Navigation: This page 'www.abxn.org/discussion/homosexuality.html'
---> Discussion Home ---> Main Home Page ---> Author. About page. Send comments. Contact.

On Homosexuality

Draft, currently only 80% completed.

This page is about whether homosexuality should be acceptable to Christians today. Note: I use the term 'homosexualist' not 'homosexual' when mentioning protagonists who favour homosexuality, because this includes those committed to the accepting of homosexuality who are not themselves of homosexual orientation. Note also that I am not talking about trans-gender here.

Christian Views I Have Heard for Banning Homosexuality

The Law that God gave Moses includes the legal statements:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." [Lev 18:22]

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." [Lev 20:13]

Homosexual sex was demanded by the men of Sodom against the humanoid angels who visited Lot, and that city was then destroyed by God invoking natural disaster on it, as God had previously warned. (Has not that city lent its name to be a synonym of male homosexuality?)

Paul writes in Romans 1 about how humanity turned away from God, so God "gave them over" to "shameful lusts", so "men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Is not this portrayed as the terminal point in a downward spiral of wrongness, of rebellion against God?

It seems very clear that homosexuality is not what God intended either for God's people, nor for humanity, and that it is a serious wrongdoing. So there can be no question of homosexuality being acceptable, either in the Christian community or in society in general.

This view is backed up by the creational ordinance in Genesis 2, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh." Jesus cites this verse several times, and it is the only one he cites on marriage.

Why That Does Not Convince Me

As an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God, I could be persuaded by such arguments, but in fact am not convinced by most of those. This is for several reasons.

Ezekiel 16:49 is perhaps the most important verse on homosexuality. It gives very explicitly the reasons God destroyed Sodom: for being "overfed, arrogant and unconcerned about the poor" and so they did "despicable things".
In Romans 1, homosexuality comes to me as a symptom rather than the cause or the disease.
Those who say that homosexuality is the terminal sin are wrong; after it are sins like "envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice ... gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, boastful ..." [Romans 1:29-31]. These are sins of attitude, of the heart, while homosexuality is a sin of action; God makes clear in many places that He looks on the heart more than the visible manifestations.
The Levitical laws might be aimed at the kind of homosexuality found among the then inhabitants of the land, who were destroying the land and the poor. But they will not allow this possibility. I cannot understand why homosexuaity is singled out, from among other sins in Leviticus 20 that deserve the death penalty (such as adultery).
It does not differentiate between homosexual acts and disposition.
The number of times homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible is very few, and much much fewer than injustice or arrogance are mentioned. So Christian concern against homosexuality is misplaced, not reflecting or representing God's view. We are in danger of misrepresenting God.
They do not differentiate what God wants from His people and what God wants from humanity at this time. ==== It is very clear that the standards God expects of his people are very different from those he expects from others. See start of Amos. Even though what he expects from his people might be a model of what he originally intended for humanity, in this current era, there seems to be a difference of expectation. See also ==== (judgement starts with household of God).
It seems to me that many Christians who rail against homosexuality are guilty of the attitude that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees etc.

Christian Views I Have Heard for Accepting Homosexuality

"God is love" wrote John. Jesus told us to not judge. Love implies accepting a person as they are rather than as we might wish them to be. So we should accept homosexuals as they are. Jesus commanded "Do not judge", and so any moral judging of homosexuals is going against Jesus' direct command.

People with a homosexual disposition have not made a moral choice to be like that. They "cannot help it", because they are made like that. It is not a moral choice. So it is wrong to hold them guilty. So a homosexual disposition should be welcomed.

The church is supposed to be diverse (I Corinthians 12, 14), and those with homosexual dispositions have particular gifts to bring to the church. For example, are not homosexual men gentler than other men, and more artistic?

The church is supposed to move forward, and not ossify. Since society [affluent liberal secular] accepts homosexuality, and the church is supposed to show God's love to people, it should move with society.

About homosexual acts, some then argue: Surely God wants us to fulfil who we are in Him. So, a person with a homosexual disposition should be encouraged to work that out in practice.

About the laws in Leviticus and the piece in Romans: they were either written by a group who wanted power or, if not, they were intended only for that context.

If we look at recent history, we see progress towards increasing freedom, self-fulfilment, etc. which are Good Things. Surely the church should welcome these.

Why That Does Not Convince Me

As a Christian who believes that what is written in the Bible needs to be interpreted and that what we read might have different meaning or application in our situation than it did when first uttered, I could be persuaded by such arguments, but in fact am not convinced by most of those. This is for several reasons.

To me it smacks too much of "We don't like this Scripture, so we'll explain it away." People who claim the homosexuality verses are only for that context, are often quite happy to refer to verses about justice for the poor without qualification.
There is too much emphasis on 'the church' rather than on God.
To equate love with tolerance seems to me a mistake. Immediately after Jesus told us to not judge, he then immediately told us we should judge! To my mind, Jesus was speaking into a particular situation that tended to be over-judgmental in a harsh way; he was talking about attitude, but he then qualified this by upholding the act of distinction-making. Love is much stronger than tolerance. Jesus warned "If you do not turn from your sins you will die like they did [those on whom the Tower of Siloam fell]."
The idea that there are only two options (choice with moral culpability, or 'cannot help it') is over-simplified. At least one third option is the structurational influence of society on the individual, whereby each individual has absorbed some of the mindset of society. This absorbtion of mindset is not automatic but involves some choice, though this is continuous rather than punctuated and is often indirect. In Scripture we find many references to the mindset of society being evil or at least distorted, and God's people are urged to critique it.
The diversity of the church described in I Corinthians 12, 14 is not about dispositions, but about 'gifts' bestowed by the Holy Spirit. Dispositions can be changed, by that very same Holy Spirit towards love (in its strong sense), joy, peace, ... [Gal 5:22-3].
The idea that homosexuals have certain gifts inextricably linked with their homosexuality, such as gentleness, is an insult to those of us who believe that all men should be gentle or all people can be artistic. Most of the homosexual 'gifts' I have heard about are human qualities, not because of homosexuality. That society (evil mindset) might have ignored or despised those qualities, does not mean that when a minority espouses those qualities they are exclusive to that minority.
The idea that it is normative for the church to move forward is not a foundational doctrine, but is derived from the modern idolatry of 'progress'. Yes, situations change and so does the church, but change is not a primary norm that forces us to accept something that might be wrong.
Self-fulfilment might be a good thing in certain circumstances, but it is by no means the most important virtue. It is too close to selfishness and self-regard for my liking. There is a problem of individualism here.
It seems to me that many homosexualists are in fact, in their hearts, wanting to be like the surrounding culture more than to represent the Holy God.
Since when has the movement of the world been normative guidance for God's people?

My View

I could be persuaded by both sides, but find both sides unconvincing.

Both sides put too much emphasis on sexuality
Both sides take their interpretation of Scripture too absolutely, and do not acknowledge that the other side might be right.
Both sides misuse Scripture. They take certain verses as given and question or downplay or 'reinterpret' those used by the other side. Neither side truly ubmits themselves to Scripture (not even the fundamentalists).
Both sides place too much emphasis on theoretical constructs and deductions.
Both sides have an adversarial attitude.

If, on The Day, God revealed the truth is on one side or the other I would not be surprised or upset.

So what do I do? Do I just ignore it? No. Instead, I take a step back and look at the nature of the debate. In this page I have been looking at the content of the arguments, but on another page, The Homosexuality Debate: Some Questions I look at the arguing itself. I find that the arguing itself has been flawed.

It will be interesting to see what angry responses this stimulates. The balance of them will tell us something.

LGB / Homosexuality

To me, homosexuality / lesbian-gay-bisexual activity [Note 1] is not a particularly important issue, though I do get worked up sometimes.

Probably the most important verse in the Bible about homosexuality is one that does not mention it by name, Ezekiel 16:49.

"This was the sin of your sister, Sodom. She was affluent, arrogant and unconcerned for the poor, and so did detestable things. So I destroyed her."

This is a surprise because we think 'the sin of Sodom', for which it was destroyed, was homosexuality. But no! The God tells us clearly the real sin was affluence, arrogance and unconcern for the poor. That is the real, important sin. The homosexuality was more like a symptom of that sin, rather than the real sin itself. So I no longer believe homosexuality is a big issue.

Isn't it daft! Among some Christians, the touchstone of whether someone else is a 'proper' Christian, with whom one can have fellowship, is their attitude to homosexuality, rather than whether they follow Christ. That surely is wrong! You will be expecting me to point the finger at the African Christians who want distance from the liberal Christians in North America, and the so-called right-wing Christians in that land also. But I will also point the finger at the liberal Christians, who (in their hearts) view the African Christians (and so-called right-wing Christians) with contempt, as 'old fashioned' or worse, and therefore not worth fellowshipping with. Both ways, it's wrong. The Lord Jesus Christ gives us a mandate to make disciples of all nations and we ignore that, to battle about homosexuality.

I understand why we do this. Two reasons. One is that our attitude to homosexuality is seen as a sign or expression of deeper things like how we view Scripture, the authority of God and the love of God. The other is that we get angry - both camps do. I too am guilty of these two wrongs - but nowadays try to correct myself with what Ezekiel 16:49 reveals.

But, is Ezekiel 16:49 sufficient? Is there any other passage that gives a similar message - that homosexuality is a symptom of the deeper, more important sin? Does not Romans 1 speaks similarly? Does it not tell us that the real important sin was refusal to acknowledge God, and wicked suppression of the truth? Homosexuality seems to be a result, in indirect result, of that.

The LGB Argument

Both anti-LGB and pro-LGB Christians argue from the Bible. One argues on the basis on God's law, the other on the basis of God's love and perhaps a tinge of dispensationalism. If, when we 'get to glory' God reveals the truth is either of these, I won't be phased. So, I could be persuaded either way. But I am not convinced by the pro-LGB stance. Why not? Not because of what the Bible says, but because of flaws in their arguments.

They make a false dichotomy between 'moral choice' versus 'the way I am' ('homosexual disposition' by either genetics or environment). But are there only two options? What about stages? What about societal mindset?
Whether there is a genetic basis for homosexual disposition is not clear even today. Yet, the idea of homosexual disposition has become entrenched as a 'truth', that to question it is committing heinous heresy,.
It has become an unquestioned entrenched 'truth' not by argument but by intimidation and sneering. Indeed, the whole acceptance of LGBism has been by intimidation rather than argument. Anyone who questions is branded 'homophobic', so the questioning is not allowed into the public square. In the public square are only pro-LGB and extreme anti-LGB stances; questioning stances such as this is are prevented from entering. One gets branded as a reactionary and redneck.
They have gained control of the thinking public media, which filters ideas so that we come to believe only one side and are not allowed to question it.
They have elevated sexuality above all else, yet are there not many other equally important areas of life? Along with others, the LGB lobby has made sexuality the sole determiner of true humanity. But I hold that sexuality is not the most important part of what it is to be human. There are many other aspects.

My Anger

I am angry. What is my anger? It is not that people commit homosexual acts. It is the intimidation by the homosexual lobby that prevents views entering the public square. I also get angry at intimidation by other lobbies in the same way. "Suppress the truth". Nowadays, the LGB lobby seems arrogant, and unconcerned for the poor. But even more is the rest of Western society pervaded by an attitude of affluence and arrogance.

(However, I am not sure my anger is valid; see my discussion of anger.)

My view is not that of the so-called right-wing Christians, but it is that the Bible is God's communication to humankind and that Jesus Christ is the Anointed One, and that God wants to be active with us rather than just a giver of law, an object of worship or a concept to believe. I believe that my life is bound up with that of God, for His mission and 'project' rather than my own - and that everybody is invited to a similar dynamic life in the light of God. I believe that God's mission, that He has for all humanity, is to represent God to the rest of creation, and in this era there are God's people who represent God to other people too.

I have never found the conventional arguments from either side convincing, so have taken years - decades - to come to a view about this. Maybe I've missed the boat and there is no longer room for a different view, but in case some are still looking for a different view, I offer this page.

I speak as as person who believes the Bible to be the word of God. Fundamentalists point to certain things while liberals point to others. I have found neither convincing. So I want to review the arguments.

Christian Arguments Against Allowing LGB (Homosexuality)

The arguments I have heard against LGB from the Bible include:

"Sodom was rife with homosexual practice and was destroyed by God because of wickedness." Genesis
"God's law forbids it - and proposes severe punishments for it."
"Paul mentions it at the end of a decline of humanity away from God, implying that it is the worst kind of sin." Romans ch. 1.

On Sodom

God destroyed Sodom - but for what? The main sin in God's eyes was not homosexuality but "affluence, arrogance and unconcern for the poor". This is made clear in Ezekial 16:49, where God tells the people of Judah through the prophet very explicitly the reason why Sodom was destroyed. It was attitude, rather than activity, that made them ready for destruction.

Ezekiel mentions that, as a result of this attitude the inhabitants did "detestable things", but that comes across as the result of symptom rather than the sin they were guilty of. Homosexual activity was merely one visible symptom of the inner attitude, visible for all to see as evidence.

So, the issue of homosexuality as such is much less important than the issues of attitude and of justice.

This interpretation is commensurate with the message that pervades Scripture, that God looks on the heart of the person rather than on the outside properties or visible activities (I Samuel 13:14; 16:7; Psa 34:18; 51:17; Isa 57:15). It is also commensurate with the repeated message that God has concern for the 'poor'. Finally, it is commensurate with the conundrum in Scripture of sinful people like Samson being used of God - people who always referred their livee to God.

The Jewish Law

==== To be written.

Romans 1

Romans 1 does not seem to me to be normative ("Homosexuality is Heinous!") as much as descriptive ("Homosexuality happened as a result of other things"). It reads like a statement of long-term historical causality, rather than a definitive list of sins that we should avoid. It is likely that Paul was referring to the Greeks and the Romans.

Again, in keeping with Ezekiel 16:49, the important thing seems to be attitude (in this case, refusal to thank God) rather than activity, which is a visible manifestation of attitude.

However, there is a normative element, in that the items mentioned in the causal chain are obviously seen by Paul as bad things. It is obvious, from the wording, that the author assumes a shared background agreement ('lifeworld') that same-sex relations among men is bad. But is it the worst, is it 'heinous', as some suggest? No, for two reasons

It seems more like a symptom of deeper and more heinous sins, than the heinous sin as such.
To me, Romans 1 reads, not so much like a list of sins to avoid, as a statement about how dangerous an attitude of thanklessness is: it starts us off on a decline.

This makes sense of the link with chapter 2, where the author (Paul) warns the Jewish readers against a condemnatory attitude.

Conclusion 1

To conclude, I find that all three of the main arguments from fundamentalist Christians are not only weak, but pervert Scripture by taking an interpretation that ignores the whole tenor of Scripture. Taken together, they remind me of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. Let us see how the other arguments fare.

Arguments by Liberal Christians to Allow Homosexuality

==== To be written.

# in NT era; OT laws no longer relevant # OT laws were for that culture and we don't have

But feelings of intimacy and tenderness do not indicate H. Sexual and personal are not the same. [Note]

Arguments by the LGB Promoters / Apologists, Especially Non-Christian Ones

==== To be written.

"LGB is unchangeable way some are"
over-sexualises. Note

Conclusion 2.

I don't believe these either.

Overall Conclusion

What I currently believe (draft):

Fundamentally, I believe that lesbian-gay-bisexual / homosexuality is not what God intended for the full wellbing (shalom) of Creation, and is therefore wrong, but not in the ways that anti-LGB Christians might think.

More fundamentally, however, I believe I might be wrong in that, and that if God reveals, when "the books are opened", that the arguments of some Christian homosexuals (above) are correct, I will no be surprised.

At a fairly fundamental level, but less than those two, I believe that the treatment by the Church and other religions of homosexuals has been evil.

At a fairly fundamental level, equal with the previous, I believe that the way the LGB community argued and gained prominence and dominance have been largely evil and distorting, and should not have gained the acceptance in society that they did.

At a less fundamental level, I theorize their doing so as partly excusable (or at least understandable) because of the evil that homosexuals suffered.

At an equally less-fundamental level, I theorize that much homosexuality is socially constructed (and agreed as social mores, norms, and ideas of what is acceptable), rather than biological. And therefore not determined in any biological sense. It is determined in the social sense of those who accept and go along with the beliefs and attitudes of their society rather than questioning or standing up to them. (Two examples of social acceptance of homosexuality: (a) among teenage boys in English same-sex public schools; (b) among 'progressives' today, and the media of today. ===== that bit to go above when I complete the above.)

However, I believe fairly fundamentally that (a) I cannot expect any specific person to stand out against their socially agreed beliefs, (b) every person has the ability and possibislity to do so, but it needs courage to do so.

At a slightly less fundamental level of being an implication, I believe that homosexual orientation cannot be dismissed as a moral choice (as some Christians do). Not standing out against societal norms is not a moral choice, but taking the courage to do so is a moral action.

At a superficial level I associate LGB with partying, which I see as a non-essential harm.

NOTES

Note: What shall I call it? Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual? I like the word 'gay' to be returned to its traditional meaning of 'happy'. Why not LGBT or even LGBTIQ? T (trans-gender) is to do with who you are whereas LGN are to do with whom you do sex with, and it's this latter that that I discuss here. Homosexuality? The traditional term, overloaded with layers of unforunate and unfair connotation. So I'll just call it 'LGB' where G stands for nothing, especially not the word that means 'happy'.

Note on Conflation. Homosexualists conflate sexual attraction with personal attraction, sexual love with other kinds of love, but the sexual is very different from the personal, even though they may be linked. Richard Harries, for instance, on 13 October 2017 (BBC Radio 4, Today, Thought for the Day) was stressing what he called the 'goodness' of sexual attraction. As evidence he cited a gay friend whom he asked "Don't you find it difficult when you are attracted to men?" to which the friend responded "No; I find it difficult when I am not attracted to them." The gay friend was meaning personal attraction, but Harries was taking it to mean sexual attraction. Why did Harries do this? Was it deliberate conflation, sloppiness, or stupidity?

About This Page

This page, URL= 'http://abxn.org/discussion/homosexuality.html', is on-going work, designed to stimulate discussion on various topics, as part of Andrew Basden's pages that open up various things from one of the Christian perspectives. Contact details.

Written on the Amiga with Protext in the style of classic HTML.

Created: by Andrew Basden.

Last updated: 6 February 2014 new intro. 7 February 2014 flaws in lgb argument. 13 October 2017 added 'to be written'; Note on conflation. 6 September 2020 Conclusion of what I believe; a bit changed earlier too; added "draft". 16 July 2021 'See also' + new .end.