Matthew Vines is a self-styled "gay Christian" who wrote a book and has gone on the "campaign trail" to argue that "the Bible never directly addresses, and certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships." From one end, his argument is to the effect that 1st century (and before) societies had no concept of modern "homosexuality" where we now see it as an identity. That didn't come about until the last half of the 20th century, so the prohibitions of Scripture can't be against homosexuality. So he calls up new spins and purportedly questionable translation of hazy words (specifically the arsenokoitēs of 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10). (Note: Prior to 1946 no English translation used "homosexual" for that word.) So, you see, clearly any biblical objection to "gay, committed relationships" is unfounded.
On the surface, he has a point. The Bible never mentions the sexual identity we classify as "homosexual" because no one had that category available in their time. So it is a factual statement to claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. But if you stop there, you're in grave error. In both the Old and New Testaments the Bible does explicitly condemn the act. The famous Leviticus texts (Lev 18:22; 20:13) forbid the act of men who "lie with men as with a woman." In fact, Paul's arsenokoitēs is the Greek translation of the phrase used in Leviticus. In Romans 1, Paul's description is
"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" (Rom 1:26-27). There is no hint of "unless they're in a loving relationship." The only concern is the act itself. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the men of the city demanded that Lot "Bring them out to us, that we may know them" (Gen 19:5). Jude describes this as indulging in sexual immorality and pursuing "unnatural desire" (Jude 1:7). Nothing about "loving relationships" or "sexual identity" because the act is in view and not any motivation.
It is true that the Bible does not condemn any "state of being" -- identity -- that we classify as "homosexuality." It is equally true that the Bible undeniably opposes homosexual behavior, the act of same-sex sexual relations. Now, if it is true that "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9) and self-styled "committed Christians" defend acts that God's Word clearly classify as sin, the question is not about what God classifies as sin. The question is about the spiritual state of the one defending what God calls sin. Those people need special prayer, being deluded by "plausible arguments" (Col 2:4) and not God's Word. What does the Bible have to say about the sexual identity of "homosexual"? Nothing. But it is quite clear on the behavior.
5 comments:
Regardless of what we perceive our sexual identity or orientation to be, wouldn't that be subsumed into our identity as a Christian? I'd argue that we spend too much time trying to fit our perceived identity into or over our identity as new creations and adopted sons and daughters of YHWH.
We're unfortunately behind the ball because as a society, even Christians, have accepted the idea of homosexual as a state of being rather than an act committed. I've never accepted the "born this way" argument, but even if they are, it's irrelevant. What God clearly condemns as sin, is not made good simply by it being a natural proclivity. If that where the case, then all sin is actually good because we are all born that way.
That's always been my argument, David. I'm "naturally inclined" to pursue women, but I don't because I'm commanded not to, I don't because I'm faithful to my wife. They would have to argue, "Well, if you're born that way -- to commit adultery, etc. -- then it must be good." Nonsensical argument. And building an identity on a particular sexual preference is ludicrous.
Stan,
Excellent point. The arguments used to justify homosexuality being appropriate can be, and are, being used to justify multiple other sexual orientations.
I appreciated this clear and convincing piece of writing (however unsavory the topic!). Like other commenters, I too believe that my all-encompassing identity as a child of God is being “in Christ.” And then, secondarily, I embrace my God-given identity as half of “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). For both these roles, I seek direction from God’s Word to live in a manner pleasing to the Lord; this includes forsaking sin as He describes it. I accept God’s parameters for my life in loving obedience, knowing they are for my own good. It is very sad to consider that “gay Christians” would prefer an identity that indulges their pet sin over fellowship with the Lord--a very foolish exchange, in my mind.
Post a Comment