Attempts to Justify Homosexuality
David Thomley
Just ten years ago, who would have believed that
this nation was on the brink of a cultural meltdown over
the issue of homosexuality? A sexual issue that formerly
was publicly censored and reserved only for the
most regulated, hushed discussions among academicians
and theologians has now become the rage of a
morally confused world. Why? Among many reasons
that might be offered, we should not fail to confess that
we have become the Gentile world of the first century
(cf. Rom.1:18-32). Like the philosophers and orators of
old who delighted in anything that was new, shocking,
or challenging to the accepted norms, we are the
contemporary reflection of a people who have become
enamored with our own sophistication. Professing to
be wise, we have become fools who have expanded
our minds to a point that we are no longer able to define
with certainty the most fundamental aspects of human
behavior. Is it truly a mark of genius that this culture is
struggling with the question of whether marriage is for
a man and a woman? For centuries, people of every
race and tongue, God-believers and pagans alike,
somehow managed to answer this question and propagate
humanity. However humbling the admission may
be for some, our present generation did not discover
homosexuality, nor are we the first to flaunt it as the
caviar of the sexual menu.
There is something new, however, for our present
generation. From at least certain quarters of both the
academic and religious communities, there are serious
and reasoned attempts being made to justify the practice
of homosexual behavior and ultimately same-sex
partnerships (marriage). As far as I know, they are
making honest and sincere attempts to explain and
justify a behavior that has formerly been regarded as
an aberration. Those of us who believe that the practice
of homosexual behavior is sinful are making a serious
mistake if we assume that every opposing argument is
merely a silly pseudo-logic that seeks to permit unbridled
passion with unlimited partners. Sincere, reasoned
arguments need to be honestly answered.
Contemporary justification for homosexual behavior
generally falls into four categories. The first would
be the argument about culture and the Bible. Those
who are seeking to reconcile Biblical teaching and
homosexual relationships often deny the relevance of
the oft-quoted scriptures used to condemn homosexuality
(Gen.19; Judg.19; Lev.18; Lev.20). Instead, they
would argue, these passages address ancient hospitality
customs and fertility cults, neither of which enters
into our present reality. Furthermore, they argue that
the biblical writers were simply ignorant of much of
today’s knowledge regarding the homosexual condition.
For this reason, the biblical writers were limited in
their ability to fully address the entire scope of the
homosexual issue. Answering this argument: The combination
of the prohibition texts in both the OT and NT
and the biblical teaching on marriage provides a powerful
divine platform with universal application. Homosexual
partnerships are incompatible with God’s created
order (cf. Gen.1 and 2). This order was established
by virtue of Creation, not culture. For this reason,
the cultural considerations have no bearing on the
principle under discussion.
The second category of justification would be the
argument that essentially blames the gene pool – or
God – for the existence of the problem and the practice
of the behavior. You are all too familiar with statements
like these: “I’m gay because God made me this way!”
“I was born gay!” “You say this is not natural, but it’s
natural for me.” Answering the argument: First of all,
the careful Bible student should find it interesting that
God spends precious little time explaining the origin of
anyone’s sexuality. Whether or not one believes that he
was “born that way” is not the issue. The Bible addresses
the behavior of man. Our attempts to define
our sexual psyche as homosexual, heterosexual, or
bisexual is foreign to biblical thought. Being born
homosexual would not justify same-sex relations any
more than being born heterosexual would justify adultery
or fornication. There is no special case to plead
here. Arguments about origin are distractions from the
real issue. Additionally, as we meet this argument,
Christians should note there is no scientific or genetic
proof that any one is born homosexual.
Perhaps the most commonly heard argument today
is the love argument, a justification of homosexual
unions based on the quality of the relationship. Consider
these recent words from “The Rev. Susan Russell,”
an Episcopal priest, as she refers to Matthew 22:34-40:
“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these
two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’
If I need a litmus test for whether … our tradition needs
to change, it is whether what we’re considering meets
those two criteria. I contend that lifelong committed
relationships between people of the same sex meet the
criteria.’” (as quoted in The Dallas Morning News,
Nov.27, 2003).
Answering the argument: Love is not the only
absolute in the Bible, and even love needs law to guide
it. How many men have left a wife to be joined to
another woman and then argued, “But we really love
each other? We have a deep and genuine love that I
never experienced with my former wife! How can it be
wrong?” Obviously, it can be wrong because God
forbids it. The Bible nowhere indicates that the quality
of love in a relationship is the only measure of right and
wrong.
Finally, there is the argument of the universality of
the gospel – salvation is for all! With this argument,
there is a passionate plea for Christians to break down
barriers and open the doors to those who are “different.”
There are cries for love, grace, mercy and acceptance
in the community of faith. Proponents of homosexuality
are quick to remind us that Jesus often
showed mercy and compassion to harlots and prostitutes,
much to the dismay of the religious aristocracy of
the first century (Luke 7:36ff; Matt.21:31-32; John 8:1-
11). One of them said, “When I came to Jesus, I came
just like the song says: Just As I Am.”
Answering the argument: Indeed, Jesus will receive
you just as you are (how else could you come to
Him?), but He loves you far too much to leave you that
way. The call to the kingdom is a call to repentance, and
that is a call to change. Do not forget the last words of
Jesus to the woman who was taken in adultery. The
same Jesus who said, “Neither do I condemn you,” also
said, “Go and sin no more.”