|
I've always approached homosexuality from a biblical
standpoint. Of course, I don't struggle with homosexuality, so I know that
it is particularly easy for me to have no compassion on someone who does. By
that I don't mean that I get ugly with them, I just don't empathise in any
particular way and this puts me at a minor loss when trying to build up
someone who actually does struggle
with it. My most unfortunate spiritual nearsightedness will be overcome as I
grow though and as I learn to have the compassion of Christ.
Anyway, the question as to whether homosexuality is a choice or a natural
"orientation", is a question that has been at the heart of the issue for a
long time. I have a theory on this that I'd like to present. Please feel
free to scrutinize it. I'd appreciate the help.
Okay, here's the theory:
My basic belief is that God is opposed to homosexuality. I draw this from
Scripture. There are a few, these are the most prominent:
"For this
reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged
the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also
the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
-Rom. 1:26-27
We can also find a lot out about God's view on
homosexuality based on the commands he give the Israelites in the Old
Covenant:
"You shall
not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"
-Lev. 18:22
"If there is
a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have
committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them."
-Lev. 20:13
I won't bore you with any more, though I could if I
chose to. I think I've stated enough to make my point clear, that is, God
hates homosexuality.
Now my question is that if it is in the nature of God to abhor
homosexuality, would he create a being that is homosexually "oriented"? I
don't know that I could accept yes as an answer. It would be like asking if
God made humans with an orientation to murder. If the answer is yes to any
questions of this sort, then the fault is not ours for being homosexual, but
God's fault, because He created us this way. But when human choice is
considered as a factor in the picture, things start to make sense.
If God made some individuals with homosexual tendencies, then it is God's
fault if they're acted upon. But as humans we have the ability to make
choices, and when we choose the wrong path in life, die and then receive
eternal punishment as a result, then
it has got to be our fault. Surely God is a just judge!
Now some mention that they think the commands against
homosexuality are somewhat "outdated", being dependent on the ancient
culture under which they were delivered, and that the result is that these
commands do not apply in contemporary culture, a culture I'm sure they feel
is far removed. They also raise the issue of consistency with adhering to
biblical law as a whole, making use of "eating pork" as an example.
I believe that what they fail to do here is make a distinction between that
which is timeless, eternal truth based on the character of the unchanging
God, and that which is temporary for temporary or cultural purposes. Let me
explain.
The verses I stated earlier, all address God's view on homosexual sex. The
two verses from Leviticus actually spoke about it as being "detestable" and
"an abomination" -very ugly words. Then Romans 1 spoke about "indecent acts"
-more ugly words.
Now, God's nature is unchanging. God is the same yesterday, today and
forever. God's character is consistent, and is not changing. This doesn't
mean He is incapable of changing His mind, or altering His course of action
if He wants to, but it does mean that His nature is unchanging and eternal.
God's anti-homosexuality expressed in Leviticus did not change even when He
proclaimed an entirely new covenant -because His nature had not changed.
Leviticus was written under a Semitic Jewish culture well over 2000 years
before Paul wrote Romans in a Greek culture. Not only was it an entirely
different culture, (Jewish to Greek), it was also over 2 millenia later.
They were removed in time, culture and location. They had every reason to
think, "these commands no longer apply because they're outdated", but look,
Paul reissued them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit!
Do you see what I'm saying here? Culture, time and location are irrelevant
when it comes to eternal, universal truths that are based on the nature of
God.
Now based on this, 2000 years later, in an American culture, across the sea,
do you think that this eternal principle, (that didn't change then), will
have changed for us? I think its a touch arrogant to believe that God will
have made a major exception for us, changing His eternal nature and the
rules that result from it, all because we "think the laws on homosexuality
are outdated and therefore don't apply"!
Okay, enough of that. I hope I've expressed my logic accurately and
understandably.
Now to talk about our consistency with other OT laws, you must understand
this principle: If God says it, we do it until He declares otherwise.
Indeed, in some cases, God can repeal His laws.
God said not to eat any unclean meat and gave an extensive list as to what
this meat was. So the Jews lived according to His law. No problem so far. I
believe that its not just that God didn't want them to enjoy the finer
things in life, but that God was trying to
teach His people something -namely that as a people of God, there
were some things with which they were not to have association. (Now I say
that I believe it was a law-illustration that was reflective of the fact
that Jews were not to have association with Gentiles on various different
levels, which would make it real for them to some degree, but the proof of
this is another discussion).
Now along comes Acts 10. God tells Peter in a vision that he must "kill and
eat" all the unclean animals in the sheet lowered from heaven. (And this
ties back into my belief that the "anti-pork" law was reflective of the
Jewish-Gentile relationship). What God was doing was giving Peter an
illustration that basically had the underlying principle, "gentiles are okay
now".
For this reason, the underlying principle on which the anti-pork law was
based was done away with, as it says in Ephesians,
"For He
Himself is our peace, who made both groups [Jews and Gentiles from context]
into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in
his flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained
inordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man,
thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God
through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."
-Ephesians 2:14-16
(There's also a discussion about the eating of meat
in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8, but it addresses an entirely different
issue, though I'm sure that there would have been at least
some pork in the meat that was
offered to idols, (which some Christians were eating), especially since the
pig was considered sacred to the pagan of the time).
So as you see, Gentiles and Jews were reconciled, and now the underlying
principle for the anti-pork law fell through, meaning that not eating pork
as a law was no longer valid.
Anyway, end of dissertation. All I'm saying is that you must distinguish
carefully. Don't just pick and choose what you want to believe and throw out
the stuff you don't like while declaring, "this stuff is outdated so we'll
just forget about it". Man has no power to decide what is applicable in
God's eyes in our contemporary culture. Only God has that power. God's
allowed to change His laws, yes, that's His right. But my rights, as His
child and His creation, certainly don't include deciding what applies and
what does not in contemporary culture.
Ryan
BACK |