Homosexuality is NOT a Sin

Well, it had to happen. Someone is now suing two Bible publishers for calling homosexuality a sin. The judge isn't impressed -- this will likely be a mere nuisance -- but you have to know that the tide is shifting. The time isn't far off that it will be regarded as a valid argument.

I have to say, however, that homosexuality is not a sin. That's right. You read it correctly. A person who has a tendency for sexual desire for the same gender is not, by definition, sinning.

"Okay," some of you might say, "you call yourself a Christian and you claim to believe the Bible. How can you say that?"

I would, of course, ask you to show me where in the Bible it is a sin. And you might pull out Genesis 19. That's the famous passage where two angels visit Lot in Sodom. Lot suggests they stay with him and, well, get out of town as fast as possible the next morning (Gen. 19:2). They plan to spend the night in the town square, but Lot gets them to come home with him. That night, "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter" (Gen. 19:4) (that is, it wasn't an isolated group) and demanded that Lot send out the men so they could have relations with them (Gen. 19:5). "Now, now," those opposed to the claim have said, "that's a mistranslation. They didn't ask to have relations. They asked 'to know' them." I see. So when Lot says in response, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly" (Gen. 19:7), he was thinking that getting to know his visitors was wicked. No, that's not working for me. "But," they protest further, "why would Lot offer them his daughters?" Exactly! If they simply wanted to get to know Lot's visitors, what's with the daughters? If the men of the city were looking for a nice little meet and greet, why would Lot offer to let them "do to them whatever you like" (Gen. 19:8) to his virgin daughters? If it wasn't for rape, what was the threat here?

"Okay," you say, "so ... you're agreeing that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin."

Not quite. I want more references.

You're aware that too many people dismiss out of hand the Leviticus passages as "Old Testament" and, therefore, non-binding, so you jump right over to 1 Corinthians:

Do you not know that the unrighteous shall 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 drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And 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 (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

"There it is," you assure me, "in plain text. 'Homosexuals ... shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'"

Now, let's look at that one carefully. The first item on that list is "fornicators." What is a fornicator? The word there is pornos (Care to guess what we did with that word in English?) and refers to any sexual sin. Okay, fine, but what is a fornicator? Well, the simplest notion would be that a fornicator is anyone who commits fornication. An idolater would be anyone who commits idolatry. And so on. That's fine, but remember, verse 11 says something about that: "Such were some of you." You see, in the simplest form, a fornicator is one who commits fornication, but in that simplest form it doesn't stop when the act stops. A person who once commits fornication is a fornicator. Since Paul says "were" (past tense), it is clear that these terms require an ongoing condition, not a single event. In other words, to be a fornicator one has to make a practice of fornicating.

How, then, do we handle the term "homosexuals" in that list? The naysayers would like to tell you that arsenokites is a reference to male temple prostitutes. Fine ... but that's not what the word means. It is constructed of two terms. "Arsen" refers to males and "koite" refers to bed. It is a reference to males who go to bed with males -- to males who lie with males. It is a reference to precisely the same concept that Paul talks about in Romans 1:27 when he speaks of men burning with desire for men as they would a woman. Dance around it all you want; it is a reference to homosexual sex.

"Okay," you say, "so ... you're agreeing that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin."

Not quite. We're not done here. Remember, what is it that makes a fornicator? It is someone who makes a practice of fornication. So what is it that makes this term -- a "homosexual"? Is it someone who has desire for sex with the same gender? Not at all. It is someone who makes a practice of sex with the same gender. There is a fundamental difference between a homosexual and homosexual practice.

Let me try it from a non-confrontational approach. My wife has been on a diet program for the last several months. This diet does not allow her to have ice cream. Now, the fact is that my wife loves ice cream. It is, perhaps, the food of the gods to her. She dearly wants ice cream ... but she doesn't have it because it's not on her allowed diet. So, would you say that because my wife dearly wants ice cream that she has broken her diet? Obviously not. It isn't the desire for ice cream that is banned; it is actually eating it.

When I say, then, that homosexuality is not a sin, I am referring to people who are sexually attracted to the same gender. It is not a sin for me to be sexually attracted to the opposite gender; it is a sin for me to act on it. It is not a sin for them either. The sin occurs when it is acted on.

"Sounds like you're splitting hairs."

Not at all. There is a real problem in communication between Christians and homosexuals because we keep calling homosexuality a sin. It isn't. It is the act that is a sin. It is a sin just as fornication and idolatry and adultery are sins, and those aren't homosexual sins. They're human sins. If we can keep that straight, perhaps we can communicate that it is not the homosexual that is the problem, but the act. Perhaps we can communicate that God does not hate them because they have leanings toward the same gender. Perhaps we can communicate that their sin is not something unique or different than our sin. That is, we all sin, and we only sin when we choose to do so. We've got to learn to communicate the difference between the sin and the sinner, and in this particular case we are doing a really, really poor job.