knowledge of God within the heart. The only reason for denying God is that men have suppressed their knowledge of him. After telling us that the truth was suppressed because of man’s unrighteousness or sinful nature, in verses 1:21-23 Paul explains the results of this action. The first result was that men did not honor God or give thanks to him. More significantly from man’s perspective is that the consequence of refusing to acknowledge God led to a darkening of their heart, their speculations about the nature of the world became futile and professing themselves to be wise they became fools. In Christian terms the heart is the spiritual core of life and Paul is saying that in their hearts barriers were erected against the truth. What begins as suppression ends in a determined rejection of God’s truth. The next step after rejecting the true God is to find some substitute to worship in his place. In other words, rejection of God leads inevitably to idolatry. While this idolatry may take the form of worshipping man made images, it may be that we replace God with the worship of money, fame or power. It can be so subtle as to include denying the God described in the Bible but then recreating him in our own image. In 1:24-25, we see God’s judgment against those who reject him. His judgment takes the form of “giving them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.” This judgment against sin is to allow it to reign unopposed in our lives with all its destructive consequences. God’s judicial abandonment of men to their sins becomes the punishment of rejecting God. Looking at the pagan culture of his day, Paul could readily see that there was a direct link between pagan idolatry and immorality. When we refuse to be shaped by God’s truth, we will inevitably follow our desires and lusts. The sexual perversions of pagan culture were a direct result of idolatry. Man made his own gods and this allowed him to follow his own impure desires. In 1:26-27 Paul uses what he considers the strongest example to bolster his case against the pervasiveness of sin in society. In male and female same sex acts, Paul sees a rejection not only of God’s ordained order for creation but the extent to which perversion has taken place in pagan hearts. While other sexual sins are grave and destructive, same sex acts have a particular seriousness because they are unnatural. ... Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 6:9-11 are fully compatible with this understanding of Romans 1. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolater nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swinders will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.” Here Paul lists various sins that represent departures from sanctioned heterosexual practices including homosexual practices, which implies that same sex acts are a perversion in themselves. Only by considering the gravity and the corrupting powers of all these sins, including both heterosexual and homosexual sins—does the full glory of the gospel shine through in verse 11. There is one further point to consider to avoid confusion in this attempt to clarify the natural/unnatural distinction. Current advocates who regard same sex acts as acceptable conduct have sometimes argued that gays are indeed acting according to their nature, that God created them this way and it is not unnatural for them. What Paul referred to as our nature, or contrary to our nature, refers to our created state before the Fall. Since the Fall, as Paul makes clear elsewhere (Romans 7:14-25, Galatians 5:17), everything has been inverted. What was natural before the fall in men and women’s created state now seems unnatural, that is acting in righteousness, living according to God’s created order and having communion with God. Conversely what the scriptures reveal to be unnatural acts contrary to God’s order now seem reasonable and natural. ... It is important, at this point, to ask if this perverted nature has destructive physical implications that would support Paul’s argument. While complementarity of male and female in Genesis is ordained by God and an exact male/male and female/female symmetry is not established, it seems reasonable for God to design the male and female in such a manner that natural sexual function is healthy. In monogamous heterosexual relations as described in scripture, this is so. In male homosexuality, we see physical evidence that the common homosexual act of anal intercourse is contrary to natural function. ... If one looks objectively at what seems the basic design for proper sexual function, it would seem to be a monogamous male-female relationship with penis and vagina “designed” for natural function. Homosexuals are not designed for procreative relationships and it must be remembered that the mutual stimulation and gratification indulged in by homosexuals is not sex as God ordained in Genesis. Although beyond the scope of this article, there are many reasons to believe that the male/female differences extend to a foundational psychosocial level in further support of complementarity. ... I would summarize by suggesting that homosexuality, while possibly indirectly affected by genes and certainly heavily impacted by environment, begins with reversible choices. Some individuals may be at risk for developing this orientation due to previous emotional trauma but no one is predestined to be gay. Their choices, which then gradually develop into basic patterns of function that seem beyond control, are an exchange of the natural for the unnatural, as Paul observes. To accept the view that these behaviors are unchangeable is to trap many persons, who wish to be different, in bondage especially since reorientation therapy offers hope to motivated individuals (30, 31, 32). The fact that we should be prey to maladaptive behaviors is not surprising from a Christian perspective. Since the Fall, our nature has been riddled with inherited and acquired sin leading to patterns of dysfunction that diverge from God’s design. Science and medicine can tell us what is, but not what ought to be. Only God’s revelation in scripture can tell us how we should live and function. The accounts we have reviewed from Genesis and Romans clearly are incompatible with a homosexual lifestyle. Arguments to the contrary are inadequate and unconvincing. Still, when Protestants and Catholics alike reach these inescapable conclusions, they are accused of being intolerant and unloving. The opposite is actually true. If homosexuality is spoken against in scripture and if treatment options are available, then those individuals who teach that homosexuality is an acceptable alternate lifestyle before God and that it cannot be changed, are unloving. They close the door of hope to people caught in this maladaptive, unhealthy behavior and condemn them to a life without hope of change. It is because we love that we must speak the truth even if some reject us. Our message is the message of hope. (more)
