Revisited

Glenn posted a comment on an earlier post of mine ... an update to his link. It brought the post back to mind and I thought it was worth repeating, not necessarily the post, but the position. So ... we're revisiting this post from May, 2011. The question is this: Is Scripture unclear on the topic of homosexual behavior?

When you look at Scripture itself—setting aside cultural debates, modern reinterpretations, and theological innovations—the biblical witness on homosexual sex is strikingly consistent. It is not vague, it is not scattered, and it is not ambivalent. Every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is prohibited. And every time Scripture affirms sexual expression, it is within the covenant of one man and one woman. There is no third category, no alternative pattern, and no exception.

The Old Testament is explicit. Leviticus describes male–male intercourse as a violation of God’s design (Lev 18:22; 20:13). These passages are not isolated purity laws; they appear in the middle of a moral code that includes prohibitions against adultery, incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice. The structure of the chapter makes it clear that the issue is moral, not ceremonial. Israel was not to imitate the sexual practices of the surrounding nations because those practices violated the created order God established in Genesis 2:24.

The narrative portions of Scripture reinforce the same pattern. When homosexual behavior appears in Genesis 19, it is presented as part of the moral collapse of Sodom. While the sin of Sodom is broader than sexual immorality, the text does not treat homosexual acts as neutral or permissible. They are part of the city’s rebellion against God’s design.

The New Testament continues this trajectory without softening it. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is especially important because he ties homosexual behavior to a rejection of God’s created order. He describes same sex relations as “contrary to nature,” meaning contrary to the way God structured humanity from the beginning (Rom 1:26–27). This is not a cultural argument; it is a creational one. Paul is not appealing to Jewish custom or Roman law. He is appealing to Genesis.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul includes homosexual behavior in a list of sins that exclude people from the kingdom of God. The point is not that these sins are uniquely damning, but that they are incompatible with the new life Christ gives. The same pattern appears in 1 Timothy 1:10, where Paul again includes homosexual acts in a list of behaviors contrary to sound doctrine. In none of these passages does Paul treat homosexual sex as a morally neutral alternative. It is consistently placed in the category of sexual immorality.

And when Scripture affirms sexual expression, it does so exclusively within the covenant of one man and one woman. Jesus grounds marriage in creation—“male and female,” “the two shall become one flesh” (Matt 19:4–6). Paul echoes the same pattern in Ephesians 5:31–33, tying marriage to the mystery of Christ and the church. The biblical sexual ethic is not built on cultural norms but on creation itself. That is why it remains consistent across both Testaments.

So if you ask whether the Bible is unclear on this subject, the answer is straightforward: it is not unclear. The biblical material is uniform. Homosexual sex is always prohibited, never condoned, and never presented as an acceptable expression of sexuality. Scripture’s sexual ethic is rooted in creation, affirmed by Jesus, taught by Paul, and woven throughout the entire canon. Prior to the last half of the 20th century, neither Jewish nor Christian believers have questioned it. This new resistance is just that ... new. Whatever culture may say—and culture says many contradictory things—the biblical witness is coherent and consistent.

The Bible on Homosexuality

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.

Next Big Thing

The next assault is coming. It's a documentary called 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture. They've finally figured it out. All this time Christians got it wrong. God never said that homosexual behavior was sin. It was a mistake. We've figured it out now. We have it on good authority that the Holy Spirit failed for 2000 years to get this across and now we have it. Whew! All fixed now! As it turns out, Paul did not say, "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." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Nothing of the sort. Well, okay, most of the sort, but not that one phrase, "men who practice homosexuality." Definitely not in there. It was a mistake, you see, and all the modern translations that say that were forced to their translations by a mistake. Homosexual behavior has never been a sin and we've all -- from the beginning of time -- just misunderstood.

It's odd, of course, that this kind of stuff would come across as so influential. The weight of history is as light as a feather, apparently. The claim in the documentary is that the term in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 is a mistaken translation, so obviously it erases all the texts. The Old Testament texts (Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13) and the New Testament references (Rom 1:26-27) are no longer of any consequence. Or, to put it more clearly, you're a fool if you think you can reliably understand your Bible.

It's interesting, though. Did Paul say "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1? The word, as it turns out, is somewhat of a puzzler. It is ἀρσενοκοίτης -- arsenokoitēs. The King James translates it "those who abuse themselves with mankind." It's a two-part Greek word that sticks together "men" and "couch." In the Bible it appears only in those two places and in extrabiblical Greek texts it looks like it doesn't appear until after Paul used it. It could be that Paul coined the term himself. So what does it mean?

Back in 2015 the "glbtq Project" shut down its website because the online advertising business model didn't work. But they archived much of their data, so you can still find this entry on the Apostle Paul. Yes, a project aimed to be "the world's largest encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture and history" has an entry on Paul specifically because of his writings on LGBT issues. What do they say? Two words are in play here. One is arsenokoitēs and the other is malakoi. They say on the malakoi, "We can say with certainty, are males -- boys, youths, or adults -- who have consented, either for money or for pleasure, for some perceived advantage or as an act of affectionate generosity, to be penetrated by men." The former they say comes from the Greek translation of the Old Testament -- the Septuagint. It is the word used in those Old Testament passages. They conclude, based on their examination of the language and the history of the word, "The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community." They are saying that the translation "those who commit homosexual acts" is precisely the intent of the texts. (They also point out that the Romans 1 text was "meant to condemn female homosexuality along with male.") These aren't "radical right homophobes"; these are pro-gay folks. They happily dismiss Paul because "Paul outlawed all sex except that between married couples" and who could take that seriously? But they certainly see that the translation is correct and the prohibition is ... biblical.

You can conclude a lot of things. You can conclude, "I don't much care what the Bible has to say." Lots of people do. You can conclude, "That's just outdated material." You can conclude, "It actually means something much different, albeit more obscure." But you can not conclude that the Bible is reliable, God-breathed, and able to be understood without concluding, as those at the glbtq Project did, that Scripture calls homosexual behavior a sin. Current gay biblical theologians in the 1946 project not withstanding.

Understanding LGBT

I'm trying to figure out LGBT, and I'm not doing well. I can get as far as what words go with what letters. L-Lesbian, G-Gay, B-Bisexual, and T-Transgender. Great. I have a start. Then they'll throw in Q. What is that? Well, some say it's "Queer" and others "Questioning" (or, apparently, both or either). And instantly I'm lost.

I get the T, at least by definition. It's someone who doesn't believe they are the gender they were born with. Maybe they've switched through some physical means; maybe not. But, as we all know, gender is a fluid thing, not ... what do we "normal" thinkers call it? ... not binary. Okay, we'll work with that. And, of course, I'm clear on the B. Bisexual is someone who is attracted to both sexes. But wait! Didn't we just determine that gender isn't binary? Oh, that's a problem. Maybe they need to make an "O" category -- "omni" ... attracted to anything at all. And, of course, it's a further problem that the LGBT forces have done nothing at all for the B of their group. No one has suggested a remedy for the problems of the bisexual. They generally allow what they term "marriage" between two people of any of the two accepted genders, but obstinately disallow "marriage" among more than two ... and the B is out of luck. Again ... I'm lost.

The L is pretty easy. Lesbian is self-explanatory: a female who is sexually attracted to the female gender. She is not attracted to the male gender and she is not attracted to both (or multiple?) genders. Pretty clear. But that G thing throws me. Yes, yes, it's "gay", but I thought "gay" referred to "homosexual", not "male homosexual". I mean, when they refer to "the gay lifestyle" or "gay rights", aren't they talking about all homosexuals? But, since "LGBT" is supposed to mean something, I suppose I have to assume that the G refers to male homosexuals only. Fine. Except not always. Fine.

And then there's that nagging T thing back again. You see, if someone is actually transgender in some sense, can they be classified as "L" or "G"? If a guy believes he's a girl and is attracted to women (you know, like a heterosexual male would be), would he be a lesbian? And, of course, vice versa. I heard the story of a girl adopted by two homosexuals who taught her that the homosexual life was the best. Now, she was attracted to males, so she pursued a sexual transition to male so she could be "gay". Sadly, she died (of a drug overdose) before that was reached, but I'm still completely confused. Is it right to think of "L" (female), "G" (male), or even "B" (bi) when genders are so fluid as to be almost undefinable?

Well, I am questioning, obviously, so does that make me "Q"? No, of course not. But you have to admit it can all be very puzzling. Especially for someone like me who reads "So God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27) and considers it to be definitive and conclusive. Perhaps it's not me who's lost here.

Converting Homosexuals

I bet the title caught your eye, didn't it? Some are groaning, "Here's another rightwinger trying to make gay people straight" and others are cheering about how we ought to offer means and methods to help people out of the homosexual lifestyle (which, in some states, is actually illegal, believe it or not). Well, relax. I'm not going there.

In the ongoing back-and-forth between "gay rights" advocates versus biblical Christianity, it is my suspicion that Christians might be losing their perspective. It's easy for believers who recognize the very clear biblical statements that homosexual behavior is a sin to get caught up in trying to get homosexual practitioners to stop that particular sin. And since that particular sin is generally deeply rooted and even poorly understood, that can become a full-time occupation.

A friend once told me his own little parable. A group of mountain climbers set out to conquer a previously unconquered peak. On their trek, they came across an apparently impassable gorge. Pooling their skills and ideas, they came up with an innovative way to bridge the gorge and, after some time, continued on their way. They came across a second such obstacle and set about building another crossing. About the time they were finishing, a group of hikers came up. They were impressed with the first bridge and wondered how it was done. The climbers finished their second bridge and set up a shop on the other side of the gorge, selling plans and procedures for building bridges over gorges. It was lucrative ... but not the point of the trek. They had forgotten that.

So, it seems, we tend to go. We set out to assure our society, "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." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Then we forget immediately that "inherit the kingdom of God" is the point, not the particular sins at hand. We appear to think, somehow, that if we can provide a remedy to adulterers or homosexuals or drunkards, we can get them into the kingdom. And when I say it, every Christian can see it just isn't so.

Our job it not to convert the sexually immoral to the sexually pure or the homosexual to the heterosexual. Our job is to preach the gospel, to make disciples, and to teach them to observe what Christ commands (Matt 28:19-20). The basis of Christian behavior isn't obedience, but gratitude. Working to coerce the unsaved into Christian behavior is working against the unsaved nature. So we work at showing people how to cross gorges, forgetting that the goal was salvation by faith in Christ, not overcoming obstacles.

This doesn't mean we stop pointing out that Scripture considers homosexual behavior to be worthy of hell, but everyone knows that an alcoholic or a drug addict won't change until he or she recognizes the problem and wants to change. For them and for the sexually immoral, the adulterer, the homosexual, and the rest, the solution isn't a 12-step program, but a change of heart. And that is not within our power to supply. We need to remember that our aim is not converting homosexuals to the good news of heterosexuality, but to the good news of Christ. After that, we won't be working alone on the obstacles. After that it's a changed heart and the power of God at work. We shouldn't lose sight of the goal of preaching Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2) and lose it in some ordinary morality plan. The homosexual--we all--needs Christ. Let's offer Him.

Anti-Gay

You'll hear the term anytime a Christian speaks out about the morality of the behavior. The media almost certainly will refer to them as "anti-gay remarks" or something like it. Oh, sure, you'll hear it when some nutjob like the Westboro Baptist types says, "God hates fags," and we all get that. It is, without a doubt, "anti-gay" because they are opposed to the existence of such a thing. But when applied to your average, everyday Al Mohler or John MacArthur or Atlanta Fire Chief Kevin Cochran who are simply saying, "The Bible says that behavior is a sin," I have to wonder if the accusation is accurate.

So let's take it apart and look. We get "anti". You're opposed to something. "Antifreeze" opposes freezing. Easy. An "anti-terrorism" group would be working to stop terrorism. No problem. So this term, whatever it means, is opposed in some way to the subsequent "gay". So, what is "gay"? Now that all depends. If you asked me as a youth, it was commonly used to refer to being happy, or, perhaps, to cheerful colors. "She was gayly dressed" meant simply she wore bright and cheerful clothes. "Everyone was feeling gay" meant they were all happy. In its original sense, that's what it meant. By the middle of the 17th century, a second use became "an immoral or loose life". In the 1920's, right alongside the "happy" theme, it could be used to refer not only to a promiscuous man, but to one who had sex with other men. It was, apparently, just such men who drove the meaning from "cheerful" to "homosexual". They felt "homosexual" was demeaning, but "gay" sounded less offensive. By 1955 it was their mostly private term for themselves. In my youth it still meant "happy", but that has long since been excised from the word. So, when we say something is "anti-gay" today, what do we mean?

Well, I'm still unclear. You see, "homosexual" once referred to the acts committed by same and, therefore, so did "gay" in that sense. "Homosexual" today is primarily a reference to a state of being. People are offended if you call it a "preference"; it's an "orientation". They're "born that way." It is likened to race. It's a birth condition and you can't do anything about it. Never mind that people routinely move in and out of just such an "orientation". Set aside any evidence that it's flexible, even a choice. And by no means consider the moral question. It is just part of a definition of particular people. Thus, "gay" no longer means "what they do", but "who they are". So, is that in view with the concept of "anti-gay"?

When Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church says "God hates fags", he is "anti-gay" by any definition of the term. He is opposed to their behavior. He is opposed to their existence. But when Louie Giglio, that guy nixed from the Obama inauguration in 2013 because of his "anti-gay sermon" said, "We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change," was that opposition to people or to an act? When the Bible says, "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" (1 Cor 6:9-10), is that opposition to people or to an act?

So we come down to the question of the meaning of words again. If, by "anti-gay", you mean "Anyone who makes a moral judgment on people who identify themselves by their sexual attraction to the same gender", I don't believe it's accurate. Sure, there are some, but I think those are the exceptions, not the rule. On the other hand, if the Bible is correct in warning that those who practice homosexual behavior will not inherit the kingdom of God and people warn them about that, can that be classified as "anti"?

If the term "gay" refers to a behavior, then Christians are "anti-gay". That's because the Bible is anti-gay ... in that sense. If the term "gay" refers to a definition of a particular group of people, then Christians aren't--should not be--anti-gay. And warning those people who categorize themselves by that term is not opposition to those people. It is a service. So, tell me again. Just what do you mean by "anti-gay"?

Waiting for Santa

Well, now, isn't this interesting? GLMA is a website of "health professionals advancing LGBT equality", so it's not some right-wing "hater" site. And this article from a pro-gay site lists "the health issues GLMA’s healthcare providers have identified as most commonly of concern for gay men." Isn't that odd? Because they tell me that homosexual behavior has no physical ramifications. It's not "bad" for you. And yet these health professionals are concerned because HIV/AIDS is most prevalent among those who practice homosexual behavior. They state that men who have sex with men have an increased risk of hepatitis. Gay men experience greater body image problems. Homosexuals have a higher substance abuse rate. And so it goes. More STDs, more depression, more tobacco use, more HPV. Wait, didn't they tell me that there is no greater risk for homosexuals? And didn't they tell me that "harm" or not defines "moral"?

So I suppose I can expect an apology. "You're right; we were wrong. Homosexual behavior does typically cause more harm and, thus, should be considered immoral. Sorry it took so long for us to see that." Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for that one. I suppose it will come as surely as Santa ... who, by the way, did not. On the other hand, if someone expresses concern for folks who are risking both body and soul for something God says is wrong, that's called "hate". Ironic.

The Bibical Option

The whole "homosexual" debate has not cooled down. As our society shifts its moral view to amorality -- mostly "anything goes" -- Bible-believing Christians are still forced to hang onto their "homosexual behavior is a sin" position or surrender the Bible as a viable book of truth at all. Between these two extremes are a million shades of opinion.

Part of the difficulty in this dialog is, as seems to often be the case, a definition of terms. "Gay", which used to mean "happy", became "homosexual" and "homosexual", which used to be sexual interaction between two people of the same sex, became a lifestyle rather than an activity. You no longer had a "sexual preference"; you had an "orientation". Interestingly, we can see this very evolution of terms in the translations of the Bible. The King James Bible translates ἀρσενοκοίτης -- arsenokoitēs -- in 1 Cor 6:9 "abusers of themselves with mankind." Kind of a generic concept. A later translation, Young's Literal Translation, prefers "sodomites", a reference to a particular sexual act. Later still, the New American Standard uses "homosexuals" since the term "homosexual" was now available to the English language. (It wasn't used prior to until 1869.) But it changed its meaning again, so the most recent ESV uses the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" because the practice is in view here, not the modern "gay as a state of being" kind of thinking. So we've come up against these "gay Christian" debates. The question is already hazy, you see? Are you talking about the behavior or the same-sex attraction? Are you talking about the lifestyle or the act?

The Bible does not comment on the temptations of individuals that we use to define people today. It doesn't reference heterosexuals as a definition of a type of person, for instance. You are an adulterer not by virtue of any temptation to the deed, but by violating the moral law on the deed. A woman tempted to steal is not a thief until she steals. A man who thinks of lying but tells the truth is not a liar until he fails to tell the truth. The Bible defines people by their sins, not by their temptations. So "homosexual" in today's use of the term isn't really addressed in the Bible.

What is the biblical option? Is there anything in the Bible that suggests what a person of same-sex attraction should do in order to remain in line with biblical morality? I know. The answer most people who agree with Scripture about the morality of the act would expect would be "gay reparation therapy". Get free of the desire! Oddly enough, I have to admit I don't find it in my Bible. Well, of course I don't. They didn't think that way about that particular sin. To the mind of biblical writers, mankind is sinful by nature and we choose what actions we will make in response. So what does the Bible say on this?

Believe it or not, Jesus gives the answer to that question. In Matthew 19 the Pharisees tested Him with a question on divorce. Jesus's response provides a confirmed definition of marriage.

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt 19:4-6).

It is unavoidable both in human history and in biblical text that the definition of marriage is "man and woman joined". But the question at hand is not marriage. The question is regarding sexual activity, specifically for the "homosexual".

But, as it turns out, the Bible is abundantly clear on biblical morality regarding sexual activity. It is only moral if it occurs in the marriage bed. Thus, it cannot be classified as moral outside of marriage, and marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. This rules out any sexual relations between people who are not married and, by definition, absolutely eliminates the possibility of moral sexual relations between two people of the same sex.

The disciples were struck with Jesus's response. They saw the enormity of it. They understood that divorce was right out. So they parried, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). And here was Jesus's response to them.

"Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." (Matt 19:11-12)

What is Jesus saying here? Jesus admits that it is austere. "Not everyone can receive this saying." Then He gives two options. You may marry and engage in genuine, godly, beautiful sexual union, or you can be a eunuch. Jesus defines three types of eunuch -- "from birth", "by men", or "made themselves". That is, a person can be born with the nature of celibacy, can be forced into celibacy by others, or can choose to be celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

And there, dear readers, is the biblical option. If a person finds himself or herself with same-sex attraction, is a genuine Christian, and wishes to follow the instructions of Christ, there are options. He or she can take efforts to find and marry someone of the opposite sex (because marrying someone of the same sex is not marriage) and engage in the standard heterosexual practices (1 Cor 7:2-5). You might think of this as reparative therapy. Or, he or she can be a eunuch -- celibate. In this way and only in this way can a person (using current terminology) be classified as a "gay Christian". (Remember, Jesus said, "If you love Me you will keep My commandments.") I would classify a person who has same-sex attractions that he or she does not indulge just as Christian as a heterosexual who is not married and remains celibate. That seems to be the biblical position. There are options for the modern "gay Christian". Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. However, "God made me this way, so I should be allowed to violate the biblical standards on this" is not one of them.

The False Dilemma

Perhaps you've heard of this logical fallacy. It's also called oversimplification or "black and white thinking"¹. In the False Dilemma, you are given a limited number of choices (usually only two), but, as it turns out, there are more. And it qualifies an argument as fallacious. Of course, if there are only the choices offered, then it isn't a fallacy. So "Either you're an American or you're from the Moon" would be a False Dilemma and "Either you're dead or you're alive" would be accurate. My favorite False Dichotomy is the lawyer's question in court. "Mr. Jones, answer 'yes' or 'no'. Have stopped beating your wife?" Of course, if Mr. Jones never beat his wife, there is no right answer to the question. False Dilemma.

On the topic of homosexual behavior we often face this dilemma. It is particularly difficult for a large number of people when it comes to a member of your own family. Is it true that there are only two options? Either you embrace homosexual behavior or you reject the homosexual. For Pastor Danny Cortez, it was either embrace his son as gay or embrace the Bible. Many choose the former and call it love. But even if it's not a family member, we are told that we are either "tolerant", by which they mean "embrace the behavior", or we are intolerant, meaning we are opposed to it². Welcome to the False Dilemma.

Culture is not at stake here. Public opinion isn't the criterion. Consensus isn't the final answer. What is at stake here is Christianity. Like Satan in the Garden of Eden, we are first asked, "Did God say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Regardless of our response (because many today have already been poisoned enough -- the Bible calls it "blinded" (2 Cor 4:4) -- not to know the obvious answer), they follow up with "You shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4) and even "Your eyes will be opened" (Gen 3:5). Having carefully and deliberately denied God, His declared values, and His authority, it is not possible to follow with "But I'm still in favor of Christianity." The Gospel is based first on the problem of Sin, and denying the problem doesn't solve it; it only removes the Answer.

So they leave us with a False Dilemma. Either embrace the sin or embrace the Word. And I deny that fallacy. I deny that a person is defined by their sinful propensities. We all have them, but they do not define us. And I deny that we must reject the person because he or she is a sinner. If the reason for such a claim is vague, it's because you aren't thinking of the reality that all of us are sinners. Rejecting a person who sins would require rejecting everyone ... including yourself.

I would argue, instead, there is indeed a "Third Way", although not the one being offered (which is no such thing). That way would be Jesus's way. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). In Matthew 9 we read that Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors (Matt 9:10), but not because He accepted their behavior. What He told His detractors was, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12). Did you get that? They weren't "just fine". They were sick. This "Third Way" is where you stick around because you love them enough to help. Of the Christian sinner we read, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). And for those who are not believers we need to be there to offer the Gospel, speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15).

This is not "embrace the behavior" nor is it "reject the sinner". It does embrace the Word and side with God, but not against the sinner. It is a better option. Because the "either-or" fallacy we are offered is a false dilemma. It is, therefore, incorrect.
________
¹ Let's not forget other terms for it, like false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization. In case you thought it was simple.

² In case you fail to see the problem with this idea, "tolerance" requires a difference of opinion. If we agree, their definition of "tolerant", then there is no tolerance required. "Tolerance" requires a difference of opinion that we, nonetheless, allow to continue. It is not embracing the opposite opinion.

Did God Say ...?

One of the absolutely clearest texts in Scripture on the subject of the morality of sexual relations between two people of the same gender is found in 1 Corinthians. We can look at Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 and see it clearly, but you'll obviously be faced with the objection, "But, that's Old Testament. Do you follow all the Old Testament law?" We can look at Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19). They'll tell you that it wasn't a matter of homosexual sin; they just failed to be hospitable. Now, trying to figure out how a lack of hospitality deserved such complete annihilation will be a little tough. And trying to explain how it was a lack of hospitality when the "big problem" appeared to be that the men of the town wanted to "know" the angels in Lot's house might be a problem. And how their desire to "know" someone might be satisfied by Lot offering his daughters is not so easy, either. And when Jude writes that Sodom and Gomorrah "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" as the reason for their destruction (Jude 1:7), well it just doesn't seem like it's going to hold water. But they'll stick to their guns. So we look at the New Testament.

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 (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Now, to the casual observer, this is pretty clear. First, it's clear that "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God". Not a question. I mean, when Paul asked it, he was asking a rhetorical question. "Don't you know this?" He explains "the unrighteous" in terms of a variety of sinful behaviors including "men who practice homosexuality".

Now, let's be clear on this at the outset. Paul is not saying that everyone who has ever committed one of these sins is "the unrighteous" and doomed to damnation. We know that because of the very next verse in which he says, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). So those who are washed, sanctified, justified cease to be identified as "the unrighteous" by virtue of being practitioners of these behaviors. Just as John claims that those who are born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9), genuine believers can sin (1 John 2:1) but do not make a practice of it. Just so we're clear.

But the argument is "You know that the word there isn't clear, right?" They will tell you that the modern translators are ... well ... wrong. It doesn't mean "homosexuals" or "men who commit homosexual acts" or any such thing. It means something ... else. What "else" it means may vary, but they're pretty sure it does not mean what the translators say it means. Some argue it refers to pederasty (homosexual relations between an adult male and a juvenile male). Others are quite sure it's a reference to temple prostitutes, not simply "loving sexual relations between the same sex." And they'll point to the problem that the word only appears twice in Scripture and almost never anywhere else and it's all too obscure for us to figure out.

There is an "encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture" online. It is in favor of GLBTQ folk. (I still don't know the difference between "gay, lesbian, and transgender" and "queer".) As such, to those of my perspective, in matters of debate it would be classified as a "hostile witness". This encyclopedia includes a section on Paul (specifically as he addresses GLBTQ subjects). What do they say about Paul on homosexual behavior? Addressing the content of 1 Cor 6:9-10, they say:

The meanings of these Greek nouns have been the subject of lively debate, largely provoked by gay authors anxious to show that Paul and the early church had not intended to condemn homosexuality per se as harshly as has been traditionally supposed, but only a degraded type of pederasty associated with prostitution and child abuse.

Recent scholarship has shown conclusively that the traditional meanings assigned to these words stand.

They point, as I have, to the parallel of Paul's arsenokoitai in that passage, translated "homosexual" or "homosexual behavior" in modern translations, to the commands of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. They assert (as I do) that the word, apparently coined by Paul, is simply the Greek translation of "men who lie with men" as a reference to homosexual behavior. They conclude that "the traditional meanings assigned to these words stand." They further conclude:

The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community.

Evidence from a hostile witness.

Look, the texts (the ones I've listed and more) are obvious. The meaning isn't unclear. Most people, whether they are in favor of or opposed to the view that homosexual behavior is a sin, admit that the Bible teaches it is so. Arguments that it doesn't fall short of dealing with either text or context. Now, we don't live in a Christian world, so I'm not suggesting that everyone ought to knuckle under and do what God says. I'm just suggesting that it might be something to think about because the Bible has made it pretty clear.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Kristen Howerton wrote a piece entitled Christians: Is the Debate Over Gay Marriage What We Want to Be Known For? Springing off of the recent World Vision misstep as well as the Phil Robertson and Chick-fil-A kerfuffles, she wants to know, "Why can't we all just get along?"

She has three primary questions:

1. Why is same-sex marriage such a fraught issue?
2. How can we find unity in this division?
3. How is this affecting our LGBT brothers and sisters?

When I read the last question, I tried to think what she meant. Is she referring to "our LGBT brothers and sisters" in the sense of "fellow human beings" or in the sense of "brothers and sisters in Christ"? I read on. When she said, "I asked a gay Christian friend ...", I had my answer. She was thinking of fellow Christians, not fellow human beings.

Why, then, is same-sex marriage such an issue? Well, I'd like to answer that, Kristen. It's because the Bible isn't unclear about God's intentions for marriage. It is for the union of a man and a woman to become one flesh (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). (I needed to put that Matthew reference because these are Jesus's words.) It is for the male-female "helpmeet" relationship (Gen 2:18). It is for the propagation of the species (Gen 1:28). And, beyond and above all that, it is a picture of the relationship of Christ to the Church (Eph 5:31-32) (which, by the way, includes a built-in requirement of male and female, husband and wife - Eph 5:22-33). It isn't small and it isn't trivial and it isn't merely a difference of opinion. It is at the heart of the question, "Is the Bible reliable?" It is at the core of the question, "Is the Holy Spirit able to accomplish what He intends to accomplish?"

Kristen conflates two issues here, and this just adds to the confusion. One issue is "marriage". What is it? What does it mean? What does God say about it? You see, the primary reason that "same-sex marriage" is an issue is not because homosexual behavior is a sin. It is because marriage means something, and "same-sex" is not part of it. The question, then, isn't the morality of same-sex relationships, but marriage. But she, like the majority of others, throws in homosexual behavior as the issue. This is a separate issue. It's not part of the "marriage" question.

Kristen asks, "How can we find unity in this division?", and I'll answer this as well. We can't. Why? Because one side is confusing the issues. I don't call "same-sex marriage" a sin; I call it nonsense. I call it an affront to God's definition of the term. I call it a violation of God's explanation of what marriage is about and what it stands for. If that was the issue, I suppose we could find unity by hashing it out. But that, no matter how fanciful, can't be done because no one on that side of the question sees that as the issue. They, like Howerton, are stuffing "same-sex marriage" together with "homosexual behavior" (and buying the notion that "homosexual" is a definition rather than a behavioral choice). So now I have my Bible, the Word of God, that says the homosexual behavior is a sin and that those who engage without repentance in that particular sin (along with a list of others) have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). And voices out there like Howerton's would like us to just get along. How? Well, we need to put down our Bibles, put down our certainty, put down our principles, set aside Church history, set aside everything that the Bible says about this particular sin (see, for instance, Jude 1:7), and just say, "Oh, it's okay; everything is fine."

No, it's not. If there is such a thing as "LGBT brothers and sisters" -- unrepentant folks engaging in what the Bible deems sexual immorality -- and if there is such a thing as "same-sex marriage", then we don't merely need to "just get along". We need to move on. We need to give up the whole concept of a reliable Bible and a Holy Spirit that can accomplish what He intends. We need to abandon Christianity as a solid belief system because we have no firm footing on which to stand. The Bible is obscure, the Spirit is incapable, and what can we really know at all? Now we can all get along. Of course, it is a "get along" into a hopeless morass of relativism and subjectivism. Maybe the Kristen's of this world are happy with that. I can't go there. How do I hope to affect "our LGBT brothers and sisters"? I hope to call them to repentance, to bring them to Christ, to offer them a solution, because that is love. I hope to offer them the same thing I need, a relationship with Christ on His terms. We don't get to do that by standing on the ground He forbids. It's not unity or loving to suggest we do.

What if?

Here's what we always hear. "What gives you the right to push your morality on others?" Or, "You're just a homophobic hater!" Or, "Why don't you just love instead of pointing out what you think is sin?" (with an implicit or explicit "You know, like Jesus did?"). The question that you never hear is "What if it's true?"

No one on that side is recognizing that "What gives you the right to push your morality on others?" is exactly aimed at pushing their morality on others. It seems strange to me that the hateful speech of "You're just a homophobic hater!" is never recognized by those protesting what they see as hate. No one protesting those who hold that homosexual behavior is a sin is asking whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin or not. That question is irrelevant, apparently.

I would suggest that the question is central ... and not trivial. Consider the facts. Historically, the entire history of the Church has been to hold this particular behavior as clearly biblical sin. The only point of deviation is the last 50 years. Scripturally, every biblical reference to homosexual behavior is negative, calling it sin or worse (like "abomination"). No biblical reference paints the behavior in any positive light. Worse, Paul's reference links it not to mere sin, but part of a string of assurances of exclusion from the kingdom.

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 (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Isn't it odd that no church figures are calling on Christians to embrace thievery, covetousness, or adultery? No one is standing there demanding that we love idolaters like Jesus did. There is no question on those. This one, however, is somehow different.

So, the question. What if it's true? What if the historical Church position is true? What if the biblical position is accurate? What if homosexual behavior really is a violation of God's commands? What if Paul was accurate in describing that behavior as an indication of being outside of the kingdom of God? What then? If it is true, I would think it would be obvious that no one of any character would want to embrace this behavior either in themselves or in those they love. If it is true, I would think that clear warnings would be the kindest thing to do.

I live in the desert. I can imagine a parallel process here in a hike with a friend in the desert. My friend tells me, "I don't believe in snakes." I see that he's about to step on a rattler. What should I do? In today's environment they would necessarily tell me, "What gives you the right to push your views about snakes on others? What are you ... some kind of hiking hater? Why don't you just embrace your friend's desire to walk where he wishes?" I should not consider, "But ... that could kill him."

What if it's true? If it's true that a commitment to homosexual behavior (and sexual immorality and idolatry and adultery and theft and greed ...) are all indications that you are outside the kingdom, I would be remiss -- unkind and uncaring -- in remaining quiet. I would be cruel to fail to call for repentance. I would be hateful to fail to point to the danger.

What if it's true? That's the question no one seems to want to answer. If it is true, then it isn't a matter of foisting morality; it's a matter of deep and caring concern. If it is not, then we have genuine reason to question Scripture, Church history, the abilities of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth, and, consequently, Christianity itself. We really should ask the question.

Normal?

"Jessa Duggar creates quite a stir with her latest comments," the headline reads. You know Jessa, right? Okay, maybe not. She is one of nine girls and ten boys in the Jim and Michelle Duggar family. These wack jobs think that the Bible provides guidance and insight into marriage and family living and live that way. So of course if a young Christian woman opens her mouth in agreement with Christian values (like keeping chaste until marriage), then it raises a stir.

Of course, that is not what raised a stir in this case. Jessa said that she is the only one of the four twenty-something sisters who is courting (not dating). She assured listeners that they "have a natural physical desire toward men" and thanked God for making them "normal". Oh, yeah. Now you can see it coming. "Normal." As in "not having physical desire toward the opposite sex and having it for the same sex is not normal." Oh, yeah, now that will cause a stir. Even when she said, "We're not telling them that's how they have to live. I think that every family has their principles, their values, the things that they live by ... and there will be some things that we don't agree with." Nope ... not good enough. Take back your "normal" or face the consequences.

Now, maybe you can help me out here. Since "normal" means "conforming to the common type" or "average" and self-identified homosexuals constitute less than 5% of the population, it is unavoidable that statistically a group constituting that small of a percentage of the whole would fall outside the classification of "normal". It's just math. Indeed, doesn't the younger generation love to ask blithely, "Why be normal?" Don't they embrace "not normal" and disdain "one of the crowd"? And, look, it wasn't the heterosexual community that decided to call themselves "straight" and the homosexuals "queer". What is this "stir" all about?

There is, in medicine, a use for the term "normal" -- "free from infection; occurring naturally" -- but I'm pretty sure that Jessa Duggar wasn't using her vast medical background (you know ... the one she doesn't have) when she used the term. Since statistically she is right and since she even said they should live as they please, I can only come to one conclusion. Those who are not in this statistical classification of "normal" and "heterosexual" understand that it's not normal -- that it is indeed queer -- and don't like to be reminded of it. That's all I can conclude. But maybe it's just because I'm normal.

Worse than Sin

Last year I wrote an article about whether or not it's a sin to be gay. The article stuck in my craw. I don't like the term "gay". I don't like the concept of "homosexual" as a definition of a person. (When did we start defining people by who they want to have sex with?) I don't like the concept of "sexual orientation" as if it's genuine, by birth, or unchangeable. But I still wrote it. And I said that being tempted to sin is not the same as sinning, that the behavior was the sin. I think I need to revisit the idea.

David reported, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). That's not an indictment against David's mother; that's an indictment against humans. We suffer from a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9). The best we can do is "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6). It's not ignorance; it's a heart problem (Rom 2:14-15). Sin "dwells in me" (Rom 7:20). Humans are sinful by nature. Beyond that, we suffer from brain damage. Paul speaks of the "debased mind" (Rom 1:28) where we operate from "the lusts of their hearts" (Rom 1:24) and "dishonorable passions" (Rom 1:26). So, is that sin? Maybe not, but sin is unavoidable because of it.

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell" (Matt 5:27-30). Imagine that! "Lustful intent" equates to adultery. And Jesus doesn't say, "Don't worry. As long as you don't act on it, you don't sin." He said, "If that's your problem, tear out your eyes." Do whatever it takes to change.

The problem is not simply the sinful choices we make, and the correction, then, is not simply to stop making sinful choices. That's part of the solution, but not the entire answer. The rest of the answer is "born of God" (1 John 3:9; 5:4; 5:18). The rest of the answer is "I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh" (Ezek 11:19). The answer includes "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions" (Rom 6:12) and "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

Humans are sinners by birth. We sin (say, for instance, homosexual behavior that is sin) because we are sinners. It isn't the behavior that makes us sinners; it is the human condition that makes us sinners. That condition needs to be overcome. The only means of overcoming that condition is a divine intervention. No amount of "good behavior" produces that change or satisfies God's righteous demands. What is required is a new heart, a new birth, a changed mind.

Back to the original question, then. Is it a sin to be "gay"? (I think it's a sin to use the word that way, but that's just me.) I would say that temptations are not sin. But if we stop there, I'd say we haven't reached the answer. We are to "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). Reading that, it's not possible to say, "It's okay to lust; just don't act on it." Instead, we're supposed to be killing the "passion", the "evil desire". Paul said, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (Rom 8:13). James warned, "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14), so it becomes imperative that those who belong to Christ be working on an ongoing basis toward changing not merely behavior, but desire. Is it a sin to have homosexual desires? I would say, at first glance, not if you don't act on it. But if you don't work to change those desires, I'd suggest there is a problem, and it's not merely whether or not something is a sin. It's whether or not you are a new creation (2 Cor 5:7). Temptation isn't a sin; giving in to it is. But not working to change one's sinful desires indicates a heart problem that has not been addressed, and that would be more fatal than sin.

Is it a sin to be gay?

There are two sides lined up on this issue about sin and homosexuality. One side will assure us that it is no sin and, obviously, the other will say it is. (Where do I come up with these keen insights?) The "it's not a sin" side will argue from a variety of vantage points. It's not a sin because you can't trust the Bible. It's not a sin because the Bible only lists it in six places and that's not enough. It's not a sin because that's an old view and we're much more enlightened now. And there will be variations that generally say the same things. "They're born that way so how can it be a sin?" This requires that the Bible isn't to be trusted when it says otherwise. "You don't understand what the Bible means when it says what it says." This requires that the entire history of the Church had an "old view" and we're enlightened now. You get the idea.

As it turns out, I'm not even wading into that fray yet. You see, I'm aware at the outset that in order to answer that question without qualification I'm required to give in to certain basic claims that I'm not ready to surrender. In fact, the latest translation of the Bible, the ESV, had to modify certain texts to account for this discrepancy. In 1 Cor 6:9 the New American Standard Bible refers to "homosexuals". Not the ESV. That one translates it "men who practice homosexuality". Key difference. You see, in order to answer the question of whether or not it is a sin to be gay, I'd have to admit that there is a category of human beings that are defined and classified as "homosexual", "gay" in the vernacular. And I'm not ready to admit to that. It is that classification that causes me difficulty in answering the question.

The Bible indicates that we are born sinners (Psa 51:5). That is, it's part of the basic nature of the human being. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. Would you say, then, that it is a sin to be a sinner? I wouldn't. That would be nonsensical. It isn't a sin to be a sinner; it's a sin to sin. And "sin" has a biblical definition. It is a violation of God's law (1 John 3:4). "Sin" requires a standard to meet and the transgression of that standard. So sin is not a state of being, but an action or failure to act that violates a standard. In the cases that we care about, the standard is God's standard. Thus, sin is a failure to meet God's standards. It is not a state of being.

It is like the problem of temptation. Temptation is not sin. Hebrews tells us that Jesus was tempted as we are (Heb 4:15) -- tempted, "yet without sin". So the temptation itself is not the sin. James tells us that "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (James 1:14-15). Temptation is not sin. Desire is not yet sin. Sin occurs when temptation draws out desire and desire gives birth to sin. Sin is the result of temptation and desire, but temptation and desire are not sin.

So we're back at the original question. Is it a sin to be gay? First, I'm not at all sure I believe in a category of person who is defined by his or her lust. I don't have any real reason to believe that there are those born with a particular sexual desire that is classified as an "orientation". I am not convinced that there is such a thing as "gay". So I'd have a really difficult time in claiming that a category I'm not sure exists is certainly a sin. But, surrendering that point, if such a category exists and if such a person is defined by this category of sexual desire, I'd have to say that sin is defined by choices, not by temptations or desires. You can choose to violate God's standard or you can choose not to comply with God's standard (sins of commission and omission), but you can't be sin. So if there really is such a thing as "gay" as a definition of a state of being, it cannot be classified as "sin" because no state of being is classified as a violation of God's standard. Only choices to violate that standard are classified as sin.

Of course, I'm still left with that nagging question at the end of the day, aren't I? "So," some might suggest, "you're saying that it's okay to perform homosexual acts?" Ah, there, now you've given me something to work with. Acts are always choices. You can choose to act or not act on a temptation or desire. Choosing to act on the temptation or desire to engage in homosexual behavior is clearly and repeatedly stated throughout Scripture to be an act of sin. Of that there is no doubt. "Gay"? Potentially a state of being that cannot be classified as sin. Performing acts of homosexual behavior? Clearly sin. But don't mix the two up, because they are not the same. The former would be a state of being and the latter is a choice every time ... whether or not you are "gay".

A Biblical Parallel

Here, let me give you a verse right from the Bible:

ος αν κοιμηθή μετά άρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα εποίησαν αμφότεροι θανάτω θανατούσθωσαν ένοχοί εισιν

Well, I don't know about you, but that seems abundantly clear, right? What? No?!? Okay, maybe not. That is a Greek text from the Septuagint. You know the Septuagint, right? Well, Paul did. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible at the time that Paul lived. When Paul quoted Old Testament passages in his writings, his Greek-speaking readers could look them up in that book.

Now, before I explain that odd stuff, I'd like to put down another verse.

μη πλανάσθε ούτε πόρνοι ούτε ειδωλολάτραι ούτε μοιχοί ούτε μαλακοί ούτε αρσενοκοίται ούτε κλέπται ούτε πλεονέκται ούτε μέθυσοι ου λοίδοροι ουχ άρπαγες βασιλείαν θεού κληρονομήσουσιν

Now that one is from the Greek New Testament. Clear? Well, no, not if you don't read Greek. And I don't. So let's see if we can figure anything out. Here, let me take it out of the Greek lettering and into English transliteration:

kai ov an koimhqh meta arsenov koithn gunaikov bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi qanatousqwsan enoxoi eisin

ouk oidate oti adikoi qeou basileian ou klhronomhsousin? mh planasqe; oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moixoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai oute kleptai oute pleonektai, ou mequsoi, ou loidoroi, oux arpagev basileian qeou klhronomhsousin.

There we go! No, wait. That's still not it. But let's look at what we might see anyway. Oh, look! There's kleptai; close enough to "klepto" to mean "thief", isn't it? Yeah, okay, but this still isn't getting us anywhere.

There is an interesting link between the two. Notice in the first one the phrase, άρσενος κοίτην, or arsenov koithn. Now look at the second one. There you'll see αρσενοκοίται or arsenokoitai. Now that's interesting.

Ummm, yeah, Stan, sure. (Humor him.)

Stay with me. Notice that the two are nearly identical. They are certainly of the same roots. In fact, they are similar enough to be synonyms. Since the second passage is from Paul, was he quoting from the first passage?

Well, let me reveal where all this is going. In the New American Standard version of the Bible, we read in 1 Cor 6, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will 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, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). From those who would like to deny that this is what we read in this passage, you will read that "homosexuals" is not in the text. In fact, it's an obscure word. It is used twice in Scripture (here and in 1 Tim 1:10). And most of the best scholars believe that Paul himself gave the first known usage of the term. What does it mean? The King James translates it "abusers of themselves with mankind". Young's Literal Translation uses the term "sodomites". Interestingly, the ESV eliminates "effeminate" and translates both terms as "men who practice homosexuality". (Think about why it is that the latest translation, the ESV, felt the need to put it that way.) The word is a compound word. The first part, arseno, references males (men), and the second, koitai, is a reference to the bed ... specifically, the marriage bed. (That is, it typically has sexual connotations.) Indeed, it is the root of the English word, "coitus". But, hey, what does that prove? So what does it mean?!

If Paul was a Pharisee Bible scholar, well educated and well informed on the Greek Septuagint, it would appear that Paul coined a term straight from the Greek Old Testament for this passage. And what was that verse from the Old Testament?

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them (Lev 20:13).

In that verse, the text translated "a man who lies with a male" is arsenov koithn. Hmm!

From the GLBTQ Encyclopedia on St. Paul, they say on the subject

The word is a verbal noun, and its earliest attestation is in this verse of Paul's. It is a compound of arsen = "male" and koités = "a man who lies with (or beds)." And so we have, describing Oedipus, metrokoités, "a man who lies with his mother," doulokoités, "a man who lies with maidservants or female slaves," polykoités, "a man who lies with many," and onokoités, "a man who lies with donkeys," said of Christians in a graffito from Carthage of about 195.

Arsenokoitai are therefore "men who lie with males," and the Vulgate's masculorum concubitores (where masculorum is an objective genitive), renders the Greek exactly to mean "men who lie with males," "men who sleep with males," "men who have sex with males."

In fact, that source indicates that the source for the term comes from both Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Hmmm!

Is there really a question about what Paul meant when he used the term? Is there really a need to harangue "too-conservative Bible translators" for concluding that Paul meant exactly what it meant in Paul's own Bible? Is that really a stretch? Or is it just too clear to tolerate?

Not a Choice

"I didn't choose to be gay." That's the claim. That's the certainty. That's the given. "Gay" is "born that way". Everyone knows that. How could you question it? Why would anyone choose to go through that stigma, to endure that lifestyle, to suffer the prejudice and difficulties? No, no, it's not a choice.

That's the claim, and nearly everyone agrees except the hard-nosed ultra-conservative Christians who see it as an assault on God and an assault on Christianity and, therefore, by virtue of that attack status, cannot be so. I'd like to question the claim that it is not a choice, but I'd like to do it from a different direction. I've never seen it as a threat to the faith or to God, but I still need to examine the question. Is it a choice?

The problem for me is that we're making assumptions before we ask the question. What is "gay"? What is the definition of the concept (not the word -- I know what the word means, and it's not that)? To our current culture "gay" is defined as homosexual, a sexual attraction to the same gender. Merriam-Webster lists that as the 4th definition. Others put it right there at the top. Homosexual -- "same sex". But the culture has defined it as something more. A homosexual doesn't have simple attraction to the same gender; he or she is defined by it. It isn't a desire, but an "orientation". It is held distinct from "heterosexual", an attraction to the opposite gender, and "bisexual", an attraction to both genders. It is further confused by throwing in "transgender", a sexual identity confusion. (I don't mean to sound unkind here. Just pointing out that it's confusing. If a male sexually identifies as a female and is attracted to other males, is that homosexual or "heterosexual"? What makes him female ... or male? And so on.) And the American Psychological Association now argues that all of this is "normal". So at this point we have made the assumption that "gay" is a definition of a person.

Given that this is a definition of a person, we would then realize that persons have rights and some of those basic rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, it would be a violation of human rights to prevent someone who is defined by their sexual attractions to be prevented from pursuing those attractions. Isn't that clear? Isn't that obvious?

I would beg to differ because I would not be willing to take the first steps. Let's assume for the moment without argument that people do not choose to desire sexually whom they desire. I'll let that stand. I certainly didn't choose to desire women sexually. But I'm afraid that's where I have to end the agreement. You see, all the rest is problematic. How, for instance, does someone get immersed in adultery, fornication, sexual sin? It is not "by birth". It is by choice. Conversely, we admire folks who control their sexual desires and limit them to one person, one spouse, regardless of where else their desires might go. Self-control is a virtue. And limiting those desires is assisted by not going places that would threaten those limits. A married man at a strip club is a recipe for disaster. A married man devoted to his wife would avoid those places. He wouldn't argue "I'm defined as being attracted to the opposite gender and, therefore, should be allowed to indulge those attractions as far as makes me happy." It doesn't work. I am not defined as "heterosexual". I'm defined in other ways, but I'm classified as "heterosexual" merely because "homosexual" has reared its head as a definition when it never was before.

Here, try this. Let's see if a simple substitution will work. If "gay" is morally neutral -- an accident of birth -- then this shouldn't work at all. Will it? "I didn't choose to be gay." Okay. Substitute something else. "I didn't choose to be adulterous." No, that doesn't work. But "adulterous" isn't an attribute, it's an action. So let's try something else. "I didn't choose to be lustful." Okay, fine. I buy that. But ... clearly you can see that the phrase demands another step. "I didn't choose to be lustful but I will choose how I respond to it." You see, "sexual attraction to the same gender" may indeed be outside of the choices and control of the individual, just as lust, greed, gluttony, or any number of other sinful desires might be, but that's not the issue, is it? The issue is what you do with the sinful desire. If you prevent it, stop it block it, don't feed it, don't allow it to define you, then it stops at the "temptation" level. If you indulge it (choice), feed it (choice), allow it to be your definition as a person (choice), then it reaches the level of sin.

I think, in fact, that this error will take people places we don't want to go. If "my sexual desires" is "my definition" and "my definition" gives me the right to pursue my desires as a matter of human rights, where does it end? If an adult has an uncontrolled desire for sexual relations with minors, ought we allow it on the grounds of human rights? Obviously the answer would be "No", but on what basis? How do you prevent one while allowing the other?

I will allow that the desires any individual has are not under their control. We all want things. We rarely want things by choice. Whether or not a given desire is sin or not is a key question. Indulging desires that please the Lord is a good thing to do. Fostering desires for that which He finds abominable is foolish. And it is not the fault of God, Christianity, the Bible, or judgmental Christians when we choose to feed desires -- any sinful desires -- that are opposed to His delights and suffer from it. At no time has God said, "As humans you should be allowed to indulge whatever your desires may be; that's your right." Nor does being born with (or acquiring them at a young age) sinful desires make them "of God" or "good". The choice is yours.

Homosexuality

The Bible is clear. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). Still, you will hear "Is the Bible really opposed to homosexuality?" There are multiple reasons for the question. First, some use it as a deflection. As long as someone is asking the question, they're free to continue as they were. Some use it as a dismissal. "You can't really know what the Bible says on the subject, can you?!" But some are caught up in the difference between lying with a male as with a woman and "homosexuality". The difference, they believe, is between an act and a lifestyle. Indeed, the Bible does not talk about a lifestyle on the subject, but the sexual act (Rom 1:26-27) that generally accompanies it. The Bible doesn't really talk much about lifestyles at all, but about actions. Only God, you see, can look on the heart.

It begs the question. What is "homosexuality"? I mean, I tend to think of it as "homosexual acts", but they don't. ("They" refers to everyone who understands "homosexuality" to be a lifestyle rather than an act or a desire.) So what is it? One of the things you hear quite often is that it's similar to race; it's an identity. It's something you're born with. Back in 2008, Michael Gross coined the phrase in The Advocate, "Gay is the new black." Race and sexual orientation are inexorably linked in the minds of many.

And still it begs the question. What is homosexuality? You see, with race and gender, you can actually find out. You can generally see and if you can't see you can easily run some simple tests. Genetic testing will tell you if the person is black or Asian, male or female, and even who their parents are. "Homosexual" isn't so easy. The only way you can tell is if someone says so. And that's not very definite. I remember the case of actress Cynthia Nixon who decided she would be gay. Wait ... that's not supposed to be able to happen, is it? Then there was the tale of Anne Heche who had the widely-publicized relationship with Ellen DeGeneres ... until they broke up. Then she married a guy, had a son, and six years later divorced. Last I heard she's still living with James Tupper ... a guy. So what was she? Was she a homosexual or not?

You certainly can't tell by actions, apparently. Gay rights advocates are up in arms over the connections being made between Jerry Sandusky and "homosexual". Yes, he's a pedophile. But he is exclusively drawn to males -- "same-sex". That would make him "homosexual". "No, no!" they cry. "Don't put him in our camp!!" But ... isn't that the definition of "homosexual" -- an attraction to the same gender?

Then, of course, there are the "others" that throw the whole thing farther out of the realm of definition. Is a transexual homosexual? Or how about "LUGs"? Have you heard of "LUGs"? The acronym is for "Lesbians Until Graduation" where certain females only engage in lesbian relationships until the graduate from college. Homosexual or not? What about the guys in prison? They consider themselves almost exclusively heterosexual, but they engage in almost exclusively homosexual sex in prison. Are bisexuals homosexual when they are attracted to the same gender and heterosexual the next moment when they are attracted to the opposite gender? It's not clear.

So, if "homosexuality" is "the new black", something akin to racial identity, something similar to gender, who decides who gets this particular identity? By what means do we determine that this person is indeed "homosexual"? We're planning to give them special rights. (I can't sue a store that won't let me in because I'm not wearing a shirt, but they can sue, say, a photographer who doesn't wish to photograph their commitment ceremony. That's special rights.) How do we determine who gets them? How do we decide with some certainty who indeed is the "new black"? I don't think it's nearly as clear as one might think.

Well, this won't sway anyone. "You're taking rights from a particular group," they'll say even if the group cannot be defined. "The Bible doesn't say much about it," they'll assure us, but when someone claims to agree with "biblical marriage", everyone knows right away that this is a contrasting definition from "same-sex marriage". And, despite the protests and complaints, everyone knows what the Bible says about the subject. It's a sin. Is it a condition from birth? Many would like you to think it is. But the Bible doesn't really care. The choice is not "To whom am I attracted?" any more than it is "Who do I hate?" In the latter case, the choice is "What will I do about it?" Oh, and look! It's the same in the former. It's not "race" or "gender" or "the new black". What you do about it is a choice regardless of its origin. And what the Bible (you know, God's Word) says about it is not unclear. What you think about me for saying such a thing isn't really important, is it? What I think is irrelevant. But you have to decide, "Do I go with what I want or with what God wants?" That really is the question in the end.

Jesus Never Said

How many times have I heard it? "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin!" The conclusion? Well, obviously it must not be!

Of course, that's clear rubbish. He never said anything about rape, pornography, or child molesting either. I suppose you'd classify them as perfectly good since "Jesus never said anything" about them? No, of course not.

But is it actually true that Jesus never said anything about it? I might beg to differ. In Matthew 19 the Pharisees came to test Him. Their trick question? "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" Jesus wasn't falling for it. Without offering possible reasons for a valid divorce or enumerating the good versus the bad causes for divorce, He simply offered the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage: "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Matt 19:5). His conclusion was that this union is binding and splitting it up is a bad idea.

So far we have one statement from Christ on the subject. We know what Christ thinks is the definition of marriage. It is "man" and "woman" and "one flesh". Try, if you will, to fit "man and man" or "woman and woman" into that structure. It won't fit.

Jesus wasn't finished. His disciples were a bit dismayed. "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). Jesus offers two possibilities here. First, there is "man and wife in union". If not, there is one other option: "eunuch". (Interesting that some of these "eunuchs" are born that way (Matt 19:12), isn't it?) So Jesus says "Marry or be a eunuch" or "Be a husband or a wife or be celibate."

Again, it appears that "man and man", "woman and woman", or any other combination except "husband and wife", in terms of sexual relations, do not fit into this arrangement. You can try, but it won't work.

Jesus did not say, "And I hope you understand that it's not okay to have sex with animals, either." He didn't have to. He didn't say, "It should be abundantly clear, then, that adultery would be wrong." He didn't need to. He didn't say, "Clearly sex between men and men would fall in the category of sin as well." That was already understood.

No, Jesus didn't mention explicit options of various sexual practices. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that Jesus laid out 1) what He considered to be "marriage" and 2) in what context sexual relations of any sort were moral and, outside of marriage, no sexual relations were moral. Please, by all means, draw your own conclusions. But I'm not at all sure that it's really fair to conclude that Jesus "never said anything about" this question.

Gay Christians?

Recently Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, an evangelical organization that is dedicated to assisting homosexuals to get out of that lifestyle, said in an interview with The Atlantic, "When it comes to someone who is a believer, we all still struggle. We're all still human. Some of us choose very different lives than others. But whatever we choose, it doesn't remove our relationship with God." He has come under a great deal of Christian criticism for such a remark. Christianity Today reports he is accused of antinomian theology. (Antinomian theology suggests there are no rules for Christians. You do whatever you think is best. How you act is irrelevant.) That's a bad thing.

So, what about it? Can you be a Christian and go on freely practicing homosexual behavior? And do you see the problem with the question? You see, if you say, "No!", then you're saying that salvation depends on what you do. If you say, "Yes!", then you're saying there are no rules for Christians. It's a classic Catch 22. Or, you could say that it's a classic "false dilemma".

Remember, first, that I will always derive my worldview from Scripture before experience. If Scripture is clear on X and my experience says Y, I'm going to have to go with X. If X isn't clear in Scripture, then there is lots of room for discussion, but when it's clear, X is true regardless of experience. So ... what does Scripture say on the subject?

Well, there is almost no one on the planet who has examined the question and concluded that the Old Testament is unclear on the subject. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). Of course, the complaint is that we're not opposed to football (pigskin, you see), so we're being inconsistent. The response is that it's also contained in the New Testament. (I'm not favoring either the complaint or the response; I'm just telling you what they are.) The New Testament is really unavoidably clear as well. Jesus made the point in Matthew 19. Paul wasn't vague when he wrote, "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" (Rom 1:26-27). And, of course, both Old and New Testaments have more. Say what you want; it is biblically sinful.

Does it address the question of salvation, however? Paul seems to think so. He wrote, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will 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, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10). Notice first that "homosexual" is only one of the sins listed, so don't get it in your head that this is the primary topic. On the other hand, he is not unclear. These people ("the unrighteous") "will not inherit the kingdom of God." Is that unclear? No, I don't think so.

But let's go to another place that makes the point abundantly clear. John writes this stunning statement:

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).

Now, look, do with that what you will, but it seems absolutely certain that "no one born of God makes a practice of sinning." Not only does he not, he cannot, as in "lacks the ability". Having established, then, that homosexual behavior is sin and that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God (along with those who practice all sorts of other unrighteousness), John affirms here that the fundamental problem is not that they aren't performing up to standards in order to be let in, but that they are not born of God. To put it another way, if they are able to practice sin like this, they are doing things that geniune Christians cannot do.

So, am I saying, then, that a Christian cannot sin? No, that's not what it says. It says "make a practice of sinning". Am I saying that a Christian must meet certain behavioral standards? No, that's not what it says. (And that's what made my "Catch 22" actually a false dilemma.) Based on Scripture, one who is born of God cannot blithely continue in a particular sin. They interrupt it. They struggle with it. They need to stop it. It is not comfortable, happy, pleasant, a good place to be. They cannot continue in that behavior. Not simply "will not", but cannot. So when someone says "I'm a Christian" and continues comfortably and happily in sin -- any sin -- the Bible indicates that they are not born of God and will not inherit the kingdom of God. That's not legalism. It simply says that those born of God are changed people with changed capabilities. Repentance and changed lifestyle is an indication of an inner reality, not a cause. But it is a sure indication. It will happen. Don't be fooled.

When someone who is sexually attracted to the same gender is born of God, will they stop struggling with sin? No. Not at all. Not that sin. Not any sin. The struggle goes on. When the struggle stops and the result is the practice of sin, any sin, the Bible suggests that the "born of God" event never happened. Our task, then, is to "bear one anothers' burdens", to assist fellow believers in their struggles. We don't reject someone because they struggle with alcohol or covetousness or greed. Why would we reject someone because they struggle with homosexual feelings? We mustn't. All believers need shared support because all believers struggle with sin. That's just one of them. True fellowship of believers must go beyond the barrier of confessing sins to one another into mutual support. Until it does, we are not fellowshipping. And we are not being obedient followers of Christ. Loving fellow believers, Christ indicated, is the hallmark of a follower of Christ. Let's do that.