Sexuality

Oct

2022

Abortion and the Sexual Revolution

In 2020, COVlD ravaged the world, and people died by the millions. The Center for Disease Control reports that in the United States in 2021, the year in which COVID deaths peaked, COVID “was associated with approximately 460,000 deaths.”[1] That is the worst year the United States had with COVID.

In 2020, the United States aborted about 930,000 children.[2] Thus, if COVID was a problem (and it was), abortion is more than double the problem. In its down years, abortion takes the lives of far more people than COVID ever did in its worst year. If you considered COVID to be bad, you should consider abortion to be worse.

And yet, as big a problem as abortion is, it is really just a symptom of a deeper problem. The West is inundated with thinking that drives the push for abortion on demand, and that thinking rises out of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution did not invent sexual immorality, but it normalized it and made it more palatable. The sexual revolution encouraged sexual exploration and significantly lowered the standard for sexual activity from committed marriage between a husband and wife to mere consent. It says we should be able to have sex when and where we want as long as there is consent. In the West this thinking has increased sexual activity outside marriage and has cheapened the meaning of sex. Consequently, the sexual revolution has also created a greater number of crisis pregnancies and, thus, in its own thinking, a greater need for abortions.

One of the biggest consequences of free sex is unwanted pregnancy, and this is problematic to free sex because it means that sex isn’t free. Sex has consequences. Abortion, however, is a perceived remedy to the problem of pregnancy. Have sex when and where you want, and if you get pregnant, no problem – get an abortion. This is the way much of American culture thinks. It’s a vicious circle. Free sex creates more crisis pregnancies, which we resolve through more abortions so that we can be free to engage in sex as we wish, which then creates more crisis pregnancies, which we resolve . . . We have to break this circle. The sexual revolution has exacerbated the problem it wants abortion to remedy. It increases crisis pregnancies and then complains that we have too many of them. The sexual revolution is itself the problem.

The sexual revolution wants dearly to reduce crisis pregnancies because crisis pregnancies interfere with free sex. Of course, there is a way to significantly reduce crisis pregnancies, but that solution is not something the sexual revolution will consider because it involves the rejection of its main premise. If we return sex to its proper place within the confines of a committed marriage between a husband and wife, we will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies.

If my proabortion friends really cared about sparing women from many difficult and unwanted pregnancies, there is an easier way to do that than abortion. If the women are single, they could just say no to sex. And the culture could teach single men to do the same. I understand that that solution won’t cover every situation, but it will cover a boatload of them. The proabortion position talks much about choice, but other than situations involving rape or incest, the mother has already made a choice. She has chosen to participate in an action whose main purpose is procreation. In the majority of those situations, the mother could have chosen not to get pregnant simply by abstaining from sex. The prochoice position needs to consider the consequences of a woman’s choice before sex and not just after.

Today, what I have suggested is considered ridiculous. People read what I just said and laugh. And that is precisely the problem. Their ridicule illustrates my point. A hundred years ago, the culture considered sex to be reserved for marriage. That thinking was mainstream. Today it is ludicrous.

Our problem is deeper than abortion. Abortion on demand is merely a symptom of the sexual revolution. Western society thinks a certain way about sex, and that thinking produces a perceived need for abortions and with it a strong motive for dehumanizing unborn children. Much of the West does not recognize the unborn as human because it does not want to. The lives of the unborn interfere with free sex, and we want free sex. These are some of the consequences of the sexual revolution, and we need to reject it. It has been an abysmal failure.

The sexual revolution is a deeper problem than abortion, but there is a problem even deeper than the sexual revolution. It’s called self. Self is what drives the sexual revolution. In the West today, sex is about me, my pleasure, my desires, my happiness. I decide. I make my own rules. And who are you to challenge me? Only Christ and the Cross can deal with self. We will not change the abortion problem until we change how we think about sex, and right now, sex in the West is so self-centered that we will never change how we think about it until we realize that our self is not the center of the universe. Scripture has an answer to that problem. It is called the Cross. It is there that we die to self and that Christ by His grace gives us a new self.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e1.htm?s_cid=mm7117e1_w

[2] https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/long-term-decline-us-abortions-reverses-showing-rising-need-abortion-supreme-court

May

2020

Christianity and Homosexuality: Addressing Criticisms

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.

Apr

2020

The Bible and Homosexuality II

This blog continues the discussion on what the Bible says about homosexuality. We’ve already discussed Leviticus and Jesus. Today we will discuss what Paul has to say.

Jesus ministered in a Palestinian Jewish context. Within that context, homosexuality was almost nonexistent compared to what went on in the 1^st century Gentile world. Paul, however, ministered in that Gentile world, a context in which homosexuality was perhaps more common than it is today in the West. Paul had to deal with practicing homosexuals who became Christians, and Christians who lived in a culture that considered homosexuality normal. It, thus, makes perfect sense that Paul would address this issue. He had to.

When you read Paul, it is clear that homosexuality is not his main concern, but it is equally clear that when he does address the issue, he has nothing positive to say, and Paul would have been well aware of long-term, loving and committed homosexual relationships. They were common in the Gentile world Paul ministered to. So let’s look at the Scriptures.

Romans 1: 26-7

For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Before I discuss the Romans text in detail, I should note that within the broader context of Romans 1, homosexuality is not the main focus. Paul does not see homosexuality as the granddaddy of all sins. In Romans 1, the Gentiles have suppressed the truth of God by their unrighteousness (v. 18), exchanged the glory of God for idols (v. 23), and exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator (v. 25). In other words, these Gentiles have rejected God and chosen to worship idols instead. For this reason (v 26), God gave them up to their passions. Homosexuality is, thus, the consequence of their idolatry. The idolatry is the more foundational sin. The sins Paul lists in Romans 1 flow from rejecting God. They are symptoms of rejecting God, but it is the rejection of God and the worship of something not God that is the basic problem.

Enough context. Let’s talk about the text.

When you look at Romans 1:26-7, you should see two things right away: 1) God has set up a natural order for sex and 2) the text contrasts this natural order with an unnatural one. Notice: women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, and men likewise. In other words, Paul is setting up a natural/unnatural contrast.

When Paul talks about what is natural, he is not talking about what feels natural to us. Sin often feels natural. Selfishness comes naturally. Anger is a natural feeling. Coveting, bitterness, arrogance, jealousy, greed, lust — these are all quite natural states of the heart. The alcoholic feels naturally inclined to beer, and the tyrant to power. The reference to natural relations is not a reference to feelings but to a created order God has set up. God made sex for male and female. This is the natural way God intended sex to happen. We see this in life simply by looking at anatomy. When you look at a wheel and an axle, a screw and a nut, a bulb and a socket, you know they were made for one another. Same with male and female. The mere plumbing of gender has a sexual design to it, and when you look at the plumbing, you see the natural order. In addition, the text plainly states that for men natural relations are “with women” and that when men give up such natural relations, they are consumed with passion “for one another” and they are committing shameless acts “with men.” Paul’s natural/unnatural contrast is a contrast between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Paul’s problem with homosexuality is that it throws away God’s natural design in order to express unholy passions. Unholy passions may feel natural, but they are unholy. They are unholy because even when they feel natural, they defy what God intended to be natural. The created order is objective. We don’t get to change it.

It’s rather obvious that in Romans Paul addresses homosexual forms of sex and that he condemns what he addresses, but some argue that what Paul addresses is merely exploitative forms of homosexuality. They claim that Paul is not condemning loving, committed relationships but male prostitution or pederasty or some such practice.

The evidence, however, doesn’t point this way. First, Paul doesn’t use the normal Greek words for male prostitution or pederasty. If he had wanted to condemn only certain forms of homosexuality, then his broad language is an awfully poor way of doing so. Second, look at verse 27 again. Here it is: “men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.” Pay special attention to the phrase “for one another.” Paul equally condemns both parties in the relationship. As we saw in Leviticus, this means Paul is addressing something mutual. Both parties are guilty. Third, in verse 26, Paul condemns lesbianism, a fact that shows the universality of the condemnation. If Paul were condemning merely exploitative forms of homosexuality, he would have no need to refer to lesbianism.

Thus, to Paul, a committed, consensual homosexual relationship involves unnatural sexual relations and shameless acts.

In Romans, homosexuality is part of God’s judgment. The text says that these Gentiles refused to worship God, so God gave them over to their passions. In other words, homosexuality is not merely a sin God will judge but is itself part of the judgment. It is a plain sign that people are under God’s judgment.

Paul’s point in this text is that God created a natural pattern for sex. That pattern is male with female. The Gentiles in Romans 1 have exchanged that natural pattern to pursue their passions. Their passions may feel natural to them, but those passions violate what God set up. When you read the whole flow of Romans 1, homosexuality is merely a plain example of people exchanging God for their own desires. Thus, unrepentant homosexual behavior is the result of, among other things, the rejection of God.

I Cor 6:9-11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This text begins with a general statement: “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It then proceeds to illustrate that statement by listing specific sins that disqualify someone from the kingdom of God. Twice this text states that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God (vv. 9, 10). Finally it reminds the Corinthian believers that they used to be among those people, but in Christ they are now clean, holy, and righteous (v. 11). In other words, they will inherit the kingdom of God because they are now in Christ and live a different life.

1. Verses 9 and 10 are obviously a vice list. No one will argue that Paul views any of these behaviors in a positive or neutral light. They all disqualify someone from the kingdom of God. For our purposes, we need to focus on the words translated “men who practice homosexuality.”

Paul uses two words here. The first is malakoi. Literally it means “soft ones,” and in 1^st century Greek its range of meanings included male prostitutes, feminine men, and the passive partner in male/male sex.

The second word Paul uses is arsenokoitai. It comes from the Greek words arsen, which means “male,” and koitos, which means intercourse or bed. If you translated arsenokoitai literally it would refer to men who lie in bed with men. Of course, you should see a connection with Leviticus 18 and 20. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament Paul frequently quotes from), Leviticus 18 and 20 use the words arsen and koitos side by side when saying, “You shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman.” In other words, Paul is mimicking the language of Leviticus. Whatever Leviticus means is what Paul means. The New Testament merely repeats the Old.

When the words malakoi and arsenokoitai are used together, they represent the passive and active partners in a homosexual relationship.

2. Again, Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality. The reference to Leviticus suggests that Paul condemns “lying in bed with a man as you would with a woman,” and the fact that Paul condemns both parties in the relationship indicates that he includes mutual, consensual relationships in his condemnation.

3. The fact that Paul twice says that such people will not inherit the kingdom of God indicates how serious this issue is. The stakes are eternal. This is not an issue that Christians can agree to disagree on. In I Cor 6, homosexuality is like idolatry, adultery, stealing, greed, and all the other items in the same vice list, and unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. If I Cor 6 is true, then the teaching that God accepts homosexuality is not just a minor issue we can overlook but a teaching that leads people to hell. That teaching is no more Christian than the teaching that God accepts adultery, idolatry, or swindling.

4. Homosexuality is not stronger than Christ. Verse 11 says, “And such were some of you.” It is past tense “were,” not present tense “are.” The Corinthian believers who had practiced homosexuality no longer do so. They are now washed, sanctified, and justified in Christ. Jesus changed them. Their identity is different. The power of God has come upon them. To argue that homosexuals cannot change is to deny the power of God. Not only can they change, but Paul says they have already changed. He likely could name names.

And I could name names today. I won’t because I want to protect them. But I could. I personally know several Christians who used to practice homosexuality. Homosexuals can change. I don’t mean that change is easy or without struggles or failings. I mean simply that change does happen. In Christ the old is gone, the new has come. That is reality, and the world that denies it needs to open its eyes.

Feb

2020

Christianity and Homosexuality

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22:39)

“Love does not delight itself in evil but rejoices in the truth.” (I Cor 13:6)

Praise you, Father that you give your people your love for all. And praise You, Father, that you give your people a delight for righteousness and truth. And praise you, Father, that love and righteousness go together.

We’ve been discussing issues related to gender, marriage, and sexuality, and within contemporary culture that means that we have to say something about homosexuality. You would have to be awfully ignorant of Western culture to fail to see that those who peddle the culture vehemently push you to accept homosexuality as normal, legitimate behavior, and they will do whatever they can to drive the culture in that direction.

In light of this, the church must speak. If it doesn’t speak, then many in the pews will blindly follow their culture, and that would be a disaster. Scripture must judge culture, not the other way around. An unbiblical culture should not be telling Christians what the Bible says and means. That’s a bit silly . . . and sinister.

So we must speak. But I suppose the first thing we need to do when discussing homosexuality is to distinguish between how we treat homosexuals as people and how we view homosexuality as a behavior.

Christians must love homosexual people because Jesus tells us to love our neighbor, and homosexuals are our neighbors. This is a command, not an option. But what does this love look like? Love is not a vague feeling we can shape in any way we wish. The Bible describes love when it tells us how to live. For example, Scripture says, “Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth.” (Eph 4:29) Gay slurs are unwholesome talk. They are sin. Scripture says, “Consider others as more important than yourself.” (Ph 2:3) Looking down on homosexuals from a self-righteous position is sin. Scripture says, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Mt 7:12) Beating up gay men is sin. Showing them disrespect is sin. Failing to honor them as people is sin. Those who mistreat homosexuals are not acting as Christians but as sinners. This needs to be clear. Christianity never endorses or encourages the mistreatment of homosexuals. Instead it calls people to love them.

This means if you have homosexuals in your work place, respect them as professionals. Invite them for lunch, and you initiate it. Show genuine interest in their lives. If you have homosexual neighbors, have them into your home. Take them some cookies. Help them move a piece of furniture. Take them to a picnic you are going to. Visit them in the hospital. Sacrifice your desires for their good. Do these things gladly, and be open about your faith.

Christians should be the first people to show Christ’s love to homosexuals. This is not negotiable.

But love does not endorse every lifestyle. Love is not agreement. Everyone knows this, for everyone has seen a father love a son who had done something wrong. My wife loves me even when I am rude and selfish toward her, and I will be the first to tell you that my selfishness comes naturally. My wife does not affirm my selfish nature, but she loves me nonetheless. In fact, if she did affirm my selfish nature, she would not be loving me.

To say that love must accept every idea or behavior is cheap. It is not love. In fact, if the truth be told, love shines more brightly in the midst of disagreement. When my wife loves me even after I wrongly put her down, her love stands out even more. Such love shows God’s pattern, for “God demonstrates His love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rm 5:8) God loves all people who by nature think and do what He hates. In other words, God love sinners, which means that He loves the world. When God calls certain behavior sin, He is not being hateful. He is being faithful to His character and showing His love even more.

Now when we come to homosexuality, we find that Scripture clearly calls such behavior sin. In fact, Scripture could not be clearer. But it is also clear that God’s people must show love to everyone. So how do you show love to people who sin? Such love, by itself, is hard. I rather think you need God for that. But here in the West, when it comes to homosexuality, the position the Christian is in is even harder, for Western culture has defined love in such a way that one must affirm sin in order to love a person? It’s like saying that I must accept racism to love a KKK member, that I must accept adultery to love an adulterer, or stealing to love a thief. For a Christian, this is impossible.

The Christian must love. Make no mistake about that. But the Christian’s love must and will look different from the “love” Western culture wants to see. What Western culture wants is not love. It wants sexual freedom, and it will shame genuinely loving people and call them hateful if they refuse to accept this sexual freedom.

What this means is that many people immersed in Western culture will never see the genuine love that Christians have for them. For Christians, this situation is sad, but we must live with it. God does. Most people never recognize the love God has for them, but it is real nonetheless. As Christians it is our responsibility to love people. It is not our responsibility to make those people affirm our love. If they are blind to it, there is nothing we can do. Except pray. And continue to show kindness.

Sexuality

Christianity and Homosexuality: Addressing Criticisms

The Bible and Homosexuality II

Christianity and Homosexuality

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories