Is Homosexuality Biblical? A Loving Response To My Neighbor Who Says It Is.

( – The Christian Perspective on Homosexuality)

The Oklahoman reported in an article from May 21st that the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) ratified a measure allowing the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers. According to the article this is a debate that has “raged within the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) for more than three decades.” And though this recent decision finally gave regional church bodies the ability to decide for themselves, some PCUSA Churches have been affirming non-traditional sexual preferences for years. When I read the article I was deeply saddened that the PCUSA has ignored or perhaps abandoned the Bible altogether on this issue. However, some have tried to validate their position with the Bible, including a Presbyterian (PCUSA) Church in Stillwater where I pastor. The following is a blog that I wrote in response to statements made by a Presbyterian Pastor in local newspapers.

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” John Calvin

In the fall of 2009 the First Presbyterian Church in Stillwater held several Sunday evening discussions titled: “Loving Our Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual Neighbor (GLBT)”. That sounds loving and caring doesn’t it? Most people know that God is love and we should love God and our neighbor as commanded in the Bible, (Matthew 22:34-40) and because it is commanded in God’s word I want to love my neighbor, whoever they are. Sincerely, I affirm the need to love and respect all people, because all people are created in the image of God and have intrinsic value. I want to love my GLBT neighbor just as much as I want to love my heterosexual neighbor. But while I agree with what the discussion title is saying, I cannot go along with and remain silent about what the discussion title means. Why? Because it is absolutely contradictory to what the Bible means and is therefore an attack on “God’s truth” and therefore unloving to others. Even if it is not received as love, my intent is to love others by telling them the biblical truth.

Gordon Edwards, pastor of First Presbyterian says that most people incorrectly interpret the Bible when they say that non-heterosexual orientation is sinful. He says, “The condemnation in the Scriptures is of unnatural, abusive, violent, perverted sexual activity – both heterosexual and homosexual.” (From The Daily O’Collegian; Monday, September 14, 2009; p 1) Edwards further comments, “Loving, committed same gender relationships are few within the Scripture; I only recall David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Martha and Mary. Each person is called to live responsibly as a creation of God within himself/herself, in relationships with others and the Creator.” From The Stillwater NewsPress; September 11, 2009  (I assert that Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transsexual relationships are all biblically sinful and therefore morally wrong based on the fact that gay and lesbian relationships are biblically prohibited. It stands to reason that if God meant exclusively for a man to love a woman and a woman to love a man as husband and wife, then it is also true that bi-sexual and transsexual relationships are also sinful.)

Is this true? Are loving, committed GLBT relationships biblically defensible and therefore virtuous? As respectfully as I can in love, but also to defend the truth, Edwards’ statements and assertions are just wrong. To begin with, there is no credible evidence that any of the three pairs he mentions were in anything other than a healthy heterosexual relationship. Of course these people loved each other, but not the way David loved Bathsheba or the way the Ruth loved Boaz. There is no evidence that any of these pairs were sexually involved, whereas all over the Bible it is clear that David, for example, “lay with” Bathsheba, or Adam “had relations with his wife”, showing that there was a relationship beyond mutual respect and affection. Consequently, if Ruth had a sexual relationship with her mother-in-law, Naomi, then would it not have been unnatural for her to be married to Naomi’s son and then to be married to Boaz? After all, what makes a relationship “unnatural, abusive, violent or perverted”, if it isn’t going from a husband, to your mother-in-law and then to your eventual husband who is a relative of your deceased husband and mother-in-law? That appears obviously unnatural to me. And if we follow Edwards’ line of thinking, are we also going to say that Jesus was a homosexual? After all, John was referred to as the one Jesus loved and John also lay on Jesus’ bosom. A same-gender and intimate relationship does not necessarily mean that a person is something other than heterosexual.

So aside from the fact that there are no descriptions of approved GLBT relationships in the Bible, neither is there a single verse that prescribes GLBT relationships as morally right and acceptable. In other words, if we laid the prohibitions aside that most people point to as a defense against GLBT relationships, we still run into the fact there is no favorable prescription of such behavior. Where is the verse that says: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his man-wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Answer: It is not there. Jesus and Paul both quote this verse to talk about marriage and biblical relationship and it is always in the context of heterosexual, a man is married to a woman, covenant relationship. It seems pretty significant, does it not, that if the Bible was going to affirm a certain sexual lifestyle preference as noble and desirable and good that it would have affirmed it outright? And it absolutely does not. Marriage is to be between a man and a woman from Bible beginning to Bible end.

In addition to the Bible giving no examples or statements affirming GLBT relationships, the Bible gives some very clear prohibitions against such behavior. I am even willing to leave the story of Sodom and Gomorrah out of the argument, knowing that proponents of GLBT relationships attempt to argue that their sexual preference in not a sin based on this biblical account because the sin of those in Sodom and Gomorrah was their lack of collective hospitality to the messengers who visited Lot. But in the New Testament, there are some very clear condemnations of GLBT behavior.

But before I unpack two passages from the New Testament, it might be helpful to have some insight into Greco-Roman Culture so as to understand the context of the passages. For instance, it was quite acceptable for men in Roman times to have homosexual lovers who were slaves or even children. In addition, most of the Roman emperors were known to be either homosexual or bisexual. GLBT lifestyle preferences were prevalent and accepted during the time of the Bible, especially in Greco-Roman Culture. Everett Ferguson, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Abilene Christian University, writes in Backgrounds of Early Christianity:

The numerous words in the Greek language suggest a preoccupation with this aspect of (sexual) life. Homosexuality was a common result in Greek society, which was considered the noblest form of love to be friendship between men. Some of the greatest names in Greek philosophy regarded it as not inferior to heterosexual love, but it was practiced primarily among males between their early teens and early twenties.

Paul was not just being culturally mainstream by opposing GLBT relationships, but rather in his letters to the Christians in Rome and Corinth he was condemning acts and lifestyles that were widely accepted as appropriate. If anything Paul was out of step with the culture of Rome and Corinth and the prevailing thought regarding permissible sexual orientation.

In Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for the which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Paul’s intended condemnation of GLBT relationships reads crystal clear to me, but my guess is that this text as a prohibition against GLBT relationships gets dismissed by proponents of GLBT relationships on the grounds that the relationships this passage is talking about are, “unnatural, abusive, violent, perverted sexual activity (Edwards)”. But let’s give Paul a little bit of credit as a writer or as one who could dictate clearly. To extract from this text that natural GLBT relationships are not the relationships that Paul is condemning in this passage is to ignore the plain meaning of the text. Paul is clear that what is degrading about these relationships is that they are unnatural because they are women with women and men with men. There is no evidence that unnatural means Paul is arguing that a gay man or gay woman shouldn’t be in a relationship with a heterosexual man or heterosexual woman. Paul is condemning relationships that are something other than biblical, loving and committed heterosexual relationships.  This can only make sense in light of the fact that elsewhere, (Ephesians 5:21-33 for example) Paul refers to marriage as between a man and woman.

Paul also writes to the church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor the drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This passage (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) looks to be absolutely definitive, because Paul not only condemns “homosexuals” but also the “effeminate”. The word effeminate (malokoi – grk) is describing the person who is “being passive in a same-sex relationship” (Walter Bauer’s, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature). The word homosexual (arsenokoitai – grk) is describing the aggressive “male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex.” Paul is covering all of his bases, showing that all homosexual behavior is unnatural and therefore sinful. Furthermore, it can’t be argued from this passage that Paul is speaking of an “unnatural, abusive, violent, perverted sexual activity.” If that were the case then how does one arbitrarily argue there are unnatural, abusive, violent and perverted fornicators, idolaters, thieves, covetousness, drunkards, revilers or swindlers? What makes all of these vices unnatural, abusive, violent and perverted is that they are all unnatural, abusive, violent and perverted by God’s moral standard as expressed in God’s word. You can’t say that homosexuality is acceptable to the degree that it isn’t abusive and then say that all forms of adultery are wrong. Any latitude given to homosexuality would also have to be given to the other vices. Are there some thieves that are not unnatural, abusive, violent and perverted when they steal? To take either representation of homosexuality in the passage and try to salvage it is to ignore how nonredeemable the rest of the list is.  These particular sins that are condemned by Paul are wrong because it is impossible for them to be right – at least if you believe that the Bible is God’s authoritative word.

To be fair, this passage also reminds us  that heterosexual relationships can be perverted and sinful as well. The case for biblical marriage has not been represented well by the staggering number of divorces among those professing to be Christians, as well as by the population at large. Adultery and fornication are perversions of God’s intended plan for a man and a woman, and divorce for any reason among couples is the result of sin and produces sin at some point. As a matter of fact, besides Jesus, I doubt there has never been a person who wasn’t an adulterer in light of Matthew 5:27-30. We are all in need of God’s grace in Christ Jesus, but grace does not increase, or exist, so that sin may continue (Romans 6:1), whether it is the sin of adultery or homosexuality.

To tell people that the Bible does not condemn GLBT relationships is clearly not true and for that reason not loving. Every one of these sins is a violation of an infinitely holy God and to say that a person can participate in these deeds without repentance and not be condemned by God is a perversion of the Bible and it distorts the gospel to the point that whoever teaches this has lost the gospel for both themselves and their hearers. So if someone wants to say the Bible isn’t authoritative or that it isn’t the word of God then that is one thing, but let us not entertain any nonsense that the Bible does not condemn GLBT relationships. To come to a different conclusion requires some very creative, interpretive gymnastics.

The beauty of the God’s word is that whether any person has engaged in homosexuality, adultery, lying, drunkenness, stealing or whatever vice they may be inclined to engage in with their bodies, every person can be forgiven and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:11). The same word of God that condemns all sin, whether heterosexual or homosexual, also offers forgiveness and life. So the way you love your gay, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual neighbor is by respectfully telling them the truth. Telling people that they are wrong is not hateful if they are respectfully being told the truth. Of course there is a way to say the truth and there is a way not to say it. On the other hand, it is harmful, even hateful, to say that you love someone and then mislead them about the truth of God. To love someone with your words and actions you must say to them: “We all have sinned against God and we all struggle with sinning against God. We all have vices and as long as we are in our present bodies we will struggle, but while we were yet adulterers, liars, homosexuals, child abusers, thieves and so on, Christ died for us, (Romans 5:8) and bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin (1 Peter 2:24) and live for Him who rose again on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). If we repent and believe (Mark 1:15, Acts 20:21) we will be saved in Christ as a new creation and the old will be gone because the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17).

May God give us the grace to be respectfully honest about God’s word so that we can tell others about forgiveness for sins in Jesus. That’s how you truthfully love your neighbor.

About brentprentice

Brent is the lead pastor and one of the Elders at Eagle Heights in Stillwater, Oklahoma. He has been married to Lacey for 14 years and together they love two sons, Luke and Elijah, and a daughter, Bella.

Posted on September 30, 2009, in Bible Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Wow. Interesting and timely information these days.

  2. Very well written my friend. Indeed God loves his creation. He has also made redemption possible. Biblically,from the OT and NT examples, all people who enter into a covenantly redemptive relationship with God, are called to live transformed lives glorifying God. He has established unchanging, holy expectations for all believers. We can not define God’s word in view of our decisions, rather all our decisions should be made in view of God’s word. Great job on the blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: