Kevin DeYoung identified different homosexual groups in What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality: “Much of this disagreement exists because we have many different constituencies in mind when we broach the subject. There are various groups that may be listening when we speak about homosexuality, and the group we think we are addressing usually dictates how we speak.”
1. We may be speaking to Strugglers who fight against same-sex attraction. To this group, “We want to be patient and sympathetic.”
One example is teens at puberty. “Studies have shown that a child who reaches puberty can either become a homosexual or heterosexual depending on environmental factors. Roger, a homosexual prostitute who converted to Christ and was later married said, ‘I was introduced to homosexuality by a man across the street when I was about six years old. I both hated it and loved it; at last I had a man to turn to. Then when I reached the teen years, I just assumed I was gay and opted for the lifestyle’” [1]
2. We may be speaking to Cultural elites who despise us and our beliefs. To the cultural elites “We want to be bold and courageous.”
Erwin Lutzer believes that 2 percent of the American population has forced the homosexual agenda on America. Lutzer shows the game plan of two gay activists. [2]
1) Talk publicly about Gays until homosexuality becomes the new normal. The media is a willing accomplish.
2) Portray Gays as victims. When Mathew Shepard, a young homosexual, was murdered in 1998, his death was blamed on James Dobson of Focus on the Family. It was later discovered by 20/20 that Matthew Shepard was murdered by irreligious drunkards who were motivated by drugs and money, not hatred of gays.
3) Make Anti-gays look nasty. We give them ammunition when members of Westboro Baptist Church carry “God Hates Fags” signs at gay events. The author of this article disagrees with the Westboro Baptist Church's anti-gay approach. The apostle Paul won gays to Christ according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. I am sure he did not win them through hate speech.
3. We may be speaking to Sufferers mistreated by the church. To the sufferers, “We want to be winsome and humble.”.
4. We may be speaking to Shaky Christians who seem ready to compromise the faith for society’s approval. Albert Mohler referred to a survey where only 51 percent thought homosexuality was a sin. To shaky Christians, “We want to be persuasive and persistent.”
5. We may be speaking to Gays and Lesbians who live as the Scriptures would not have them live. To these, “We want to be straightforward and earnest.”
6. We may be speaking to Belligerent Christians who hate or fear homosexuals. To this group, “We want to be clear and corrective.”[3]
7. We may be speaking to Liberal Christians who have deviated from the truth once delivered for the saints i.e., pro-gay theologians.
There are pro-homosexual Bible teachers who claim that the Word of God does not condemn homosexuality such as Walter Barnett and John J. McNeill. McNeill writes: “Nowhere in the Scripture is there a clear condemnation of a loving sexual relationship between two gay persons.”[4]
Six passages deal with homosexuality about which these Gay theologians claim no condemnation
Genesis 19:1-11
The first passage is Genesis 19:1-11. The first homosexual interpretation states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not simply homosexuality but homosexual gang rape.
“Jude 7 gives a commentary on this passage. It clearly states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange or different flesh. It is no accident that Jude describes their actions by using ‘fornication.’ The verb definitely refers to sexual immorality.”[5]
The next homosexual reinterpretation claims that the sin of Sodom was a gross violation of a hospitality code. Lot broke the code of hospitality because he was a resident alien. He received two foreigners who might have hostile intentions. The two visitors should have first been received by the citizens of Sodom.
If this was the case why did Lot not just introduce everyone if the problem was a breach of hospitality? Why did Lot offer his daughters for sexual pleasure, if the problem was a lack of hospitality? If the sin of Sodom was a breach of the hospitality code, Lot broke it and not the inhabitants of Sodom. But Lot was not judged, and the two cities were.
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Another passage the pro-homosexuals reinterpret is Leviticus 18:22. In Leviticus 18:3, God commanded Israel not to live like the unsaved nations of Egypt and Canaan and then proceeded to specifically instruct what this meant. In two passages, God forbad the practice of homosexuality. God in Leviticus 18:22 forbids homosexuality and 20:13 assigns the death penalty for homosexuality. Here is how one pro-homosexual advocate dismisses these prohibitions:
It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have taken other proscriptions found in the same Old Testament Code, e.g.: rules against eating of rabbit (Lev. 11:26), oysters, clams, shrimp, and lobster (Lev. 11:10ff), and rare steaks (Lev. 17:10). Evangelicals do not picket or try to close down seafood restaurants nor do we keep kosher kitchens. We do not always order steaks “well done.” We eat pork and ham. The wearing of clothes made from interwoven linen and wool (Deut. 22:11) does not seem to bother us at all. Evangelicals do not say, in accordance with these same laws of cultic purification (Lev. 20:13), that those who practice homosexual activity should be executed as prescribed .... Evangelicals do not demand the death penalty for the Jeane Dixons of this world (Lev.20:27) nor do we “cut off” from among the people, as is demanded by this same Code, those who have intercourse with women during menstruation (Lev. 20:18) and those who marry women who have been divorced (Lev. 21:14). Evangelical do not keep out of the pulpit those who are visually handicapped or lame or those “with a limb too long” (Lev. 21:18ff). [6]
Brian McLaren is very sympathetic to Bair’s view of the irrelevance of the Old Testament Law and Evangelical inconsistent application of the Old Testament Law:
These questions are all the more challenging for some of us when we realize that the Leviticus texts themselves if taken literally, call for the death penalty. Nobody (I don’t think?) takes that literally, nor do we take many of the other 611 Mosaic proscriptions literally. Why take these selected verses literally, and only partially so? And it gets even more complex for some of us when we realize that people in later Biblical times didn’t enforce some of these proscriptions literally either. For example, David committed adultery but wasn’t killed as Leviticus 20:10 would require; why didn’t Nathan require the death penalty for David and Bathsheba when he brought the word of the Lord? [7]
The issue with the priestly Holiness Code of Leviticus is not a literal hermeneutic but whether God’s people today are dispensationally still under the Law as a rule of life. The answer is no. Still, there are moral principles from the Old Testament reincorporated in the New Testament that are binding today. Some of these restated moral principles were before the Law such as the capital punishment requirement in Genesis 9 which is restated in Romans 13. As in David’s case, some exceptions do not eliminate the rule. While the civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of the Law were terminated with Christ (Romans 10:4) some of the sins condemned in the Old Testament are likewise condemned in the New Testament.
The Mosaic law has been done away in its entirety as a code. God is no longer guiding the life of man by this particular code. In its place, He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the individual commands within that law are new, but some are not. Some of the ones which are old were also found in the Mosaic law and they are now incorporated completely and some are forever done away. As part of the law of Christ they are binding on the believer today. [8] Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament (Rom 1:26-27) but the dietary restrictions have been done away with (Acts 10:15).
Romans 1:26-27
In the New Testament Gay theologians use the “abuse argument” to justify homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. The most common reinterpretation is that Paul is condemning unnatural homosexual acts.
In his catalog of vices in which homosexual behavior is listed, it should be noted that it is included with what the apostle regarded as certain heterosexual sins such as adultery, fornication, Epicurean over-indulgence, and general abuse of the body. For perspective, note should be taken of Paul’s equally weighty inclusion in this passage of drunkards and the repeated censure of the greedy, the grasping, and those who steal. Here are simply other examples of sinful abuse, since, for example, Paul advocated alcoholic temperance but not necessarily abstinence. He recommends to young Timothy that he drink some wine (1 Tim. 5:23). Elsewhere, Paul urges whole-hearted enthusiasm in all that one undertakes, but that does not mean the abuse of over-indulgence, greed, or coveting in the process (1 Cor. 10:31). One should not assume uncritically that there is in the Corinthian passage a proof text against all homosexuality or even all homosexual acts. Of course, homosexual behavior can be perverted and sinful and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be – or any kind of activity can be – but this is not the same as rejecting either sexual orientation or specific acts as sinful as such. [9]
It is correct that Paul is condemning abuses in this vice list. However, for a vice to be an abuse there must be a corresponding norm that is godly and healthy. The adultery and fornication are the abuse of the “one flesh” relationship of marriage that God ordained in Genesis 2. What is the responsible norm that homosexuality is the abuse of in Scripture? The norm is not godly or responsible homosexuality but heterosexuality as stated in Genesis 1 and 2.
John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg write: We find it significant that those favoring homosexuality seldom discuss Genesis 1 and 2. However, those chapters recount God’s creation of man as male and female, not male and male or female and female. God then explicitly tells Adam and Eve that they are to reproduce. Does this not clearly imply that God’s desired order for human sexuality is that men and women will have sexual relations with one another, not with members of the same sex? We think so. Some may object that God created man as male and female only because that was the only way to propagate the race; other than reproduction; homosexual and lesbian relationships are fine …. The same God who created Adam from the dust of the ground could have produced the rest of the race by special creation, and the rest of that race could have been male only. God created woman not because there was no way to produce the race, but because woman is the proper helpmate for man. [10]
It is also argued by pro-homosexual advocates that “against nature” in Romans 1:26-27 is for a heterosexual to commit homosexual acts, which is against his nature or unnatural, and not for constitutional homosexuals to be involved in homosexuality which is natural for them. The homosexual is not desirous that everyone should be like him or her in sexual preference. Homosexuality is a variation from what is normal, i.e., heterosexuality. It is not, however, a sin or disorder. Nature is full of variations from its overall design. Some people are midgets, others are albinos, still others are left-handed. These, like homosexuals, are and always will be minority variations from the majority. These differences are not unique to our culture and time. They have always existed and will continue to do so. They evidence neither sin nor the fallen condition of humanity, but merely the lack of uniformity in nature. Rather than condemn them, we should affirm them and rejoice that they exist. [11]
There are two reasons this is a faulty argument for the meaning of “against nature.” The reason this argument is eisegesis is because homosexuality is not genetic or the result of being born a constitutional homosexual. Studies have not proved this. In addition, how could God condemn as sin a condition for which the person is not responsible? The second reason is that “against nature” means against the natural order for sexuality that God established in the Garden in Genesis when He stated, “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Paul includes in these two sin or vice lists homosexuality. The Greek words [Gk μαλακοὶ malakoi] and [Gk ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoites] refer respectfully to the passive and active partners in homosexuality. The homosexual interpretation states that this list cannot be taken seriously because we all are covetous. [12] “To say that a sin in a long list does not draw special condemnation does not mean Scripture approves the action. A vice list is still a vice list. Moreover, there is a failure to make a biblical distinction between a repentant sinner who seeks with God’s help to be free of some sin but who may at some time fail and an unrepentant sinner who follows a planned and uninterrupted course of disobedience. The vice lists refer to the latter, not the former. There is grace and forgiveness for the former.” [13]
Conclusion
Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture like other sins. Homosexuality is not genetic nor the result of someone’s environment. Homosexuality is a choice and homosexuals are responsible for their actions. Therefore, homosexuals should not be given a minority status. As D. A. Carson predicts, this will soon be a battle for the church of epic proportions: “I suspect that in our generation, for better and for worse, the homosexuality issue is becoming one of these triggering issues (like indulgences at the time of the Reformation) that is forcing upon us some profound reflections on whether we will submit to Scripture. [14]
Homosexuals can be saved just like other sinners (1 Cor 6). God loves homosexuals, Jesus died for homosexuals, and believers should seek to win them. But making excuses for their behavior or being uncertain if homosexuality is a sin or not, as McLaren and other church leaders do, is not in the best interest of homosexuals and will not help lead them to Christ and out of their sin.
I am concluding with ten commitments that DeYoung presented: I hope Christians and churches will consider making in their heads and hearts, before God and before a watching world.
We will encourage our leaders to preach through the Bible verse by verse and chapter by chapter that they might teach the whole counsel of God (even the unpopular parts) and avoid riding hobby horses (even popular ones).
We will tell the truth about all sins, including homosexuality, but especially the sins most prevalent in our communities.
We will guard the truth of God’s Word, protect God’s people from error, and confront the world when it tries to press us into its mold.
We will call all people to faith in Christ as the only way to the Father and the only way to have eternal life.
We will speak to all people about the good news that Jesus died in our place and rose again so that we might be set free from the curse of the law, saved from the wrath of God, and welcomed into the holy city at the restoration of all things.
We will treat all Christians as new creations in Christ, reminding each other that our true identity is not based on sexuality or self-expression but on our union with Christ.
We will extend God’s forgiveness to all those who come in brokenhearted repentance, everyone from homosexual sinners to heterosexual sinners, from the proud to the greedy, from the people pleaser to the self-righteous.
We will ask for forgiveness when we are rude or thoughtless or joke about those who experience same-sex attraction.
We will strive to be a community that welcomes all those who hate their sin and struggle against it, even when that struggle involves failures and setbacks.
We will seek to love all in our midst, regardless of their particular vices or virtues, by preaching the Bible, recognizing evidences of God’s grace, pointing out behaviors that dishonor the Lord, taking church membership seriously, exercising church discipline, announcing the free offer of the gospel, striving for holiness together, practicing the “one another” of Christian discipleship, and exulting in Christ above all things. [15]
[1] Lutzer, The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage, 93.
[2] Ibid., 19.
[3] DeYoung, Kevin. What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (p. 137). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
[4] John J. McNeill, “Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow,” Christian Century, March 11, 1987: 246.
[5] P. Michael Uklega, “Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1983) 262.
[6] Ralph Bair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963) 3.
[7] Brian McLaren. “Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” in “Out of Ur,” a Leadership Journal blog, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html
[8] Charles Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967): 246.
[9] Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 6.
[10] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993], 432.
[11] Walter Barnett, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Pendle Hill Pamphlets (Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications, 1979), 21-22.
[12] Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another View (San Francisco: Harper & Ro, 1978), 70.
[13] Feinberg, 200.
[14] D. A. Carson. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 172.
[15] DeYoung, Kevin. What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (p. 137). Crossway. Kindle Edition.