Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 3)

By Josh Klein

As we enter the final section of the critique of the objections to the Orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending a significant amount of time on these particular points. The rallying cry of the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy, and love, but as I set out in part one, [i] believe that true grace, mercy, and love must be grounded in the Truth set forth in God’s word. To have adequate compassion we cannot admit falsehood.

We know this to be true intrinsically. If your child believes with all his heart that he can fly and climbs to the top of your house to prove it, do you let him jump because it is unloving or unmerciful to tell him he is wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to stop him from jumping even if it makes him cry, angry, or hate you? A good parent doesn’t even need to consider the issue. The correct response to the situation is natural.

Likewise, we must confront the sinful habits in our own lives and the falsehoods in the world. We cannot be compassionate toward the child as he allows it to plummet to its death, and we cannot be compassionate toward fellow believers as we watch them sink their lives into unrepentant sin. That would be unloving. So we must first establish what is true and then we can place true empathy and compassion on that foundation.

The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time of ministry. I believe we must respond to each of them with grace and truth, and any subsequent arguments should be handled in the same manner. I have attempted to do so here. I pray God has given me the power to succeed in that endeavor. I responded to one of the more technical objections in last week’s article. [ii]

Homosexuality is as much of a sin as eating shellfish in the Bible

This argument completely ignores the New Testament scriptures on the subject, is also incredibly theologically flawed, and is primarily used merely as an argument with which to denigrate those of faith as inconsistent or hypocritical.

This, of course, is an argument for Christians to continue eating shrimp and shellfish but not agree that the homosexual act is good/correct even though both come from the same book of the Bible. In Leviticus 11 we find that God prohibits the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, only seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God prohibits men from sleeping with men and women from sleeping with women, going so far as to call the act an abomination.

The difference in language between these two things is paramount to understanding. While the Hebrews are to abhor shellfish, they are not commanded to abhor those who consume shellfish, but shellfish itself. Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination,” but God calls sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find God removing the believer’s dietary restrictions (as well as the eternal restrictions of faith!) from Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same with homosexuality.

Some may try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, but the early church certainly did not. It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this view as a double permission for the consumption of food and for God to bring salvation to the Gentiles without forcing them to convert to Judaism first.

Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for His chosen nation to be set apart from those around them. Quite simply, some of the Old Testament prohibitions were made simply to distinguish God’s chosen people from the Gentile nations around them. It is fair (and safe) to assume that God’s prohibition on clearly cultural differences (eating shellfish, wearing certain fabrics, circumcision, etc.) would dissolve over time as He ushered in the church age and Jesus became the fulfillment of what those laws were intended to convey, while His prohibition on moral issues (murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) would not change, because they are based on His character and His design for life, not simply on setting a nation apart for itself. There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to God’s law.

Thus, Leviticus 18 carries a much more relevant prohibition than Leviticus 11 because one has to do with the character of God and the other with the establishment of Israel’s theocracy specifically. Much has been written on this topic and I cover it here only sparingly, but for a more comprehensive overview of the topic Jason Meyer’s book The End of the Law is a good resource. [iii]

Homosexual wasn’t even a word in the Bible until 1946

We have dealt with this argument a bit in Part 2, [iv] but here we will look at the lay argument. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19th century, first appearing in the English dictionary in 1892. The term was coined by German psychologists in the 1860s in reference to the act of same-sex sexual intercourse. Bible translations tend to lag behind the common vernacular by a significant time interval, so the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-1940s should not come as a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scripture translations.

Before the 1940s, the word translated homosexual would likely have been translated sodomite or sexually immoral. In fact, as we discovered last week, I think those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases, as they cover a broader range of sexual immorality rather than simply pointing to a homosexual relationship. However, to say that the word homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946 and is therefore a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous. The intent of the passages was clear before the 1940s and helped form the decision to insert the word into the translation history after the 1940s. The interpretive history of these passages lent credibility to the use of the word initially and while it is not the best translation currently, I do not think it is a bad translation either, although, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like to see clarity in the translation toward behavior and not simply attraction. My problem with the translation in general is that it is making an interpretive decision for the reader rather than simply translating the word, and this means that the narrowing of the meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation, and more.

God was not wrong when he created me

In fact, God did not make a mistake in creating anyone. However, to continue the theme of Romans 1 from last week, we find that being born with a proclivity for a certain action does not necessarily make that action or desire good and right.

Being born as someone with a disposition toward addiction would not make becoming addicted to painkillers good or right. Similarly, being born as someone with a strong sexual inclination who desires to have multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.

In my view, homosexuality is the same kind of sin, but we have turned the discussion on its head. Turning homosexuality into a matter of identity rather than behavior did no one any good, and we are currently reaping the “rewards” of such a miscalculation.

Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, for both men and women. In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 is intended to help the Roman church understand the depravity of man and why we need a savior. Romans 1 is not meant to indicate personal behavior, but must be read in the context of all human history.

If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and argue about who was born which way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The fact is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man. Sin broke up God’s created order and introduced all kinds of behaviors that could be and have been considered natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense, i.e. rebellion against God.)

No, God did not make a mistake in creating you. Scripture is clear that you are fearfully and wonderfully made ( Psalm 139:14 ), but it is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural inclination toward sin who needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires.  Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the microscope. The transition from death to life is immediate and permanent, but it is also a process of understanding where we are broken and where we need to be repaired by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul indicates at the end of chapter 7 , the only answer is through Jesus Christ, otherwise we are still under the headship of Adam and therefore in sin, and in death. This is why having a dual identity is so problematic. It means that God can remake only part of who we are, because we have removed His impact on our other identity. It is sequestered in a dark closet that His renewal team cannot touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of paramount importance in this discussion, but according to a recently conducted survey [v] of supposed “born-again” Christians, this foundational doctrine is also under attack. Ultimately, compassion without adherence to truth ends there. It is not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

So no, God did not make a mistake in allowing anyone to be born, but that does not mean that we are all born perfect either. Two things can be true at once. God may have made a person in a fearfully and wonderful way, and that person may also be hopelessly damaged and beyond repair with natural inclinations toward evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his or her behalf. All people are worthy and deserving of love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also image bearers broken by sin and must be repaired by their Creator.

I know, because I am. No, I am not a homosexual, but I am an evil depraved person. I need a savior, and I have that in Jesus. This same savior is available to all who will believe, and he will make them a new creation ( 2 Cor. 5:17 ) with the ability to find victory over any sinful proclivity they were born with, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.

A homosexual in a consensual and committed relationship is fulfilling a marriage covenant

This is the last one we will have space for in this section, and it is both the easiest and the hardest to answer. The easiest, because I believe that understanding the real meaning of Romans 1 and the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will ultimately lead us to understand that marriage can only be, and has only been, ordained between one man and one woman and the marriage bed ( Heb 13:4 ) is not to include two of the same sex.

That being said, it is the hardest to answer because my heart truly aches for those who have such homosexual inclinations who desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all the good things that come with those relationships. But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because the scriptures seem to be clear on the issue, and I don’t know a married couple who can (or should) abstain from sex in order to maintain a pure relationship. If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically correct, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious. And as we’ll see next week, there are many professing gay Christians who agree with this. Some resources are noted below.

So what?

I’m sure I haven’t covered all of the TikTok takes in the previous sections. I’m sure there are many more, but let’s move on. What then is the church’s responsibility? In part four I want to look at a better way to handle these things than what the church has done in recent generations. I think the church has fallen short in ministry to those who struggle in this area, and while I don’t have all the answers, I think we can begin to walk the path in a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 gets right is this: I think the church’s treatment of homosexuality has been short-sighted and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and is changing), but it needs to change without compromising the Truth.

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Footnotes

[i] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-1/

[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/

[iii] https://www.christianbook.com/the-law-mosaic-covenant-pauline-theology/jason-meyer/9780805448429/pd/448429?event=AFF&p=1011693&

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/confronting-homosexuality-in-a-culture-of-identity-part-2/

[v] https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/church/survey-60-percent-of-born-again-christians-under-40-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation/

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with 12 years of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Original Source: https://bit.ly/3UC2BQ2

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega