This past week, I carefully crafted an article for inclusion on this website about the church’s response to homosexuality. It was based on a message my husband and I preached to our church quite a few years ago. The outline went something like this:
- We need to be biblical: homosexuality is a sin
- We need to be rational: homosexuality is just one sin among many
- We need to be compassionate: homosexuality is about behavior, not predisposition
- We need to be redemptive: homosexuality can be overcome
The article was full of Scripture and reasoned explanations along with a good dose of compassion for those who are struggling to overcome the sin of homosexuality. For “some reason” I set the article aside and decided not to publish it yesterday. I had a familiar uneasy feeling that I’ve learned to heed, knowing that God often speaks to me through such uncertainty. I started questioning if the article was even necessary to share with Wesleyan/holiness Christians. Was it a periphery issue that warranted a full article on this site? Was this the right time to post an article like this?
And I have to admit that there was a small part of me that wondered if the ire I would receive because of my positions would be worth it.
And then last night happened.
I found myself observing a conversation on Facebook dealing with same-sex relationships. Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, was taking the time to respond to several commenters who questioned his stance on the issue. If you don’t know Dr. Piper, you will. He has been a vocal critic of society’s tendency over the past decade (or longer) to define people by their libidos, which he contends directly contradicts the fact that we were created in the image of God. There is more to people than their sexuality, and lowering the expectations of human behavior to simply the fulfillment of their sexual urges is to degrade them to the nature of mere animals. You can read his latest editorial for the Washington Times, “Conversations About Sex,” which explains why sexual immorality should be repudiated rather than debated, to get a better sense of his clear logic and rational apologetic.
A few years ago, his position would have reflected the general consensus of Wesleyan/holiness denominations. Last night’s Facebook discussion was an indication that this is no longer universally true. I found it surprising that people claiming to be Christians (even if only a few of them were represented in the thread) would so openly affirm same-sex relationships while also so deeply criticizing the quite biblical view that homosexuality (among other sexual vices) is sinful.
So, today I carefully considered the resources mentioned during the course of the discussion. One vocal and confident student in favor of Christlike same-sex relationships pointed to Modern Kinship’s Resource Guide for LGBTQ Christians and Allies and the article “A Brief Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion” on The Reformation Project website. [In a future article, I plan to address each one of these “biblical” arguments. See Is There a Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion in the Church?]
Then, I watched the 2-hour+ debate between Matthew Vines (LGBT activist and author of God and the Gay Christian) and apologist and Bible scholar Sean McDowell (see below) recommended by Dr. Piper. This “conversation” is definitely worth watching. I was amazed at the hermeneutical gymnastics that must be employed in order to justify the sin of homosexuality and same-sex marriages. A quick Google search revealed that it is not only Mr. Vines who has been deceived into thinking that homosexual union can be an expression of Christlike love. There are a whole host of churches that affirm homosexuality among Christians, and, sadly, there are even some Wesleyan/holiness pastors and congregants who express similar views.
Dr. Piper granted me permission to quote his comments from last night’s Facebook discussion. I feel strongly that this is the message I’m supposed to share with you today and not the one I originally wrote (which I may share at a later time). This is the message that the church needs to reaffirm, even at the risk of sounding “unloving” to those who disagree. We can speak the truth with love, but we do have to speak the truth. And if God’s Word offends some people and causes them emotional pain, then the clear solution is repentance, not capitulation.
Can we legitimately have a “conversation” about homosexuality?
The question at hand was whether or not Christians should engage in “conversations” with homosexuals to better understand their position and to foster acceptance and inclusion. This is how Dr. Piper responded [with slight editing on my part]…
My article…is targeted at the broader cultural trend that seems all too eager to conflate “conversation” with compromise and capitulation. In this spirit, I would argue that by God’s providence we live in a time that demands clarity, conviction, and courage rather than more and more “conversation.” As Luther told us, there is a time when we must say, “Here I stand! I can do no other!” and now is that time for a biblically faithful church and college.
As to Jesus having a “dialogue and conversation” with the tax collectors and adulterers, I see nothing in Scripture where he ever implied their behavior was open to debate. Quite to the contrary, he clearly condemned their sin and called for their confession.
Finally, as to Jesus (or his Church) “attacking” anyone – I would contend this is a misplaced assumption. Jesus never engaged in ad hominem attacks. He never attacked any person but rather chose to attack sin. He didn’t attack the human being but rather attacked human behavior, an example I hope I follow in my Washington Times article; an attempt that I make quite clear in my closing paragraph where I elevate those caught in the net of sexual sin to a much higher status (the Imago Dei) than do most all my detractors.
Bottom line – I see nowhere in Scripture where we are to have a conversation about sin. We are told to condemn it and confess it, not sit around and talk about it. Bonhoeffer told us there is a time when dialogue and conversation run their course and clarity with conviction is our call: “Not to speak is to speak and not to act is to act. Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us guiltless!”
Postscript: I find it very telling that even the secular readers of the Washington Times seem to intuitively understand the point of the column in question. Even they understand the premise of the article is/was to challenge the moral nihilism of contemporary sexual politics…. As I said in a panel discussion with Jim Daly, Eric Metaxas, Dennis Prager, and Larry Elder last week: Christianity indeed is under attack; but more from the Church than from our culture.
Is there an objective measure of truth when it comes to homosexuality?
Dr. Piper continued to answer questions and accusations from those who were commenting on his Facebook post…
As Lewis told us: “There must be a measuring rod outside of those things being measured, or you can do no measuring..”
The obvious premise of my column is that we all seem to agree that this objective standard exists when we are pushed to admit that ISIS is wrong and that the KKK is bad. So, why do we reject the existence of the same “measuring rod” when it comes to sex?
God is as clear about sexual morality in Scripture as he is about violence, so why do we pretend that we can have a “conversation” about the rules (i.e., measuring rod) for sexual behavior but yet react with foreclosed indignation when it comes to other sins?
I assume you’re not advocating for an open “conversation” with ISIS about its violence. I assume you don’t want to invite the KKK to campus to “converse” with us about their racism. I assume you aren’t going to promote a “conversation” with NAMBLA about their right to love who they want to love.
Why?
The answer is because you know there’s an objective standard that they’ve breached, and their agenda and ideas are not open to debate.
Why have you decided otherwise when it comes to sex? Again God is as clear on this is he is on the other behaviors that you presumably find abhorrent.
Endnote – there’s a big difference between debate and conversation. I’ll debate anyone. But I won’t imply moral equivalency through conversation. That’s a critical distinction.
And in his initial post, Dr. Piper concluded…
Now if you find my anecdotes troubling you should! But I ask – What is the difference between affirming one sinful inclination and affirming another? In other words, why is an inclination toward anti-Semitism something we all assume we can and should condemn, control, and change, but yet an inclination toward sodomy is not? Why do we “normalize” one sinful habit and predisposition but yet still condemn another?
Why is tolerance a one-way street?
It was amazing how quickly those who opposed Dr. Piper’s views turned on him for his directness in calling out sin and correcting ignorance of Scripture. They blasted him for his intolerance and, well, his meanness. Dr. Piper responded…
Forgive me for saying it, but it never ceases to amaze me how those who wave the rainbow banner of “love and tolerance” become so angry, hateful, and intolerant when anyone dares to challenge their sexual orthodoxy. They seem to be blind to their own duplicity. They seem totally unaware that they saw off the branch upon which they sit and shout out damnation to those warning of their fall.
What should be the Christian stance on homosexual inclusion in the church?
You may be thinking that the “church” is filled with many sinners – the boastful, proud, arrogant, gossips, liars and the like. However, as one Facebook user wrote, “I heard a great and honorable man of faith once say that he had a member of his congregation tell him once, ‘You know, Pastor, I know a Christian who lies.’ The pastor said, ‘No, you know a liar who says he’s a Christian.’ What a slap of truth the Father has for us one day!”
We denounce sin among Christians and, as Wesleyan/holiness churches, we gently invite them to a life above sin, where they can experience victory and righteousness every day. We don’t ever (or shouldn’t) condone pride or lying or whatever other sin someone might have engaged in. And no one would expect us to! We call people to repent and to get right with God. We call them to die to sin and to live in obedience to the will of God revealed in Scripture.
So, are homosexuals any different? Most tend to be militant about their orientation, looking to the Bible and the church only for affirmation and acceptance of their lifestyle. If you think a “conversation” with activist LGBTQ “Christians” is truly a conversation, then you’re wrong. They don’t want to hear that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, they won’t stand for it. The only “conversation” they’re interested in is the one that ends with total acceptance of their lifestyle as both normal and Christian. If a member of your church showed such defiance and determination to continue in their pride or deceit or adultery or other sin, you would quickly conclude that they were not a genuine Christian. So, too, with any man or woman who defies God’s Word or perverts it as a means of justifying their sin, insisting that their sinful lifestyle is not sinful and not repugnant to the God who said it was.
All those who profess Christ should be open and willing to heed correction and to adjust their lives to the life God demands [see especially Matthew 7:22-23]. I admit that it’s sometimes hard to do. Sometimes our temptations are strong. Sometimes our self-perceptions and predispositions are hard to overcome. But “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). And woe to the church if we don’t stand up for what is moral and pure and right. The solution to the distress in the homosexual community is not affirmation of their lifestyle; it’s repentance and redemption.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t talk to homosexuals or that you shouldn’t try to reach them with the Gospel. Of course, you should. And you should be kind and loving and respectful – without compromising the truth or capitulating to sin. As the church, we are called to be the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). That means we don’t waver. We don’t give the impression that sin is open to discussion. Granted, you might not be “liked” if you speak the truth of the Word. People might call you narrow-minded or unloving or even hateful. But if the church doesn’t take a stand on this issue, how can it take a stand on any moral issue?
Maybe that’s the problem!
Have we become so powerless that we are no longer able to take a stand on any moral issue? Have we lost our moral authority because we’ve made sinning Christians the norm? [See my earlier post on The Sinning Pastor Phenomenon.] Is our theology so flawed and diluted by pop-theology writers that we no longer accept that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) and to free us from sin? [See my earlier post on “Is There a Cure for Sinning – And Does It Even Matter?“]
The very fact that I’m writing this post is evidence that we have a problem in the church. The fact that Dr. Piper had to defend the traditional view of human sexuality to Christians (some undoubtedly from within the holiness movement) is an indication of how far we’ve fallen. And the fact that pastors are advocating for “conversations” about sin and debating the truth of God’s Word for today’s culture testifies to the fact that we are in danger of losing our influence on culture altogether. God help us!
