Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly recently posted (on 4/10/18) a widely circulated article called, “This California Bill Threatens Religious Freedom.” He summarizes California Assembly Bill 2943, which “uses the state’s consumer fraud statute to penalize religious freedom and free speech on the issues of homosexuality and gender identity,” as follows: “To put it simply, Christian schools, churches and others who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality would be open to lawsuits for teaching biblical truth about homosexuality or transgenderism.”
As astounding and disturbing as this is, criminalization of traditional Christian beliefs shouldn’t take us by surprise. The “darkness” is acting exactly how we would expect it to act.
Of far greater concern is the apparent embracing of homosexual behavior, transgenderism, and same-sex marriage by the church at large. While the church has no ability to criminalize traditional Christianity, its leaders often claim that Christians who don’t accept homosexuality in the church are unloving, unholy, and sometimes even unchristian. The average Christian in the pew is left believing his or her traditional beliefs regarding sexuality are archaic and no longer acceptable in America. And so they remain silent on the subject (connoting acceptance or approval), not wanting to appear ignorant or unspiritual.
There has been a slow but unrelenting indoctrination of Americans over the past 30 years (at least) to normalize same-sex relationships and to undermine any belief in absolutes. The current dilemma we face today is undoubtedly due in part to the pervasive influence of the public educational system. Younger generations have been thoroughly brainwashed with a worldview that sees homosexuality, transgenderism, and even gender fluidity as socially acceptable expressions of diversity. And these younger people have now become leaders in our churches. Some are even pastors. For some of them, homosexuality isn’t really an issue; it’s just a fact of life, and lay Christians are urged to just get over it and accept it. This, they contend, is the only loving response. And they use Scripture to back up their argument.
Last month I wrote a blog article called, “Responding to LGBTQ Inclusion in the Church – Conversation or Capitulation?” In that article, I mentioned that at a future time I would address each of the points in the “biblical case” presented on The Reformation Project’s website, which you can read here: “A Brief Biblical Case for LGTBQ Inclusion.” Now is that time. Since I’m summarizing Matthew Vines’ article here (except for the main points, which appear in numbered blue text below), I urge you to read his entire article so you can see I’m not taking his points out of context. In case you didn’t read my earlier article, Matthew Vines is an LGBT activist, author of God and the Gay Christian, and founder of The Reformation Project, whose purpose is “to equip and empower Christians to advocate for LGBTQ inclusion in their faith communities.” Here are the 10 points of their “biblical case” for LGBTQ inclusion in the church.
The Reformation Project’s “Biblical Case” for LGBT Inclusion
1. Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to LGBT people.
Matthew Vines argues here that since the Sermon on the Mount teaches us to bear good fruit, and since the rejection of same-sex relationships causes suffering and harm to LGBT people, then it is wrong for Christians to reject homosexuality. I hate to disappoint Mr. Vines, but “good fruit” cannot be construed to mean “compromising biblical principles simply so we don’t offend someone or make them feel guilty.” In 2 Corinthians 7:8, Paul refers to a harsh letter he wrote to the church at Corinth. He says, “Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it–I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while…” Paul had to be harsh in correcting sin, even if it caused pain and sorrow for his hearers. In the next verse, Paul acknowledges that God had intended them to feel sorrow, because their sorrow led to repentance.
It’s not Christians who reject same-sex relationships; it’s God. Might this cause tremendous suffering to LGBT people? Sin always does. The remedy is not for the church to capitulate to sinners, but for sinners to capitulate to Scripture.
2. Sexual orientation is a new concept, one the Christian tradition hasn’t addressed.
Vines insists that the very concept of sexual orientation is new and that the church hasn’t spoken to the “modern issue” of same-sex relationships (only to the behavior as a vice). This is what happens when a culture attempts to make sin normative; they confuse the issues and distort both Scripture and religious faith traditions. Since homosexual behavior is universally condemned in Scripture, it would go without saying that any homosexual relationship, even one that is an expression of an “orientation,” is equally wrong. This would have been obvious to anyone, so there would have been little need to publicly discuss the issue or to write about it throughout church history.
While discussing homosexuality in the context of an “orientation” may be new to us, I think it’s fair to say that it isn’t “new” to God (unless Matthew Vines is saying there was no such thing as a sexual orientation until this century). If God knew that an acceptable expression of same]-sex relationships would one day be manifested in our culture, He would have been a little clearer about that in Scripture, don’t you think? No matter what the reason for expression, God specifically calls the behavior detestable.
Appealing to the newness of an excuse for sin (sin being defined as a blatant disregard of a known law of God) isn’t a “biblical case” for its legitimacy. It is a rejection of scriptural authority. [* Please see Ken Davis, Jr.’s excellent observation on gay marriage throughout history, which proves neither sexual orientation nor same-sex marriage is “new,” in the comments below.]
3. Celibacy is a gift, not a mandate.
And the faulty logic continues. Matthew Vines contends that celibacy is supposed to be voluntary, so if Christians require gay people to remain celibate, they are “at odds with” what the Bible teaches about celibacy. What he fails to understand is that no one is requiring anyone to be celibate, but everyone is required to express sexuality within the confines God established – one man and one woman within the context of marriage. Everyone has the same freedom to engage with a member of the opposite sex – but not just anyone. You can’t have sex with your mother or father or sister or grandchild or step-sister or aunt or uncle or daughter-in-law or your neighbor’s wife or with another man or with an animal (see Leviticus 18:6-23). “Everyone who does any of these detestable things – such persons must be cut off from their people” (Leviticus 18:29). These verses don’t mean that a man who falls in love with his sister or his neighbor’s wife must remain celibate for the rest of his life, but it does mean he can’t have sex with HER. If a man has an attraction to animals (which, apparently some did and still do), he simply is not permitted to have sex with the animal (even if he claims it is his orientation or he is in a committed relationship). That doesn’t mean the church is requiring him to be celibate. He just can’t have sex with his preferred partner.
The faulty logic comes from believing because celibacy is not a mandate, people are free to express their sexuality as they see fit (ignoring God’s commands found elsewhere in Scripture). All of Scripture needs to be taken together, and one command (or absence of a command) doesn’t nullify the others.
4. Sodom and Gomorrah involved an attempted gang rape, not a loving relationship.
Sodom and Gomorrah were proverbial for their wickedness and for God’s judgment of idolatry, adultery, and evil (Jeremiah 23:14). Matthew Vines states that these cities were chastised for their “arrogance, inhospitality, and apathy toward the pooer, but never for same-sex behavior” [emphasis added]. Ezekiel 16:49-50 describes Sodom’s sins: they were arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, refused to help the poor and needy; they were haughty AND THEY DID DETESTABLE THINGS BEFORE ME” (a phrase conveniently left out of Vines’ list). In Genesis 18, the angels of the Lord who had visited Abraham and warned of impending judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah were unable to find even 10 righteous people there. As an example of Sodom’s wickedness, we read of the attempted homosexual gang rape in Genesis 19. That’s how evil the city had become! Jude 7 (in the New Testament) specifically points to Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual immorality and perversion, and in Leviticus 18:22, as mentioned above, God specifically says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
So, in addition to other sins, Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of doing detestable things before God, and God reminds the Israelites in Leviticus that lying with a man as one lies with a woman (i.e., homosexual sex, even if it’s in a committed relationship as it would have been between an Israelite man and woman), is detestable. It’s clear that God wasn’t destroying the cities ONLY because of gang rape and the rest of the list. Since Lot didn’t hesitate to offer his daughter to the perverse mob, we can conclude it was specifically the homosexual nature of the attempted rape that was abhorrent (at least to Lot) and amounted to a detestable thing before the Lord. Not that any attempted rape is not detestable, but the sin of Sodom was so grievous that its inhabitants even resorted to homosexual rape, which is what is highlighted in the passage.
5. The prohibitions in Leviticus don’t apply to Christians.
Vines acknowledges at this point in his article that same-sex intercourse is condemned in Leviticus, but he counters that the Levitical law “has never applied to Christians in light of Christ’s death.” He mentions a list of other prohibitions in Leviticus “none of which Christians continue to observe” (which is not necessarily true, since I myself refrain from everything he listed, and I would venture to guess that I’m not alone in that regard).
It’s hard to know where to start with this kind of logic. Leviticus 18:23 condemns sex with animals; 19:15 commands the Israelites not to pervert justice; 19:16 says not to slander and not to do something that endangers your neighbor’s life; 19:26 says not to practice divination or sorcery; 19:29 says not to make your daughter a prostitute. Do none of these apply to Christians? Really? I know Mr. Vines didn’t forget that the New Testament also condemns homosexual behavior, because he refers to those verses in his next point.
Ephesians 2:15 tells us that Christ has abolished the law with its commandments and regulations, but then Paul goes on in chapter 4 to tell his readers to live as children of the light and to put off the old self “which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires.” In chapter 5, he warns his readers that there should not be even a hint of sexual immorality among them. So, what gives? We no longer need the regulations of the law because God’s law is written on our hearts. When we come to Christ, we become new creatures and the old is washed away. But that doesn’t mean everyone gets to determine their own standard of morality. And it doesn’t mean the Old Testament law doesn’t have a place in our lives:
1 Timothy 1:8-11 (NIV)
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality [emphasis added], for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Just saying the Old Testament doesn’t apply to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to you, especially when the same prohibitions are repeated in the New Testament. That is the ultimate test of whether or not a prohibition is enduring for the church. It is simply ignorant to think Jewish morality as expressed in the Old Testament wasn’t practiced by the early church (Acts 15 notwithstanding). The book Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics by Markus Bockmuehl shows from primary sources that early Christians were profoundly influenced by the Old Testament law.
The law is what makes us conscious of sin, but it is Christ who gives us the power over sin (see Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-13). While some LGBT adherents claim to be Christian, the very nature of their behavior and their attempt to rationalize and legitimize that behavior by appealing to Scripture and ignoring the parts with which they disagree attests that they are not.
6. Paul condemns same-sex lust, not love.
Vines contends that Paul’s explicit condemnation of same-sex intimacy in Romans 1:26-27 is condemning only lust, not loving, long-term relationships. He also contends that men having long hair is also considered “unnatural” by Paul, and since most Christians consider hair length cultural, homosexuality is similarly only a cultural taboo. Let’s take a look at this passage.
Romans 1:24-27 (NIV)
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Notice that Paul describes homosexual activity as “shameful lusts,” “unnatural,” and “error” [more precisely, an idolatrous delusion]. Paul has no trouble connecting homosexuality with idolatry. Degrading their bodies with one another and exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (which he details here) is a form of idolatry, worshipping one’s own sensual desires above God and His commands for mankind. Matthew 5:28 and 1 John 2:16 use the word “lust,” but the word used in those cases isn’t the same word(s) used here in Romans. In fact, in the Greek, the word “lust” isn’t used here at all. instead, this passage speaks of a shameful passion and a burning desire. So, does that mean if two men or two women aren’t sexually lustful toward one another that their relationship is therefore blessed by God? Certainly not. Paul appeals to God as the Creator, who certainly didn’t create humans to engage in this kind of behavior (and so it is deemed “unnatural”). The passion is shameful because it is directed to a member of the same sex. The burning desire (“inflamed with lust”) led men to commit “shameful acts” with other men. The shameful acts were still shameful, even without lust. It is a delusion; a lie. God gave them over to it so they would believe it was natural and normal and loving and wholesome. But God says it isn’t.
Paul doesn’t have “long-term, loving same-sex relationships in view” because the behavior is incompatible with Christianity. You can’t claim the fundamental aspect of a sin isn’t sinful simply because you negate the feeling (passion or desire) that leads to it. It would be like saying “malicious gossip” is a sin, but if I gossip and it isn’t malicious, it’s OK.
Vines says the unnaturalness of men wearing long hair is equivalent to the unnaturalness of homosexuality. I agree. But not with his conclusion.
“The particular argument of this passage, however, derives from the fact that in this context the perversion of hairstyles denoted a perversion of sexual identity. For a man to wear female hairstyle was a way of communicating effeminacy and thus homosexuality. It is likely, therefore, that for Paul men’s long hair is ‘unnatural’ not just by common convention or sentiment, but especially because of what it is perceived to denote in the moral realm. As we saw in Romans 1, both Paul and Hellenistic Judaism decried homosexual acts as intrinsically contrary to the created order.” [Jewish Law in Gentile Churches, p. 134]
So, men wearing long hair today is not unnatural if it’s not an expression of homosexuality. The “unnatural” part of wearing long hair was precisely its tie to homosexuality, making hair length a changing cultural issue but the underlying principle (that homosexuality is unnatural) one that transcends time.
7. The term “homosexual” didn’t exist until 1892.
Vines contends that “neither the concept nor the word for people with exclusive same-sex attraction existed before the late 19th century.” He also asserts that 1 Corinthians 6:9 (which states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God) and 1 Timothy 1:10 do not condemn all gay people and relationships.
This is another confusing argument because Vines is actually making two arguments, one about using the word homosexual and another about the Bible not referring to “exclusive” homosexual relationships.
Paul uses the word “arsenokoitai” in these passages, which translators have rendered as “homosexual offenders.” The word had a specific meaning to the people of that day. If “homosexual” offends Vines because it was coined in the 1950s, then I suppose we could go back to using arsenokoitai, although that would make the Bible less understandable to modern readers. The goal of translators is to choose a word that accurately reflects the meaning of a word in Greek or Hebrew so that readers of Scripture understand the meaning of a passage. It is not wrong to use a word that is familiar to culture today. In the article, “Is Arsenokoitai Really That Mysterious?” C. Wayne Mayhall of the Creation Research Institute concludes:
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.
Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a “man-lier”). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, “Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Don’t do that!”
Exclusive relationship or not, both the Old Testament and New Testament are clear that sexual intercourse between two men or two women is not acceptable behavior for God’s people. You can’t make sinful behavior acceptable simply by practicing it in the context of an exclusive long-term relationship. The behavior is still sinful.
8. Marriage is about commitment.
The argument here is that if marriage is a “lifelong commitment to a partner,” then same-sex marriage should be permissible. However, there is no same-sex marriage in the Bible, nor in any culture until recent times, because same-sex intercourse was strictly forbidden. Using Vines’ flawed logic (i.e., sin is acceptable as long as the relationship is long-term, and marriage is permissible for anyone in such a relationship), society could render any deviant behavior/marriage as acceptable as long as it is a lifelong commitment – man-boy love, man-animal, brother-sister, adult-child, etc. Yes, marriage is a commitment, but it is only valid insofar as the marriage doesn’t violate what God has strictly forbidden.
9. Human beings are relational.
Now Vines starts grasping at straws to find a rationale for same-sex relationships, but it isn’t biblical. He says that people need relationships and that sexuality is “a core part of what it means to be a relational person.” If we condemn homosexuality, he says, we damage LGBT people’s ability “to be in relationship with all people – and with God.” By that logic, anyone who is unable to have sex – because of physical disability, because they are unmarried or their spouse died, or because they just haven’t found their soul mate – isn’t able to have a relationship with all people and their relationship with God is damaged. Is he saying I can only be in relationship with people if I have sex with them? I have friends who are female, but sexuality isn’t a “core part” of our relationship, or any part for that matter. I think he’s mistaken if he thinks sexuality is the “core part” of what it means to be relational. There are plenty of people who are relational without being sexual. God is relational but not sexual. Jesus was relational without being sexual. While I believe sex is good and healthy, I don’t believe it is what defines us as relational people. As Dr. Everett Piper, president of OKWU, says, “We are not defined by our libidos.”
10. Faithful Christians are already embracing LGBTQ members of the church.
Vines cites the acceptance of homosexuality by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as part of his “biblical case” for the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. He says “increasing numbers of evangelical churches” in America are also committing to LGBT equality, setting the example for other believers in their affirmation of “LGBT Christians.”
Citing acceptance as rationale for legitimacy is not biblical. And it can be downright heresy. Compromise with the world may be applauded by those who want their sin to be accepted, but it is not faithfulness. Am I saying these churches and pastors are wrong? YES. Anyone who tells you your sin is acceptable doesn’t love you. They don’t care about your soul. They think they are being compassionate and loving, but they are just the opposite.
Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…”
2 Corinthians 10:12 – “We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise.”
2 Timothy 4:2-4 – “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Why does all this matter?
Vines “biblical case” is anything but biblical.
While denominations like The Wesleyan Church have affirmed the traditional Christian view of sexuality, others appear to be waffling. Trinity Family Midtown Church of the Nazarene (Kansas City, MO) flaunts its ministry – “Love Wins LGBT” – on its website and recently shared its ministry in a conference expo hall, adorning its display with the rainbow flag associated with the LGBT movement. They “take seriously the call of the great commission to make disciples in ALL communities.” They give the impression (whether true or not), that homosexuals can keep their sin and still be accepted in the church as Christians. They give the impression that they condone the sin. Now, that might not be true, and I sincerely hope our holiness churches aren’t giving in to sin in order to be more accepted by the culture at large. [But see my earlier article, Responding to LGBTQ Inclusion in the Church – Conversation or Capitulation? which proves we have reason for concern even in the Wesleyan Church.]
Culture is moving so quickly toward embracing homosexuality, to the point where states like California are pushing measures to make it unlawful to preach the truth about homosexual behavior and God’s ability to heal the marred image reflected by homosexuals and other sinners. Who would have thought 20 years ago that same-sex marriage would be so quickly accepted by American culture? Who would have dreamed that transgenderism and gender fluidity would be applauded? And who could have ever guessed that Christian churches would welcome and embrace perversion?
Who knows what lies ahead? We need to prepare ourselves, as Christians, to stand up for what is true. We need to stand for righteousness and the truth of God’s Word. It isn’t enough to stand by and claim it’s someone else’s war to fight. It’s not enough to relinquish our responsibility because others know the Bible better than we do. We need to know the truth and then share the truth. And we can’t be afraid to stand for truth.
What can you do?
- Pray for our leaders to stand strong on the Word of God and not be bullied into accepting alternate lifestyles as normative. Pray that church leaders would be brave enough to stand for truth even if it makes them unpopular. Pray they will want to be faithful more than being liked.
- Treat people like people, regardless of their orientation or behavior. If we want to win people to Christ, we need to treat them like people God loves. Sexuality is not what defines people, so you shouldn’t be thinking about anyone’s sexual preferences when you engage them in conversation. Treat them like people who need Jesus, because that’s what they are.
- Engage overt homosexuals in conversation, when appropriate. Talk to people and get to know them, but never condone sin. If the subject of homosexual behavior comes up, ask them if it’s OK for you to share what the Bible says about homosexuality. If they say no, then you should change the subject. It does no good to have a conversation with someone about a subject if they aren’t interested in hearing what God has to say about it. In the end, acceptance of homosexuality isn’t about what culture says is right or wrong, but about what God says is right or wrong.
- Remember that God’s Word is truth and light and life. Don’t apologize for speaking truth or sharing God’s Word (see Romans 1:16-17). But do share the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and with gentleness (1 Peter 3:15).
- Equip yourself so you are comfortable sharing. Read and learn. Study Scripture. Read good books and blogs. Follow Dr. Everett Piper and watch for his soon-to-be-published book, “Imago Dei or Imago Dog?“
- Share this article with other Christians who need to be equipped.
