I suppose the brightest way is not to dive right into the deep end, but here goes. Homosexuality is in the news in a big way these days, with four stories currently playing – The infamous Newsweek article touting the Bible as the champion of homosexual marriage, Rick Warren giving the inaugural invocation, the California marriage initiative and picketing the First Baptist Church, Dallas.
I have read the Newsweek article, I haven't heard the sermons. But it doesn't matter, I am not writing a point-by-point refutation or support of either position. Rather, I just want to share the evangelical, and I believe Biblical, position on the issue.
Even the Newsweek article was clear that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, labeling it as a sin and a sexual perversion in both the Old and New Testaments. Arguments otherwise break down into two general categories.
First is biological – I was born that way. The problem with that argument is that there is not a shred of real scientific evidence to support it. As a child abuse investigator I spent a fair amount of time studying the subject.
Generally speaking, there are three or four routes, slightly different for each gender, that a person takes to reach the point of proclaiming their homosexuality, at which time they typically say they have suddenly realized that's what they were all along. I don't know of any other physical trait that we discover in that fashion.
The second argument is cultural. Homosexuality is acceptable in some cultures, so it must not be bad. That argument, too, is weak. You could as easily say that homosexuality is unacceptable in some cultures, so it must be bad. And there are a number of behaviors our culture thinks of as bad, or even evil, that have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures.
Further, trick readings of the Bible don't add up. For instance, the Bible does speak of homosexuality only between men. Can this seriously be seen as supporting, or even permitting, homosexual activity between women? Not by any serious student of the Bible. Such interpretations are an attempt to change the Bible to bring God to men – while the Bible's main emphasis is to bring men to God. When there is a difference between God and men it is always man who must change and never God.
Is homosexuality worse than any other sin? On its face, no. Sin is sin, and all of it is displeasing to God. However, the involvement of other people does compound sin, by adding other sins to the original.
If I overeat, say, well that is a sin (and I certainly don't mean to make light of it). But it does not directly involve anyone else. On the other hand, take murder, theft or rape, each of which has a victim. These are sins against God and sins against the other person, which piles sin upon sin.
But worse than that is enticing another person to sin. Physical sins against another harm them physically or socially. Enticing another person to sin harms them spiritually. There is where sexual sins are more to be condemned than other sin. That applies not only to homosexual acts, but to adultery (sex by a married person with someone other than their spouse) and fornication (sex by any person with someone they're not married to).
The Bible is very specific that helping or encouraging another person to sin compounds the original sin. And it is impossible to be physically involved in a sexual sin of any kind without encouraging a sinful act on the part of at least one other person.
Next week: The Christian Response.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, Romans 1:27, 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, I Corinthians 6:9
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dead on, bullseye!
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting comparison of sin. You make an argument that there are some sins that directly involve other people and some that don't. I would argue that one of the characteristics of sin is that all sin always involves someone other than just the person committing the sin. I think one of the arguments we use to minimize the effects of sin in our lives is that this act or attitude or decision will not affect anyone other than ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my opinion, all sin directly involves other people.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that your example of overeating has a victim (other than the person who is overeating). If overeating causes health problems, the spouse of the overeater has to dedicate extra time and effort to assist the overeater with these health problems. This time and effort has to be taken from some other part of life because we don't get to just make more time and effort. Therefore, another part of the spouse's life suffers because of the overeating. This shift in time and attention could cause another area of God's work to be poorly done or not done at all.
Overeating could cause financial hardship. Even if it doesn't cause financial hardship, it definitely causes a wasteful reallocation of resources. This reallocation could keep some other need in God's kingdom from being met.
These types of cause and effect situations could be discussed for every sin. I cannot think of a single sin that is isolated in its effects on people.
First, I agree that "sin is sin." And really, as my husband says, at it's core there is only one sin: having another god before God. For some it is an idol, for most it is self. Either way all other sins begin because we do not seek after God, but after our own desires.
ReplyDeleteI think, theologically, there is a little more to it than just saying some sins seem worse because they involve others or cause more sin. While that is correct, it is not quite the whole story.
I think that saying homosexuality is worse because it has a victim (and I believe Tony is right, there really is no victimless sin) is an oversimplification. While adultery and fornification also involve other people I don't think I have ever heard them referred to as perversions, whereas homosexuality is a perversion.
A perversion of what? The answer is found in the first two chapters of Genesis. Gen 1:26-27 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...' So God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them."
When God created "man" he created a male and a female on the same day. Together they reflect God's image. The male was incomplete without the female, and I don't believe it was just because he was lonely. But when the two become one flesh they provide the clearest reflection of the Image of God. There are aspects of the male that reflect the Image which the female does not have; equally there are aspects of the female that reflect the Image which the male does not have. But together they are "very good." And it was with this union God shared his gift of creation: the man and the woman create children who also bear the image of God (as well as the parents).
Thus homosexuality at its core is a perversion of the image of God. God takes this image thing very seriously - it's the reason murder is a sin, for instance.
It is also a perversion of the way God designed us. His plan is for the "husband to leave his parents and cleave to his wife." Our very nature is created this way. In rejecting this plan for our lives, it is a rejection of God and His omniscience.
I offer this not as an argument, because I don't really disagree with you, but I just think that it would be helpful if more Christians really understood WHY God said it is a sin, and why we can't "tolerate" this sin as is the popular contemporary movement.