The Homosexual Argument

Many still remember the popular television series, The West Wing. I don't. Well, I saw exactly one episode or, to be more precise, part of one episode. In the series there was a famous scene (you can find it on YouTube if you look) where Martin Sheen as the President puts a famous radio talk show host in her place for believing that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. The show called on the well known, deeply revered Bible knowledge of Hollywood writers to exegete the passages in question for the benefit of all believers everywhere so we could see how wrong we've had it all these centuries. It was a resounding smack down about how much the President hated anyone who had the view that the Bible actually teaches against homosexuality. I'll call it "antihomophobe" where they respond strongly without actually offering ... well, we'll get there.

The truth is that the arguments cause some people problems. Faced with such problems, people can choose a few possible courses. They can ignore the objections ("I know what's right; I'm not listening to you."), agree with the objections ("Hmm, never thought of that. Perhaps I've been wrong all along about the subject."), or face the objections down. I'm offering the last. Why is it that I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, and what do I do with the standard objections? Let me say at the start that it is not my aim or hope to sway people. If you've decided that there's nothing sinful about the act, my bit of logic won't make much difference. I get that. You have the same options as I've offered above. My hope is that some people who have either ignored the objections or faced the objections and found themselves wanting will have better footing. So if you plan to refute my position, be aware that it is not something I haven't thought through nor is it likely that "You're so wrong" will be an argument that might sway me, nor do you need to feel like I'm attacking your position.

The standard argument for the position that homosexuals are sinning comes first, foremost, and, indeed, clearest from the Old Testament. It is the one, in fact, quoted in The West Wing. Leviticus 18:22 says without mitigation, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." I wrote a piece on "abomination" back in 2007 along with a follow-up because this is precisely the kinds of things that are thrown at us. "Well," they argue, "if you believe that a man lying with a woman is an abomination, then you also think that wearing polyester is an abomination as well, right?" And a lot of Christians are stumped. They'll deny it ... but not be sure why. So keep looking. There are answers. The primary thing you'll find is that people lie to you about what the Bible actually says (or doesn't say). For instance, the brave president fired this at the poor talk-show host as if it was real: "Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?" Funny thing ... you will not find anywhere in Leviticus the command to stone or burn anyone for planting crops side by side or for wearing polyester. It is prohibited, but not as a death penalty.

The first argument, then, is that the act of sex between two males is "an abomination". Oh, we don't like that language today. And other things are listed as "abominable" as well, but not the same "abominable". Some things were abominable to the Egyptians (e.g., Gen 43:32; 46:34; Exo 8:26). Some things were abominable to Israel (e.g., Lev 11). Some things were abominable to God. The Egyptians could change. Israel could change. God does not. If a particular act is an abomination to God, it remains an abomination to God.

"But things change all the time. You don't argue that we shouldn't wear polyester. Why do you argue this is true but not that?"

So very common. Here's an interesting quick study. Look at Leviticus 20 and read through the section in which you find "a man lies with a male as with a woman". Here's what the section looks like:

¹⁰ If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
¹¹ If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
¹² If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.
¹³ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
¹⁴ If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.
¹⁵ If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
¹⁶ If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

First note that the entire context on either side of verse 13 is sexual sin. It is not rituals, idolatry, or other topics. It is sexual sin all the way through. There can be little doubt what is in mind in verse 13. Unless God was horribly unclear, it is straightforward homosexual sex.

Here's where we start to run into problems. If the argument is, "Well, that changed since then", on what basis do we say "but the adultery, intra-family sex, and bestiality are all still wrong"? If the one in the middle has been done away with, why not the rest? It would make sense that all of the sins that fall in this particular category are still ... sins.

"But it's clear that we don't kill these people anymore, so it has changed, right?"

Well, we're still stuck at this point. If "we no longer kill these people" means "it is no longer a sin", then we're back to allowing all of the above ... and murder, and rape, and ... well, you get the idea. The truth is that these verses all have two parts. The first part references the crime. The second part references the penalty. That is, "This is wrong" (part 1 - The Crime), "therefore you should ..." (part 2 - The Penalty).The crime is the product of God's definition of right and wrong. The penalty is the product of a theocracy. A government that is run by God will do what the passage says to do. A government that is not run by God will do whatever they choose. Since we do not have a theocracy and since no one else does, you won't likely see these penalties carried out. That doesn't mean that the sin described in the first part of each verse is no longer a sin. It means the government changed.

"But you still argue that there are changes from the Old Testament."

Okay, fine, let's leave that alone. God considers it abominable, but there are still those who think He doesn't anymore. He didn't change ... He just doesn't see it the same anymore. And if the penalty changed, why is the crime still in effect? Fine. The other way to tell if something is still in effect is to go to the New Testament. We have, for instance, Jesus affirming that adultery and murder are still sins. He also clarifies the Sabbath. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mar 2:27). He declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). When Peter objects to eating certain foods, God tells him, "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15). We have some modifications and we have some reassertions of the original. What about this law against men with men? Romans 1:26-27 describe "women lying with women as with men" and "men lying with men as with women" in clear terms. 1 Cor 6:9-10 also doesn't mince words. As abundantly clear as it is in Leviticus that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God, the New Testament restates the same prohibition.

As a back up check to all of this, I submit this confirmation. There has been no time in history that the Church has believed that the Bible taught anything else. At no time did the Church argue that this was not what was intended in both the Old and New Testaments. In other words, history agrees. Or, to put it another way, the Spirit of Truth either failed to get this across until now ... or He got across what He intended to get across and those who don't see it today don't see the Truth.

There are "modifications to the contract", so to speak, in Scripture. Cleanliness rules, for instance, aren't an issue these days. Whether or not you can plant two different seeds in one spot (as foolish as that might be) or wear mixed threads fall under the laws of Israel customs. Clearly the sacrificial codes have been fulfilled in Christ. That leaves us with one particular set -- the moral law. If we are going to argue that the moral law is a variable and it's up to you to decide, we're moving into odd territory. God doesn't hate what He used to hate. He changed His mind about His views on morality. It's no longer "abominable" to Him. He wasn't clear anyway. "No, no, we now have the capacity to figure this stuff out ourselves. Do you feel that homosexual relationships are sinful? No? Well, then it's not. I really think we are at the place where we can each do what is right in our own eyes." Hmm, maybe that's not such odd territory after all. Not territory I want to live in, however.