While this summary
simply reviews information published in many forms
elsewhere, this is still one of the most frequently
asked questions we hear, especially as those who desire
to legitimize homosexual and bisexual behavior
increasingly attempt to claim that the Bible speaks in
their defense.
We have been accused of
giving unnecessary attention to the issue of sexuality.
The truth in this matter, however, was expressed
eloquently in a recent presentation by a prominent
representative of the Metropolitan Community Church to a
predominantly gay and lesbian audience at a nearby
University campus. In response to the question, “why is
the church so preoccupied with homosexuality?” He
replied, “They aren’t! They would just as soon not
discuss it and have it go away! It’s us in the
homosexual community. We are obsessed with the church.
We are afraid that we are damned and are compelled to
prove to them and ourselves that we are not!”
There is a second and
more foundational reason why this matter continues to
take center stage in the ongoing conflict between Christ
and contemporary culture. In order for a post Christian
worldview to redefine our western society founded on and
saturated with Christianity, it would have to legitimize
itself within the church and to emerge wearing
acceptable religious vestments. If we are to be
culturally converted to a general non-religiously
specific Spirituality dedicated to justice, peace and
the environment, with a situational morality of personal
freedom and gratification, it will never do to simply
denounce the Church and hope society gets over it.
That is why there has
been such a deliberate and forceful attempt within the
mainline church to overthrow Biblical revelation in
three dimensions: 1) The Trinitarian person of God,
particularly as it is revealed in the deity, atonement,
resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ; 2) The
natural moral order revealed in the Biblical laws,
commandments and teachings; and now finally 3) what it
means to be human particularly in the Biblical
revelation of a humanity reflective of God and sexually
created for marriage and family.
It is this final attempt
to redefine what it means to be human that is at the
heart of the current sexual debate. Bill Johnson, the
first openly homosexual man to be ordained in the United
Church of Christ (1972) and recently promoted to a
prominent role in the UCC’s Homeland Board declared the
terms of this conflict more than two decades ago when he
wrote, “As long as the church is able to perpetuate the
belief that marriage and the family are the highest
forms of human relationship it will be able to
perpetuate itself as a heterosexual family-oriented
institution. . . Heterosexual relationships and marriage
as traditionally experienced are basically unhealthy.”
This is the underlying motivation in the current
advocacy of `gay marriage’ which seeks not so much to
confine homosexual relationships to a norm of lifelong
monogamy but rather to redefine marriage fundamentally
so as to demote it from a Divine mandate to a human
institution.
This is also not a
contention about love, hate or fear. The evangelical
church welcomes sinners of all persuasions to be
transformed by the love and grace of God, through faith
in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Despite the constant
name calling by her opponents and the secular media, and
despite the sometimes humiliating behavior of those who
would call themselves friends and members, the
ecumenical evangelical church has largely recovered from
the shock of the social paradigm shift of the last three
decades. Most congregations aggressively welcome people
from every diversity with the love of Christ. She has
in fact taken the lead from the mainline church in
ministering to those who are the victims as much as the
participants in the disease, violence, ruin and chaos of
the sexual revolution.
We do not regard anyone
as less than ourselves or isolated from the offer of
grace, nor do we consider any one form of sin to be more
particularly grievous. If you are homosexual and reading
this we appreciate your courage and very much want to
understand you, have you in our churches, and share the
faith that has transformed our lives. The idea that
loving someone necessitates acceptance of their moral
and behavioral choices or lifestyle, is, as any parent
knows, nonsensical.
In considering what the
Bible says about human sexuality we are not in this
brief and insufficient context addressing whether the
Bible is in fact Divine revelation at all. Much of the
argument in defense of homosexual and bisexual behavior
in the church dismisses the Bible as a humanly devised
document, shaped by ancient culture that has little
contemporary validity. Such argument frequently
dismisses Leviticus facetiously, Genesis as myth, and
the Pauline epistles as the ruminations of a misogynist.
If this is the case then Christianity is simply a
humanly devised religion among religions, and most of
the whole show from stained glass windows, to pipe
organs, to robed and paid clergy, to denominational
bureaucracies are only a pompous exercise in vanity,
and sexuality is only a biological
function.
Finally, in this presentation we are making no
distinction between homosexual ‘orientation’ or bent,
and behavior. It is not that we do not believe such a
distinction is possible. Certainly from a heterosexual
perspective in the evangelical ecumenical church such a
distinction would be natural in as much as the normative
expectation for unmarried people is that they will not
engage in sexual activity with others. But in dialogue
with the homosexual and bisexual advocates in the UCC
they have made it very clear that they recognize no such
distinction. For them to be it means to do it, and vice
versa. Since this discussion is happening in this
context then, we have accepted their assumption.
& TEXT:
Genesis 1:26-28, 2:21-25
“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule . . . So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them. God blessed them and said to
them “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth
and subdue it.
“So
the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep;
and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs
and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God
mad a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man . .
. . . for this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife, and they will become
one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked and not
ashamed.”
Interpretation:
The intention and
act of God to create in His own image is obviously
heterosexual. His intent is clearly relationship,
reproduction and the pursuit of His salvation purpose
for earth by the global expansion of family life. The
subsequent definition of sexual relationship is that
“two shall become one” and the definition of intimacy
is “naked and not ashamed.” These are both mandated to
happen in the very first and primary covenant
relationship, namely marriage. Marriage is defined with
specificity. Beginning in Genesis 4:19 with the episode
of Lamech, the Bible depicts all alternative sexual
relationships to monogamous marriage as instrumental to
rebellion, strife, violence, degradation, or
idolatry.
Counterpoint:
Those who would defend homosexual practice on Biblical
grounds have not usually addressed this passage.
Question:
Since this is the only context in which God clearly
states we are made in His image, can we dismiss the
context without reducing the statement from revelation
to meaningless human wistfulness? If we are not made in
God’s image then what is our value?
& TEXT:
Matt. 19:4-12, Mark 10:1-12
“Haven’t you read, he (Jesus) replied, ‘that at the
beginning the Creator made them male and female,’ and
said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife, and the two will
become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
separate . . . . . vs. 12 “For some are eunuchs because
they were born that way; others were made that way by
men; and other have renounced marriage because of the
kingdom of heaven.”
Interpretation:
Jesus bluntly affirms the Creators intention in
designing heterosexual humanity and ordaining marriage.
In fact he places the covenant in the mouth of God. He
reinforces the definition of human sexuality as ‘two
becoming one’ in the covenant of marriage and goes on to
specifically affirm chastity in singleness (vs.11-12)
Counterpoint:
Jesus is silent
on the subject of homosexuality and the ‘love of Jesus’
provides an ethical override to the commandments and
laws of God pertaining to sexuality.
Questions:
What does it mean that Jesus so emphatically reinforces
the beauty and integrity of the creation intention for
human sexuality? How seriously does he take the threat
of sexual perversity to human well-being (see Matthew
5:27-30)?
& TEXT:
Ephesians 5 (read the whole chapter for context,
see also I Tim. 3:1-5)
vs1
“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved
children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved
us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and
sacrifice to God. But among yourselves there must not be
even a hint of sexual immorality”. . .vs. 25,
“husbands love your wives just as Christ loved the
church and gave himself up for her to make her holy” . .
. vs.28 “in this same way, husbands ought to love their
wives as their own bodies . . . .just as Christ does the
church . . .For this reason a man will leave his father
and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will
become one flesh. This is a profound mystery - but I am
talking about Christ and the church.”
Interpretation:
Wow! Human sexuality expressed in the purity of self
sacrificial love in the unity of marriage, where two
become one is the paradigm of the very relationship
between Christ and us, his church! Praise God!
Counterpoint:
This passage is rarely addressed, but increasingly
eroticism outside of marriage is being presented as an
avenue to Re-Imagining or redefining god in light of
one’s own self fulfilling experiences. (e.g. Rita
Brock’s, A Christology of Erotic Power)
& TEXT:
Leviticus 18 - (read the whole chapter)
“The
Lord said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and say to
them: “I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they
do in Egypt where you used to live, and you must not do
as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing
you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my
laws and be careful to follow my decrees and laws, for I
am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the
man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
“No
one is to approach any close relative to have sexual
relations. I am the Lord.
“Do
not dishonor your father by have sexual relations with
your mother . . . . Do not have sexual relations with
your sister . . . . . .(v22ff). Do not lie with a man
as with a woman; that is detestable . . . . . Do not
defile yourselves in any of these ways because this is
how the nations that I am going to drive out before you
became defiled . . .the land vomited out its
inhabitants.”
Interpretation:
There is a
cultural sexuality and a Godly sexuality and each person
makes a choice as to whom they will serve. The long list
of perversities which characterize a “sexually
liberated” culture stand in contrast to those for whom
He is Lord! Far from a cultic description of details
about priests garments which were images of holiness for
purposes of illustration in a theocracy, this is an
explicit restatement of God’s natural moral order, with
detail that leaves little to the imagination.
Counterpoint:
Leviticus has passages applying to dietary laws,
hygiene, dress and such which we do not replicate in our
time and therefore the sexual prohibitions are equally
unapplicable.
Question: Are
we moving from a culture in which Jesus is Lord and
God’s Word is the primary rule of practice to become a
Canaan or Egypt in which religions are synthesized and
sexual prohibitions are removed? Many newly published
books relate sexual ‘liberation’ to ecology. Will the
land vomit us out as it did the cultures of Canaan and
ancient Egypt?
& TEXT:
Romans 1:18-32
“The
wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all
wickedness of men who suppress the truth . . . . .
.(v21) 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 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 worshiped 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. They
have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil
greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent
ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are
senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although
they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such
things deserve death, they not only continue to do these
very things but also approve of those who practice
them.”
Interpretation:
Whew! Did the author of Romans live in an American
university city from 1960 - 1997 or the first century?!
This is a seamless integration of New Testament
revelation with the previous passage in Leviticus. This
spells out the step by step process in which we have
moved from the idolatrous existentialism of the 60’s to
the Re-Imagining of the 1990’s, from Marilyn Monroe to
Madonna to Tupac Shakur, from Oscar Wilde to the
Daughters of Bilitis to Queer Nation. It very accurately
describes the spiritual dynamic that lies beneath the
attempt to legitimize homosexuality and to bizarrely
call the era of sexual perversity in which we live an
era of ‘enlightenment’.
Counterpoint:
This passage is not speaking about ‘natural’ homosexual
relationships but about heterosexual men and women
engaging in ‘unnatural’ relationships.
Questions:
Has God ‘given us over’ to a mentality that would
legitimize homosexual practice? Has a ‘mental depravity’
set in that keeps us from connecting our personal sexual
behaviors, spiritual rebellion, and narcissism from
their cultural consequences? Is this why we no longer
seem to make the natural connection between cause and
effect?
& TEXT:
Genesis 18 & 19 . . . This episode of Sodom
is too long to quote in its entirety but we would
recommend that you read it all as well as a companion
episode in Judges 19:9-30.
“vs.
20, Then the Lord said, “the outcry against Sodom and
Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I
will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as
the outcry . . . . . vs. 26, If I find fifty righteous
people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole
place for their sake. . . . For the sake of ten, I will
not destroy it . . . . . ch19.vs4, before they had gone
to bed, all the men from every part of the city of
Sodom, both young and old - surrounded the house. They
called out to Lot, ‘where are the men who came to you
tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex
with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the
door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this
wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never
slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you . . .”
Interpretation:
Both episodes have to do with a city or society that has
so degenerated that bisexual violence has become rampant
and no one is safe. God is so gracious that a small
righteous remnant will elicit his grace and patience. We
learn from the subsequent behavior of Lot’s sons in
laws, his wife, and his daughters that sexual perversity
is contagious rather than inherent.
Counterpoint:
Some have argued that this episode has to do with
hospitality rather than sexuality. The stronger
argument, however, is that the story reflects a violent
society and has nothing to do with loving, faithful,
non-violent homosexual relationships.
Questions:
When a society legitimizes alternative sexual behaviors,
do they then peacefully coexist in parallel reflecting
simply different ways of expressing love and affection?
Or is there an inevitable disintegration to a society in
which 1 in every 5 women is raped, 1 in 3 children is
aborted, STD’s are rampant, pornography is pervasive and
‘domestic’ violence, primarily between live-in lovers,
becomes commonplace. (see Romans 9:28,29, Isaiah 1, Jude
v3-7, II Peter 2:1-22)
& TEXT: I
Corinthians 6:9,10 (see also I Timothy 1:8-10)
“Do
you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves . . .
.will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Interpretation:
Again the Bible
is contrasting a cultural, amoral lifestyle with the
behavior of those who know Jesus Christ as Lord. The
point is the status of those who engage persistently in
the listed behaviors without repentance. Homosexual
Scholar Boswell argued that the two Greek words used
here ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoites’ simply refer to those
who are self indulgent or male prostitutes. The
consensus of responsible scholarship, however, indicates
that in the first century ‘malakoi’ referred more
generally to those who give themselves passively to
homosexual acts and ‘arsenokoites’ (literally ‘male bed
mates for males’) was used of those who engaged
aggressively in homosexual acts.
Counterpoint:
Beyond Boswell’s argument, Mollenkott and others argue
that because homosexual acts appear in a list of sins
common to all of us the passage does not constitute a
valid prohibition.
& TEXTS:
Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:20-23
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my
mother conceived me. Surely you desire truth in the
inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.”
Ps. 51:5
“The
heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who
can understand it? I the Lord searches the heart and
examines the mind, to reward a man according to his
conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.” Jeremiah
17:9
“he
(Jesus) went on: `What comes out of a man is what makes
him `unclean’. For from within, out of men’s hearts,
come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,
adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy,
slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from
inside and make a man `unclean’.” Mark 7:20-23
Interpretation:
Of the three
words used for sin in Hebrew ‘awon’ which refers to
sin’s root is used in the Psalm. The word means bent or
twist and is sometimes translated iniquity. Each of us
then from birth has a particular bent or twist or
orientation that when gratified is sin. We cannot trust
our own self-knowledge or instinct because we are
innately sinners from birth who easily deceive ourselves
into believing our actions are justified. This is why we
needed Jesus to die for our sins and why we come to be
saved from our sin by repenting, believing, receiving
grace and being made new in Christ. This is why our
behavior must be judged against God’s revealed moral
order as a standard for right behavior rather than
cultural norms or our own feelings about good and evil.
Counterpoint:
Homosexuality and bisexuality are innate orientations
which indicate that the associated behavior, because it
is ‘natural’ to instinct must necessarily be good and
justifiable.
Questions:
How similar is the
list Jesus uses in making his point in Mark 7 to that of
I Corinthians 6, where Paul mentions explicitly in the
Corinthian context what Jesus simply implies to his
disciples? Are we as human persons innately good and
capable of deciding for ourselves what’s right and wrong
or are we innately sinful and quite capable of
self-deception? How does bisexuality skew this issue?
|