An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality

My husband Dan walked into a local car shop the other day, inadvertently interrupting a serious conversation between the store’s manager and another customer. After an awkward pause, the manager looked at Dan, and in his thick East Tennessee accent asked, “Sir, would you be offended if we continued our conversation about homosexuals?”

A little taken aback, Dan replied, “Well…I guess that depends on what you’re saying about them.”

(He expected the worst. A few years ago, the Rhea County Commission voted to support a resolution banning gays from the county. It was later repealed, but the community still carries the reputation of being extremely anti-gay.)

“Well,” began the manager, “I’ve recently changed my view on things…”

He went on to tell the story of a friend and coworker of his who had recently gone off to college. Unmistakably effeminate since his youth, the young man was disowned by his father when he came out of the closet and announced he was gay.

“I knew this guy real well,” said the manager, “and I just don’t believe that he was puttin’ on some kind of an act. The way I see it, he just was the way he was. There’s not much a person can do to change that.”

“Yeah,” said Dan, “It doesn’t really make sense that someone would choose to get picked on his whole life, or choose to get disowned by his father….Sure does change things when you actually know someone, huh?“

“Yep.”

“Yep.”

And then they talked about tires.

****

I know that for some of my readers, this story will reflect great progress. Tolerance and understanding are making their way across the country, even to the hills of rural Tennessee! For others, it will reflect further deterioration in the moral fabric of society. Look how pervasive the acceptance of sin has become! For others, it will simply conjure images from an episode of King of the Hill.

For me, it is yet another reminder that when we talk about homosexuality, we are talking about people. These days it is nearly impossible not to have a friend, coworker, or family member who is gay, and it’s getting harder and harder to believe that one’ sexuality is a choice. But having grown up in the conservative evangelical subculture, I’ve been taught my whole life that being gay is a sin…or at least that having gay sex is a sin. In fact, I’ve been taught that homosexuality is just about the worst kind of sin that there is, one we ought to protest against and make laws about.

But the truth is, I have my own closet to come out of; I’ve got my own little secret that I’ve been carrying around for a few years now, and it’s this: I’m absolutely terrified that evangelicals have gotten this wrong.

Just think of the implications.

How will our children look back on us if science confirms that being gay is not a choice? Will today’s evangelicals be remembered in the same way as yesterday’s segregationists? What if one day we come to regard biblical teachings about homosexuality the same way we regard teachings about slavery, or dietary laws, or women covering their heads in church? Will we be ashamed at James Dobson’s efforts to “reform” gay people, encouraging them to marry and start conventional families? Will we have done irreparable damage to the relationship between the gay community and the Church? Will we have inadvertently ruined our testimony to the world?

If we’ve got this wrong, the implications are absolutely staggering.

Now, let me be clear. I’m not taking a stand on one side of the homosexuality issue or the other. I’m honestly undecided. I have great respect for the Bible and its authority, and have no intention of willfully disregarding any of its teachings. But I’ve also got a nagging feeling that something isn’t right, that even if homosexuality is a sin, Christians haven’t been handling it the way they should…and if it isn’t a sin, then we’ve forever damaged our ability to minister in the world as followers of Christ.

I write about this, not to start an argument or make a point, but to share my struggle. This isn’t something I take lightly. I’ve wept and prayed over this for a while now, and I’ve tried to read and study as well. For the sake of my legacy to my children, I don’t want to get it wrong.

Homosexuality as a Sin

This is the position taken by William Webb in our book club selection for the month, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. Webb points to the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus 18 which condemns homosexuality as “an abomination,” and the highly negative references to homosexuality in the Pauline epistles.  Applying his (previously discussed) standards for determining whether verses are cultural or trans-cultural, Webb concludes that “the same canons of cultural analysis, which show a liberalizing or less restrictive tendency in the slavery and women texts relative to the original culture, demonstrate a more restrictive tendency in homosexuality texts relative to the original culture. Furthermore, the biblical texts not only hold an aversion to associative features (e.g., rape, pederasty), they appear to voice a concern about the more basic or core issue of same-gender sexual acts themselves (i.e., male with male; female with female).” (250)

Webb has certainly done his homework, and is quite persuasive. It’s hard to ignore these passages of Scripture. However, I still have questions about the consistency with which we apply Levitical purity laws. (For example, by his own standards, Webb would have to admit that Hebrew dietary laws and economic laws were more restrictive than the surrounding culture. However, most evangelicals seem to believe that these no longer apply.)

For the sake of argument, let’s say homosexuality is indeed a sin. Is the Church responding properly?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say…absolutely not. First, there’s the glaring issue of hypocrisy. Everyone knows that the greatest threat to the “sanctity of marriage” isn’t gay marriage or civil unions; it’s divorce, which even among evangelicals hovers around 50 percent. But no one’s trying to introduce legislation forbidding divorcees from getting re-married or protesting in the streets with signs that say, “God hates divorce,” (even though that one’s actually a Bible verse.) The problem with divorce is that it hits too close to home. Christians can’t come out against it because so many are guilty of it themselves.

We’ve isolated and condemned homosexuality as an especially egregious sin because 1) it’s a sexual thing (and we’re obsessed with sex), 2) it’s relatively easy to identify and name, (unlike gossip and materialism and greed, which are condemned more often in the Bible and are more pervasive in our culture), and 3) it is “other,” (when you’re straight, and in no danger of committing homosexual acts yourself, it’s easy to call it an abomination because it’s easier to remove specks from others people’s eyes.) Plus, I think that because homosexuality often offends our sensibilities, because it seems so unnatural, we are more prone to ostracizing those involved and making them outcasts.

Of course, I guess if homosexuality is in fact a sin, Christians should still take a stand against it, despite our own hypocrisy and inconsistencies. My friends often remind me that perhaps the answer is not to stop condemning homosexuality, but to start condemning gossip and materialism in the same way. Another friend made a good point the other day, reminding me that sexual sins should be considered more serious because they cause more destruction. No one can look at the worldwide AIDS crisis and not acknowledge that sexual promiscuity has horrific ramifications.

I think I’d have a lot more clarity on this issue if I knew what Jesus had to say about it. But unfortunately, if he did address the issue, we have no record of it.

Sometimes I try to imagine how he would respond if he was asked what he thought about gay marriage. Sometimes I imagine him responding by saying, “Who are you to ask me about gay marriage, when you can’t even keep your heterosexual marriages together?” or even, “Why is it that you condemn promiscuity among gays in one breath and then condemn their attempts at monogamous, faithful relationships in the next?” Or perhaps he would simply say, “He who is without sexual sin may cast the first ballot against it.”

I don’t assume to know what Jesus would actually say, but I have a feeling he would turn the tables in some way or another. He did that a lot, especially when people asked him about political issues, or about the sins of others.

Homosexuality as a Genetic Disposition

I’ve already addressed the devastating ramifications that evangelicals will face if it is discovered that homosexuality is not a choice.

That being said, I know a lot of people who think that homosexuality is in fact an inherent disposition that a person cannot change, but that acting on those impulses is still a sin. I find this position to be a bit more believable than the position that people would consciously choose to be gay. However, it does little to alleviate the terrible shame and guilt that so many of our gay brothers and sisters must struggle with every day. A person’s sexuality is a pretty major part of his or her identity. It can’t possibly be as easy as we think it is to ignore.

My greatest fear is that there are thousands of young people living in evangelical communities today who are afraid to openly discuss their sexuality because they’ve been told that being gay is a sin that will land them in hell. Can you imagine living with that kind of shame? Can you imaging living with that kind of secret? Suicide rates among gay teens are out the roof, and it’s easy to see why. I sometimes wonder if we are actually creating more damage by condemning homosexuality than we would be by embracing it…(or at least creating an atmosphere where gays can feel welcome and safe within the Church.) What if gays cannot be “reformed,” as James Dobson claims? What if we are encouraging people who are truly gay to enter into heterosexual commitments and start families? Are the long-term ramifications of that perhaps more destructive?

****

As I said before, I’m unsure of my own opinion on this issue, and am open to your thoughts and ideas. I titled this post “An Evangelical’s Response to Homosexuality” because I get really tired of theologians and church leaders speaking at conferences on the topic of “The Evangelical Response to Homosexuality.” It seems to me that for every evangelical, there is a different response to this issue. This is simply my response…and it certainly isn’t definitive.

So what do you think? What is your response to homosexuality? How have your views on homosexuality changed over the years? Do you ever worry that you are wrong?


Laurie
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #1 on : Mon July 28, 2008, 15:02:48
I don't think homosexuality is sin. I used to think it was sin, but I don't any longer.

I think the position that gays and lesbians choose their sexual orientation is impossibly naive.

I think encouraging homosexuals to marry heterosexuals and start a family is ruinously awful advice.

I am pro gay marriage. I think that civil marriage and the rights it carries with it should be granted to couples regardless of their sexual orientation. But I also believe that religious groups should be able to determine the parameters of marriage for themselves. If a pastor or church does not want to officiate or condone a marriage that does not fit within the bounds of its beliefs on the subject, I believe it is his/her/its right to refuse.

You say, "These days it is nearly impossible not to have a friend, coworker, or family member who is gay." I think a better way of phrasing it would be, "These days, it is nearly impossible not to have a friend, coworker, or family member that is openly gay." I don't think there are more gay people now than there ever have been--I think people are simply able to be more open about it than they were in the past.

I do think the way in which homosexuals and homosexuality have been treated by the church is a sin, but I think it is one that we can reject, repent, and move away/forward from. Definitely sin compromises our witness, but God has worked through and in the church for two thousand years now, and I think God will continue to do so in the future despite our sinfulness.

Thanks for a thoughtful post.
Rob
Comment
jesus' words on it?
Reply #2 on : Mon July 28, 2008, 19:31:04
But Rachel, don't we have Jesus' words on marriage? Didn't he affirm the Genesis account of "a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife"? Although not directing addressing homosexual marriage, isn't Jesus affirming what marriage is? I don't know, I'm struggling to understand this issue myself. If someone can help me get past this one point (Genesis, Jesus, and Paul all affirming that marriage should be), it may sway me.
Comment
Re:
Reply #3 on : Mon July 28, 2008, 20:03:00
I know more than one gay former-Christian who has become so jaded and disenfranchised by their church community that they have rejected the entire religion as exclusive and bigoted. This is certainly not what Christians would want. I think the guilt and shame approach is tired and counter-productive. Compassion and kindness seem much more in tune with Jesus's teachings. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice (and I don't believe it is), there need to be some changes in the way these issues are handled within the evangelical community.
Laurie
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #4 on : Mon July 28, 2008, 21:51:48
Rob,

I think one very legitimate way out of your conundrum is to allow for a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. I think one could believe that the Christian view of marriage is the union of one man and one woman and support gay marriage at a civil level, but go to a church that will not marry homosexuals.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, I no longer think homosexuality is wrong. But there was a time when I believed it was wrong (or at least not ideal) and still supported gay marriage at a civil level, because I didn't (and don't) think it's fair to give civil/legal rights to some committed couples and not others based on sexual orientation.
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #5 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 07:51:34
I think it's important to separate the political issue from the religious one. Constitutionally I do not believe we can deny homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples; that amounts to gender discrimination - which has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. The founding principle of the United States is equality, and we risk undoing too many civil liberties if this one issue gets stuck in our craw.

As a Christian who finds himself in an historical understanding of the religion, I have a hard time denying that homosexual acts are displeasing to our Creator. While I understand that other sins are equally displeasing, it is very rare that purveyors of those other sins set up parades to flaunt their lifestyles. I have never seen a "Gossip Pride Festival".

Finally, I don't think the LGBT community appreciates the notion that there is no personal choice involved with their lifestyle. There probably is a predisposition to homosexuality (whether biological, sociological, or otherwise is hard to determine), but I'm confident they would take issue with the misconception that they are simply automatons acting out their instinctual behaviours.
David
Comment
Sexual Chastity
Reply #6 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 08:11:36
Sexual expression is limited to marriage. There are many heterosexuals that never do get married even though they desire to do so. They are called to a life of chastity.

If a person is convinced they are a homosexual, yet they are committed to Christ and a Christian life of sanctification I believe they must commit themselves to chastity.

I realize that this is "tough" but it is the same life expected of single heterosexual Christians.
Laurie
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #7 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 09:01:26
Chris,

I think you make a great point about jeapordizing civil liberties by denying homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I don't think anyone has implied that homosexuals are automatons with no choice over their actions or lifestyle. But I think the vast, vast majority would agree that they don't choose their [i]orientation [i], just as you and I probably don't feel that I "chose" to be heterosexual.

Also, (though I don't agree with you that homosexual behaviour is a sin), I think you're completely wrong that other sins aren't flaunted in our culture. Materialism is flaunted everywhere you look, every day, and if one believes sex outside of marriage is sin as well, I'd say you can see far more examples of that being flaunted than you will encounter gay pride parades.

David,

I see your point about chastity, but I do think there is a difference between expecting abstinence from single heterosexual persons and all homosexual persons. While it is true that some heterosexual singles never marry, the possibility of marriage is always there. Homosexuals under this paradigm, however, are denied the chance to even look for a partner, and are being categorically denied something much bigger of which sexual expression is a vital component.
Laurie
Comment
hmm
Reply #8 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 09:02:46
I wish there were some way to go back and edit! Sorry for the sloppy posting.
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #9 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 12:07:42
Laurie,

Just wanted to say I checked out your blog from your article on The OOZE and found this to be the best thing I've read on this issue probably ever.

Living in California, I've been looking into Gay marriage because while it has been legalized for now, it's possible it will be amended in the upcoming elections. I think the Christian response would be to keep gay marriage, because I want to take the graceful approach of offering civil liberties to these brothers and sisters.

The church gets all worked up over worst-case-scenario's where pastors go to jail for not performing gay weddings, or thinking God will accept gay marriage because the USA says so. I find the whole thing to be really frustrating where christians get involved, because it's actually pretty simple and easy if you ask me. Love your neighbor as yourself and allow them to have the same medical and financial gains you enjoy in your monogamous relationship. Then deal with the people you know on a one-on-one basis and see what God does in their lives.

Sorry, not preaching at you, just venting in general. Fantastic questions you're asking!

Eric.
Eric Z.
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #10 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 12:17:38
Oops, sorry Laurie, I meant to respond to Rachel. I guess I got confused.
Micah
Comment
I thought it was a foregone conclusion
Reply #11 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 23:40:16
I'm actually a little surprised... maybe because I had so many homosexual friends in high school, I never realized that this was in doubt. Is anybody actually questioning whether attraction is chosen? There is, at the very least, a STRONG genetic component. I wouldn't dismiss nurture entirely (upbringing does seem to play some role, especially as a trigger of a pre-existing condition). But there's plenty of homosexual men and women that would be THRILLED to magically become straight.

Interestingly, though, Dobson may actually be right (I shudder as I write that sentence). The breakdown of family norms and the high incidences of broken (not divorced, but broken) families does seem to result in more and more sexual identity issues. Plenty of people say "Yeah, my parents were married and it was a mess. I'll try something else." You see this in hetero living arrangements just as often as in sexual orientation issues.

One thing to keep in mind is that what we refer to as "homosexuality" is a VERY different beast in men and women. The genetic and emotional "causes" (using the phrase loosely) are almost completely unrelated.

Micah

p.s. I think you're conflating the desire and the deed a little bit, but keeping that level of precision is very difficult and if you did it consistently you'd be the first.
Micah
Comment
Re-reading my response
Reply #12 on : Tue July 29, 2008, 23:55:14
Makes me want to point out two things for clarity.

First is that I don't get to decide what's sin and what isn't. Whether homosexuality is a sin has nothing to do with how I feel about it. If sex outside of marriage is sin, and marriage is between a man and a woman, and a homosexual man isn't attracted to a woman, then they'll be in the heartbreaking position of never being able to consummate romantic love without committing sin. Even the most heartless Christian should be able to see that this should evoke sympathy, not anger.

The second is that you have an underlying assumption that I want to question. If a certain trait *IS* genetic, does it automatically follow that behavior related to that can't be sin? I guess I'm not seeing the conflict between the statement "God's plan for marriage is between one man and one woman" and "Same-sex attraction is (usually) not chosen." If homosexuality is essentially a genetic disorder, that surely affects how we deal with it but it doesn't necessarily speak to the morality of it.
Comment
Sin
Reply #13 on : Wed July 30, 2008, 06:56:59
I'm a hetero guy. I have a problem being attracted to women. I'm married with a little boy. But I still have that problem, and I've had it since 13 or so. Fact is, I inherited it from my dad who inherited from his, who we all inherited back from Adam. My point?

Our sin nature is inherited. To me, it is irrelevant if a person is 'born' attracted to the same sex. It is still our duty to call sin sin and try to live as pure and holy of a life as possible.

As far as gay marriage: I think Chris had it right when he said "I think it's important to separate the political issue from the religious one."

Do I think it is morally wrong for two same-sex people to get married? Yes. I believe if God had ever intended this to be a natural thing there would have been some mechanism for a same-sex couple to have children (naturally). I.e., it's hard for 2 guys to "be fruitful and multiply." Do I think it should matter to 2 people who want to be married what I think personally, or have a government tell them who they can marry? Absolutely not.

We as Christ followers have failed by creating these tiny niches that we call "church", call them Christ-honoring and then have the same divorce rate. Jesus offers a new heart...His heart...people who struggle with homosexuality, adultery, fornication or <i>any</i> sin need to be nurtured to a closer walk with Christ, not ostracized and told God doesn't appreciate their struggle. Only the Holy Spirit can change the heart, not me holding up a protest sign or some government making the rules.

BTW, I appreciated your article on the Ooze. There is a similar article on their called "the Doubters Prayer" that complements yours nicely.
kristen
Comment
some thoughts that influence my opinion
Reply #14 on : Wed July 30, 2008, 15:29:43
i am in favor of homosexual marriage because, both historically and currently, religious marriage and civil marriage are separate. they always have been. when i got married, we went to the county clerk's office to get the license. all we needed to do was sign it in the presence of someone authorized by the goverment(!) to witness our commitment. the words we repeated after the pastor who officiated had nothing to do with our union in the eyes of the law. nothing. at. all. now i would like to clarify that, as a believer, those words of the christian minister meant more to me than the piece of paper from the government, but i see no way that we can refuse marriage to homosexuals when it is granted to athiests, muslims, hindus, and others who deny the christian aspects of marriage. why pick on one people group? it is discriminatory and i am ashamed to live in a state that has such a horrible amendment to its constitution. marriage is not a christian institution regardless of whatever christian aspects to the ceremony we may hold dear.

in ancient rome, marriage was a civil institution (though romans would not have separated government from religion in the way americans currently do) that was only granted to roman citizens. roman citizenship could be granted and revoked at several points in a person's life. paul was a roman citizen and had the right to marry but most of the apostles did not have this right. their marriages were not recognized by the government. one could go so far here as to argue that because joseph and mary were not citizens of rome (though living in a conquored land) that they were never married at all. but, according to the traditions of their faith, as hebrews, they were married in the eyes of God.
what is my point?--civil and religious marriage are indeed two different things.

so far as homosexuality in ancient rome and greece is concerned, yes, the biblical ruling was indeed more restrictive but homosexuality in those cultures was practiced differently than one might imagine. was it done more openly and in a more accepted manner than in the middle ages? yes. but the nature of the arrangements were distinct and interesting. they had much more to do with power relations than sexual preferences in a way. it was not acceptable for women to be gay. relationships that were seen publicly to be more than sexual were ridiculed as well. men of higher age and rank could enter those of lower rank but the other way around was considered a severe taboo. this had to do with relationships of power and the supremacy given to oratory skills.
just some food for cultural thought there.

to say that either people choose to be gay or they are born that way creates a false dicotomy. what we are really discussing is nature vs. nurture. while 'nurture' training may be overcome, few would call aspects of the personality developed by nurture to be choices in a real sense. i suspect that some people are homosexual by nature and some by nurture, but, as yet, there is no way to prove it either way. the nature vs. nurture debate is ongoing. i would like to point out that extreme feminists argue that sexuality is culturally constructed (all nurture) and extreme queer theorists (that is the technical term, not derogatory in this instance) argue that sexuality is biologically constructed (all nature). i point this out to say that most people live somewhere between these two extremes. i think it is a bit of a moot argument anyway. regardless of what science eventually says, some will continue to argue the inferiority of homosexuals, just as they do with those of african descent. also regardless of what science eventually says, people who are homosexual are here in our world. do we love our neighbors, as instructed in the bible, or do we pass judgement, which is reserved for Christ alone?
Comment
Some Thoughts
Reply #15 on : Wed July 30, 2008, 20:32:02
I’m really enjoying all of these thoughtful and respectful comments. Keep them coming!

Laurie, Chris, Eric, and Kristen: I appreciate your perspectives on gay marriage. You all seem to agree that a distinction should be made between the civil aspect of marriage and the religious aspect of marriage. I think Eric summarized it well: “I think the Christian response would be to keep gay marriage, because I want to take the graceful approach of offering civil liberties to these brothers and sisters. Love your neighbor as yourself and allow them to have the same medical and financial gains you enjoy in your monogamous relationship. Then deal with the people you know on a one-on-one basis and see what God does in their lives.” And as Kristen points out, “I see no way that we can refuse marriage to homosexuals when it is granted to atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and others who deny the Christian aspects of marriage.”

I think I’d have to agree. Seems to me that religious conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to fight this on the political front. (Haven’t we learned anything from the abortion debate?)

Micah, you write that “the breakdown of family norms and the high incidences of broken (not divorced, but broken) families does seem to result in more and more sexual identity issues.”

I’m sure you would agree that not everyone who is gay comes from a broken home. One of the problems I see with James Dobson’s approach is that he sort of blames parents if a child turns out to be gay. I know of several families who “did everything right” in raising their children, and then get blamed for making some sort of grave mistake when a kid comes out of the closet. I think it’s really sad that these parents get attacked, when many times they did nothing wrong.

I think it’s interesting that all of the major professional mental health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, have officially rejected the notion that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

That being said, I appreciate Kristen’s more nuanced view of nature/nurture regarding sexual orientation. I think we would all agree that this is not as black-and-white as many people make it out to be.

Rob, you make a good point by reminding us that when Jesus did talk about marriage, he affirmed a more traditional view. The context was divorce, not gay marriage, but it’s certainly a reasonable passage to examine.

I am by no means trying to stop the conversation. Just wanted to acknowledge some of your comments!
Comment
1st birth vs. 2nd
Reply #16 on : Sun August 03, 2008, 16:58:41
According to the Bible we are all born sinners. Even if, for the sake of argument or in the case of scientific discovery, it is allowed that homosexuals were "born gay"--this does not change the fact that the scripture says that it is not how we are born the first time that matters. We must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. That new birth comes with power to overcome sin. Romans 1 makes clear that God did not change His mind about homosexuality somehow in the New Testament. If someone is "born straight" they will need to turn from the temptation to sin with the opposite sex (in thought or deed). If a homosexual is truly saved, then they are a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)... old things are to pass away as all things become new. They are to turn from the sin of homosexuality (thought and deed). Repentance is for both the "straight" and the "gay."
kristen
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #17 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 14:33:08
i would also like to recommend against using the ability to have children as a litmus test for what God intended marriage to be. we all know hetero couples who are unable to have children the 'traditional' way.
Comment
An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #18 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 11:35:47
I agree with R. Kirk Kilpatrick. Why as christians would we want to allow what is sinful, legal? People are dying and going to hell because we don't want to call sin what it is. Who cares if it offends? If it saves from eternal damnation in hell wouldn't it be worth an offense? We have a very heavy responsibility and that is to share the law and Gospel with those around us before they die in their sins. God help us.
Comment
Re: An Evangelical's Response to Homosexuality
Reply #19 on : Wed August 06, 2008, 12:34:25
Kristen: Sure there are hetero couples who cannot have children "naturally", but this is the exception, not the rule. A man and woman's physiology have clearly been created to compliment each other to facilitate child-bearing. Now, as I understand it, there are animals and other "creatures" that have the ability to reproduce asexually, so I don't know how that plays into the debate.

Guitar: There is a line here that is easy to cross and I haven't fully persuaded myself to either side. Sure, I count homosexuality as sinful. But so is adultery...do we then want to outlaw divorce? Besides, in no case is the law going to change a person's heart. Only Christ can do that. By trying to make everyone conform to our beliefs by legislation I think we only create a backlash and disdain for all things Christ. Think about this also from the other side...if society is going decidedly secular, how long before we ourselves find ourselves "legislated"? A free society has to allow for differences even when they are diametrically opposed to our own beliefs and views. I think we have to embrace society in the manner Christ did...salt, light, letting our good works glorify Him, rather than our bitter words sounding from the relative safety of our own sanctuaries where we ourselves don't have to get "dirty."
Comment
Clarity
Reply #20 on : Thu August 07, 2008, 09:38:21
@Adam

Maybe I was confused by the whole thing. I didn't say outlaw homosexuality. We already tried that, lol. I was saying that, to say that these sins are ok is wrong. I'm coming from a spiritual, eternal perspective. God says in His word in 1Co 6:9-10 "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."
To tell someone living in these lifestyles that what they are doing is ok is wrong. It does nothing but hurt that person.

If we would instead share with them in love that God will punish those who break His laws, but that He made a way for us to be saved. He is also rich in mercy. If we will repent of our sins AND put our trust in Jesus to forgive us, He will make us a new creature and give us new desires. That is all I was trying to say.
Comment
Response to Clarity
Reply #21 on : Thu August 07, 2008, 22:01:05
Guitar:

Amen!
Comment
Starting points...
Reply #22 on : Sat August 09, 2008, 08:35:41
I think whenever we talk about any kind of sexuality, we must begin further back that sexual orientation.

We've got to talk about theological anthropology and what it means to be fully human. As humans we are sexual beings. To deny our sexuality is to deny a fundamental part of our identity as humans.

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code