Friday, September 25, 2015

The Bible, Homosexuality, and a Christian Response - Part 5

The New Testament

Today’s article is a long one and I don’t even really like the conclusion. I tried to break it into two separate parts, but I couldn’t do it in a way that made sense to me and still allowed me to post it today.

A couple of weeks ago I read a quote attributed to Leonardo DaVinci:

“L'arte non è mai finita, solo abbandonato.”
– Art is never finished, only abandoned.

It’s kind of a stretch to call my blog posts “art,” but it’s kind of how I feel about this post. And yes, I do see the irony of quoting DaVinci who some believe was homosexual.

Anyway, I’m probably not going to be posting again until Monday, so you have all weekend to digest this article. I appreciate all those who have taken the time to read these articles… or at least open them up and read a few words.

Today’s article primarily deals with the New Testament verses on homosexuality.

Romans

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
— Romans 1:26-27

This is the first New Testament passage that refers to homosexual conduct and refers to both gay and lesbian activity.

There has been a lot of hemming and hawing regarding this passage among liberal scholars. The fact is that it does refer to consensual homosexual activity.

Some have proposed that this is referring to pagan temple prostitution. It is true that there were male prostitutes that other men frequented and that of course would have required homosexual activity. The language of this passage doesn’t support the interpretation that Paul is referring to pagan homosexual temple practices. Gay activists who say otherwise are interpreting this passage in light of their agenda.

Now Christian, before you go, “AHA! You see? God does hate fags!” You had better go take a very close look at Romans 2.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
— Romans 2:1

Romans 1:26-27 is part of a list of things that offend God. That list begins in verse 18 and goes all the way to the end of the chapter in verse 32. In addition to homosexuality, it includes things like idolatry, other sexual sin, gossip, pride, arrogance, and on and on and on. Read that whole passage and then look at what Paul writes in Romans 2:1. He says, “who are you to judge when you are doing the very same things?!”

So when you wag your finger at a homosexual for violating God’s design for sex, don’t forget that you are a sinner too and you need forgiveness and grace just as much as a homosexual does.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:10

The message of the New Testament is that nobody can keep the law. Yes, the New Testament teaches us that we should aspire to the Moral Law, but we will fail. We all have secret sins that we deal with. For some it is gossip. For some it is alcoholism. For some it is pornography and sex addiction. And for some, it is homosexuality. Everybody is dealing with something, so nobody should be self-righteous about being heterosexual.

As I studied this passage in the context of the rest of Romans, I realized that Paul wasn’t pointing and wagging his finger at the people who were guilty of breaking the Moral Law. I came to the realization that Paul was writing this wagging his finger at people who are overly judgmental without realizing that they are guilty of many things too. He was wagging his finger at hypocrites.

This is kind of like what Jesus was talking about when he accused the Pharisees of condemning people and likened it to the Pharisees trying to pull a splinter out of someone’s eye when they have a beam in their own (Matthew 7:3-5).

Paul also wrote that he had struggles and failings of his own. In Romans chapter 7, Paul opens up about his constant struggles and failings. A lot of preachers like to put Paul on a pedestal. He did accomplish some amazing things in his life, but Paul preached in a way that knocked himself off the pedestal and put Jesus on it where He belongs.

Here’s the thing that a lot of Christians miss. Our attitude toward sin shouldn’t be yelling, screaming, disowning, or excommunicating. Our attitude toward sin in the lives of others should be a humble realization that we ourselves struggle with sin. When we do approach someone about suspected sin, it should be with the spirit of restoration.

Many churches don’t practice any kind of discipline these days. Of the ones that do, the biblical pattern for discipline isn’t followed. The biblical pattern is not about putting everyone’s dirty laundry on display for all to see, but rather it is about lovingly and humbly restoring those who have gone astray remembering that “all we like sheep have gone astray” (Isaiah 53:6).

I’ve promised to deal with a lot of issues in the future. Hopefully, the biblical framework for church discipline will be one of them.

1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
— 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
— 1 Timothy 1:8-11


In these passages, the phrases in question are found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. It is the phrase, “abusers of themselves with mankind” and “them that defile themselves with mankind”. Modern translations have translated these phrases in a number of ways. Some translate it the same way as the King James Translators did. Some translate it as “sodomites” which is incorrect, as I pointed out two days ago. Some translate it as “homosexuals” which is a better translation.

At issue is the Greek text. The whole phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind” comes from one Greek word, ρσενοκοται (arsenokoitai) which doesn’t appear in any other writings of the ancient world. This word appears two times in ancient Greek writing, evidently, and they are both here in these passages. Many liberal scholars and textual critics say they are confused over this word, but that seems strange to me. If a person has studied Greek to where they are considered a scholar or an expert, a simple etymological study would help to understand what Paul is trying to communicate.

The word arsenokoitai is a compound word combining “arseno”, meaning “man” and “koitai” meaning “to bed” and is a euphemism for “to have sexual intercourse with.” Koitai is where we get our modern word “coitus.” Thus, Paul coined a new word that literally translates to “men that have sex with men.” Since arsenokoitai is only one word, the most direct translation would be “homosexuals” which is fine because in ancient Greece, there were a lot of euphemisms for homosexuals, but no direct word that had that plain meaning.

Some have postulated that Paul is talking about men who were partaking of the pagan male prostitutes. Some have even said that the translation of the word μαλακο (malakoi) which the KJV translates as “effeminate” may refer to the male temple prostitutes and the arsenokoitai were their clientele.

Malakoi is just the masculine of “soft” and is translated that way elsewhere in the bible. A man who was malakoi would be a soft man. Essentially weak. Since Paul doesn’t put a lot of spiritual stock in physical fitness despite being an athlete, Paul is not talking about a person who is homosexual or a prostitute, but a person who is morally weak. If Paul wanted to talk about male prostitution, he had several well-known words to choose from: Pornai, astynomoi, and hetera to name just a few.

When dealing with the word arsenokoitai, there is still one more piece of evidence to consider. Most Jews in the first century actually didn’t speak Hebrew. Even in Israel, Jews mostly spoke Aramaic. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, so how would a Jew who didn’t speak Hebrew be able to read the Bible for themselves? By the second century BC, the common language of the Mediterranean and the Middle East was Greek. So, Jewish scholars translated the Bible into Greek. This Greek version of the Old Testament is known today as the Septuagint.

Paul, being trained as a rabbi under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), probably spoke Hebrew fluently, but his letters show that he was fluent in Greek too. That makes sense since he was a Roman citizen. Latin was used primarily in Rome and for official Roman business while Greek was used in everyday life and for regular business. That means that Paul would also be very familiar with the Septuagint.

Leviticus 18:22 (Septuagint):
καὶ μετά ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικείαν, βέλυγμα γάρ ἐστι.
Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikeian, Belugma gar esti.

Leviticus 20:13 (Septuagint):
καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετά ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανάτῳ
kai os an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos, Bdelugma epoiesan amphotroi Thauato

θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.
Thanatousthosau, enochoi eisin.

In these verses, as the Rabbinical scholars translated them, the words arseno and koitai are used to translate “man” and “to sleep with.” Paul coined a brand new word. It was a word that joined two other words that would have been very familiar to a person who had been exposed to the Septuagint. Ultimately, arsenokoitai simply alludes to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

We have already dealt with those two verses, so I won’t revisit them. But before we move on, let me point out one more thing in these New Testament passages. Note again, that just like in Romans, homosexuality isn’t the only sin mentioned. There are a lot of other sins mentioned in the verses in these passages. But then look at 1 Corinthians 6:11. Paul says, “and such were some of you.” That’s past tense. There were people who had become Christians and joined the church at Corinth who were previously doing some of these very same things, but they had changed.

The rest of First Corinthians shows that there were still people struggling with a lot of other sins. Actually, they weren’t really struggling, they were enjoying their sin. The church wasn’t practicing any kind of discipline and one man was having an affair with his own step-mother. There was a lot of embarrassment over this. One of the reasons Paul wrote to the Corinthians was to get them to practice some church discipline and Second Corinthians shows us that they did.

The bottom line is that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are referring to homosexual conduct and condemn it. However twhen you compare Romans and 1 Corinthians 6:11, we can see that the bible also gives hope that people can change.

That being said, let me say this. God doesn’t always take away all of our struggles. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 12:7 that he had a thorn in the flesh and asked God three times to heal him, but God never did. Paul records in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that Jesus revealed to him “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.”

In light of what Paul wrote in Romans, that the Romans were struggling with sin and Paul himself admitted to struggling with sin as well, it may be that some homosexuals will never, ever, ever be delivered from homosexuality in this lifetime. When a person examines the life of Paul and his writings, one can deduct that he was probably asexual and encouraged celibacy based on his own. However, he knew that marriage was designed by God and recognized its beauty and importance. In fact, Paul said in 1 Timothy 3:2 that one of the requirements for a person to be a pastor is that they be a married man.

While marriage was designed by God to be beautiful, Christ taught that celibacy could be beautiful too.

12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
– Matthew 19:12

In some countries, the term eunuch referred to a man who had been emasculated. In the ancient world, some countries also used the term to mean a person who was in a position of government authority. An example would be the Ethiopian Eunuch mentioned in Acts 8 who was a servant of Queen Candace, although many scholars say he was a literal eunuch as well. When Jesus spoke of eunuchs, however, he wasn’t referring to either of those things. He was referring to people who remained celibate. There are those who were born asexual, there were some who were placed into positions that required them to remain celibate, and finally, there were people who became celibate to dedicate themselves solely to God’s kingdom work.

Celibacy is a good option for Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction. That’s a tough statement for gay people to accept and I understand that. As Jesus said, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” In other words, not everyone can receive it. Celibacy is a hard life to live. Contrary to what Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, and other prosperity preachers say, the call to holiness is not a call to a life of ease, and neither is the Christian life. Biblically, becoming a Christian means a blessed eternal life, but a hard life on earth.

The Christian life is a struggle. It’s a life of persecution (2 Timothy 3:12), temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), and even sickness (2 Corinthians 12:7). In spite of all that, we can still have joy (Galatians 5:22). Even in the face of persecution (Acts 5:41), temptation (James 1:2), and sickness (2 Corinthians 12:9), a Christian can experience joy.

Biblical joy doesn’t depend on circumstance and it doesn’t mean that you constantly walk around with a syrupy smile on your face. Biblical joy means that we live our life with an assurance of salvation and eternal life beyond this world.

Popular street evangelist and preacher, Ray Comfort gives the illustration of a person in a plane with a parachute who is about to jump out because the plane is crashing. The person isn’t going to be very excited about being on a crashing plane. If the person is like me – afraid of heights, they really aren’t going to be excited about having to jump out of the plane. One thing is for sure, they are really grateful for the parachute. That’s pretty much what biblical joy is. We’re not happy about the trials we face, but we are happy that we have Jesus, salvation, and eternal life.

In an earlier post (Let’s Talk About Sin) I spoke briefly of repentance. I said that repentance is “…turning from unbelief to belief while simultaneously turning from sin to follow after righteousness…” Truly repenting means that you are in a struggling with sin to make righteousness and holiness your habit rather than giving in to sin. True repentance means that you are in the struggle to live righteously. The fact is that because all mankind have an inborn sin nature (Romans 5:12), no matter how hard you try to live righteously, you may sin less, but you will never be sinless.

Let me close with a passage from 1 John 1:

5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
– 1 John 1:5-10


There are two things we can conclude from this passage: 1. Everybody sins, even Christians, so we should never be self-righteous simply because we think our sins aren’t as bad as everyone else’s (Remember James 2:10); 2. When we sin, we should feel some guilt, but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up about it. The guilt should move us to repent and rededicate ourselves to righteous living. We should ask for forgiveness, trust that these verses are true – that God will forgive us, and keep pursuing holy habits.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

The Bible, Homosexuality, and a Christian Response - Part 4

Old Testament

In this article, I'm only going to look at the Old Testament commandments regarding homosexuality.

First I'll address Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 together.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
— Leviticus 18:22
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
— Leviticus 20:13

To “to lie with” is a biblical euphemism meaning “to have sex with,” simple as that. These verses obviously condemn homosexual behavior and don’t give any other qualification.

Now some say that these verses are part of the holiness code which is part of The Law and since Jesus fulfilled the Law, we are no longer under any obligation to obey these verses. This objection reveals a misunderstanding about Jesus’ work on the cross for one, two, it shows a misunderstanding of The Law itself, and three, it ignores some very important facts contained within The Law.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
— Matthew 5:17-20

Jesus did say that He came to fulfill the Law, but he also qualified that statement by saying that complete fulfillment wouldn’t be accomplished until “heaven and earth pass” (Mt 5:18). Obviously Heaven and Earth haven’t passed, so all the Law hasn’t yet been fulfilled.

The Law actually consists of three different kinds of law: Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral.

The first kind of Law is civil law. Much of this is pragmatic, cultural or directed specifically toward a Jewish audience. Things like dietary restrictions, clothing restrictions and so forth. A lot of restrictions were put on the Jews so they would be recognized as different from the countries surrounding them. They weren’t to blend in and adapt to cultures other than their own. Some of the civil restrictions had to do with the wanderings in the wilderness like the commandment not to wear clothes made from two types of fabric since that would cause the clothes to wear out quicker. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivities at the end of the 6th century BC, many of the Jews wore all kinds of clothes of all kinds of materials and combinations. The civil law also deals with penalties for breaking other laws including the Moral Law.

The second kind of Law is Ceremonial law and deals with offerings, sacrifices, religious observances and so forth. The message of the New Testament is that these laws were fulfilled by Christ on the cross. He is our Passover Lamb, He is our Sabbath, He has carried our sin away like the scape goat on the Day of Atonement.

The third kind is Moral Law. The Ten Commandments are the basis for moral law in the Bible. Whenever the Bible speaks on issues that The Ten Commandments refer to, then that issue falls under the moral law. On the subject of homosexuality, the Commandment referred to is the Seventh Commandment.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
— Exodus 20:14

When you study ancient rabbinical teaching, you discover that, according to Jewish thought, adultery in the Seventh Commandment referred to any kind of sexual conduct outside of a marriage between one man and one woman and not just marital infidelity. In other words, if you had pre-marital sex, you were also guilty of adultery. So, whenever you read laws about sexual conduct in The Law contained rest of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy), understand that you are dealing with Moral Law.

So are we under The Law or not?

In Acts 10, God reveals to Peter that believers are no longer required to observe dietary restrictions. In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem under the guidance of the Holy Spirit reveal that men are no longer required to be circumcised. When it comes to clothes, the New Testament mandate is simply modesty. But in the New Testament, we find that we are still prohibited from worshipping false gods, committing theft, murder, sexual sin, lying, and covetousness.

Some of the civil law also related to practices that were part of paganism like tattoos, piercings or shaving and braiding beards in different ways. I’m going to tell you right now that I won’t ever have a gauged ear and I probably won’t have a tattoo, but I won’t hold it against anyone who does do those things because frankly, in modern society, none of those things are associated with pagan religious practices anymore. Not to mention, the reason why beards are frowned upon in many evangelical churches despite the great hirsute preachers like Spurgeon and Moody has to do with facial hair being associated with rebellion in the 50s and 60s.

In other words, if you want to be clean shaven and have tattoos and piercings, knock yourself out.

Because of the general misunderstanding about how The Law works, Homosexual activists will claim that Leviticus 18 and 20 are part of the holiness code, so we are not bound by those laws anymore. The problem with that claim is that Leviticus 18 and 20 also prohibit incest, pedophilia, group sex, and bestiality. Are those things ok now? If not, why not? Why is homosexuality ok, but not the others?

Another objection would be that since Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for homosexual conduct, should Christians advocate for the death penalty for homosexuals? The simple answer is no.

The longer answer is that while the Levitical command is to put homosexuals to death, all penalties under The Law are part of the civil law. Under The Law, the government sets penalties for breaking its laws. Even when we disagree with the moral aspects of a government’s laws, we still have a responsibility to obey them to a point.

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
– Romans 13:1-7

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). He did not command us to try to set up His kingdom in this world. Christ said that when He returned, He would set it up. Until Christ returns, our Great Commission is to make disciples of all nations. It is not the job of the Church to try to get the governments of the world to become Christian theocracies. It is not the job of the Church to try and change people. Rather, it is the job of the Church to preach the gospel, encourage people to repent and turn to God in Christ and then He will change people.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

The Bible, Homosexuality, and a Christian Response - Part 3

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, John Martin 1852

Sodom and Sodomites

For hundreds of years, the term sodomite has been understood to mean "homosexual" and the term "sodomy" has meant homosexual conduct, especially in very conservative churches.

Legally, because of the Church's weird preoccupation with and attempted micromanagement of bedroom activities, sodomy has also often referred to any sexual conduct outside of heterosexual coitus. As a result, many of America's sodomy laws have outlawed any kind of sexual conduct outside of heterosexual coitus, even when enjoyed by husband and wife.

Unfortunately, the term sodomite has been greatly misused. Because so many Christians think that homosexual conduct was the only sin for which Sodom was punished, they automatically correlate homosexual conduct with the King James English word “sodomite” thinking it means homosexual.

In this article, I want to address the story of Sodom and the use of the word “sodomite” in hope that it will discourage Christians from using the story of Sodom to defend their position on homosexuality and to stop using the word “sodomite” in reference to homosexuals.

Genesis

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
— Genesis 19:1-11

I almost decided not to use this passage in these series of articles because while this passage implies homosexual behavior, it isn’t the type of homosexual behavior that homosexual activists are trying to gain approval of. Gay and lesbian activists are trying to get the culture to approve of loving, intimate relationships between two consenting people. That’s not what’s going on in this passage.

Genesis records that when the men of Sodom found out about the strangers staying with Lot, that they all gathered together to gang rape the strangers. They said, “Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Many translators have carried over through dynamic equivalency, the actual meaning of the euphemism “to know them.” They were saying, in plain terms, “Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them.”

Again, that’s not what homosexuals are pressing for acceptance of. This is describing a crime by any standard, ancient or modern. In addition, sexual assault and rape is only one crime for which Sodom was punished. Ezekiel tells us that Sodom was punished for quite a bit more than just homosexual conduct.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
— Ezekiel 16:49-50

Ezekiel puts abomination at the end of the list which is like a catch-all for anything that God doesn’t like. These verses also tell us that they were prideful, lazy, gluttonous, and selfish. The old English saying, “Idle hands are the devil’s tools” would be applicable here.

Homosexuality was obviously one thing that was going on, but in the Genesis narrative, it is criminal sexual assault. Ultimately, the activities for which Sodom was punished were just symptoms of a much larger problem — rampant, unchecked sin. Sodom had become a year around Mardi Gras. It was chaos and anarchy, and nobody cared about anybody but themselves and their own desires.

My conclusion on this particular passage is that it has no real place in the debate.

Sodomites

Just as the story of Sodom has no real place in the debate, the word “sodomite” should not be used either.

17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel.
— Deuteronomy 23:17

The word “sodomite” appears 5 times in the King James Version. It is translated from the word qadesh which actually appears six times in reference to a person or people. It appears twice in Deuteronomy 23:17 alone. Notice I said the word appears twice in this verse, but also notice the word “sodomite” only appears once in the English translation. That’s because the first time it appears, it is qedesha (feminine) and the second time it appears it is qadesh (masculine).

The term Sodomite also appears in 1 Kings 14:24 referring to one of the failures of king Rehoboam.

It appears in 1 Kings 15:12 describing the positive things that king Asa did during his reign. In this passage, Asa ordered all the sodomites to be exiled from Judah.

1 Kings 22:46 is the next verse where we see the term sodomite. In this verse, King Jehoshaphat exiles the sodomites that were still hiding out in Judah. Evidently, some of the sodomites decided to ignore king Asa’s order.

Finally, 2 Kings 23:7 talks about the achievements of king Josiah and that he tore down the houses of the sodomites.

So what were sodomites? Essentially, they were temple prostitutes. They may or may not have been involved in homosexuality. History tells us that there were Greek temple prostitutes that were involved in homosexuality. But the prohibition against qadeshim isn’t speaking specifically against homosexuality, rather, it is speaking against pagan temple practices. That’s why in Deuteronomy 23:17, it specifically refers to both female qadeshim (qedesha) and male qadeshim (qadesh).

Because of tradition and a lack of understanding of the historical and literary context of the word, people are misusing the term sodomite. I sat in a church service one time where an evangelist used the references in 1 Kings 15 and 22 to justify a homosexual holocaust. He interpreted those verses to mean that the listed kings actually put all the sodomites to death and that’s just not the case. And again, the word “sodomite” in the bible doesn’t refer to homosexuals.

I'm not advocating for political correctness and I totally support the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. So, if you want to continue using the story of Sodom and the term “sodomite” go right ahead. The real problem with the word “sodomite” is that I have never heard it used in a loving manner. It is always in the form of hatred, fear, or condemnation. Even in good churches with good people who I know do not fear or hate homosexuals, I still hear the word “sodomite” used in a spirit of meanness.

To me, it is a matter of the Golden Rule. Jesus said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12).

Treat people the way you want to be treated. A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. I have more...

We should make an effort to treat others the way we want to be treated. If I go to a doctor because I have cancer, I want him to tell me the truth, but I don't want him to be mean. People may not want to hear the biblical truth about anything, but being nice will make it a lot easier to hear.

What I am advocating for is biblical correctness. The bible doesn’t use the word “sodomite” to mean homosexuals, so neither should we.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

The Bible, Homosexuality, and a Christian Response - Part 2

Scriptural Authority as the Basis of the Discussion

For those who attempt to address the subject of homosexuality from a biblical perspective, regardless of their position, the first issue is a question of authority, specifically the authority and reliability of the Bible. Because of the scope of these articles, I can’t give a thorough defense of the reliability of scripture. That’s a whole subject unto itself.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17

What I can tell you as a foundation for this discussion is that I am convinced that the Bible is inerrant, authoritative and reliable on every subject it touches and that it serves as a reliable guide in many other areas it does not specifically address.

For example the Bible doesn’t talk about TV, movies, or the internet, but Psalm 101:3 does say, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes.” That tells me I should be careful about what I purposely watch. So, while the Bible doesn’t say anything about modern electronic media, it does give us a timeless guideline on how to address them.

Beginning from the perspective of biblical inerrancy and authority is called presuppositional apologetics. I am going to presuppose a position (the Bible is inerrant) to base my argument upon – that homosexual conduct is contrary to a Judeo-Christian life of faith.

Suffice it to say, if you don’t hold to the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of scripture, it doesn’t really matter what the Bible says any more than what the newspaper says. Many liberal Christians have a great respect for the Bible as literature. However, they seem to take a cafeteria approach to what they believe and what they don’t believe. That is, they take what they want to believe and leave the rest.

While that is a legitimate criticism of liberal theologians, I don't say it with a mean spirit. I have actually learned quite a bit from them. They often pose questions that conservatives are unwilling or afraid to ask, much less answer.

As Christians, if we hold to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, the foundation of our thinking should be based on scripture and then we should interpret the culture in that light. Unfortunately, Christians have a problem with looking at what the culture says or does and then trying to figure out how they can integrate the culture with what the Bible teaches. Many Christians try to interpret the Bible based on the current culture or scientific understanding, both of which will change as time goes on. That’s completely backwards.

It comes down to the question of which is better: to try and live according to man’s changing opinions or to live according to God’s unchanging word? Matthew 7:24-27 records Jesus saying what He thought about people who built their lives on His teaching.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Building your life on something that constantly changes is just as dangerous as building a house, or any other structure for that matter, on shifting sand. The Bible might not give the answers that people want and it may not give the answers that are popular, but the old saying goes, “What is right isn’t always popular and what is popular isn’t always right.”

The Bible on Homosexuality

There are six passages in the Bible that deal directly with the issue of homosexual conduct. Often referred to by LGBT activists as the “clobber verses” because Christians tend to use these verses hatefully and hypocritically in condemnation rather than as a warning of love from Christ. The six passages are:

·         Genesis 19:1-11
·         Leviticus 18:22
·         Leviticus 20:13
·         Romans 1:26-27
·         I Corinthians 6:9-11
·         1 Timothy 1:8-11


Over the next few days, I will address each one of these passages and hopefully, I will be able to both help Christians understand how to apply them in love and help homosexuals understand the message of God that is so often obscured by the typical Christian presentation.

Monday, September 21, 2015

The Bible, Homosexuality, and a Christian Response - Part 1


Cynthia Nixon, the actress who became famous for playing the part of Miranda in the HBO TV series “Sex and the City,” came out as gay in 2004, and began dating a Christine Marinoni, an education activist. They were engaged in 2009 and married in 2011.

Cynthia Nixon gave a speech where she said, “I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay. Gay is better.”[1]

Many gay activists criticized not only that line in her speech, but also questioned the validity of her relationship with her wife because she made it seem like homosexuality is a choice. Responding to the controversy, Cynthia Nixon said in a January 2012 New York Times interview, “And for me, it is a choice.” She went on to pose the question, “Why can’t it be a choice?”[2]

Cynthia Nixon is in good company with other people who are gay and say homosexuality is a choice. Liberal academic and social critic Camille Paglia has been openly homosexual since she was in college.

In a 1996 interview with Bill Maher on his show Politically Incorrect, Paglia stated, "Well, I think that we are in a period of very politicized gay activism now, where people are saying you're born gay. I don't believe for a minute you're born gay. My working hypothesis is that homosexuality is an adaptation to, in some cases, environmental pressures and so on."[3]

On the other end of the political spectrum is Tammy Bruce. She is an author, political talk-show host, and most closely identifies with the political right and the Republican Party. She said in an interview on C-SPAN in 2006, “It was a matter of choosing and for me—this irks the gay elite—for me it is a preference. It’s not an orientation.”[4]

Randy Thomas was the last executive vice president of Exodus International. Exodus International was a ministry that reached out to the homosexual community with the message of the gospel and hope that people can change their sexual identity. Randy Thomas considered himself to be gay. He said that he realized he was gay when he was 10 and “came out” when he was 19.[5]

A few years later, Randy became a Christian and changed his sexual orientation to heterosexual. He met and married a woman who he still describes as the love of his life. But, he was still struggling with same sex attraction and in 2015, he came out as gay again. He said that he never could change who he was and he had been lying to himself.

Randy Thomas isn’t the only person to become an ex-gay and then return to homosexuality, saying that they were denying their natural orientation.

John Paulk also touted the benefits of conversion therapy. He worked for Focus on the Family, Exodus International and began his own subsidiary ministry of Focus on the Family called Love Won Out. In September 2000, he was seen at a Washington, D.C. gay bar[6]. In 2003, Paul left both Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In 2013, he divorced his wife Anne. He now completely disavows reparative therapy and now identifies as gay[7].

Wade Richards was an ex-gay spokesperson for a ministry called Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth. In 2000, after working with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, an anti-homosexual political lobby group, Wade Richards came out as gay… again.[8]

For every story of a person who successfully changes their orientation, there seems to be another story of a person who failed to stay straight. It’s hard to say exactly what the success rates have actually been because no acceptable studies have been conducted on the subject. The studies that have been done suffer from sampling problems, erroneous criteria for determining success, and none have been long term.

I personally know many people who have struggled with their sexual identity. I know people who claim they were born with their sexual orientation. I know people who have identified as heterosexual for much of their life, but then came out as homosexual or bisexual. I also know two people who identified as homosexual, but became straight.

One friend said that homosexuality was simply an experimental phase in her life. Another friend admitted that he came across as effeminate in his teens and was called “faggot,” “queer,” “gay,” and “homo” so often that he wondered if that was indeed his sexual orientation. He was involved in art and dance was surrounded by people who told him he needed to accept that he was gay. Essentially, he was pressured into becoming gay. He finally gave in to the pressure and dated several men over the next few years. He suffered from serious sexual dysfunction. Finally, he realized that the problem was simply that he just wasn’t sexually attracted to men.

What can we conclude from these examples? Is homosexuality a choice or is it something you are born with? Or is homosexuality a much more complex subject? Narrowing down the options to two choices is simplistic, dishonest, and frankly, it is ignorant. How can Christians deal with this subject honestly, openly, and in a way that exhibits the love of Christ towards all people?

Probably thousands of Christian theologians, pastors, teachers, counselors, and others have written on this subject. I'm going to be one more voice in the cacophony these voices. I hope I have something to say worth reading.

Over the next few posts, I’m going to try to answer these questions as best as I can. I’m sure I won’t be as thorough as I would like and I won’t fully answer all questions and objections. In the next few articles, I am going to present what the Bible says about homosexual behavior. After that, I am going to address some of the questions and objections of LGBT advocates. Finally, I am hopefully going to present a Christian response based on the teaching and example of the Christ and the New Testament.

This may take a few weeks, so I need to state out front, I do feel thahomosexual behavior is incompatible with a moral Christian life of faith. This may hurt some. I don't mean it to be hurtful, just a statement of fact. I have many homosexual friends from all walks of life. I love them and pray for them. They also know exactly what I believe, many also know why I believe it and they still consider me a friend and love me in return.

I hope these series of posts help people understand why and how that's possible.



[1] Wong, Curtis M. "Cynthia Nixon On Being Gay: 'For Me It's A Choice'" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d.
[2] Witchel, Alex. "Life After ‘Sex’." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Jan. 2012.
[3] Maher, Bill. "Politically Incorrect an Evening with Camille Paglia." Politically Incorrect. HBO. 1996. YouTube. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez9Ae369HnM>.
[4] Slen, Peter, prod. "In Depth with Tammy Bruce." In Depth with Tammy Bruce. C-SPAN. 3 Sept. 2006. C-SPAN.org. <http://www.c-span.org/video/?193300-1/depth-tammy-bruce>.
[5] Wong, Curtis M. "Randy Thomas, Formerly Of Exodus International, Comes Out As Gay In Emotional Blog Post." Web log post. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Jan. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/randy-thomas-comes-out-_n_6463020.html>.
[6] Besen, Wayne R. Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies behind the Ex-gay Myth. New York: Harrington Park, 2003. Print.
[7] Schlanger, Zoë, and Elijah Wolfson. "Ex-Ex-Gay Pride." Newsweek.com. Newsweek, 1 May 2014. <http://www.newsweek.com/ex-ex-gay-pride-249282>.
[8] Richards, Wade Lee. "Free at Last by." Whosoever.org. Whosoever, 2001. Web. 21 Sept. 2015. <http://whosoever.org/v5i5/free.html>.