I. Why Did You Write This Paper?

II. What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality?

III. Questions and Objections

A. Aren't the Bible's views outdated?

B. What about orientation?

C. What about consensual relationships?

IV. What Now?

What it means to really love someone

I am writing this paper because of my relationships with four men who have influenced my thinking about this difficult and sensitive subject. In the first three cases, I have changed their names to protect their privacy.

I met "Jeff" in college. He was active in a Christian campus ministry as a participant and a leader. Jeff was well liked by everyone. I clearly remember the day that Jeff confided in me that he was struggling with homosexual feelings. He seemed genuinely puzzled about the right thing to do. On the one hand, he understood that the Christian community did not accept the homosexual lifestyle. On the other hand, his struggles were real and no one seemed to be able to adequately address them and offer meaningful help. As a young Christian, I was not able to offer much to Jeff other than to pray for and with him about his "problem." In the end, Jeff left his Christian friends to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. I have not seen or heard from him for over twenty years.

Years later, I met "Ralph" in church. Like Jeff, Ralph was a well-liked, well-respected member of the church. He seemed to be a model family man with a pretty wife and two healthy sons. I was shocked when "Carla" came to tell me that Ralph had been arrested for soliciting a police officer for homosexual sex. It didn't take long for the truth to come out. Ralph had been living a double life, neglecting his wife and children to spend time at the gym and with his male "friends". Carla knew that their relationship was distant and unfulfilling, but never suspected Ralph's homosexual tendencies.

As Ralph and I counseled together, it became clear that many factors had contributed to him becoming who he now was. Once again, I found that I was not well equipped to give Ralph what he needed. I was informed enough to explain what the Bible had to say and to offer him help from other sources. Once Ralph was "outted" however, it didn't take long before he chose the homosexual lifestyle over his church and family. He cleaned out the retirement account, abandoned his family and moved across the country. Shortly after that, we heard that he had contracted the HIV virus and was contemplating suicide.

My third friend, I will call Peter. I was welcomed into the home of Peter, his wife and their three teenage children. We enjoyed dinner and an evening of conversation together. Peter was sharing his story.

He talked about his own personal struggles with the homosexual lifestyle. He had been there. Peter had spent several years of his life moving from relationship to relationship and partner to partner looking for the fulfillment he never found. It was during this desperate and lonely time that Peter met a Christian who came alongside him and began to help him understand the truth about his lifestyle. As this Christian shared and showed the love of God, Peter understood that the fulfillment he yearned for was not to be found in any human relationship. Peter placed his trust in Jesus and began the relationship that changed his life and set him free from his homosexuality.

As we sat there, Peter talked glowingly about his loving relationship with his wife and children and the deep fulfillment of his relationship with God. Peter founded a ministry to help people trapped in a homosexual lifestyle find their fulfillment and freedom in a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The fourth person who has influenced my thinking in this area is Jesus Christ himself. My relationship with Him has helped me understand several things that relate to this discussion. The first and most important truth is the fact that people were created to be loved. We are designed for intimate relationships with God and with people. I have also come to understand that sin has a devastating effect on these relationships that manifests itself in many, often unexpected ways. The second thing I have learned that motivates me to write this paper is that what God says about life is always true and best. God's statements always trump man's opinions and feelings. It is God's love for people that is the ultimate motivation for this paper. Our relationships with people are directly related to our relationships with God and with ourselves. From the Ten Commandments to the teachings of Jesus, the heart of God is all about healthy, fulfilling relationships.

Robert A. J. Gagnon has written a 493 page book to answer this question. There is certainly much that could be said, but a look at a few of the major passages will be sufficient. Before looking at specific texts, it should be noted that there is an underlying assumption behind the entire Bible when it comes to sexual relationships. The Bible simply assumes that sexual relationships are properly expressed in the context of heterosexual marriage. This is true from the beginning when God creates Eve and not Steve. This is the assumption in the great texts on marriage and sexual expression including the Song of Songs, Proverbs 31, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5, etc.

Although there are many passages that relate to this topic in some way, I will only discuss some of the major ones that speak directly to the subject.

Earlier I quipped that God created Eve and not Steve. This is a profoundly important part of correctly understanding the creation account in Genesis 1 &2. During the first five days of creation, God creates various kinds of life. In each case, one important feature is the ability to reproduce. "Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans..." "Let the birds increase and fill the earth..." Each kind of animal was "able to produce more of its own kind." The sixth day is the pinnacle of the creative week. On this day God makes a special pronouncement that he will create people "in our image to be like ourselves." Genesis One goes on to explain that "God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them." Again, creation is followed by the command to "multiply and fill the earth..." Genesis two focuses on the sixth day and tells us why God created the woman. "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him." (2:18)

Three main points need to be made about these passages. First and most important, we learn that it takes both male and female to adequately reflect the image of God. Unlike the other creatures, humans are specifically said to be made in God's image. Genesis 1:27 says that 1) God patterned them after himself and 2) he created them male and female. The difference between men and women is far deeper than physical. Males and females complement each other emotionally, physically, intellectually and spiritually. Neither the male alone nor the female alone can sufficiently reflect the image of God. The Triune God exists in perfect, eternal relationship and his image can only be reflected in the context of human relationships that include both males and females.

Genesis 2 goes to great lengths to help the reader see that no other creature can complement Adam in a suitable way. To meet this need, God custom designs a woman. The author's comment on all of this is that "this explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." (Gen 2:24) So the first main point to be gained from these passages is that it takes both male and female to complete the image of God in a marriage relationship.

The second observation to make is simply that the emphasis on procreation can clearly only refer to male/female relationships.

A third point comes from the statement that the two (husband and wife) are united into one. The more familiar translation is that the husband and wife become "one flesh." The complementary physical design of men and women makes it clear that heterosexuality is God's intention for marriage.

While this is probably not the most helpful text for our discussion, it is certainly an important one. The reason it is less helpful than some others is that there is much more going on here than just homosexual relationships. In Genesis 18, Abraham is visited by three "men." As it turns out, one of these men is actually God (Yahweh). The other two are angels. When the two angels arrive in Sodom, Lot, Abraham's nephew, is the only person in the city to extend hospitality to them. In contrast, the men of the city surround the house and demand , "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out so we can have sex with them." Before the men break down the door, the angels blind them. The result is the famous destruction of the cities with "fire and burning sulfur."

There is clearly more to this incident than just homosexual relationships. It seems that there were several factors that contributed to God's statement that "the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are extremely evil and everything they do is wicked" (Gen 18:20) and the angels' statement that "the stench of this place has reached the LORD and he has sent us to destroy it." (Gen 19:13) Among others, the issues certainly included inhospitality toward strangers and attempted rape. But when compared with other incidents of these things in the Bible, the episode at Sodom and Gomorrah stands out as especially depraved. Ezekiel, for example, describes the sin of Sodom as an "abomination." (Ezekiel 18:12) Jesus used Sodom and Gomorrah as the ultimate examples of people who reject God. (Luke 10:10-12)

While it would be mistake to try to use this passage as a proof text about homosexuality, it would also be a mistake to say that the homosexual aspect of the offense is irrelevant. The abomination is "not just that they wanted to mistreat them but the way in which they chose to mistreat them." (Gagnon pg. 78)

These commands are part of a larger section of Scripture known as the Holiness Code which instructed Israel to keep the land unpolluted by obeying God's commands. Gagnon lists six features of these two commands that are important. (Gagnon 111-117)

1. They occur in a larger context of forbidden sexual relations still prohibited by modern societies (incest, adultery, bestiality).

2. Even among the sins listed above, homosexuality is treated with particular revulsion. "In the entire Holiness Code...the only forbidden act to which the designation 'abomination' is specifically attached is homosexual intercourse."

3. The penalty is death. Homosexuality was regarded as a supreme offense.

4. These laws are absolute. There are no provisions or exceptions made for orientation, oppression by one party, pedophilia, mutual consent, etc. These are not laws about certain kinds of homosexual expression. They prohibit homosexuality in every form.

5. These laws stand in contrast to the surrounding culture of the day (Middle Assyrian Laws, Babylonian texts, etc.) There is no sense that these laws should be accommodated to the prevailing cultural views.

6. This prohibition is carried over into the New Testament (as we shall see in a moment). These are not among the laws that were superceded by the New Covenant.

The Bible does not contain a record of Jesus teaching specifically about same sex relationships. Contrary to what some have said, this silence actually tells us much about Jesus' beliefs in this area. We do know what first century Jews believed about this matter as just discussed in the Old Testament passages. If Jesus had believed differently, we would most certainly have a record of it. We also know that Jesus often referred to the Old Testament as being the unchangeable Word of God (Matthew 5:18). Jesus' use of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to teach on divorce shows that he valued the authority of those passages and that he embraced heterosexual marriage as God's plan for sexual expression (Mark 10:1-12). In fact when Jesus does teach on sexual ethics (such as in Matthew 5:27-32) his standard is much higher than those of the Jewish culture, not lower. "You have heard it said...but I say..."

The Pharisees and other religious leaders opposed Jesus fiercely because he was constantly pointing out their misunderstanding of the true intentions of the Old Testament Laws. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is a series of corrections including what God truly values in a person (5:3-11), the Law (5:17-20), the Ten Commandments (5:21-30), divorce (5:31-32), vows (5:33-37), revenge (5:38-42), enemies 5:43-48), caring for the needy (6:1-4), prayer (6:5-18), and money (6:19-34). In light of Jesus' constant corrections regarding the Old Testament Laws, his silence on the topic of same-sex relationships is clear evidence that he was in full agreement with the views of his day. There was no need for Jesus to teach specifically about this issue since his audience was already in universal agreement with the worldview of the Old Testament Scriptures.

"So" the context of this passage is that God has revealed himself clearly in his creation for anyone to see. But rather than embracing this truth, sin causes us to push it away. "From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused." Romans 1:20-21

"God let them go." "God abandoned them to their shameful desires." When a person pushes away the truth of God (verse 18), God allows him or her to experience first hand the destructive nature of sin. This leads to behavior that is shameful, vile, and degrading.

"They did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies." As we have seen in the passages above, homosexual expression is once again singled out as an especially shameful, vile, and degrading example of the effects of sin on human beings. The progression then, goes like this: first people reject the obvious truth about God and choose rebellion rather than submission. Second, God hands them over to their sinful desires to experience the effects of sin first hand. Third, their behavior becomes decadent and destructive. A particularly degrading example of this is seen in homosexual acts.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, [10] thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers—none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God. [11] There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you."

1 Tim. 1:10

There are many other texts that could be cited in this discussion. I have highlighted some of the clearest and most important.

Gagnon summarizes the Bible's teachings nicely.

On a descriptive level, throughout the Bible there is not a single hero of the faith that engages in homosexual conduct: no patriarch, no matriarch, no prophet, no priest, no king..., no apostle, no disciple. The Song of Solomon is devoted to singing the praises of committed heterosexual love. On a prescriptive level, every regulation that affirms the sexual bond affirms it between a man and a woman- without exception. In addition, every proverb or wisdom saying refers to heterosexual- not homosexual-relationships as fitting for the lives of the faithful. There is an abundance of Old Testament laws and proverbs regulating and establishing proper boundaries for sexual intercourse between male and female... By way of contrast, there are no laws distinguishing proper homosexual conduct from improper homosexual conduct, because in every law code homosexual conduct is presumed to be forbidden in toto.

Regarding the New Testament texts that directly address the issue of same-sex intercourse, Gagnon states,

[These passages] unequivocally reject such behavior for believer and unbeliever alike. With regard to Rom. 1:24-27, both idolatry and same-sex intercourse are singled out by Paul as particularly clear and revolting examples of the suppression of the truth about God accessible to pagans in creation and nature. People who engage in homosexual intercourse do so in spite of the self-evident clues implanted in nature by God; specifically male-female anatomical, physiological, psychological, and procreative complementarity. More crudely put, the parts fit and function properly male to female and not female to female or male to male. To be sure, Paul and other Jews derived their own opposition to same-sex intercourse, first and foremost, from the creation stories in Genesis 1-2 and the Levitical prohibitions... Yet Paul contended, even gentiles without access to the direct revelation of Scripture have enough evidence in the natural realm to discern God's aversion to homosexual behavior.

There are at least two possible issues that generate this question. For a person who holds to the authority of the Bible, the question might be stated like this: "There are many regulations in the Bible that we do not follow today. We should we follow this one? Hasn't Jesus superceded these laws with the greater law of love?" For the person who does not believe the Bible to be authoritative, the question is simply why we should care about what this 2000+ year-old book says about anything at all.

When Jesus came, he came not to abolish the Old Testament laws, but to fulfill them. Jesus reaffirmed the authority of the Old Testament laws when he said, "I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved." (Matthew 5:17-18) At the same time, there are obviously many Old Testament regulations that we do not follow today. Does this mean that the regulations regarding things like sexual behavior are no longer valid?

It is important to understand that the Old Testament contains more than one type of regulation. The laws can be roughly divided into three categories: moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civil laws. Virtually everyone agrees that the coming of Jesus fulfilled, and therefore abolished, the Old Testament ceremonial laws. For example, almost no one practices animal sacrifices today. It is also widely understood that the civil laws of the Old Testament were given to a particular culture under a theocratic government. Countries like the United States were founded on the idea that the Judeo-Christian laws provide an excellent basis for modern government. At the same time most of those laws have been adapted for modern, Christian era society. For example, although prostitution is illegal in this country, stoning them to death is not considered an acceptable form of punishment

Laws regarding sexual conduct fall into the category of moral law. While the ceremonial laws served the purpose of pointing forward to Christ, and the civil laws served to establish Israel's legal system, the moral laws are rooted in the eternal, unchanging nature of God. These laws rise above changing cultural standards. It is interesting to observe how homosexual conduct has been set apart from other behaviors mentioned in the law in spite of the clear statements of the Bible and in spite of its destructive nature (more on this below). A quick exercise should make this clear.

As mentioned above, the laws regarding homosexuality in Leviticus (as in other passages) are given in the context of a broader list of behaviors that are forbidden. These include incest (18:6-18; 20:11-12, 17, 19-21), adultery (18:20; 20:10), child sacrifice (18:21; 20:1-5) (homosexuality is forbidden in 18:22 and 20:13), and bestiality (18:23; 20:15-16).

Now consider the following argument. "The Bible is an antiquated book. Only an ignorant religious fanatic would insist that we still adopt its rules regarding homosexuality in our modern society." Let's try substituting any of the other sins listed in these passages and see how our argument holds up.

"The Bible is an antiquated book. Only an ignorant religious fanatic would insist that we still adopt its rules regarding incest in our modern society."

"The Bible is an antiquated book. Only an ignorant religious fanatic would insist that we still adopt its rules regarding adultery in our modern society."

"The Bible is an antiquated book. Only an ignorant religious fanatic would insist that we still adopt its rules regarding child sacrifice in our modern society."

"The Bible is an antiquated book. Only an ignorant religious fanatic would insist that we still adopt its rules regarding bestiality in our modern society."

The inconsistency is obvious and one wonders what will happen if (when?) our society elevates homosexual behavior to the level of an accepted lifestyle with special rights and protections. Which of these other behaviors will be next in line and on what basis would we reject it? As I write this however (June 2004) all of these other behaviors are still considered unacceptable so the question must be asked, "How have we selected one of these behaviors to treat so differently from the others?"

One response to the person who does not believe the Bible to be authoritative is the fact that the unnatural and destructive nature of homosexual behavior is evident even apart from what the Bible has to say. I have already pointed out that the physical design of male and female bodies makes it apparent that homosexual intercourse is not what they were designed for. In addition, it seems to me that sex has at least three purposes: procreation, pleasure which is part of a holistically healthy lifestyle, and family/marital cohesiveness. Homosexual behavior fails to achieve any of these three purposes. With regard to procreation, I have always found it curious that the majority of homosexual activists reject the idea of God as creator and the biblical creation accounts. At the same time, the backbone of evolutionary theory is the "survival of the fittest." In evolutionary thought, the "fittest" are defined as those who are most able to reproduce their own kind. Whether one holds to the biblical account or the Darwinian version of reality, homosexuality fails to measure up.

Regarding pleasure and health, homosexuality clearly must produce momentary sexual pleasure, but it certainly cannot be said to contribute to overall health and well-being. Gagnon (472) cites a fascinating study by psychiatrist Jeffery Satinover who compares the effects of alcoholism and homosexual behavior. In addition to the other consequences of alcoholism, homosexual practice "routinely" results in:

• A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage
• A twenty-five to thirty year decrease in life expectancy
• Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease-infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer
• Inevitably fatal immune disease, including associated cancers
• Frequently fatal rectal cancer
• Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
• A very low likelihood that its adverse conditions can be eliminated unless the condition itself is
• An at least 50% likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment. (Gagnon says that 50% is probably high and the 30% rate associated with alcoholism is probably about right for homosexuality as well.)

One striking thing about this is the vastly different ways society has responded to these two devastating behaviors. Our country is filled with treatment centers and ten-step programs for alcoholism while, at the same time, we are handing out marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

As for the third purpose of sex, homosexual relationships have an extremely poor track record with regard to longevity, faithfulness, and stability. Many studies have been conducted in this area and the results are shocking. These studies consistently demonstrate that homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous. Presumably this is a result of the unsatisfying nature of same-sex relationships and the difficulty of same-sex couples to maintain long term intimate relationships. "In 1994, the largest gay magazine in America, The Advocate, published the results of questionnaires returned by 2,500 of its adult male homosexual readers. In the course of the relatively short average life-span of the respondents (thirty-eight years old), only 2% had had sex with just one man. Fifty-seven percent had more than 30 male sex partners, and 35% had more than 100." As for same-sex marriage: "Even within the context of a relationship, homosexual males rarely exhibit serial monogamy, let alone lifelong monogamy. A Dutch study of the sexual habits of one hundred fifty-six male homosexual couples published in 1994 reported that, on average, each partner had seven other sex partners in just the year preceding the survey."

My point here is simply to say that one does not need a Bible to see that homosexuality is an unnatural, unhealthy and destructive lifestyle. The Bible simply articulates what is obvious from nature and makes it clear that these behaviors are not only unnatural, unhealthy and destructive, but are offensive to God as well.

The popular view being promoted by pro-homosexual groups is that people are either born gay or not. If, they say, the writers of the Bible had understood this, they would have felt very differently about this issue. Once we as a society understand this, we will also understand that homosexuals are not to be discriminated against and, in fact, should be a protected group like any other "minority." To discuss this topic, I will follow Gagnon's outline (395-431) and add my own thoughts along the way.

In the early 1990's a homosexual neurobiologist named Simon Levay published the results of a highly flawed studied of the hypothalamuses of 41 people. Levay portrayed his study as proof that homosexuals have significantly smaller hypothalamuses than heterosexuals. Although this study was significantly inconclusive (see Gagnon 397), the media declared that Levay had proven that homosexuals are distinguished by immutable differences in their brains.

This example demonstrates the need to be very careful in accepting "scientific studies" as proof of anything. Every researcher has an agenda. It is also important to note that even if a reliable study did show such a difference, this would prove nothing about genetic determination. It is common knowledge that parts of our brains change in size and composition as a result of our environment and behavior.

In 1993, the media once again announced a breakthrough. This time it was the discovery of the "gay gene" by scientist Dean Hamer. Without going into detail, a quote from Hamer himself should suffice. "We have not found the gene-which we don't think exists- for sexual orientation." "There will never be a test that will say for certain whether a child will be gay. We know that for certain." (Gagnon 400) The truth is that science has not found evidence that any behavior is genetically dictated in humans.

Identical twins have 100% identical genetic make-ups. If homosexuality were determined only by genes, identical twins would demonstrate a 100% correspondence in sexual preference just as they do in eye color and gender. This would seem to be fertile ground for someone who wanted to show the importance of genetics on homosexual behavior.

Although many studies have been done in this area (Gagnon cites four major ones), the results have been mixed and no study has ever found anything near a 100% correspondence. It is also significant that these studies were conducted with twins raised in the same households. This means that these twins developed in the same community environment and the same family environment. Other studies have shown that environment is a large factor in determining one's sexuality. All things considered, it seems safe to say that these studies indicate that genetics are not a significant factor in determining a person's sexual orientation.

The life stories of many (not all) homosexuals include childhood memories of feeling out of place with members of the same sex. The typical "sissy" boy and "tomboy" girl are often examples of what scientists call gender nonconformity. While scientists agree that gender nonconformity in children increases the likelihood of homosexual identity as adults, they do not agree about the causes. The basic question is, which comes first? Does a homosexual predisposition cause gender nonconformity or the other way around?

We have already discussed the ideas of homosexual genes, brains, etc. It seems more likely that other factors play a greater or even exclusive role in developing homosexual tendencies. It is common knowledge that a child's environment is crucial for healthy development. If a child perceives the same-sex parent to be distant or rejecting, that child may find it difficult to identify with that parent's sexuality. The resulting detachment only makes the problem worse. If the opposite-sex parent is overly demanding or critical of his or her spouse the result may impair the child's ability to attach to people of the same sex in a healthy way.

Relationships with same-sex peers and siblings is often as important or more important for children than their relationships with their parents. Everyone knows how cruel children can be to peers who are perceived as physically or emotionally "different." A child's response to this kind of teasing may isolate him further from members of his own sex. As a result, this child may grow up viewing members of his own sex as more exotic than members of the opposite sex. This, coupled with a genuine need for acceptance and approval from members of the same sex, may lead to exploring homosexual behavior.

While many theories have been proposed and many studies conducted about the details, it is universally agreed that environmental factors, especially parenting and peer relationships play a major role in forming us as we grow. As Gagnon notes, "we are dealing here primarily with a child's perceptions, perceptions which may or may not conform to reality or to a parent's intent." (410)

It is also clear from numerous studies that cultural expectations are a significant factor in determining how widespread homosexuality becomes. In cultures where homosexual behavior is forbidden, it is virtually non-existent (e.g. Ancient Israel). In cultures where homosexuality is considered acceptable, it tends to be widespread (e.g. Ancient Greece). In the United States, both men and women are much more likely to practice homosexuality in urban areas than they are in rural communities (708% for men, 186% for women). U.S. college graduates are also much more likely to identify themselves as homosexuals than those whose education does not extend beyond high school (men 183%, women 900%). (Gagnon 416-17) All of this indicates that environment and societal norms, not genetic determinism are the major cause of homosexual expression.

From the preceding discussion, it is clear that the causes of homosexual behavior are complex. Homosexual expression has different causes in different people and is a product of childhood environment, parental relationships, peer relationships, cultural norms and other factors which may include a predisposition toward some degree of gender nonconformity. Having said all of that, it is still important to remember that behavior involves a choice. We behave in certain ways because we choose to do so. So what about a couple that chooses to live together in a consensual, monogamous, homosexual relationship?

First, as we discovered above in Section III.A. the idea of stable, long-term, faithful, monogamous, homosexual relationships is largely a myth. But let's assume that this type of relationship is available with at least some kind of consistency. Is this a good thing? Should our society embrace these couples?

As in our previous discussion, there are two ways to approach this question. The first would be for the person who holds the Bible to be God's authoritative Word. The second would be for the person who rejects the authority of the Bible. The arguments follow the same logic I used above.

For the person who accepts the Bible, the question simply needs to be rephrased. (This line of reasoning should also make this clear for the vast majority of people who reject the Bible). Should we condone consensual relationships between people who are drawn to other forms of prohibited sexual (or any other kind of) behavior? Would we argue that we need to understand and accept the needs of the following people if they desire to have a consensual, sexual relationship? (See the Leviticus passages discussed above).

• A forty year-old man and a seven year-old boy?
• A fifty year-old woman and her twenty two year-old son?
• A thirty year-old man and his three wives?
• A twenty five year-old man and his dog?
• A forty year-old mother and wife and her forty year-old boss (of either gender)?

Most people would say "no" to the idea that society should condone these relationships whether they are consensual or not. But on what basis? For the person who accepts the Bible, it would be necessary to separate homosexuality from these other behaviors in a way the Bible does not.

For the person who rejects the authority of the Bible, the question is really why we have the right to pass any laws at all. The common response is that people should not be permitted to do things that are harmful to others or to society. In the discussion above (Section III. A.) we saw that homosexual behavior is every bit as harmful as alcoholism to individuals and to society. Is it right for our society to encourage a lifestyle that destroys those who participate in it and their families? Once again it seems clear that just because two (or more) people reach a consensual agreement about their lifestyle, this does not mean that that lifestyle should be considered acceptable.

Didn't Jesus say that the greatest commandment was to love? How can we judge people and love them at the same time? Isn't this inconsistent? Have we abandoned love just because homosexuals make us uncomfortable? This line of reasoning has become a popular attempt to disarm people of faith who oppose homosexuality. In our local newspaper, a professor of New Testament Studies from Vanderbilt was recently quoted as saying, "People of faith will need to determine if condemning gay people to lives of celibacy is more consistent to the central message of their tradition than welcoming a gay couple who are faithful to each other and both dedicated to lives of service for God." The accusation is that love is the central essence of the Christian faith and that to exclude (judge, condemn) homosexuality is not a loving thing to do.

There are five flaws in this professor's statement (and this is just one sentence!). The first is the assumption that the only alternative for gay people is celibacy. The truth is that many people who practice homosexuality (like my friend "Peter") have found freedom and fulfillment by leaving the homosexual lifestyle and entering into monogamous, heterosexual marriages. Studies have shown that a significant majority of people who identify themselves as homosexual report that they have at one time or another been sexually aroused by the opposite sex. A 1997 study conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality reported that more than half of homosexual clients reported a major shift in sexual orientation with 15% emerging from therapy identifying themselves as exclusively heterosexual.

A second problem with this quote is the statement that celibacy would be condemnation. Is it condemnation for someone to cease a destructive pattern of behavior? Do we "condemn" alcoholics to lives of sobriety? Would we be willing to use this same line of reasoning to say it is wrong to "condemn" pedophiles, or those with orientations toward relatives or animals to celibacy?

Third, we have already discussed at length the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals are anything but "faithful to each other."

The fourth problem is the subtly stated idea that moral standards are nothing more than certain people's "traditions." The real intent of such wording is to eliminate a real, objective God from the conversation. No God means no absolute moral standards. Right and wrong become matters of opinion.

The fifth problem with this quote will provide us with the proper place to end this discussion. It is true that the central message of the Christian faith is love. (John 3:16; 1 Cor 13:13; Matt 22:39) The problem is the idea that love means permitting and even embracing every person and every person's behavior with no standards or discernment. Consider a parent who allows his children to do whatever they please with no limits, no moral guidance, and no consequences. The home would soon be reduced to a place of anarchy, chaos, and danger. This parent is guilty of neglect and possibly worse. Few would call this love.

To allow someone to continue in a lifestyle that is harmful to herself, harmful to her family and displeasing to God is not love.

A few final thoughts from Gagnon are helpful at this point.

In the true spirit of Jesus, to seek and save practicing homosexuals does not mean confirming their homosexual fantasies or conduct. It means actively seeking out and sharing a meal with them, taking the message of the kingdom to them that God values them. It also means remembering our differences from Jesus, knowing that we too are sinners, numbered among those whom Jesus has sought out, recipients of his forgiveness. This is the difficult work of reconciliation, which avoids the two easy paths of toleration and isolation. (219)

Few people in the church today who argue for toleration or affirmation of homosexual conduct would want to argue that the church should tolerate or affirm adultery, crimination against women, racism, economic oppression, or a host of other societal ills. In such cases few would say, "Hey, we are all sinners; who am I to judge you?"

The church must always approach the rebuking of sin among its members with humility and sensitivity, repenting of its own faults, and providing offending members with support for change. We all sin but not all sin is equally offensive to God and not all sin is to be treated in the same way. Pocketing a single company pen is not equivalent to committing adultery; the two acts call for radically different responses on the part of the church. (470)

The old adage "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a good guideline for how the church needs to respond to people who are trapped in the homosexual (or any other sinful) lifestyle. We are called to "speak the truth in love." (Eph 4:15) It is wrong to "love" without speaking the truth. It is just as wrong to speak the truth without loving the person to whom we are speaking. Too many churches in America have fallen into one of these two extremes. The homosexual community is angry at the churches who are speaking the truth without love. Conservative Christians are disheartened over the churches who are attempting to love without speaking the truth. The church must lead the way in both love and in truth.

Endnotes

1Gagnon, Robert A. J. , The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Abington Press, 2001. This is not a book for the timid reader. Gagnon is extremely detailed in his analysis of the biblical and extra-biblical literature. He is also graphic in his descriptions of what homosexuals actually do with each other. For a shorter, less technical and less graphic presentation, see the book, Homosexuality and the Bible by Gagnon and Dan Via (Fortress Press 2003). This work contains a shorter version of Gagnon's information and an insightful look into the creative ways a pro-homosexual scholar handles what the Bible says about this issue. (In the end, Via simply says that the Bible is wrong.) By citing Gagnon, I do not mean to say that I agree with everything he says. He holds some "liberal" views regarding the authorship of the biblical texts that I do not hold. These views do not seem to affect his interpretation of the texts or his understanding of their authority. I am not suggesting him as a textual critic, but as an authority on what the Bible says on this issue.

2 All Scripture references are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, @1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton IL, 60189. All rights reserved.

3 Gagnon, 438.

4 Gagnon, 337.

5 I recently heard this exact statement on a call-in radio program discussing same-sex marriage.

6 It is true that these lists contain one ceremonial law that most Christians no longer feel is binding. The prohibition against intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19, 20:18) seems to be rooted in the ceremonial regulation against the mixing of unlike substances.

7 Satinover, Jeffery, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker Books, 1996.

8 Gagnon 455. Citing Janet Lever, PhD in The Advocate (Aug. 23, 1994): 16-24

9 Gagnon 456. Citing Gijis and Naerssen in Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (1994): 421-31

10 Amy-Jill Levine, as quoted in the Richmond [VA] Times Dispatch, March 7, 2004. Front Page (!)

11 Gagnon cites several studies, page 418 ff.