In previous blogs I gave an overview of the Biblical position regarding homosexuality. Now I want to merely address various criticisms people make of the Christian position. If you haven’t heard any of these, you will — at least, if you live in the West for any length of time.
Christians are on the wrong side of history on this issue.
To this I would say three things:
1. Who cares? I would rather be on the right side of God than on the right side of history.
2. How do you know? The Christian view of homosexuality is still the majority view in the world today. Maybe that will change. Maybe it won’t. And if it does change, maybe that change will last. Maybe it won’t. To say that Christians are on the wrong side of history is a bit arrogant at this juncture. It is like an infant crowning himself victor.
3. What a short-sighted view of history! God’s kingdom is eternal. Men who practice homosexuality will not inherit that kingdom (I Cor 6:9-11). Even if the majority of the world accepts homosexuality for billions of years, what are those years compared to eternity? In the end, the Biblical view of homosexuality is on the right side of history.
Jesus Never Condemns Homosexuality
Jesus never condemns the worship of images either. He never condemns bestiality, infanticide, kidnapping, rape, money laundering, or child abuse. Does he, therefore, approve of those practices? See previous blog here about what Jesus does say about homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the animal kingdom.
So is cannibalism. And murder. And theft. Natural does not mean right.
The Bible condemns only exploitative forms of homosexuality.
This is perhaps the most common way that Western culture tries to dance around what the Bible says about homosexuality. Because the Bible never says anything positive about homosexuality, and because some people are convinced that a consensual homosexual relationship is a good thing, they, thus, conclude that the Bible must be referring to only bad types of homosexuality. But as we’ve seen when we looked at the Biblical texts, the Scriptures consistently condemn both partners in a homosexual relationship. In addition, the Bible condemns “lying with a man as you would with a woman.” Lying with a woman is to occur only within marriage and only by mutual consent. If a man does this with a man, the Bible condemns both men.
Leviticus forbids eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.
This statement appeals to the idea that the Old Testament is out, and the New Testament is in. It argues that since Christians are under a new covenant and no longer follow all the Mosaic laws, they need not follow the laws against homosexuality either.
Here is a brief reply.
1. The New Testament does not do away with the Old Testament. Some parts of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New, but the moral law in the Old Testament is still binding on New Testament believers. Homosexuality is part of that moral law. For a longer treatment of how Christians view the Old Testament see here.
2. As we have already seen, the Leviticus prohibitions against homosexuality appear in the New Testament as well (Rm 1:26-7; I Cor 6:9-11; I Tim 1:8-10; Jude 7). And in I Corinthians and I Timothy, the prohibitions actually use the same language as Leviticus, not just the same idea. What’s more, the I Timothy passage actually ties homosexuality to the purpose of the law. God intended the law for the disobedient and ungodly. And who are these ungodly? Paul gives a list, which includes “men who practice homosexuality.”
3. If you look at the Leviticus prohibitions in context, you see that Leviticus 18 focuses on prohibited sexual relations. Therefore, if you want to say that homosexuality is OK because the prohibition is in the Old Testament, then you must also say that a man can legitimately have sex with his mom, his step mom, his sister, his sister-in-law, his aunt, and his dog because all of these other prohibitions provide the context for the prohibition against homosexuality. To say that the Bible allows a man to have sex with another man but not with his sister or his sheep requires some criteria for separating the prohibition against homosexuality out of its context. No one who gives the shellfish argument has yet provided intelligent criteria for making this distinction. In addition, common sense tells us that a prohibition against homosexuality is much more like having unlawful sex than like eating shrimp.
Homosexuality is Genetic
Or to put it in popular language: “I was born that way.”
The idea, of course, is that homosexuality is not a choice people make but an inherited trait, like skin color, and that it cannot, therefore, be sinful.
1. My first reaction is to state what to me is rather obvious: that I was born naturally selfish. I didn’t choose my selfish nature, and I can’t help it. I can fight against it, but in my own strength, I can’t overcome it. I don’t, however, defend my selfishness because I was born that way.
I used to provide counseling for alcoholics, and occasionally an alcoholic would say something like, “You know, it has been proven that alcoholism is genetic.” And genetics does seem to often play a role in alcoholism. And not just alcoholism. Violence seems to have a genetic component to it as well. Scientists have known for years that high testosterone levels can contribute to violence. Some people are more prone to violence than others, and they were born that way. You have seen people who have trouble controlling their anger, and their difficulty is related to how they are wired; in other words, their birth contributes to their sin. It would not surprise me if virtually every sin has some genetic component to it. Scripture does not say merely that we are sinful. It says that we were born that way. We don’t come out of the womb neutral. The presence of genetic factors that influence us toward sin would actually support the Biblical doctrine of depravity.
What this means is that no one can say that a behavior or attitude is right or wrong on the basis of genetics. Genetics is physical. Morality is nonphysical. They are completely different categories. If someone wants to plead genetics to justify homosexuality, then he needs to be consistent and justify violence, alcoholism, anger, selfishness, and a host of other sins. If he doesn’t want to use genetics to justify those other sins, then he can’t use it to justify homosexuality either.
2. Homosexuality involves sexual desires and behaviors. These are precisely the sorts of issues that morality deals with. Skin color involves nothing like this. It is not a behavior. It is not a desire. It is not a way of thinking. It doesn’t touch the moral realm at all.
3. Even if science finds that genetics contributes to homosexuality, it would need to demonstrate that genetics is the one and only cause of homosexuality in order to make a plausible case that homosexuality is not sinful. If genetics is merely a contributing factor, then there is room for other contributing factors. The American Psychological Association (APA), quite a liberal organization on most issues, says this about the origins of homosexuality:
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. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation
In other words, the science does not back up the claim “I was born that way.” Research may support the idea that in some people genetics may be a contributing factor, but the idea of a gay gene that explains everything does not seem to exist.
With race, however, things are quite the opposite. Genetics determines whether a woman is African, Anglo, Korean, Indian or Hispanic. Her skin color, and her natural facial features and hair, all have one cause — genetics. She was born that way. Homosexuality simply doesn’t fit this category.
The Christian view of homosexuality is hateful and bigoted.
I almost don’t know what to say to this because it isn’t an argument. It’s an ad hominem. It’s like saying, “Oh yeah? And your mother is . . .”
But let’s talk.
1. Certainly there have been people who identify as Christian who have treated homosexuals in a hateful way, but their treatment does not render the Biblical position hateful or bigoted, nor does it represent the majority of genuine Christians. In fact, hateful behavior violates the Bible.
2. The accusation that Christians are hateful and bigoted assumes that homosexuality is like race — morally neutral and 100% genetic — but common sense and science say otherwise.
3. The Christian position is that homosexuality is sinful. That has been the Christian position for 2000 years, and it never crossed the minds of anyone until recently that such a position is hateful or bigoted. And for good reason. There is nothing hateful or bigoted about calling a sexual behavior sinful. You may, if you wish, say that the position is wrong, and we can have an intelligent conversation about it, but labeling the position “bigoted” goes beyond all evidence and ends any hope of an intelligent conversation. If someone said to me that sex between a husband and wife is sinful, I would not accuse her of hatred or bigotry though I would strongly disagree with her idea. I would say simply that she is wrong.
4. If it is hateful simply to say that a behavior or idea is wrong then, I’m afraid our accusers are quite hateful, for they insist that we are wrong. Why are we bigots but they aren’t?
5. We say lust is sinful, but no one says that is bigotry. And most men are hard-wired to lust. They are born that way. And what’s more, if you keep your lust to yourself, you haven’t harmed anyone. Technically. Yet we insist it is sinful, and no one calls us bigots for saying so. How is homosexuality different?
6. When people accuse Christianity of hatred or bigotry, they assume motives they know nothing about. This mislabeling Christianity as hateful or bigoted is merely a contemporary version of the name-calling Christians have endured as long as they have been around. The Pharisees said that Jesus cast out demons by the Prince of demons. The Romans called Christians atheists and accused them of cannibalism. Nero labeled them “haters of humanity,” though Christianity revolutionized the world with its ethic of love. Muslims call Christians blasphemers. Many secular people say that Christians oppose education even though it was Christians who set up the first schools and universities in America and in many places around the world. Some say that Christians are ignorant, though Christian belief was instrumental in the foundation of science itself. Communist governments say that Christians are rebellious and a menace to society. History is full of people, cultures, religions, or governments calling Christians virtually every name in the book. This new charge of hatred and bigotry is not really new. It is merely another smear in a long history, and it won’t be the last.
We need to see this accusation for what it is. It is an emotional appeal that hopes to end any intelligent discussion from the other side, for if the other person is a bigot, you can dismiss him with a wave of your hand. You then don’t have to listen to his dangerous ideas. The culture fears the Biblical position. That is why it engages in ad hominems and doesn’t allow for honest dialogue on this issue.
Recent Comments