Why is Homosexuality a Sin?

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?

Podcast Ep. 10: A Sexually Confused Culture

This show introduces the series on Biblical Sexuality and Gender. Below are some of the examples I cited in this show about the mass confusion both in the culture and in the visible church. Next episode we will begin to break down issues and think biblically about what God has said.

Trans-Disabled...that was the term I was searching for. Able bodied people who believe themselves to wrongfully be able bodied and wish to be disabled. There are multiple articles I found by using that term "trans-disabled". Here is one:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

On Tony Campolo's decision to support homosexuals as church members:

http://tonycampolo.org/for-the-record-tony-campolo-releases-a-new-statement/#.VXdsiPlViko

Church of England ministers who want to call God a woman:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/church-of-england-god-she_n_7486498.html

Bruce Jenner, Call me Caitlyn:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz

Cultural Relativism, Homosexuality and the Bible

I’ve heard it said more than once “If Paul had taught in our day he wouldn’t have opposed homosexuality!”  Maybe you have heard this claim or others like it as well. But, the question is, is there any truth to these kind of claims that argue the Bible wouldn’t say the same kind of things if it had been written today?

The problem with claims such as these (which are often made by both Christians and non-Christians) is that they assume cultural relativism is true. In other words, people who hold this view would say that when Paul wrote:

9 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, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

He did so as a product of his culture in that day which was not accepting of homosexuality. However, since today’s culture is ever so much more enlightened, we know that homosexuality is normal and okay. Therefore if Paul were alive today to write his letters of instruction he would be tolerant of homosexuality.

But is this really true? Does the current whim of culture really dictate what is morally permissible? To even argue that the majority of our culture sees homosexuality as “normal” I think is still a stretch, but the normalizing of homosexuality has certainly made major headway in our country over the past few decades. Regardless of how the present culture views homosexuality, is that the determining factor of morality? Even more, is that the determining factor as to what the Scriptures teach or ought to teach today?

Consider with me the logic of this argument.

Premise 1: Whatever the culture presently accepts as moral, is moral.

Premise 2: Our culture accepts homosexuality as morally permissble.

Conclusion: Homosexuality is presently morally permissible.

Now let’s think this through for a moment. If Premise 1 and Premise 2 (Here forward shortened as “P1″ and “P2″) are true, then it is necessary that the conclusion is also true. This 3 point argument in philosophy is called a syllogism, it has a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. If P1 and P2 relate to one another properly and the conclusion follows from the premises then the form of the argument is “valid.” If an argument is valid then it’s conclusion is true if, and only if, both of P1 and P2 are factually true.

Here is one example of an invalid syllogism:

P1: Penguins are black and white.

P2: Some old T.V. shows are black and white.

C: Some penguins are old T.V. shows.

The reason that this syllogism is invalid is not because P1 and P2 are factually untrue. We do know that penguins (at least certain kinds) are black and white and we know that some old T.V. shows are black and white. The issue is what do Penguins and old T.V. shows have in common which make the conclusion warranted? P1 and P2 are factually true, but they do not properly correspond in a way that warrants the conclusion that is produced.

Now, back to our argument about morality being culturally relative. I will restate the argument and then deal with the issue.

P1: Whatever the culture presently accepts as moral, is moral.

P2: Our culture accepts homosexuality as morally permissible.

C: Homosexuality is presently morally permissible.

I would argue that the form of this argument is indeed “valid” because P1 and P2 are properly related to one another in such a way that if they are factually true then the conclusion “C”, which does follow from the premises, is necessarily true. So, in order to defeat this argument, what I want to do is show why P1 is false. I also think one could make a good case for why P2 should be considered false, but it will not be necessary to defeat both premises in order to show that this syllogism, although valid in form, is necessarily false.

If P1 is true then the only thing that is necessary for something to be moral is widespread cultural acceptance. What seems unclear is what the standard of widespread acceptance is? One can only assume that we must argue for a certain percentage of acceptance in order to conclude that a culture “accepts” something as moral. What is the necessary percentage of people needed to qualify a certain issue as “moral?” Is it 100%? Surely not. No culture has 100% agreement about every moral issue. Perhaps it is simply a majority that is needed? That seems fair, we shall go with that.

Of course a majority is simply 51% percent (or even 50.1% versus 49.9%) but let’s just say “a majority” is what is needed to qualify an issue as moral or immoral. Furthermore, let’s say that the majority of Americans (which is where P2 comes in and is arguable) hold that homosexuality is morally permissible. Under this line of thinking, culture has made homosexuality moral because the majority of people feel that it is.

Question 1: What if the population was so divided on this issue that the majority constantly fluxed back and forth between seeing homosexuality as morally permissible vs. morally reprehensible? Would cultural relativist think that we ought to praise homosexuality one day and deplore it the next?

Question 2: What if the vast majority of Americans actually believed that homosexuality is wrong? Should it then be seen as reprehensible?

Question 3: What if our country sees homosexuality as morally permissible but in Mexico the vast majority of people believe homosexuals should be hunted down and burned? If we are basing moral principles upon nothing more than cultural whims, can we judge the people of Mexico for their practices which have been deemed as moral?

Question 4: If we hold the view that morality is decided on the basis of culture, are we willing to admit that in the first century in the culture which Paul wrote, that homosexuality was indeed immoral at the time?

Questions like these seem to raise some real difficulties when it comes to cultural relativism. We can express these problems in other scenarios that have actually played out in history as well. For instance:

If cultural relativism is true, and the majority of Germans in the 1930’s and 1940’s believed that Jewish people were sub-human and ought to be destroyed, should we as Americans (from a different culture) force the Germans to accept our morality?

In Great Britain’s history slavery was an established and widely accepted practice. William Wilberforce, who fought to see slavery abolished in England (and who eventually won), was in the minority opinion to begin with. Over time Wilberforce was able to sway the majority of people into believing that slavery was immoral and that it ought to be abolished. Was Wilberforce immoral because he rejected the majority view on an issue of morality? Should such “moral reformers” be condemned? Was slavery truly morally permissible as long as the majority believed it to be so?

It would seem obvious at this point to most thinking people that morality is not merely a consensus issue. The majority vote doesn’t always equal what is morally right. When injustice drones on and the crowds follow along agreeably, it takes courageous people to do what is morally right when it is unpopular to do so.

In fact it seems that even if everyone were in favor of killing Jews because of their faith, or enslaving black people because of their skin color, that it would still be morally and objectively wrong! So then, what a society deems as “moral” or “immoral” doesn’t make it so. There must be a standard outside of human society and government that determines morality, because to ground morality in humanity is to say that there is no final morality.

So I therefore I argue that P1: “Whatever the culture presently accepts as moral, is moral” is demonstrably false.

So then, when the Bible condemns homosexuality as immoral and, dare I say it, “sin,” it does not do so on the basis of the lack of cultural acceptance. In fact one might ask why Paul had to condemn it if it was not fairly prevalent. Truth be told, homosexuality was seen as acceptable in the Greek culture of the New Testament world. So when Paul and other biblical writers spoke against homosexuality they spoke a counter-cultural message even in their day.

The ground for rejecting homosexuality in the Bible was not cultural consensus, rather, the ground was God and his revealed plan for human beings. God intended sex for a heterosexual relationship within the confines of the marriage covenant. One man and one woman joined together for mutual encouragement, love, support, sexual pleasure, and procreation until death parts them. This was meant to be a means of glorifying God as the marriage relationship functioned properly. Any detraction from that original plan, whether it be homosexuality or heterosexual sex outside of marriage, is a rejection of God’s will and is therefore sin and immorality.

The Bible certainly addressed issues related to the culture of the day in which it was written, but the basis for its precepts is not grounded in that culture, rather, it was grounded in the revealed will of God. The created order that God set up was the basis for normative human sexuality when Paul wrote and it still is today.

How Should Christians Respond to Homosexuality?

The issue of homosexuality is continuously a hot topic in today’s culture. Given the volatile nature of the debates surrounding same sex marriage in the public and in the court system and given the fact that the homosexual agenda has forced itself into the limelight by pressuring pastors to marry same sex couples and by threatening local businesses with law suits if they don’t support them, the church has to be equipped with a proper response to homosexuality. Unfortunately the church has often responded poorly to the issue of homosexuality by taking one of three approaches.

Three Wrong Approaches

The first wrong approach is non-engagement that is, simply burying our heads in the sand and hoping it goes away. If you haven’t noticed this is an issue that is growing in pervasiveness and it isn’t going away. Not now and not ever. We cannot afford to close our eyes and simply not interact with homosexuals or pretend that it doesn’t affect us. The fact is our culture has largely embraced homosexuality as a valid expression of human sexuality and we as Christians need to think carefully and biblically about the matter so that we can winsomely and intelligently make our case for biblical sexuality and why it is what’s best for all people.

The second wrong approach to homosexuality is that of throwing up the white flag and embracing homosexuality as though God approves. Many (far too many) Christians have been indoctrinated by our culture through media and other outlets into thinking that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. Surely God just wants people to be happy and as long two people really love each other wouldn’t God approve? Nope. Let’s not forget that God is our maker who knows what is best for us and he created human sexuality and gets to define its purpose. The church should not give into social pressures to accept homosexuality as normative and welcome in the church.

The third wrong approach to homosexuality is to demonize homosexuals as the worst kind of sinners out there. It seems like a certain portion of the Christian population is obsessed with talking about homosexuality. You can hardly listen to Christian talk radio without it being one of the topics that comes on that day. Understandably, because of the cultural acceptance of homosexuality, we need to talk about it. Even so, many have made the mistake of labeling homosexuals as super-sinners and everything that is wrong with where our nation is heading today. As a result many Christians act like homophobes and will talk about the great evils of homosexuality but never actually talk to a homosexual and this is very unfortunate.

Non-engagement is a non-option. Full acceptance of homosexuality into the life of the church is reprehensible given God’s plan for human sexuality and treating homosexuality like it is in a class of its own when it comes to sin and being more afraid of them than anything is misguided. So then, what is the right response to homosexuality? As is so often the case the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

Three Things the Church Must Do

First, we have to make up our minds that we will not bury our heads in the sand and that the issue of homosexuality is not going away. We must be intentional in coming to understand the issues related to homosexuality and same sex marriage and what effect this has on our culture. Furthermore we must separate the Christian response to homosexuality from the political response to homosexuality. This is, I believe, a real problem for many Christians. I am not arguing that Christians should stay out of political discussion but that there are two distinct issues in play.

1. As a Christian we believe homosexuality is to be understood as an unrepentant and sinful lifestyle that is counter to God’s design and all who engage in it need to repent.
2. As an American I believe homosexuality ought to be permissible to practice (legally) but that same sex marriage should not receive special recognition or be incentivized as heterosexual marriages are. Healthy heterosexual marriages produce children and provide the ideal context in which to raise well-adjusted citizens for our nation and is, therefore, in the best interest of the government to support whereas the same cannot be said about same sex marriages any more than polygamous marriages, etc.

Both of these issues are important but they are two separate issues nonetheless and it is my contention that our primary concern ought to be with the first. Our citizenship is first in heaven and second in the USA, therefore our priorities ought to operate in that order as well. Confusing these issues, making Christian concerns and nationalistic concerns as one and the same is a gigantic mistake. So we must engage, we must do so intelligently and winsomely and we must not confuse these two separate issues (i.e. 1. What’s wrong with homosexuality in God’s eyes, and 2. Why the federal government shouldn’t recognize same sex marriages).

Second we must hold our ground and not give in to social pressure to accept homosexuality as normal. The Scripture is abundantly clear that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior that is contra to God’s creative order. The Scripture speak about this with unanimity from Genesis to Revelation. Take Romans 1:26-27 for an example “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Clearly the Apostle Paul sees homosexuality as leaving behind God’s intention for human sexuality for our good and trading it for something dishonorable and unnatural.

If we abandon this portion of Scripture (as some “Christians” have) which so clearly condemns homosexuality then why should we uphold any of it? When it comes to the authority of the Bible we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking we can pick and choose what portions of the Bible are inspired and which aren’t because inevitably we will only see what we like as from God and what we dislike as from man. The Bible is either authoritative and the final word for Christian doctrine and practice or it’s just a quaint old book with outmoded moralism. Christians, if you accept homosexuality as something that is okay with God then you have set yourself up as judge over and above the Bible and now you no longer have Jesus as your Lord. We must not subject the Bible to modern concepts of fairness but we must realize that it rests as timeless truth from our eternal creator who alone grounds the reality of moral absolutes and reveals them to us. To compromise is to abandon biblical authority and end up following wandering stars with no true north.

Finally, we must fairly represent homosexuality for what it is, namely, one kind of sin among many that will lead people to hell. Sometimes Christians get asked things like “Do you think homosexuals will go to hell just for being a homosexual?” The best answer to this question is “no.” Christians do not think homosexuals are going to go to hell because they are a homosexual, rather, we believe homosexuals and all people are going to go to hell because they are sinners. Notice the rest of the Romans 1 passage that we mentioned earlier “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Rom. 1:28-32)

The reality is that any sin (and all sin) is enough to separate people from God for eternity in Hell. There’s nothing particularly grand about homosexuality as far as sin is concerned. The Bible does acknowledge that sexual sin is a sin against the body which has repercussions that other kinds of sin may not (1 Corinthians 6:18) but even that passage has heterosexual immorality in view. When the New Testament speaks about homosexuals not entering the kingdom of God it does not do so in vacuum. 1 Cor. 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.” Notice that in this same list that the “sexually immoral” are included which certainly involves heterosexuals that do not honor God’s will for human sexuality either.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is one kind of sin among so many that lead people away from God’s good will for their life. So when we are interacting with homosexuals we should treat them no different than our friend who is sleeping with their boyfriend or girlfriend before marriage. The fact is, they both need to repent and trust in Christ. The reality is that homosexuals are just like you and me…they’re sinners. The only difference between a homosexual and us is Jesus.

Jesus has called each and every one of us to repentance, to deny ourselves and pick up our cross and to come and follow him. When homosexuals say “But I feel attracted to people of the same sex” our response should be “That may be so, but Jesus has called us to deny ourselves and follow him.” The reality is that most men are physically attracted to more women than just the one they are married to, but God’s will is for us to faithfully love and honor our wives and be sexually and emotionally faithful to her. That involves denying what we might say are perfectly “natural” impulses we as men have. So just because one genuinely has feelings of attraction that doesn’t mean that we should act on them or that they are pleasing to God.

Whether it be sexual sin (homosexual or heterosexual), addiction and alcoholism, a life of thievery, being a liar or a gossip or just trusting in our own goodness, each of us are called on by Jesus to abandon our own passions and desires and to repent of our sin and trust in Jesus for salvation. This involves turning our back on habits, emotions, etc., that come very natural to all of us. It is a realization that there is something fundamentally broken about mankind and it is called sin and that we must submit ourselves to Christ and deny ourselves to know what true freedom is all about. That goes for you and that goes for me.