A student recently asked me why homosexuality was sinful and I could tell that she wanted a more in depth answer than 'because the Bible says so.' It's understandable, to some degree, that in our culture she would be repulsed by the notion of calling homosexuality sinful. Everything she sees, hears and reads in the media and entertainment industries is geared towards telling her that homosexuality is perfectly normal. They tell kids, as early as they can get their attention, that homosexuals are people just like you and I who want to love and be with people they care about.* They would like to say that it is no different than our mother and father's love for and relationship with each other.** To deprive homosexuals of the 'right' to same sex marriage*** is an atrocity and to condemn their love as sin is simply archaic and back wooded nonsense.
You cannot watch a new television show which does not feature a homosexual or two or three. Everyone has a gay friend and/or family member. It's normal and they are everywhere you go. They are presented as happy, healthy, attractive, and well adjusted people who are committed to a long term and monogamous relationship with their partner. They just want to love and be loved and to be accepted like everyone else.
So why call such a perfectly normal thing, a natural thing, a good thing...sinful?
This question is best answered by asking another question. Why call anything sinful? The term 'sin' has, after all, been attached to a lot of other things besides homosexual behavior. Heterosexual sex outside of the context marriage is also called sin. Lying is called sin. Stealing is called sin. Coveting is called sin. The list of sins rolls on. But why are any of these things sinful?
To put it another way, to use a bit less 'religious' term, we might say that these things are morally wrong. It is wrong to lie and steal and cheat. It is wrong to murder and enslave other people. It is wrong for a man to beat on his girlfriend or to sexually fondle a young child. It is wrong... Isn't it?
I think all but sociopaths just answered yes.
But why is it wrong? How can you say that murder or rape or molestation is objectively wrong? You may think these things are wrong but the person committing those same acts might not agree with you. If it is simply you against him then who is right? Why is your opinion more valid than his? Surely no human being can dictate morality for all others! 'Who are you to judge me?' the rapist says!
So you take the next logical move you can make and you appeal higher. You say that 'no individual person can dictate morality but society as a whole can'. Really? 'Yes,' you say 'society agrees together what is best for human flourishing and this agreement is what morality is. Murdering people does not aid the flourishing of our civilization, nor does molesting children, therefore they are wrong.' But I have a few questions.
What if I can get away with it? What if I commit the act and am never caught and therefore there is no punishment? Furthermore what if I really enjoy doing this act and feel it benefits me personally? Why ought I not to do it then? And before you say 'I should care for the good of the rest of society' I ask you why should I care about other people or what is good for society? It does not seem to follow that simply because a lot of people are saying something is so that it in turn actually is so. If an action benefits me and I can accomplish it without any harm to me, you have hardly given me a reason why I ought to not do the thing.
Furthermore your notion 'society defines morality' has some real difficulties. For one, it justifies a lot of atrocities throughout history and into our present day. Our society once felt that human slavery was permissible and, indeed, the majority supported it. Under the reasoning of 'society decides morality' we would have to say that slavery was morally good while the majority supported it. That moral reformers were actually evil because they opposed the norm and said the majority were in the wrong. Moral reform is impossible when we are simply counting noses.
Even further we have the problem that societies do not always agree with other societies. Who were we to tell the NAZI's to stop killing all the Jews and handicapped people? If their society was in favor of it then who is our society to judge them? This just takes us back to the difficulty we had before when you and the rapist were in a disagreement. You kicked it up the chain a bit to the level of society to avoid the problem of individual morality but it did not work. The problem is the same but merely on a larger scale. We think we ought not to murder people because of their ethnicity, they think it is for the good of all mankind to do so. Who is to say?
Who is to say?
It would seem that you have a real choice to make. You can choose between option A) that there is actually no objective morality which is binding on the consciences of all people everywhere across all times and cultures or B) That God exists. You might think that I have just tried to pull a fast one on you but, I assure you, I have not. I have however backed you into a corner with only two options. It is time that you faced them.
The problem of objective morality, that some things are really right and others really wrong, is that if it exists it is not a product of man. Mankind cannot, in themselves, account for morality. If morality is man made then it is just 'you versus me' or 'us versus them' and, in neither case, do we have objective moral truth that is binding for all people. The only place such an objective moral standard could come from is a Creator-God.
If it is the case that we are made by God and that he designed us and placed us upon this earth then he alone can state what our purpose is and how we are to function in relationship with one another and with him. He provides the accountability, He is the ultimate will-answer-to, that we lack if morality is man made and subjective. I ought not to do something, even if I can get away with it and it benefits me immediately, because it is actually wrong and I will be held accountable for my actions before God.
If there is no God then there is no objective morality. If there is objective morality then there is a God. These are your options.
And so now we come full circle. 'Why is homosexuality a sin?' It is a sin because it is contrary to the design and purposes of God for human life and flourishing and he has made this plain both in natural revelation and in special revelation (Scripture). Or there is no God, homosexuality is not sin, and all is permissible.
What I have trouble tolerating is people who try to play around like there is a middle option. I assure you there is not. The problem is that mankind is in rebellion to its Creator. We think we know better than our designer how we ought to behave and function. We reject him, we normalize what he has forbidden and we destroy ourselves in the process. Homosexuality is sin, just as heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sin, just like lying is sin, just like murder is sin and stealing is sin, etc., because God has made us and knows what is best for us and has told us how to live and we are either in accordance with his will or in rebellion.
If we say that homosexuality is not sin then we simply are rejecting God either in his existence or his authority.
*And, of course, homosexuals are people just like you and I who want to love and be loved and we ought to love them as people. But they are also living in sin (just like you and I apart from Christ) and they need to turn away from sinful desires and submit to the will of God. All of us have sinful impulses whether they be homosexual or otherwise. All of us have to deny ourselves certain things we crave because they are wrong.
** There is an obvious difference, however, because the human form was designed in such a way that the opposite sexes were complimentary and that the sexual organs, male and female, actually complete one another and produce offspring.
*** The issue of rights is similar to that of morality. Who can give individuals 'rights' beside their creator? Who defines marriage but the one who created the institution in the beginning?
You cannot watch a new television show which does not feature a homosexual or two or three. Everyone has a gay friend and/or family member. It's normal and they are everywhere you go. They are presented as happy, healthy, attractive, and well adjusted people who are committed to a long term and monogamous relationship with their partner. They just want to love and be loved and to be accepted like everyone else.
So why call such a perfectly normal thing, a natural thing, a good thing...sinful?
This question is best answered by asking another question. Why call anything sinful? The term 'sin' has, after all, been attached to a lot of other things besides homosexual behavior. Heterosexual sex outside of the context marriage is also called sin. Lying is called sin. Stealing is called sin. Coveting is called sin. The list of sins rolls on. But why are any of these things sinful?
To put it another way, to use a bit less 'religious' term, we might say that these things are morally wrong. It is wrong to lie and steal and cheat. It is wrong to murder and enslave other people. It is wrong for a man to beat on his girlfriend or to sexually fondle a young child. It is wrong... Isn't it?
I think all but sociopaths just answered yes.
But why is it wrong? How can you say that murder or rape or molestation is objectively wrong? You may think these things are wrong but the person committing those same acts might not agree with you. If it is simply you against him then who is right? Why is your opinion more valid than his? Surely no human being can dictate morality for all others! 'Who are you to judge me?' the rapist says!
So you take the next logical move you can make and you appeal higher. You say that 'no individual person can dictate morality but society as a whole can'. Really? 'Yes,' you say 'society agrees together what is best for human flourishing and this agreement is what morality is. Murdering people does not aid the flourishing of our civilization, nor does molesting children, therefore they are wrong.' But I have a few questions.
What if I can get away with it? What if I commit the act and am never caught and therefore there is no punishment? Furthermore what if I really enjoy doing this act and feel it benefits me personally? Why ought I not to do it then? And before you say 'I should care for the good of the rest of society' I ask you why should I care about other people or what is good for society? It does not seem to follow that simply because a lot of people are saying something is so that it in turn actually is so. If an action benefits me and I can accomplish it without any harm to me, you have hardly given me a reason why I ought to not do the thing.
Furthermore your notion 'society defines morality' has some real difficulties. For one, it justifies a lot of atrocities throughout history and into our present day. Our society once felt that human slavery was permissible and, indeed, the majority supported it. Under the reasoning of 'society decides morality' we would have to say that slavery was morally good while the majority supported it. That moral reformers were actually evil because they opposed the norm and said the majority were in the wrong. Moral reform is impossible when we are simply counting noses.
Even further we have the problem that societies do not always agree with other societies. Who were we to tell the NAZI's to stop killing all the Jews and handicapped people? If their society was in favor of it then who is our society to judge them? This just takes us back to the difficulty we had before when you and the rapist were in a disagreement. You kicked it up the chain a bit to the level of society to avoid the problem of individual morality but it did not work. The problem is the same but merely on a larger scale. We think we ought not to murder people because of their ethnicity, they think it is for the good of all mankind to do so. Who is to say?
Who is to say?
It would seem that you have a real choice to make. You can choose between option A) that there is actually no objective morality which is binding on the consciences of all people everywhere across all times and cultures or B) That God exists. You might think that I have just tried to pull a fast one on you but, I assure you, I have not. I have however backed you into a corner with only two options. It is time that you faced them.
The problem of objective morality, that some things are really right and others really wrong, is that if it exists it is not a product of man. Mankind cannot, in themselves, account for morality. If morality is man made then it is just 'you versus me' or 'us versus them' and, in neither case, do we have objective moral truth that is binding for all people. The only place such an objective moral standard could come from is a Creator-God.
If it is the case that we are made by God and that he designed us and placed us upon this earth then he alone can state what our purpose is and how we are to function in relationship with one another and with him. He provides the accountability, He is the ultimate will-answer-to, that we lack if morality is man made and subjective. I ought not to do something, even if I can get away with it and it benefits me immediately, because it is actually wrong and I will be held accountable for my actions before God.
If there is no God then there is no objective morality. If there is objective morality then there is a God. These are your options.
And so now we come full circle. 'Why is homosexuality a sin?' It is a sin because it is contrary to the design and purposes of God for human life and flourishing and he has made this plain both in natural revelation and in special revelation (Scripture). Or there is no God, homosexuality is not sin, and all is permissible.
What I have trouble tolerating is people who try to play around like there is a middle option. I assure you there is not. The problem is that mankind is in rebellion to its Creator. We think we know better than our designer how we ought to behave and function. We reject him, we normalize what he has forbidden and we destroy ourselves in the process. Homosexuality is sin, just as heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sin, just like lying is sin, just like murder is sin and stealing is sin, etc., because God has made us and knows what is best for us and has told us how to live and we are either in accordance with his will or in rebellion.
If we say that homosexuality is not sin then we simply are rejecting God either in his existence or his authority.
*And, of course, homosexuals are people just like you and I who want to love and be loved and we ought to love them as people. But they are also living in sin (just like you and I apart from Christ) and they need to turn away from sinful desires and submit to the will of God. All of us have sinful impulses whether they be homosexual or otherwise. All of us have to deny ourselves certain things we crave because they are wrong.
** There is an obvious difference, however, because the human form was designed in such a way that the opposite sexes were complimentary and that the sexual organs, male and female, actually complete one another and produce offspring.
*** The issue of rights is similar to that of morality. Who can give individuals 'rights' beside their creator? Who defines marriage but the one who created the institution in the beginning?
