Here is a major paper that I did for my capstone class. I really enjoyed writing on this topic because so few people know much on the subject. I love people that are caught in homosexuality. I have had friends who are actively in the lifestyle. We are called to love these people. When you read this paper, try to keep it in mind that these are people who need the love of Christ just as much as anyone else, and that we are called to minister and preach the Word to them in love.
A
Christian Response and Assessment of Homosexuality
This paper will address basic homosexual
claims, give an overview of the consequences of homosexual marriage in both its
secular and Christian forms on the Church, and then formulate a Christian
response on the preceding basis.
The basic views of homosexual
activists and traditionalists on homosexuality can be summarized using a
“bio-psycho-social” model (Satinover, 1996, p. 19). The homosexual activists
believe that homosexuality is genetically determined and innate (biology),
irreversible, and its denial attributed to higher degrees of homosexual mental
problems (psychology), and is considered “normal” and akin to race (sociology)
(p. 19). In contrast, traditionalists view homosexuality as a choice (biology),
reversible (psychology), and as abnormal (sociology); an illness (p. 20). Core
to these conclusions is the assertion that homosexuality is either entirely
genetic, or choice. Part one of this paper will demonstrate that whether
homosexuality is genetic or choice is a false dichotomy, assess the potential
harm of homosexuality, and whether or not it’s activity is sinful biblically.
The conclusions from part one can set a
precedent for evaluating homosexual marriage in both its secular and
“Christian” forms in part two. In part three will be Christian responses to
homosexuality in and outside the church as it relates to marriage (both
directly and peripherally). Yet, it must be noted that for this paper, the
focus will be on homosexual men rather than on homosexual women because of
their prominence.
Part 1: Genetics, Harm
and Sin
Homosexuality
and Genetics. While the scope of this paper prevents discussion of the
corrupt politics that forced the American Psychiatric Association to change its
views of homosexuality in 1973 (Bayer, 1981, p. 104-105), it can discuss some
of the results of various studies that have been used as “evidence” of
homosexuality’s basis in genetics.
Satinover, a psychiatrist from
Harvard, cites Michael Bailey, Richard Pillard, Michael King, Elizabeth
McDonald, and others who worked with identical twins to demonstrate the genetic
basis of homosexuality (p. 85-87). In order for homosexuality to be entirely
genetic, there would have to be a 100% concordance rate between the identical
twins (p. 83). In other words, one identical twin will never be homosexual,
while the other is heterosexual. This is because if homosexuality is fully
genetic, then there can be no other factors that can influence one’s
homosexuality. Also in an experiment by Bailey and Pillard and another by King
and McDonald, are some non-identical twins and sibling groups whose concordance
rates are measured separately. If homosexuality is genetic, then the
concordance rates between the two latter groups should be very similar. This is
not what was found in those studies (p. 85, 89). Rather, what were found were
average concordance rates under 50% in identical twins growing up in the same
families (rather than separately), non-identical twins were 22 & 25%, and
non-twin brothers were 9.2 & 12% (p. 87, 89). The conclusions from those
popularly regarded studies demonstrate that non-genetic factors have a great
influence in determining one’s homosexuality. Non-identical twins are generally
closer relationally and do more together when compared to regular sibling
groups; however, since the difference in concordance was more than twice that
of regular sibling groups, environment clearly had a factor in the results (including
the less than 50% concordance rates in identical twins). Genetics experts Paul
Billings and Jonathan Beckwith agree when they said, referring to this data,
“The data in fact provide[s] strong
evidence for the influence of the environment. On average, both non-identical
twins and non-twin siblings share 50% of their genes. If homosexuality were a
genetic trait, the pairs in these groups should be homosexual a similar
percentage of the time. They certainly should [both] be homosexual [if one is]
more often than adopted siblings. But Bailey and Pillard’s data do not fit
those predictions” (1993, p. 60).
King
and McDonald also concluded that “discordance for sexual orientation in the
monozygotic pairs [identical twins] confirmed that genetic factors are an
insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation” (1992). As
well, William Byne and Bruce Parsons, Columbia University researchers, who
wrote a summative review of research on homosexuality, wrote:
“What is most intriguing about the
studies of Bailey and Pillard and of King and McDonald is the large proportion
of monozygotic twins who were discordant for homosexuality despite sharing not
only their genes but also their prenatal and familial environments. The large
proportion of discordant pairs underscores our ignorance of the factors that
are involved, and the manner in which they interact, in the emergence of sexual
orientation” (1993).
Another point that is commonly made
is that the brains of homosexuals are built differently than non-homosexuals,
to demonstrate a difference in genetics. However, as Satinover states, “the
brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain
experiences” (p. 79). Therefore, a blind person who reads brail will have the
part of their brain that controls their finger larger (p. 79). This is because
“the brain’s software is its hardware” (p. 80), and repetitive behaviour
(software) changes the physical makeup of the brain (hardware).
When a trait is behavioural,
genetics are rarely directly connected (p. 94). In other words, genetics often
incline people towards a particular behaviour, rather than determine it. Behaviour
is not akin to the genetic determination of eye-colour. To better illustrate
this point, is the example of a basketball player. There are no genes that
determine a person to be a basketball player; however, there are genes that
“code” for athleticism, height, strength, metabolism and so on (p. 94). Because
of the person’s aforementioned genes, they are more likely to become a
basketball player. They are not forced or determined genetically to become
such. Satinover suggests that if basketball playing was made subject to the
same tests that were done for homosexuality, they would find some “genetic”
component for that in much the same way (p. 94). The same is true for
predispositions to alcoholism, drug use and other addictions and behaviours (p.
96).
On the other side of the spectrum
are non-genetic factors that “influence the development of behaviour patterns”
(p. 97). Broadly stated, they are: Intrauterine (prenatal and subject to that
stage’s hormones), extrauterine (postnatal) regarding trauma and viruses,
extrauterine (symbolic) regarding education and family interactions,
extrauterine (experience) reinforcement and repetition of behaviours, and
personal choice (p. 97). Regarding the concordance rates with the identical
twins mentioned before, the environmental factors could not have been limited
to the intrauterine stage of development. This is because both of the twins
would have been made subject to the same hormonal milieu and changed
identically as a result. More than 50% of the concordance rates overall,
therefore, must be attributed to non-genetic factors), and the intrauterine
factor must be accounted for in the concordance rates themselves (p. 97). The
actual concordance for just genetics in homosexuality may be, as a result, much
lower than 45%.
As well, the intrauterine phase of
development sometimes does not work in alignment with the genes of the baby
because of the hormonal milieu (p. 99). A transgender and asexual, therefore,
would not be so because of genetics, as one either has to be coded with an XY
to be male, or an XX to be female, but because of hormonal changes that
occurred in the womb (p. 101). Furthermore, there is no evidence that suggests
the “feminization” of homosexual brains, but rather, it remains masculine (p.
101). Meyer-Bahlburg (1984) says that “No hormonal difference has ever been
discovered between homosexuals and heterosexuals (as is dramatically the case
between males and females) no matter how exquisitely sensitive the test” (as
cited by Satinover, p. 102). This is because they are genetically male, and
therefore not different from other men hormonally.
From an evolutionary standpoint
natural selection should eliminate or cause the decline of the purported “gay
gene” (p. 103). Risch, et al. said, “One would expect that the role of a major
gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong
selective pressures against such a gene. It is unlikely that a major gene
underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary
counterbalancing mechanism” (1993, p. 2063-2065). Homosexuality is not
diminishing from one generation to the next (a point that is emphasized by gay
activists), which strongly suggests that it is, in fact, not genetic (Satinover,
p. 103).
Satinover affirms that “The family
environment plays a critical role in the development of homosexuality,” as is
affirmed by more than “eighty years’ worth of psychoanalytic and
psychotherapeutic observations” (p. 104). The large majority of homosexuals have
had traumatic sexual experiences with a parent or other adult (Rekers, et al., 1983).
Notably, it is the subjective experience of such a trauma that determines the
degree, or lack thereof, of a boy’s gender confusion (Satinover, p. 107). This
can be demonstrated as a fear of women and an over-familiarity with people of
the same gender (safety), just as one example (p. 107). Homosexual behaviour,
as a result, becomes a way of relieving stress as a “compulsive pursuit of
pleasure,” as pleasure “is the most common human response to distress” (p.
108).
As a result of the false dichotomy
of purely genetic and choice, Satinover suggests that we ask better questions
that more accurately reflect the correlations between nature and nurture in
behaviour. His suggested questions are, “To what extent, respectively, is such
and such genetic and nongenetic, innate and noninnate, familial and
nonfamilial, environmentally determined or not, direct and indirect [leading to
the trait]? In the course of development, when do which influences dominate and
how do their interactions affect one another?” (p. 75). All of these factors
have to be accounted for in any given behaviour. No behaviour can be
exclusively genetic or choice. To this, Rekers concludes, “the main source for
gender and sexual behaviour deviance is found in social learning and
psychological developmental variables…although we should recognize that there
remains the theoretical possibility that biological abnormalities could
contribute a potential vulnerability factor in some indirect way” (1987).
The worldview of naturalism, the
most common view regarding the secular sciences, says that only matter exists
and that everything, therefore, must be a result of natural causes. Human free
will is no exception. Taken to its logical end, the human brain is not unlike a
computer (by this view) in that every function has been predetermined by its
programming. Consciousness, autonomy, morality, and “free will” are ultimately
viewed as having material causes that render its conception “illusory” (despite
needing consciousness to begin with for an “illusion” to take place). As a
system, therefore, naturalism “can say nothing of morality,” except that it can
potentially help us to survive; how things are and not how they should be (p.
121). The illusion of free will is thus the “sheer complexity” of mechanism (p.
123). Behaviours, as a result, are seen as all being inherently deterministic;
reducible to cause and effect. Affirming that homosexuality is purely “genetic”
by this view does not need to be on the basis of evidence, but rather,
philosophical assumption. Their statement of any behaviour being inherently
genetic can be philosophically justified irrespective of current evidence and
scientific advancement: “The analytic, scientific method in its very essence is
reductive without limit. Applied to man, it is the universal solvent’” (p.
125). What homosexual activists are left with, by this desirable view, is an
elimination of choice, and therefore, responsibility for their way of life (p.
125).
Homosexuality and Harm. There
is much harm that homosexual activity causes. In short, Satinover lists some as:
·
“A
significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful
marriage” (Bell, et al., 1981)
·
“A
twenty-five to thirty year decrease in life expectancy” (Cameron, et al., 1993)
·
Chronic,
potentially fatal, liver disease—infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk
of liver cancer
·
Inevitably
fatal immune disease including associated cancers
·
“Frequently
fatal rectal cancer” (Daling, et al., 1987)
·
“Multiple
bowel and other infectious diseases” (Judson, 1984)
·
“A
much higher than usual incidence of suicide
·
A
very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the
condition itself is
·
At
least a 50% likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and
very time consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected group of sufferers (although
a very high success rate, in some instances nearing 100%, for groups of highly
motivated, carefully selected individuals)” (Satinover, p. 51). These last
statistics will be discussed and sourced later in the paper.
In
addition, of almost 5000 homosexuals in Kaslow’s (1987) studies, 69-83% had
over 50 “lifetime sexual partners” and in the past two years, more than 80% had
“receptive anal intercourse with at least some of their partners in the
previous two years.” Other studies demonstrated that only 2% of homosexuals had
ten or less life-partners (Bell, et al., 1981) when compared to the 75% of
heterosexual men who have never had sex out of wedlock (Michael, 1994, p. 205).
Another noteworthy statistic, according to Goldman, is that epidemiologists
estimate that 30% of all twenty-year-old homosexual men will either have AIDS
or die by age thirty (Goldman, 1994, p. 5). When compared to the heterosexual
population, the chances for getting AIDS for those homosexuals are over 430
times higher (Satinover, p. 57)! This is likely why AIDS was originally called
Gay-Related Immune Disorder (p. 16).
Regarding anal sex, with or without
condoms, it is very harmful to the receptive partner. Every encounter causes
trauma to the soft tissues and rectal lining (Satinover, p. 67). Unlike the
vagina, which has reinforced tissue, tears in the anus, even without “severe
trauma,” cause small tears that lead to blood contamination and feces getting
into the bloodstream (p. 67). As well, continued trauma often leads to anal
cancer, rectal incontinence and a host of other rectal problems and diseases
(p. 67). One may suggest that the solution would be to become monogamous;
however, those couples often engage in more anal sex than do “polygamous gay
singles” (p. 67). There is much more that can be said regarding the harm of
homosexual activity, but it is beyond the scope of this paper.
Homosexuality and Sin. A distinction
should be made between homosexual attraction and homosexual activity: in other
words, for example, between being tempted and acting on that temptation. Acting
on the temptation would be sinful, while not acting on it would not be sinful,
for “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile
him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man”
(Mark 7:15). Some Christians claim that homosexuality is just like any other
sin; however, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18, “Flee from sexual immorality.
All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually
sins against his own body.” A distinction is made between sexual and other
sins, as sexual sins are against our bodies, and as Christians, our bodies are “the
temple of the Holy Spirit” right in the next verse (1 Cor. 6:19). As well,
there are sins that are done out of ignorance, which are less severe, and those
that are done knowing full well that they are sinful, which are more severe
(Luke 12:47-48). The worst sins here, therefore, are sexual and committed
knowing of their sinfulness (or having heard that it is sinful and rejected
that claim).
The central question for Christians
and their responses to homosexuality is: is homosexual activity intrinsically
sinful? William Webb, a Theologian from Heritage Seminary, recommends that “if
a Christian wants to reflect the spirit and direction of the biblical text, a
negative assessment of homosexuality needs to be retained. Only a
negative-assessment application captures the essence of the movement between
the ancient-world setting and the biblical text” (2001, p. 39). We have to
remember that homosexual activity in the Old Testament was punishable by death
(Lev. 20:13). This was unlike the ceremonial laws that had rituals to get one’s
self back to being clean. Homosexual sin could not be rectified through
“ceremonial washing” (p. 169). Homosexuality is not related to the ceremonial
laws of the Old Testament, which is significant because, when Christ came, He
was the perfect sacrifice that brought to completion all of the ceremonial laws
(the sacrificial system) of the Old Testament. Since homosexual activity was not
ended as sin through Christ, but is a part of the moral law (as are all Old
Testament laws with the death penalty), we must conclude that it still sinful
today. Paul recognized this and said that those who engage in homosexual
activity are given by God over to a “reprobate mind … who knowing the judgment
of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the
same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:24-32). This
reprobation is much akin to the aforementioned effect that habit (in this case,
repetitive homosexual activity), especially of the sexual nature, has on the
hardware of the mind, since the software is the hardware. Homosexuals become
“hardwired” to homosexuality the more they practice it, as Paul recognized.
Webb concludes that “the deepest issue for biblical authors was the breaking of
sexual boundaries between male and female. Until God redesigns the
physical/sexual construction of male and female, this distinction or boundary
continues to influence our contemporary world” (p. 200). In other words, the
sin of homosexual activity in the Old Testament is fully applicable to the
contemporary world. Homosexual activity is sin.
Part 2: Secular and
Christian Homosexual Marriage
Homosexual Marriage at Large. There
are many reasons why the homosexual marriage debate is important for
Christians, in addition to its inherent sinfulness and harm that it causes to
both homosexuals and to others. Homosexual activists, for example, are using
their movement to coerce Christians to change their morality because of their
“scientific” affirmation that homosexuality is innate and genetic (Satinover,
p. 25). This argument has come to churches often in the form of “God made me
this way” or “I was born this way” (Copan, p. 91). If homosexuality is natural,
then who are we to oppose it? However, ever since the Fall, sin has become
natural to us. The same argument could be applied to justify murder,
pedophilia, bestiality, and any other “natural” behaviour that people have to
sin. In other words, “there is ultimately no argument against pedophilia or any
departure from heterosexual monogamy if individual experience is imposed on
Scripture” (p. 91). Therefore, changing the traditional definition of marriage
(as if it were only a social construct) will leave it wide open to all possible
variables without defense.
As well, gay marriage cannot be a
neutral position, nor can someone (or an institution) take a neutral stance on
it. The position we choose has wide-ranging consequences, a few of which are
listed by Copan, such as “adoption, child-custody laws, public and private
school curricula, [and] anti-discrimination laws based on marriage” (p. 112).
Once all of this is in place, Copan states that, “principled disagreement …
will lead to denunciations of ‘hate speech’ and intolerance” as it is moving
presently (p. 113).
Furthermore, in both public and
private schools, students will have to learn (mandatory) that homosexual
activities are safe and acceptable, yet, without discussion regarding its “typical
features and typical consequences,” as it is in many states (Satinover, p. 22).
This will serve to encourage children to get into the destructive lifestyle of
homosexuality blindly, and will increase the frequency of those adopting the
lifestyle.
The institution of the family will
suffer. Copan noted that “A society will be as healthy and strong as the family
units that constitute it. If families are fragmented and dysfunctional,
societies will be as well” (p. 113). In other words, homosexual marriage will
serve to fragment and cause much dysfunction to families. David Popenoe, a
sociologist, states that “children have dual needs that must be met
[complimentarily by the male and female parenting styles]: one for independence
and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support” (1996,
p. 145). Therefore, those that grow up without a mother or father are much more
likely to be stunted developmentally, and live dysfunctionally. This is especially true when we remember the
aforementioned percentage of “stable” monogamous homosexual relationships (2%),
the high probability for the parents to have mental illness, and the compulsive
addictions that commonly come with the lifestyle (among others mentioned). The
kids will more likely not know how to relate to a gender, and not learn the
vital skills necessary for living a healthy life. Another important point is
that “gay marriage separates marriage and parenting” (Copan, p. 114). The focus
in a homosexual marriage is placed on the couple, rather than on rearing
healthy children. Christians need to consider these consequences when making a
decision on the topic of gay marriage.
The irony of the whole gay marriage
debate is that homosexuals do not gain any new freedom. They could already
commit their lives to each other and have all of the same rights that any other
person has in the West (Copan, p. 116). Marriage does not need to be redefined
for them to live like married couples. What they do gain, however, is status: a
change in the perception of the people regarding the acceptability of their
desired lifestyles, and the imposition of homosexuality on the church (in all
the forms the church takes in society) and others to accept its mores as a
redefinition of morality.
Covenant Homosexuality in the Bible. Homosexual
marriage, in its “baptized” form is known as “covenant homosexuality,” which
means that both members are of equal status, are committed and loving
homosexual adults, and married under God. Since homosexual activity is clearly
sinful (as aforementioned), it is untenable to assert the perpetuation of said
activity under the guise of marriage. There are a number of reasons for this in
addition to those already given. One is that in Genesis 2:24, God says that one
man and one woman shall become one flesh. In homosexual marriage this is a “contradiction
in terms” (Copan, p. 90). Homosexuality leaves the boundaries that God “commanded”
in the same verse.
According to Webb, many of those who
hold to the covenant homosexuality view believed that the Old Testament did not
include covenant homosexuality in any of its condemnations (p. 81). The
underlying assumption here is that the pagan cultures surrounding Israel, and
those driven from Canaan, while they practiced ritual homosexual prostitution
and pedophilia, they never had any same-status, loving homosexual marriages,
and therefore, the Bible could not possibly be condemning covenant homosexuality.
In other words, they believe that covenant homosexuality is a new and
contemporary form that did not exist when the Old Testament was written.
However, the commandments about homosexuality are stated broadly in the Old
Testament, and “Biblical tradition moved the cultural norms on homosexuality
from a significant amount of tolerance and acceptance [in the pagan cultures]
to non-tolerance and non-acceptance within the covenant community (ex: Lev.
18:22; 20:22; Deut. 23:18)” (Webb, p. 81).
Furthermore, believers of covenant
homosexuality often suggest that churches accept homosexual marriage in the
church because it would remove “barriers [from] in the way of unbelievers” and
attract them (Webb, p. 109). This reasoning, however, is fallacious because the
purpose of the church is not mandated by what is attractive to society, but by
the God of the Bible. Instead, one must consult the Bible to see if that claim
is true (p. 109). What we find is that there are no texts to justify that
position, but rather,
“prohibitions against homosexuality
within Scripture [that] often carry a countercultural purpose in relationship
to society. The kingdom of God is marked by different sexual behaviour than
what is permitted in the kingdom of this world (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The homosexual prohibitions,
like other sexual prohibitions, often challenge behaviour within the larger
society” (p. 109).
Verses
such as Leviticus 18:3, 24-30; 20:22-24 say that “After the doings of the land
of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do: and after the doings of the land
of Canaan, where I shall bring you, shall you not do: neither shall you walk in
their ordinances.” Webb says that it is those very acts that the covenant
homosexuals want to accept, that led God to drive out the nations before Israel
(p. 110). He suggests that covenant homosexuals were included in the
condemnation because covenant homosexuality, as defined, was an option to those
pagan cultures (p. 156). As well, ancient secular writers wrote specifically about
lasting homosexual marriages that are akin to covenant homosexuality during
that era, therefore, the Israelites condemned that variant of homosexuality as
well (p. 161). Webb concludes that the whole Bible uniformly calls
homosexuality sinful, and it “reveals that the lack of covenant or the lack of
equal-partner status is simply not a substantive issue” (p. 250). Covenant
homosexuality is, therefore, an unbiblical and inherently sinful position to
maintain.
Part 3: A Christian
Response to Homosexuality In and Outside the Church
Homosexuality and Unrepentant Sin in the Church. As
Christians, we are called to reach out to sinners (both in and outside the church)
and form friendly relationships with them. We are also called to repent of our
own sins, and if we notice that we are persisting in one, surrender it to God
and work on ridding it out of our lives. Hebrews 10:26 says, “For if we sin
wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no
more sacrifice for sins,” and Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will
of my Father who is in heaven.” What these verses tell us is that Christians
cannot continue in unrepentant sin (open rebellion against God), but must
repent of their sins and seek God’s will. All who do not repent lack the “fear
of the Lord [which] is to hate evil” (Proverbs 8:13), and therefore, also lack
“the beginning of wisdom” as attained by “do[ing] His commandments” (Psalm
111:10). This is a very serious cause for concern, where people “call evil
good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). This sort of open rebellion is an affront
to God and can lead other Christians down this path. Therefore, as Christians,
sin should be recognized for what it is, as depicted in the Bible. If there is
ever doubt, the Bible should be the medium. This may sound harsh to some;
however, when Christians reject God’s commandments they reject His very nature
as conveyed through Scripture, as 1 John 2:3 says, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments” and in Malachi 3:6, “For I am the Lord, I change not.” Therefore,
if a Christian is, or gets into homosexual activity and does not repent of it,
especially if he calls it “good,” his salvation is at stake. Homosexual
marriage among Christians is a clear confirmation of this unrepentance. The
loving act for the Christian regarding homosexuality among other Christians
would be to lovingly exhort them. This may be best done by someone who is in a
position of authority (ex: an elder), or a close person to them in their lives.
However, if this person cannot speak into their lives out of love, then it is
better if they remain quiet than to spread hate and discord (see 1 Cor.
13:1-3). Kevin Deyoung, a Christian theologian, says in sum,
“Christians who live in habitual,
unrepentant sin show themselves not to be true Christians. Of course, we all
stumble (James 3:2; 1 John 1:8). But
there’s a difference between falling into sin and jumping in with both feet. It
doesn’t matter the sin—pride, slander, robbery, covetousness, or sexual
immorality—if we give ourselves to it and live in it with joyful abandon, we
will not inherit the kingdom of God. Simply put, people walking day after day
in the same sin without a fight or repentance go to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal.
5:19-21; 1 John 3:14)” (2014).
We
need to love those professing Christians holistically. If we ignore the eternal
consequences of their unrepentance, do we really love them? Christ, the author
and finisher of our faith, says no (see John 3:16). In fact, silence in this
situation could just be the most unloving thing one Christian can do to
another.
What the homosexual marriage issue highlights in the church is a need to be
consistent. What this means is that homosexual marriage is not the only
unrepentant sin a person can have. Our preaching and emphasis should be just as
emphatic about unchastity or extramarital affairs as it is homosexual marriage
in the church. If this consistency is lacking, as it is in many churches in the
West, then so is the effectiveness of our witness. Homosexual activity is not
singled out in this way, but is among other sins in the Bible. A lack of
repentance is the main theme here. This call affects all Christians, and should
cause us to reflect on ourselves to see if there is unrepentant sin, especially
willful sin, in our lives.
As Christians, we must realize that
we still sin. Deyoung says that “we must be willing to touch—emotionally,
socially, and physically—those who sin just like us, even if they sin in
different ways than some of us.” We ought to enter into their lives, help them
through their temptations and “be willing to suffer for standing on the word of
God” (2014).
We can trust in the hope that God
gives us, that He can help us to overcome even the worst addictions and sin
(see the next section about leaving homosexuality). As well, we can pray for
those who get caught in unrepentant sin. Love them as you would yourself.
A Christian Response to Homosexuality at Large. In
the Western World it is an easy thing for Christians to equate loving one’s
neighbour with accepting their lifestyle as Christian. This may largely be due
to the postmodern view of “tolerance” as acceptance, rather than as tolerance
of something that you do not agree with. The same is true of Christians who
equate loving one’s neighbour with accepting their lifestyle. Webb understood
this in regard to homosexual marriage and said, much akin to the last section,
“So the real question is, what is the loving thing to do? … Loving one’s
neighbour in this instance means caring for their entire well-being—temporal
and beyond—even if such act of interactive love has an extremely painful and
straining side” (p. 183).
One way that we can love our
homosexual neighbours is to help provide a way for them out of the lifestyle. Satinover
states that there were many research articles written in the past aimed at
changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals: Some secular methods with over
65% success rates (see table in Appendix). However, since homosexuality was
“normalized,” most of the research in this area has ceased (p. 170). Charles
Socarides, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who cured many homosexuals said that
there continues to be “a complete and disastrous disregard of knowledge gained
through painstaking psychodynamic and psychoanalytic investigations over the
past 75 years” (1976). This research was largely stopped despite the average
success (being defined as “considerable to complete change”) rate being over
50% from 1930-1986 (see Appendix). If we compare that success rate to
Alcoholics Anonymous’, which is about 30% (the most effective in the treatment
of alcoholism), we can quickly deduce that homosexuality is treatable (p. 170).
Some organizations that can help with this process is Homosexuals
Anonymous (HA) which is modeled after AA, Redeemed Life Ministries (with a success
rate of over 80% according to Bergner, 1995), Pastoral Care Ministries, and NARTH
(National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), just to name
a few (Satinover, p. 204).
What is involved in this process may
surprise many. Satinover notes that Alcoholics Anonymous’ (AA) approach to
alcoholism was the most common approach to helping homosexuals up until 1973,
when political pressure changed the American Psychiatric Association’s position
on the subject (p. 174). What is involved in that process? The twelve steps,
which can be accessed from the references, involve admitting one’s
powerlessness over alcohol, believing that God can restore them to sanity, and
ultimately, surrender to God (Alcoholics Anonymous, 2014). What makes AA so
effective is its appeal to an objective standard. There is no question as to
whether or not alcoholism is sinful. Alcoholics can believe with confidence
that there is a way out, and that only God can help them. This is, essentially,
the Christian message. Only Christ can save us from ourselves. Substitute
alcoholism for homosexuality and you have homosexual treatment. What better way
to minister to those caught in homosexuality than to give them the gospel! The
success rates speak for themselves.
Lastly, we can care for homosexuals
in a social manner. In other words, we can be with them when they suffer, and
give them support and encouragement as they need it. We can befriend them,
become a part of their lives, and show them God’s love without an agenda. Who
knows, God may provide a good context where the topic of homosexuality can be
discussed in a loving and relational way. Even if not, the sole fact of their
homosexual activities should never exclude them from the love that you have to
offer them in Christ. Are we not but sinners saved by grace? We deserve nothing
but condemnation, but God loved us enough to save us from sin. Unrepentant homosexuals
are not unlike us, except that they have not accepted God’s grace. There is a
fine line between them and us. Let us love our neighbours.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been
demonstrated that homosexuality most-likely results from indirect genetic
factors and environmental factors cumulatively, much akin to one becoming a
basketball player. As well, homosexuality is very harmful to those who practice
it, often resulting in a host of diseases and other consequences. Homosexuality
is sinful, and if promoted in the church, can lead to unrepentant sin and
condemnation from God. The homosexual marriage debate directly influences
Christians in a negative and coercive way regarding our views on morality and
freedom of speech. There is no form of “covenant homosexuality” in
Christianity. Homosexuality is reversible, and a loving call to repentance and
surrender to God is an effective means of changing their orientation if they
want help (akin to AA). Lastly, truly
loving our neighbours (homosexuals included) leads us to enter into healthy
friendships with them, and to share the Gospel of Christ. Only God can tear
down the barriers of homosexuality, and our genuine love of them greatly
contributes to this progression. Only love, as depicted in the Bible, can make
what we learn and do effective in bringing them to Christ.
References
Alcoholics Anonymous. (2014). The twelve steps of alcoholics anonymous.
Retrieved from: http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf/
Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bell, A., Weinberg, M., & Kiefer, S.
(1981). Sexual preference: Its
development among men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Bergner, M. (1995). Setting Love in Order. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Billings, P., & Beckwith, J. (1993). Born
gay? Technological Review, 96, 60-62.
Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human
sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-39.
Cameron, P., Playfair, W., & Wellum, S.
(1993). The homosexual lifespan.
Presentation to the Eastern Psychological Association.
Copan, P. (2008). When God goes to Starbucks: A guide to everyday apologetics. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Daling, J., Weiss, N.,
Hislop, G., Maden, C., Coates, R., Sherman, K., Rhoda, A., Marjorie, B., Ryan,
J. and Lawrence, C. (1987). Sexual practices, sexually transmitted diseases,
and the incidence of anal cancer. New
England Journal of Medicine, 317, 973-77.
Deyoung, K. (2014). How to handle your sin. Retrieved from: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/04/08/what-we-need/
Goldman, E. L. (Oct. 1994). Psychological factors generate HIV
resurgence in young gay men. Clinical Psychiatry News.
Judson, F. (1984). Sexually transmitted viral
hepatitis and enteric pathogens. Urology
Clinics of North America, 11, 177-85.
Kaslow, R. (1987). The multicenter AIDS
cohort study: Rationale, organization, and selected characteristics of the
participants. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 310-18.
King, M., & McDonald, E. (1992).
Homosexuals who are twins: A study of 46 probands. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 409-10.
Michael, R. Gagnon, J., Laumann, E., &
Kalota, G. (1994). Sex in America: A
definitive study. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rekers, G. (1988) The formation of homosexual
orientation. In P. Fagan (Ed.), Hope for
homosexuality. Washington, DC: Free Congress Foundation.
Rekers, G. Mead, L., Rosen
A., & Brigham, S. (1983). Family correlates of male childhood gender
disturbance. Journal of Genetics and
Psychology, 142, 31-42.
Risch, N., Squires-Wheeler, E., & Bronya,
J. (1993). Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. Science, 262, 2063-65.
Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books.
Socarides, C. (1976). Beyond sexual Freedom:
Clinical Fallout. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 30, 385-97.
Webb, W. (2001). Slaves, women & homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural
analysis. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Appendix
Secular
treatment of homosexuality, as cited from Satinover:
