Tag Archives: Homosexuality

What is the purpose of sex?

Leave a reply

What is the purpose of sex?  This may seem like an odd question to ask in our day and age.  Almost everyone has roughly the same answer: the purpose is pleasure.

One of the key distinctives of the so-called “sexual revolution” was that sex was principally, if not exclusively, recreational.  Unless you wanted children, sex was not primarily intended for procreation, but for pleasure.  Even in many Christian circles, this “pursuit of pleasure” motif became very prominent.  When I was preparing for marriage, for example, I was told to read a hugely popular evangelical Christian book about sex entitled, Intended for Pleasure.

At the time, this idea did not seem strange or out of place in my Christian thinking.  After all, God created sex and meant it to be fun and enjoyable, right?  Back then, it would have been nearly impossible to imagine (let alone purchase and read) a Christian book on sex called, Intended for Procreation.

This is unfortunate since Christians have long understood that sex is not designed merely for recreation.  It is also intended for procreation.  These two aspects are not a comprehensive description of its purpose, of course.  Things like emotional and physical well-being, social bonding, and intimate communication are also important features of the experience.  But how you frame these purposes and how you rank each one fundamentally alters your understanding of the sexual act itself.  In this sense, our understanding of sex’s primary purposes makes an enormous difference in how we look at it and one another inside and outside of marriage.

If, for example, the purpose is primarily (or perhaps only) for pleasure and recreation, then it is no surprise that pregnancy becomes an unintended, inconvenient, and therefore decidedly undesirable aspect of the overall experience.  The idea that sexual relations might have more consequential purposes than simply orgasms and other physiological and emotional benefits seems to be nearly forgotten in our contemporary discussions of why sex matters.  If sex is only intended for pleasure, pregnancy becomes not only an unfortunate consequential byproduct, but something to be ardently avoided and ideally eliminated.

Abortion, then, becomes the “final solution” to this inconvenient “problem.”  The purpose of sex is no longer to produce children, but only to experience physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction.  Thus, rather than pregnancy being something to look forward to, share, and celebrate with the mother, father, and community, it becomes an annoying inconvenience, a source of shame, and something to be evaded and ultimately eliminated.  Rather than a desirable sexual goal, it comes to be seen as a punitive and negative consequence.  In the words of Anglican rector Barton J. Gingerich, “In the recreational view, when a woman conceives a child, it often means something has gone wrong.”

In essence, after birth control, abortion becomes the ultimate “failsafe” and guarantor that anyone and everyone can enjoy unregulated sex without fear of any lifelong repercussions.  But to make the barbarous act of killing a helpless and innocent child into something socially, morally, and emotionally acceptable, the personhood of that child has to be obscured, ignored, and ultimately obliterated.  This is done by describing the child in deceptively dehumanizing terms like “a fetus, ” a product of conception,” and “a ball of cells.” To further the duplicity, abortion is now being called “a medical procedure,” “women’s healthcare,” “a constitutional right,” and more recently by abortion activist, Sarah Lopez, “an act of self-love.”

To pursue and promote this kind of ethical obfuscation is, at its root, morally bankrupt and repugnant. Mothers and fathers are being openly lied to and crowd-shamed in an attempt to preserve the insidious myth that sex is simply for fun and self-fulfillment—and nearly nothing more.

Please don’t misunderstand my point.  The purpose of sex is not purely for procreation any more than it is solely for pleasure.  Sex has several important purposes, but when only one of those purposes is elevated above all others, it tends to destroy a holistic and healthy understanding of sex.  We can also openly affirm that God invented sex to be pleasurable.  The clitoris, for example, appears to be created for only one purpose: to provide pleasure for the woman during intercourse.  And when sex occurs within the boundaries of a loving, safe, and secure marital between a man and a woman, it can be a truly magnificent experience for both.  But when ecstasy becomes the primary or even sole focal point, the things that make sexual intercourse enduringly meaningful and significant get distorted, obscured, and sometimes altogether lost. Other important purposes become ostracized and even vilified at the almighty altar of recreational pleasure.

Up until very recently, most societies strongly affirmed that procreation was a vital and desirable aspect of sexual union, making a critical contribution to human flourishing and the common good.  By separating sex from the purpose of procreation and making pregnancy an undesirable and eliminable “byproduct,” many societies now face a precipitous and precarious population decline that has become a significant national crisis.

In response, Christians must reemphasize and celebrate the necessity, beauty, and power of self-denial, personal and social responsibility, as well as the preservation and limitation of sex within the safe and enduring confines of a committed covenantal, loving, and traditional nuclear family—one man and one woman married for life, raising their children together.

In the helpful words of Anglican rector Barton J. Gingerich, “women should deny sex to men who aren’t willing to marry them and raise their kids.  Men ought to oblige and accept the honorable script of marriage before sex. . . .  Interestingly, all of this turns marriage into quite a productive, involved, cooperative enterprise—because it is. . . .  Our forebears . . . believed in the importance of the household.  Households—like sex—should be productive rather than merely recreational.  A man and a woman come together in matrimony to create, build, and manage a most important enterprise, ideally cooperating with their extended family and close neighbors.  This was the norm, and it must become the norm once again if our society is to flourish.”

Advertisement

Should Christians publicly discourage and oppose homosexuality?

2 Replies

I recently heard a Christian remark, “I agree that the Bible teaches homosexuality is wrong, but why should we make non-Christians conform to our moral standards, especially when our own Christian life is largely unaffected?” While the statement reflects several contemporary ideological and ethical assumptions that give it an appearance of wisdom, it actually conceals several significant moral perils and falsehoods.

To begin, the statement assumes that a Christian view of morality is relevant only to Christians and has no bearing upon the rest of humanity. This is both true and false, depending upon the nature of the ethical behavior under consideration. For example, Christians are often called to higher ethical standards than non-believers with respect to things like love. Christians must not only love God and one another, we must also love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). When forced to go one mile, we ought to go two (Matthew 5:41).

We should not compel non-Christians to live up to such demanding standards of moral excellence. They are specifically Christian responsibilities that God not only expects, but through His Holy Spirit also empowers and enables believers to fulfill. But when it comes to more general ethical standards, these are designed by God to benefit every human being, regardless of religious affiliation. This is true because all humans are made in God’s image.

This assumes and affirms, however, that there is a divine creation order, something directly challenged by contemporary ideologies that claim we are not subject to any transcendent design plan. Many today suggest that we can (really, we must) create our own meaning and define our own identity. But if we are created by God in His image, then we are designed according to His purposes and plans. Our identity and meaning are grounded in our unique status as creatures stamped with this divine image.

Attempting to step away from or outside of that transcendent creation order is a recipe for difficulty and adversity. As C. S. Lewis puts it, “Moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.” Thus, some actions are more destructive than others when it comes to human beings in general, not just for Christians in particular.

Throughout history, the nature and extent of these more universal prohibitions has been debated, but until very recently, most societies considered things like submitting to and honoring parents, preserving innocent and vulnerable life (especially human life), truth-telling, sharing with those in need, as well as sexual modesty and propriety to be good for the overall flourishing of everyone in society, religious or otherwise. The crucial question, then, is this: Is the condemnation and avoidance of homosexual behavior a uniquely Christian sexual standard, or is this standard good for humanity in general, regardless of religious beliefs and commitments?

First and foremost, it’s important to remember that human sexuality is inherent to God’s image since He created us, “in His own image . . . male and female,” (Genesis 1:27). In this light, Scripture also affirms that marriage is the union of one male and one female (Genesis 2:24, cf. Matthew 19:4-6). Furthermore, this God-determined creation order is universal, predating our fall into sin. Together, male and female sexuality is divinely designed to reflect and depict God’s nature in the world. By submitting to this gendered and sexual creation order, we actually reveal some of God’s character and nature to each other.

Consequently, homosexual behavior is not merely problematic for Christians in particular, it is destructive and harmful for the long-term well-being and flourishing of every divine image-bearer. It not only distorts a fuller reflection of God’s character as seen through both sexes, it downplays the God-designed unitive and complementary nature of the two sexes, diminishing the procreative sexual mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

Historically, this debate is neither new, nor has it been especially controversial. Even when homosexuality was tolerated, it was seldom considered normal or good for society as a whole. Thus, the West’s current obsession with and widespread promotion and celebration of an ever-growing list of unbridled sexual expressions is uniquely unprecedented and perilously untested.

Returning to the original statement, it further assumes that homosexual behavior is acceptable because it is largely a private activity, having little impact on society in general or the Christian in particular. Of course, most who actively support homosexuality and same-sex marriage don’t believe this. They adamantly argue that everyone should publicly accept and actively promote the fulfillment of homosexual desires as both normal and normative. For these pro-LGBT+ advocates, anyone who disagrees with and opposes their ethical viewpoint is a villain and immoral actor in this cultural conflict. They understand perfectly well that this issue is not a private moral affair. It impacts the basic ethical and societal notions of marriage, family, and human sexuality. Since the family and our understanding of human identity are foundational to society, any fundamental change in our conceptions of them will profoundly alter the society itself. By its nature, human sexuality is decidedly not just a “private affair.” It strikes at the very heart of what it means to be genuinely human.

In a related vein, the statement also ignores the role that legislation plays in the public vision of the common good and overall human flourishing. While making or keeping something illegal will not prevent the breaking of that law, it does, on some significant level, say something very important about the nature of the activity. It helps discourage its pursuit, giving it a decidedly negative moral connotation in the general society. This is precisely why the LGBT+ lobby has worked so hard to legalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage. They clearly understand that this helps not only makes them appear socially permissible but also morally and socially acceptable.

Yet another problem with the statement is that it subtly places human freedom, the power of the will, and the (especially sexual) desires of individuals above tradition, Scripture, and history—not to mention God Himself. There is a failure to comprehend the nature of human choices and how social cohesion and general human flourishing are often contained within a moral vision that sets carefully considered and long-established boundaries around certain arenas of human desires. In short, it has long been understood that not everything we want to do—even urgently and powerfully—is good for ourselves and society.

Of course, same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior are not the only relevant threats to societal flourishing, but they are symptomatic of a bevy of moral and ideological commitments that in the name of “moral progress” and “social justice” are tearing apart the social fabric of strong and healthy communities. God is certainly patient and gracious, but radically departing from the biblical norms of such foundationally formative social aspects like human sexuality, identity, marriage, and the family will inevitably be destructive, both communally and individually.

Just how destructive and how rapidly such harms will manifest themselves is hard to say but departing from the biblical vision of these foundations always, sooner or later, results in widespread social degradation and disintegration. Therefore, Christians must display greater courage and wisdom to graciously but actively discourage the legalization and public celebration of same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior, not because we are “unloving,” “hate gays,” or are “homophobic.” To the contrary, we oppose these precisely because we deeply care about the flourishing of everyone made in God’s image—same-sex attracted people included.

I admit not all Christians agree with this conclusion. Some believe we are better off being political and social separatists. Others claim that God’s love condones or even supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I have argued elsewhere against this latter view and for reasons stated here consider the former view unwise and unsustainable.

I am also keenly aware that in today’s moral climate, such claims may seem not only ridiculous, but deeply offensive and even dangerous. I have no illusions about the likelihood that this (until recently widely supported) prohibitory perspective will be reembraced by western society anytime soon. This is not because it’s wrong, but because the (fallacious) contemporary western conceptions of the family, human sexuality, and identity make it seem implausible, unpopular, and perhaps even cruel and psychologically harmful.

Nevertheless, we must not ignore the dangers or even promote the lie that flouting God’s creational purposes and plans will lead to greater human flourishing. It will only do the opposite. Satan made the same false and deceptive promise to Adam and Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:1-6), and He continues to make it to us today. As Proverbs 14:12 warns, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

God, in contrast, offers everyone a life of genuine flourishing through the arduous but infinitely rewarding path of humble submission and joyful obedience to Him, our loving and wise Creator and King. As Deuteronomy 30:19-20 puts it: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, so that you and your descendants may live, and that you may love the LORD your God, obey Him, and hold fast to Him. For He is your life.”

What’s the worst that can happen?

2 Replies

what-s-the-worst-that-can-happen

There is, as I write, a bill in the California state legislature authored by openly gay legislator Ricardo Lara, that will require (among other things) that all Christian universities in California to allow same-sex married couples to not only attend, but also live in married student housing.  Failure to do so would open the schools to discrimination lawsuits and the loss of millions of dollars in public funds.  Many think this type of legislation is only the beginning of a tsunami of cultural changes coming to the American landscape in the next few years.

It’s honestly hard to say where this particular legislation will go from here—into law or into the trash.  If, however, the example and trajectory of Canada on these matters is any indication, it’s likely that at least some legislatively punitive measures will eventually be brought against Christian schools, organizations, churches, and even individuals who refuse to accept homosexuality as a morally commendable lifestyle.

Although we were never truly a Christian nation, from the perspective of history, Christianity in America has enjoyed unprecedented favor and cultural influence for significant portions of her history.  Perhaps that time has passed.  It’s hard to say for sure.  Regardless, it is likely American society will, for quite some time, continue to enjoy the Christian moral capital it has previously been infused with, but as history shows time and time again, God’s moral patience will not last forever.

I pray public legislative censure against Christianity for refusing to endorse homosexual behavior will never come to pass in America, but there are worse things that can happen to Christian schools, organizations, churches, and individuals than losing social acceptance and state and federal funds.  And there are even worse things that can happen than being shut down, incarcerated, and killed.

The worst thing that can happen for Christians is to forsake their Lord and compromise their calling just to retain some tattered vestige of public praise and cultural power.  Christianity’s power does not come from the accolades of societal approval and respect from those who don’t love God.  It’s a power that at its weakest is stronger than the strength of men, and it comes only from being faithful to Jesus Christ, no matter what the cost.  To know the supernatural power of His resurrection, we must be willing to suffer humiliation and shame.  We must be willing to die with Christ.  There is no other way.

Authenticity, Immorality, and Homosexuality: How do I find my “true self”?

3 Replies

Be Authentic Concept

On May 31st, Trey Pearson, the lead singer of the Christian band, “Everyday Sunday” wrote an open letter to his fans explaining that he was gay and was coming out of the closet.  Married for seven and a half years and the father of two children, this coming out included divorcing his wife.  He claims the vast majority of people, his ex-wife included, have been extremely supportive and encouraging.

I suspect if Trey had openly confessed to his fans he was divorcing his wife because he was having an affair with another woman, their response would have been quite different.

Many Americans find heterosexual unfaithfulness in marriage far more offensive than when a homosexual who has been married to someone of the opposite sex “comes out of the closet” and professes his or her “true sexual identity.”  When they leave their spouse behind for another partner of the same sex, they are considered “courageous” and “authentic.”  The heterosexual offender, in contrast, is deemed “immoral” and “unfaithful.”

This is due to a number of factors, but the link to the idea of “authenticity” stands in a direct-line relationship.  Being “authentic” and faithful to oneself is considered far more important than being covenantally and sacrificially faithful to another.  And what is truly “authentic” is based almost entirely on the internal longings and desires of the individual self.

That we might refer to sacred norms and traditions, that there is an externally designed human purpose and goal, are given little serious consideration, if not overtly ridiculed and mocked.  The idea that there is an ideal human nature that exists apart from—and often stands in evaluative judgment of—the choosing “I,” seems ridiculous and strange to the postmodern thinker who believes that no one and nothing outside of the self can tell a person who they truly are.

Only under this kind of radically emotional and personalist ideology of “authenticity” can someone be publicly praised for using homosexuality as an excuse to forsake a heterosexual marriage vow in order to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

But all of this can be set aside for a moment to address what I believe is a deeper danger and greater tragedy.  Because homosexual practice goes against God’s perfect design plan for human flourishing and personal as well as social well-being, it ultimately damages the commonwealth of society and hinders personal connection with a holy God, leading to all kinds of deleterious repercussions and predicaments.  It becomes yet another source of dissatisfaction and ungodliness, just one more form of refusal and lack of desire to be like God on His terms.  As in Genesis 3, we want to “be like God” but only selfishly and in the crudest and most demonic sense of that term.  Thus, homosexuality is not the problem but merely another symptom of the more fundamental problem of being alienated and disconnected with the one true and holy God.

In this sense, when I see the way homosexuals wrestle with their sexuality and inner desires, I see a mirror of myself.  I see my own struggles to be sexually pure, to understand my own true identity, to understand what it means to be a godly man and a male in a world of emotional immaturity, moral cowardice, and sexual confusion.  And if the goal is merely emotional authenticity, then I see the authentic sinner standing at the base of every man, woman, and child who will not yield to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

In short, homosexuality is symptomatic rather than paradigmatic.  It’s just one more illegitimate way (among many) to try and fulfill a normal desire (sexual pleasure) and need (procreation and relational intimacy) that is, at its root, no different than the alcoholic who tries to meet a normal desire (feeling good) and need (satisfaction of thirst) by drinking too much and too often.  The illegitimacy of the means to try and fulfill such desires and needs ironically results in the distortion and lack of fulfillment, thus making sense of the studies showing homosexuals—especially men—almost always have inordinately higher numbers of sexual partners than their heterosexual counterparts.  The need remains as intense as ever but the wrong way of meeting it only extends and exacerbates the problem of unfulfilled desire.

In the end, they seek but do not find.  They knock on doors where nothing and no one stands behind to open and answer.  Thus, one of the great tragedies of our age lies within the catastrophic canard that tells the homosexual that all that stands between him or her and authentic fulfillment is social acceptance and full freedom to seek satiation.  The terrible truth is they are being given an open and celebrated invitation into greater frustration and deeper bondage.  I genuinely grieve for homosexuals who look for fulfillment in all the wrong places by all the wrong means, because this is what sin loves to do—damage and destroy those who embrace and pursue it.

In a recent speech, Mars Hill Audio Journal founder Ken Myers puts the idea this way: “We are all creatures made in the image of a Triune God, called to fellowship with him, to love for one another, and for stewardship of our earthly home.  Our hearts are restless until we rest in him.  These are not religious opinions, but faithful descriptions of what is really the case.  We are in fact this sort of creature, and our shared public life should honor this sort of fact, not just those facts measurable through material means.”

The good news is you can discover your true self.  There is a source of authentic humanity, but it comes from outside the self and even outside the universe.  It also has a name: the God-man, Jesus Christ.  If you want to find out who you really are, only the One who made you can tell you, and only He can make you who you ought to be: a truly authentic and genuinely godly human being.

I will say more about this counter-cultural and counter-intuitive authenticity in my next post on Christian authenticity.

Were David and Jonathan gay?

2 Replies

Jonathan_Lovingly_Taketh_His_Leave_of_David_by_Julius_Schnorr_von_Carolsfeld

Some have recently argued that David and Jonathan must have been gay because (so they say) the biblical descriptions of their relationship could only be understood in sexually explicit ways. For example, 1 Samuel 18:1 says that the soul of Jonathan was “knit” to the soul of David. And in 2 Samuel 1:26 David says that Jonathan’s love for him was “more wonderful than that of women.”

The only way this argument gets any traction in today’s world is because we are the products of a very sexualized American pop culture. The concept of deep and meaningful love relationships has become so equated with sexual intercourse, it has become difficult for us to conceive of or understand what real friendship actually looks like.

We have confused sexual love with genuine love between friends, and so we cannot imagine how Jonathan and David could consider their love for one another to be better than the presumably sexual love they had experienced with women.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that in English we use the word, “love” both broadly and flippantly for all kinds of attitudes and actions toward people and things. We say we love chocolate, our children, God, our dog, and our local sports team all in the same breath without seeing any need to provide clarification concerning what we really mean by each use of the word.

The love between friends is a different kind of love than mere erotic interest. This is why the Greeks had several words that we translate into English as “love.” Erotic love was described in the Greek as “eros,” while affectionate love between friends was described by the word “phileo.” It was not sexual, but deeply meaningful and important nonetheless. It still is, but I fear Americans have lost their ability to discern the difference between having sex and loving another in a non-sexual way.

Men in India hold hands with one another and there is nothing sexual about it. It is simply a way to be together with another man and express appreciation for being a trusted friend. And it’s a beautiful thing to see. It’s nothing but a tragedy that men seen holding hands in western culture are immediately assumed to be homosexuals because that kind of benevolent physical touch is associated so strongly with purely sexual advances.

There are cultural nuances here, of course, but there is also something deeper. By buying into the sexual narrative of our time, we have severely diminished our capacity for deep and abiding friendship. We have become obsessed with sexual passions that have little or nothing to do with deep affection. We do not understand anymore how we can truly love someone without turning him or her into a sexual object for our personal gratification.

On the face of it, the bald act of sexual intercourse requires very little time or effort. This is why prostitution has always been a thriving worldwide industry. Total strangers who have never met and might never meet again can “make a transaction” in five to ten minutes if the conditions are right. What makes sex meaningful over the long haul is having it in the God-ordained context of a committed covenantal marriage relationship where deep friendship can grow and blossom alongside the simpler act of sex. Having sex is relatively easy. Becoming friends is not.  It takes time and effort—a lot of it.

And even in marriage, and contrary to the conventional wisdom of today, the most important aspect of a genuinely meaningful relationship is not the sex itself. What makes our lives truly momentous and significant are the lasting friendships we have. Deep and enduring friendships have elements of richness and meaning that sex simply cannot provide.

On page 91 of The Four Loves, C. S. Lewis puts it this way: “Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend.” This is perhaps one of the reasons that gay men have so many sexual partners during their lifetime. They are looking for the joy of real friendship, but have been deceived into thinking they will find it in nothing more than sex.

David and Jonathan were not gay. They were friends, and possessed a depth of emotional intimacy that is rare indeed. When Jesus called His disciples “friends” and spoke of a love so great that He would lay down His life for them, He meant it literally. He laid down His life to atone for sin—theirs and ours, yours and mine. Sex was never in the equation. Only genuine love was.

The LGBTQIA Movement: How should the church respond? Part 2

4 Replies

Rainbow_at_Faith_Church

In the previous post, we noted the need for Christians to understand and appreciate the highly emotional nature of human identity and sexuality, to speak out for a biblical perspective, and to be ready and willing to suffer honorably for opposing the LGBTQIA agenda. Here we conclude our mini-series by examining three more responsibilities the church has toward God, itself, and our society, starting with a need to be loving and compassionate.

Be Loving and Compassionate

We begin here because as Christians, we serve and seek to be like a God who’s compassionate and gracious (Psalm 103:8), whose essence is love (1 John 4:8). What becomes more difficult is knowing what love actually looks like in action. This is especially important because so many have cited “love” as the reason why homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But what does the Bible—not our culture—say is genuinely loving and compassionate?

C. S. Lewis gives great insight into competing cultural concepts of love when he says this through the pen of his demonic character, Screwtape: “We have [undermined marriage] through the poets and novelists by persuading the humans that a curious, and usually short-lived, experience which they call ‘being in love’ is the only respectable ground for marriage; that marriage can, and ought to, render this excitement permanent; and that a marriage which does not do so is no longer binding. . . . [T]he idea of marrying with any other motive [than being in love] seems to them low and cynical. . . . They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. . . . [A]ny sexual infatuation whatever, so long as it intends marriage, will be regarded as ‘love,’ and ‘love’ will be held to excuse a man from all the guilt, and to protect him from all the consequences, of marrying a heathen, a fool, or a wanton.” (The Screwtape Letters, 81, 83-84.)

To understand love, then, we need to better understand God and not be taken in by a mere “storm of emotion.” And perhaps we need to begin at a place of contrition and confession. God loves us through constant care, communication, and patient self-sacrifice. While we were sinners and enemies of God, Christ gave His life for us (Romans 5:8). We say that we love God, but have we really obeyed and worshiped Him as Lord? He loves us with a everlasting love, but have we truly believed in and embraced that love? The church needs to begin by looking at itself and revisiting its understanding of God’s love. It’s likely we need to confess that, like the church in Ephesus, we have left our first love (Revelation 2:4) and forgotten what biblical love really means and looks like.

Only then will we know how to show God’s perfect love to others in its multifarious forms, for love is multidimensional. Too many people, Christians included, try to define love too narrowly and fail to understand the fullness of love’s many expressions. Love warns, love overlooks, love rebukes, love comforts, love waits, love acts, love withholds, love gives. At first glance, the list appears contradictory, but it shows how love’s concrete applications require supernatural wisdom and strength. Loving others means that we offer them what they need—not necessarily what they want—when and how they need it.

When we consider the LGBTQIA movement, we have already noted our concern about human flourishing and the wellbeing of those caught up in the lifestyles of the movement. But we also need to look back at ourselves and recognize we have not always expressed this concern in a loving way. Nor have we always treated movement supporters and activists as human beings. We are all made in God’s image whether we acknowledge it or not. For Christians, this is the basis for showing respect and love for every human being, Christian or otherwise.

The story of the Good Samaritan makes it clear we are to love our neighbor, whoever they are, regardless of ideological affiliation and lifestyle. Yes, love is not soft. It includes warnings, prohibitions, and rebukes. We cannot exclude that from our notion of love. But love is also humble and actively cares for and seeks the good of the other, even when the other hates and seeks to harm us; yes, even when that person wishes to be our enemy (Luke 6:35).

If we understand the burden of love and are honest with ourselves, we all have much to apologize for. We have to remember we are all marred by sin and endowed with finitude. These should become a source of humility that gives us pause when we begin to feel righteous indignation. There is a place for this, yes, but only Jesus expressed it untainted by sin. For us, it usually it comes with mixed motives and a tendency to forget our own limitations and sinfulness.

Again, we should not be afraid to speak, but we must be careful when we do. We should not be too quick to condemn and too slow to see the ways we dishonor God in our manner of condemnation. Genuine love involves being with people, asking sincere questions and entering into the mess of other people’s lives, hearing their hopes, dreams, wants, needs, fears, pains, heartaches, victories, and losses. It includes knowing their beliefs systems and understanding the reasons why they hold them, even when we strongly disagree. In short, we must “be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:19-20).

Sometimes in our evangelical zeal for truth and righteousness, we forget to show love for others simply by caring enough to ask questions and listen. How can we expect people to listen to and consider our perspective if we fail to demonstrate this kind of listening love? As Millard Erickson puts it, “We will need to enter into the other person’s perspective, to think from his or her presuppositions. It means that we will have to listen . . . rather than just talking, which tends to be an occupational disease of both clergypersons and sometimes of lay Christians.” (Postmodernizing the Faith, 155.) As we listen, we discover how to pray for people, and not just how to argue with them. And pray we must, for that is something no one stop us from doing and it taps into the only One who can really change the heart of a nation, one person at a time.

In addition to all this, we have to be an actively caring community that does more to care for people than simply sing worship songs and share biblical information once a week on a Sunday morning. That’s important, to be sure, but I wonder if too much of the church’s effort is spent “putting on a show” rather than getting our hands and feet dirty in the real-life trenches of meeting the needs of sinful people where they are, no matter who they are. For much of His ministry, Jesus embraced and hung out with sinners, not because He agreed with them, but because He loved them and wanted them to know there was a radically different way of knowing and being and doing in this life, as well as the life to come. Some wouldn’t listen, but many others did and saw their lives transformed by His life and message.

The church has always lived in a strange dual reality with regard to moral offenses against God and His plan for our lives. On the one hand, we are called to oppose and expose sin (Ephesians 5:11) as well as admit and forsake it in our own lives (Proverbs 28:13). That constitutes our prophetic and exemplary role in our own Christian community, as well as in the community at large. But we are also called to be the compassionate hands and feet of Jesus toward those being crushed by the fallout of sin.

As time passes and the consequences of sin plays out in the lives of individuals and the community, many will be deeply damaged and in need of care and healing. When the rest of the world abandons and flees from its wounded and dying, the church is called to give love and care at the deepest levels of the sinner’s being, not because we are better than they are, but because we too are sinners saved by God’s grace. We too have experienced a new hope and a fresh opportunity to see our foolishness and licentiousness redeemed and transformed into something beautiful and good. In short, God gives us beauty from ashes (Isaiah 61:3).

But here is a closing word of caution: We cannot assume that being kind to and reasonable with those involved in this movement will somehow help us be liked or produce a change of heart and mind. We do not know what the outcome of our care will be, and we should not love and serve others simply because we want to see a certain result. We love and serve broken people because it’s what Jesus would do. His righteousness was a self-giving, sacrificial goodness that poured itself out for all who would repent and come to Him in loving and humble trust. Similarly, we must love with God’s unrelenting love. This is a tough love, but also an active and tender love seeking restoration for those trapped in sin (Galatians 6:1).

Help Those in the Church Struggling with Their Sexuality

As I’ve already emphasized, there is a danger in the way evangelicals sometimes express our love for and commitment to truth. In our zeal to condemn wickedness, we sometimes forget that apart from the grace of God in Christ, we too are wicked. And we sometimes forget that wickedness remains in our lives and in our midst. No one is yet perfect or beyond doing what is evil, no matter how long they have walked with the Lord.

I say this because when a Christian young man or women finds him or herself struggling with their sexuality, they are potentially forced to live in a church context where they hear constant condemnation, but very little compassion or understanding for what they are going through. We are so well known for what we are against, but seldom do we consistently present a glorious vision of all that we are for. Our perpetual denunciations—especially of sins and temptations we rarely, if ever, have to wrestle with—can push church-goers to remain silent and suffer alone with the shame of their struggle. And this is yet another tragic consequence of our smug sanctimoniousness.

While I personally may not struggle with homosexual desires, for example, I certainly struggle with inappropriate sexual desires in general. The church needs to do a better job of explaining the critical difference between temptation and sin. And while it’s not always easy, we need to do better at condemning sin while simultaneously giving assurance to sinners that this is why Jesus died in the first place. We need to create safe environments where we can be honest with each other and bring our struggles and failures into the light. We need to stop pretending we are perfect or better than everyone else and admit that we also struggle with sin and temptation on a daily basis. As we confess our sins to one another and pray for one another we can be healed (James 5:16), and we learn by personal experience that the power of sin is broken not through hiding it, but openly admitting and fastidiously forsaking it.

We have already noted some of the lies our culture perpetually perpetuates but the church has to do a much better job of helping its people be well informed and fully equipped against the lies and foolishness of our sex-obsessed, sin-infused culture. To use just one illustrative example, there is a common belief in our society today that sexual fulfillment, like food and shelter, is both a need and a right. But this is both false and demeaning. People can live very well without ever having sex, and through the ages, countless people—Jesus included—have fully resisted sexual temptations and lived productive, healthy, fulfilling lives. We must help people see the fallaciousness of assuming that sexual libido cannot be controlled or that sexual intimacy is somehow superior to or necessary for genuinely satisfying emotional intimacy. By God, it is not! Any idiot can have sex and know almost nothing about the other person. This is why prostitution is such a booming business worldwide. But precious few know the richness of real emotional intimacy that only comes through a true and abiding friendship.

1 Samuel 18:1 says, “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” Only a superficial person would assume that this kind of deep intimacy must include sexual intercourse. What people need and long for is genuine human friendship, but our culture has lied to us by telling us we need sexual relations to be human, happy, and fulfilled. The church must not only teach against such insidious nonsense, but also provide greater opportunities (like small groups) for people to experience the kind of deep intimacy that comes through healthy interpersonal human relationships.

As I noted in the previous post, Christians struggling with homosexual attractions and other disordered sexual desires have to face some very tough choices. They can succumb to these desires. They can resist temptation and sublimate these desires by remaining celibate, an arduous but ultimately rewarding road. Or they can seek some sort of discipleship program and/or conversion therapy that tries to bring about a transformation of their desires so that they might eventually be attracted to and marry someone of the opposite sex. This latter option carries a great deal of controversy with it because as I previously explained, the nature of sexuality is complex and not fully understood. In addition, the power of sexual desire is not easily controlled, nor is it easily redirected.

Again, being a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) does not automatically eliminate all desires of the flesh which continually to wage war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11). It may well be that for those with same-sex attractions, God’s call is to a life of celibacy and singleness. That may sound like a harsh sentence in a culture such as ours, but scriptures like 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 make it clear that this struggle is better embraced as an opportunity to serve God with singular and undivided devotion.

I fear the church has let the cultural noise drown out and make preposterous a biblical perspective on such issues. If we fail to teach—and especially live out ourselves—God’s sometimes hard but liberating truths, we are guilty of loving the world rather than loving and serving Him alone. In the end, that is the task and goal of every believer, no matter what struggles we are facing in our lives. The church must help all Christians everywhere know and obey God and keep His word, no matter how hard or countercultural that may seem (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). Anything less is vanity and chasing after wind.

Accept the Sovereignty of God’s Purposes and Plans

When all is said and done, we must remember that God is not on the same schedule as we are regarding His purposes and plans. We sometimes don’t see eye-to-eye on how and when God brings about His will for us and His world. We sometimes think—even if we don’t come out and say it—that we could handle things better than Him. This is a lie. God alone is wise and good and powerful enough to find the best possible path to the best possible world for all living in it.

Yes, sometimes the wicked do prosper. Sometimes the righteous perish and are seemingly unrewarded in this life. Sometimes evil people gain power and influence and fame. These are mysteries that can trouble those longing for God’s righteousness and will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Ultimately, God will have the final say in all these matters. In the meantime, we are called to trust and obey Him faithfully, leaving the times and seasons in His hands. This is not the end of the world, but rather another opportunity to see God at work and to more fully trust Him in the midst of tough times.

In closing, it should also be emphasized that the church’s mission is far greater than the LGBTQIA movement. God’s calling for us is so much broader and more significant than mere concerns over human sexuality and sexual ethics. This is not to say these aren’t important, but it is to remind us not to forget the overall purposes God has for us as Christians—to live out and share the gospel in a world that desperately needs Jesus. Even if we win the battle on the sexuality front, we could lose the war if we fail to emphasize the message of God’s love and forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ. No matter what challenges we are facing inside and outside the church, God remains sovereign, and His gospel must ever and always remain the place where we begin and end, for His grace and goodness remain infinitely greater than our vilest sins and deepest fears.

The LGBTQIA Movement: How should the church respond? Part 1

2 Replies

Church and Same-sex Movement

The LGBTQIA movement has recently gained great power and momentum, and it’s unlikely their influence will diminish or be reversed anytime soon. Christians can no longer ignore what is happening both in the church and all around us. If Christ calls us to “shine like stars” in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (Philippians 2:15), how can we do this with regard to the LGBTQIA movement?

Although there are many ways we could respond, I suggest there are at least six responsibilities Christians should especially keep in mind as we seek to follow and become like Jesus. There are many more, of course, but these are the ones God has currently placed on my heart.

I will share three in this post and then three more in my concluding post, but before proceeding, some words of caution are in order. These responsibilities require great wisdom in their concrete application, and some of us will be called to participate more in some and less in others, depending on opportunity and gifting. We also have to seek God continually, asking Him what our role might be in specific situations, and to what extent we should be involved. As you read, take time to ask God how He might want you to respond to the LGBTQIA movement. We begin by trying to understand why the issue is so emotionally charged.

Understand and Appreciate Why the Issue Is So Emotionally Charged

Sometimes it’s hard to understand the intensity of the arguments regarding issues of sexuality. Why do people get so upset and angry when disagreements arise in this area? There are many reasons for this, but central are questions of identity and sexuality. As we have already noted, these are integrally related, and what is at stake in the mind of those who struggle with their sexuality is far more than just a lifestyle choice. Many evangelicals have been notoriously simplistic in their condemnation of homosexuals (for example) by assuming most people with same-sex desires simply chose to feed these feelings and then acted on them. But the situation is far more complicated than this.

Sexuality lies at the core of who we are. We are male. We are female. But if we grow up in a context where identity is not clearly understood or defined, we are likely to become confused and succumb to sinful expressions of our sexuality. Worse, we are unlikely to even know or understand that certain understandings and expressions of sexuality work in opposition to the design plan of the Creator. Instead, we are told over and over that expressing and fulfilling these desires is the way to authenticity and personal health and wellbeing. Now, couple this with the fact that one of the results of the fall is that sometimes our normal desires like heterosexual attraction can become disordered in such a way that they are still normal sexual attraction, for example, but directed toward what is not normal, namely members of the same sex.

It is easy enough for heterosexuals who do not struggle with same-sex attractions to consider such desires repulsive or strange, but they often forget that many of their own desires are and easily become disordered as well. The desire for security, for example, is a good and normal desire, but when it becomes a justification for refusing to take risks, it becomes a fear and perhaps even a phobia. Healthy fear of dangerous situations is good and normal, but it becomes disordered when it puts hope and security in someone or something other than God, and when it reaches a level that paralyzes normal human life.

But let’s move back toward sexual desire for a moment. When a normal desire for heterosexual sex becomes directed toward (for example) pornography or extramarital sex, it becomes disordered. But as Jesus taught us in Matthew 5:28, it can become that long before any of these actions are fulfilled. Even in marriage, sexual desires easily become disordered when sex is used as a way to dominate or punish one’s spouse. Because of our sin, human beings are excellent at taking normal desires and distorting and twisting them in all kinds of ways. Just because heterosexuals can legitimately fulfill the sexual impulse within marriage does not mean those desires will therefore be used in a noble, God-honoring fashion. Honest married couples will tell you that the sexual aspect of the relationship is often fraught with pain, frustration, and heartache—because the desires are so easily misused and disordered.

In short, a sinful world, normal and good desires can be directed in the wrong place or given the wrong amount of attention, but not always in the same way and to the same extent. We don’t always recognize the disorder from the desires themselves, but only through reference to a design plan which tells us more about the appropriate fulfillment or restraint of those desires. Nearly everyone has sexual desires, but scripture tells us they must be fulfilled not only in the right context (marriage), but also in the right manner (lovingly). Choice is involved at the level of application, but not often at the level of origin. The desires are there, whether we want them or not. What we do with those requires external instruction, great wisdom, and ongoing self-restraint.

In addition to all this sin-infused complexity, our culture has a very distorted understanding of what love really means. We have somehow confused and conflated sexual feelings with love, and assumed that relational intimacy somehow must include a sexual aspect to be truly intimate. But this is an incredibly superficial and fallacious notion of genuine love and intimacy. As Kevin DeYoung puts it, “Nothing in the Bible encourages us to give sex the exalted status it has in our culture, as if finding our purpose, our identity, and our fulfillment all rest on what we can or cannot do with our private parts. Jesus is the fullest example of what it means to be human, and he never had sex. How did we come to think that the most intense emotional attachments and the most fulfilling aspects of life can only be expressed sexually?” (What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?, 119.)

It is true that when we trust in Christ to forgive our sin, we become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), but it is also true that our sinful flesh continues to wage war with our new nature (Galatians 5:17). Believing in Jesus does not always result in a change of orientation or desires, and certainly not immediately. Because of temptation and sin, most of us will wrestle with our disordered desires for life. We must not make superficial declarations about having a new nature in Christ as if this solves every dysfunctional aspect of our being instantaneously. Perhaps we would want it so, but apparently God has different designs for our life of discipleship in Him. It takes hard work, wisdom, sublimation, and accountability.

The bottom line is that for many, homosexual feelings will NEVER change or subside, and for those who wish to honor the Lord in this area of their lives and remain sexual pure, God is asking them to embrace a life of single celibacy. In our sexually charged social context, that is not an easy pill to swallow, nor an easy pledge to keep. It is not impossible (just ask Henri Nouwen, for example), but it is difficult indeed, and we would do well to have a much deeper appreciation and compassion for the immense challenges Christians with homosexual desires face when they want to remain faithful to Jesus.

In the end, we cannot see people as nothing more than projects for “fixing.” Sometimes God allows temptations and thorns in the flesh to remain (2 Corinthians 12:8-9). This is not because He hates or does not care about us, but because He loves and wants us to experience His grace in the midst of the difficulties those thorns and desires entail. But that is a terrifically hard message to embrace. We would do well to appreciate and understand the truly heart-wrenching difficulties such feelings and temptations entail, especially for someone living in our society today, a society that ridicules and discourages holiness while celebrating and promoting a lack of it at every turn.

Play an Informative and Exhortative Role

I am always a little reluctant to call the church to speak because the way in which we speak matters so much to the way in which we are heard. Jesus was a master of communication and always seemed to know when to rebuke and castigate, when to encourage and show care, when to answer questions with a question, when tell a story, when to give instruction, when to weep with those who weep, when to forgive and let go, and when to keep His mouth shut. We, it seems, seldom know what to say, when to say it, and how to say it best within the contexts we are placed. As a result, we sometimes—perhaps even often—speak like noisy gongs and clanging cymbals.

Nevertheless, if we remain silent for fear of speaking poorly, we may not speak at all. Yes, sometimes silence is better than speaking poorly, but we can also learn from our mistakes and listen to feedback from others as we speak. And speak we must, for there are numerous false ideologies and assumptions being loudly and continually promoted in contemporary culture, and these lead to a severely distorted picture of what it means to be human and how our sexuality relates to our identity. As a result, many people are deeply hurting and confused.

The church needs to know more clearly and voice more consistently a comprehensive biblical understanding of human nature, marriage, and human flourishing. We need articulate spokespeople who can communicate a Christian vision to those in the church, in authority, in the government, in the courtrooms, in the media, in the classrooms, in our families, in our neighborhoods, and on the street. And we must do it boldly, winsomely, persistently, and frequently, regardless of how unpopular it might be.

Parents and grandparents need to repeatedly talk about these issues with their children and grandchildren. They need to ask good questions and listen carefully to what their progeny are hearing and believing, and provide thoughtful and relevant biblical perspectives and answers. The same must be done with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers.

We must also do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), but again, our gentleness and respect cannot become an excuse for saying nothing for fear of being offensive. Sometimes the message itself is the source of offense, no matter how kindly and clearly we say it. We cannot assume that if we speak about this subject appropriately we will always get a warm hearing and positive reaction. Jesus never did or said anything wrong and He got crucified for what He was saying and doing. We simply cannot afford to succumb to the temptation to be liked by everyone. We won’t be, and too much is at stake if we think we can be.

In the end, if we remain silent, or leave the job to others, we abdicate our God-given responsibility to teach God’s ways to the generations who come after us (Deuteronomy 6:5-9). And if Christians are silent, who will provide the Christian perspective? We may face opposition and ridicule, but Jesus made it clear in Matthew 5:11 that it is a blessing to be persecuted and ridiculed for His sake. He also warned us in John 15:18 that, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” These verses lead us to another important responsibility.

Be Willing and Ready to Suffer

American Christianity has especially enjoyed an extended time of peace, prosperity, and favor. But throughout the world and throughout history, this has often not been the norm but the exception. Difficulty, hardship, persecution, and exclusion have been the far more common experience of the church.

As the LGBTQIA movement gains power and influence, those who oppose them will not be left alone or ignored. Movement advocates will try to intimidate and silence all who stand against them. This has already been one of their most effective weapons in their cause. People are increasingly scared to disagree publicly with the movement.

But the opposition will go beyond mere intimidation and ridicule. As we have already noted in the previous post, it is very likely churches, schools, organizations, and even individuals will suffer real hardship if they refuse to support the movement’s agendas. No doubt, some will lose their jobs over the issue. There will likely be verbal abuse, and perhaps physical abuse, confiscation of property, even imprisonment.

This may sound like sensationalism, but it is not outside the realm of possibility for God’s people to suffer this way for the sake of righteousness in a society that is increasingly disinterested in honoring Him and doing what is good. Those whose deeds are evil love darkness and hate the light (John 3:19). As His followers, we should expect and embrace suffering for the sake of righteousness (1 Peter 4:12-16). Churches and seminaries need to stop teaching Christians a health and wealth gospel—which is no gospel at all—and teach a biblical theology of suffering. We need to learn that hardship normal; that we need to learn how to suffer well; that suffering is one of God’s primary ways of molding us into the Image of Jesus. We need to humble ourselves and gain wisdom from the perseverance, faithfulness, and even mistakes of the suffering church worldwide, as well as the church throughout history.

In Philippians 3:10, Paul expressed his ardent longing to be like Christ in every way—including His sufferings and death. Do you long to suffer like Jesus so you can know Him more intimately? Do I? Scripture also tells us it’s an honor to be considered worthy to suffer for Him (Acts 5:41). Are you worthy and ready for that great honor? Am I?

Where is the LGBTQIA movement taking us? Part 2

Leave a reply

Where are we going

In the last post we looked at how the LGBTQIA movement has begun influencing Christian sexual ethics in the church as well as radically altered society’s concept of marriage. Here we examine some of the movement’s potential impact on religious freedom and human flourishing.

Let me begin by emphasizing that what I am about to say is admittedly controversial, and the issues are complicated by the fact that many are currently nothing more than speculations about the future. That is notoriously tricky business and I do not claim the status or wisdom of a prophet. I do, however, believe there is value in sharing warnings and concerns about the logical legal and social ramifications of what the LGBTQIA movement is trying to achieve. If our society is supporting and celebrating ways of life that go against the character and design of God, there will likely be a detrimental impact for everyone, including our religious freedom.

Impact on Religious Freedom

I will not address what the US Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage might mean in the secular job market. It’s an important question that has problems and concerns all its own, but for now, if we’re honest, the majority of both those who oppose and support this decision—straight, gay, and otherwise—are, at least for a while, unlikely to experience any great change in the daily concerns and opportunities of their lives. My more immediate concern, however, pertains to the longer-term impact it may have on religious freedom in general and on Christianity in particular.

Many legal pundits have expressed significant concerns about the future of Christian schools, churches, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle. It is likely they will face not only social ridicule but significant legal and financial challenges as well.

What is of special concern, far more than the average person on the street, are the activist members of the LGBTQIA movement who are not content to let the issue stop where it stands. As has been demonstrated in Canada over the past ten years, these minority activists will not cease their quest until no one has a public opportunity to oppose same-sex marriage.

The good news is our country has a long history of protecting religious freedom and supporting conscientious objection. The troubling news is that recent actions and rulings have suggested that this particular issue is unlikely to be viewed as publicly opposable, even by overtly religious organizations and institutions.

The reason for this is relatively simple. LGBTQIA activists have successfully lobbied for the view that homosexuals (for example) are a protected class of people just like blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minorities. Again, this tact only works if homosexuality is seen as more than a lifestyle and is linked to the notion of inherent identity. There is irony here, of course. The LGBTQIA movement wants to leave the door open for people to revise and change their sexuality as they wish, while simultaneously retaining a static racial class designation. Strangely, few seem to have noticed the potentially conflicting and competing nature of these two advocacies. But if the racial class category is legally invoked, then the notion of discrimination becomes paramount to the discussion. In this case, religious objection is placed in immediate jeopardy.

Perhaps an illustrative example will help with understanding here. If a school tries to claim on religious grounds that it will not hire a qualified interracial married couple to teach there solely because their marriage is interracial, it is likely to lose in a court battle because the state will side with plaintiffs, considering it to be a clear instance of racial discrimination. Now, change the couple to a legally married same-sex couple. If the marriage is legal and the state considers homosexuals a protected class, the school will have a much harder time defending itself against the charge of discrimination.

In view of this, the current consensus is that organizations and churches refusing to hire legally married homosexuals are likely to lose their tax-exempt status under this rubric of discrimination. Similarly, Christian schools refusing to hire or admit legally married gay people could also lose their tax-exempt status along with all federal grants and loans. Money is often power and these are relatively easy ways the government and courts can pressure institutions to conform to the new morality. In addition, credibility is power and because academic accreditation is frequently linked to conformity with government mandates, religious schools refusing to comply would probably lose public accreditation. This is likely to result in a rapid decline in student enrollment since most students rely on federal funding and many careers require that an employee graduate from a publicly accredited institution.

Some, including those inside the church, feel that tax exemption, accreditation, and federal funding are unnecessary perks for Christian institutions and organizations anyway. Many countries offer no such benefits and churches and schools are still able to thrive in those places. Perhaps they are right. But our government originally granted tax exemption (for example) because it believed Christianity added great value to society and should be recognized and supported for it. Revoking such status illustrates the fundamental shift in national sentiment regarding the perceived public importance and value of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This is tragic, partly because the church has probably failed to demonstrate adequately that it really is adding significant social value. I will say more on this in my future posts on how the church might respond to what is happening in a more Christ-like manner.

I do want to emphasize that these aforementioned scenarios are not just hypothetical. To give a concrete personal example, my son attends Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. I was recently conversing with Moody president, J. Paul Nyquist. about these issues. In his excellent book, Prepare (Moody Press, 2015), Nyquist lays out the legal pathway our nation has taken to come to this sad state of affairs, giving the church some much-needed warnings, but also great hope and encouragement. He mentioned that should Moody’s tax-exempt status be revoked, it would be very hard to come up with the kind of revenue required to pay ongoing property taxes on some of the costliest prime real estate in all of Chicago. In a best-case scenario, the school might not close, but it would likely be forced to sell its campus where it has been for nearly 130 years and relocate away from the heart of the city. It would be a tragic departure from founder D. L. Moody’s original vision to not merely minister and care for to the poor and needy of the inner city, but to also live and work among them.

Sadly, many schools and organizations will close like the foster care and adoption services of the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington DC. Because of its religious convictions, it refused to comply with the local government’s demand that it place children with same-sex couples. Public funding was cut off, and after eighty years of helping foster children and orphans find families, the doors had to be closed. Not all schools, churches, and organizations will close, of course. God will keep open those He chooses to keep open, but it will be harder for them and tough changes and decisions will have to be made.

On a more individual level, the impact on free speech rights and conscientious objection are much more difficult to predict at this point, so I leave this as an open question. Some recent “hate speech” laws and rulings leave me and others uneasy, but I am not an alarmist and remain hopeful that continued room will be retained for respectful religious dissent and honest dialogue among all who disagree.

Impact on Human Flourishing

These days, there’s a lot of talk about “human flourishing.” I conclude this post by first raising concerns about the overall wellbeing of our society and particularly those actively participating in alternative sexual lifestyles. Until recently, precious little attention was given to what actually happens to such persons over extended periods of time.

Previously, people often blamed a sense of rejection and a lack of social acceptance on the significantly higher rates of suicide, depression, and drug and alcohol abuse within the homosexual community. But even as society has increasingly embraced the LGBTQIA agenda, evidence of psychological dysfunction has not diminished at all. And this is one of the saddest aspects of the whole trajectory of the movement. Many truly believe that with the advent of widespread social embrace and acceptance, the sense of fulfillment and satisfaction for which so many in this camp have longed and hoped will finally materialize. However, because this is a false understanding of human flourishing, I am convinced it will only be a matter of time before they realize they have not achieved greater personal peace and wellbeing.

In terms of social impact and family flourishing, many children raised by homosexual parents are just now reaching adulthood and starting to speak out about the numerous dysfunctional aspects of being raised in same-sex households. Many of the stories are fraught with sexual abuse, confusion, pain, and trauma.

Although some of the media silence over these sad stories is probably agenda-driven, part of the reason so little has been shared along these lines is that we are only at the beginning of this unprecedented sociological experiment and the potential tsunami of cultural changes that may eventually sweep over us in the aftermath of this seismic moral shift. There has not been enough time to see what the widespread, long-term impact of these decisions will be, but because this is a blatant rejection of God’s design plan, I am genuinely concerned.

Let me clarify: I am not saying this simply to condemn these advocates and rail against their immoral agenda as if God was some sort of arbitrary cosmic killjoy. God is clear that we are not designed to live and act this way. Sin has deluded all of us—gay and straight—into thinking human flourishing springs from pushing against God’s design plan in one way or another. Thus, I speak out about these things because so few are talking about them, and it does no one any favors, least of all those caught up in such lifestyles, to remain silent about the increasingly documented detrimental aspects of this way of life.

In addition, I am certainly not suggesting all—or even most—practicing homosexuality are moral monsters or social misfits. Every human being, myself included, is deeply marred by sin in its multifarious forms. Thank God, His glorious grace shines into the darkest of places, and He grants His goodness in even the most base of situations (cf. Matthew 5:45). But this does not mean we endorse and legitimize the dysfunctions that stem from our sinful desires and actions. Wise governments do just the opposite by creating laws and programs that discourage the fulfillment of such things. We have to explain that certain lifestyles wander farther from the path of God’s design than others. We do no one any favors by pretending all lifestyles are equally good—or equally bad for that matter. The moral choices we make in light of the desires and temptations that we face draw us nearer and farther away from the life God intends.

The Bible also makes it clear in Psalm 73:3-5 that sometimes the wicked really do prosper—for a time. Sometimes sin really does bring success in the eyes of the world—for a time. But scripture also tells us God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7) and sooner of later, sin will bring to ruin those who practice and promote it, either in this life or the next.

It’s hard to say where all of this is going or where it will end, but over time, sin tends to reveal its true colors. Time will show the multiple ways these sins will damage and destroy human wellbeing and flourishing. Again, that is the tragedy of the LGBTQIA movement. Through the ruling of the US supreme court and the use of modern technologies like sex-change operations and hormone therapy, they may well have their deepest desires fulfilled and still find they are not ultimately satisfied, because the issues run much deeper than mere feelings of attraction and the hormonal and anatomical. They will discover the hard way that they set their hopes on empty promises and unsubstantial aspirations. It will not be the realization of a great new society of boundless love and undifferentiated equality. Rather, it will be a greater unleashing of sin’s tragic power to enslave, degrade, disfigure, devastate, and destroy those who embrace it in the name of freedom, equality, and self-actualization.

I weep for these people. I weep for our nation and world. “Father, forgive us, for we do not know what we are doing” (Luke 23:34).

In our final two installments, we will conclude by looking briefly at some of the more pastoral issues surrounding the LGBTQIA agenda and consider some of the ways the church might respond in an increasingly Christ-like manner.

Where is the LGBTQIA movement taking us? Part 1

5 Replies

copper weather vane with colorful sunset sky, panoramic frame

In the last installment of this miniseries we explored some of the history and ideology behind the LGBTQIA movement’s rejection or radical alteration of the biblical narrative regarding our sexuality and identity as human beings. In this post and the next, we will look more closely at some of the tragic trajectories and likely results stemming from the stubborn refusal to submit to God’s purposes and plans for our lives, particularly in the area of human sexuality.

In all honesty, it’s hard to know where to start. There are so many ways the trajectories of the LGBTQIA agenda could be explored. I will briefly examine just four representative ways the impact of this movement is being felt already, two here and two in the next post. We will start with some self-incrimination by examining its impact on some of the beliefs of self-identified Christians—straight and otherwise—regarding sexual issues.

Impact on Christian Sexual Morality

In a telling 2014 study, “Tracking Christian Morality in a Same-sex Marriage Future,” University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus found that churchgoing Christians who support same-sex marriage differed significantly from churchgoing Christians who rejected same-sex marriage in several areas of sexual ethics. Consider the following table:

Moral Issue: Reject Same-sex Marriage Support Same-sex Marriage Identify as a Gay or Lesbian Christian
Looking at pornography is OK.

 4.6%

 33.4%

57%
Premarital cohabitation is good.

10.9%

37.2%

49.7%
No-strings attached sex is OK.

5.1%

 33%

49%
It is OK for three or more adults to be sexually involved with one another.

1.2%

 15.5%

57.5%
Abortion is a moral right.

6.5%

 39.1%

57.5%

The results are not surprising. When we embrace sin, it has a subtle and insidious way of dulling our moral compass, confusing our mental clarity, and distorting our spiritual sensibilities. We may not radically alter our views on God and the Bible overnight, but time is often the best indicator of where we are actually going when we begin to reject biblical standards and moral practices for the sake of personal preference, cultural acceptance, and social respectability. Already those inside the church embracing the new moral climate are moving in the wrong direction.

Impact on Our Understanding of Marriage

The impact this movement has had on our cultural understanding of marriage is enormous. I have already addressed some aspects of this question in a previous post (“What’s wrong with Homosexual marriage?”), but a few additional comments are in order here.

The legitimization of same-sex marriage is a fundamental redefinition of what marriage is and why it matters. This redefinition argues that marriage is not a mutually binding covenant before God and a community of others, as it is from a Christian perspective, but essentially nothing more than a mutually agreeable social love contract between two (for now) consenting adults. When all parties have changed their hearts and minds, there is nothing to stop them from nullifying the agreement and moving on. Apart from the social and cultural instability this contractual flippancy produces, especially for children, it also opens wide the door to all kinds of other strange notions of marriage.

If marriage is nothing more than a legal social contract between consenting adults—male to male, female to female, male to female—then why should sexual fidelity be an expectation of the marriage relationship? If everyone is amenable to it, why not advocate sexually open marriages as some in Hollywood have done? Furthermore, why should the number be limited to only two? Why not three or more consenting adults—polygamy and beyond? And if the committed sexual expression of loving feelings is the main reason why people should marry, as most homosexual advocates seem to suggest, why can’t a marriage contract be wrought between a sister and brother, sister and sister, brother and brother, so long as they “love” each other? If the only reason to prevent such an incestuous arrangement is to avoid offspring and any potential birth defects born of inbreeding, why not agree in the contract to forgo having children or aborting any “accidents” that may occur? If everyone agrees, how can anyone from the outside place limits on a love contract made between concurring friends and lovers?

On page 140 of What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?, Kevin DeYoung gives this helpful summary of what’s stake here: “By recognizing same-sex unions as marriage . . . the state is engaging in . . . a massive reengineering of our social life. It assumes the indistinguishability of gender in parenting, the relative unimportance of procreation in marriage, and the near infinite flexibility as to what sorts of structures and habits lead to human flourishing.”

Given this social love contract view of marriage, it is not surprising that some have even argued for legal marriage between humans and animals as well as adults and children. If the latter idea shocks you, keep in mind that child brides are not wholly foreign to other societies around the world, and while most Americans remain uneasy about such arrangements, if marriage is a humanly determined social contract, there is no inherent logical barrier if enough people change their minds on the matter or if enough activist politicians and judges who want it legalized come to power.

Granted, it may be unlikely such arrangements will gain widespread popular acceptance in the US anytime soon. But that is not the primary point. The point is that conventional secularist social and legal love contract views of marriage present no consistently logical barrier against these other seemingly more radical understandings of what constitutes a marital relationship. And that’s a legal and rational problem that is likely to cause trouble in future court rulings when activists seek a legal sanction for alternative marital arrangements.

In closing, it should be noted that in contrast to a social and legal love contract theory of marriage, a covenantal view of marriage is a distinctly Christian perspective. Some have pointed out that demanding that our secular government uphold a distinctly Christian view of marriage is unreasonable and unnecessary. Christians should be able to continue to define and demonstrate marriage from a biblical perspective and leave the secular definition to the government. Fair enough, but this assumes Christians should have little or no public influence on governmental policies that have widespread social implications. It also assumes governments will not significantly intrude on Christian beliefs and practices that have public import. Neither assumption is warranted, and I will address both issues when we look more closely at some of the potential impact of the LGBTQIA movement on religious freedom in my next post.

However, if a Christian perspective is also good for society as a whole, it is worth arguing that it be the standard for all members of society, not merely for Christians. Where things get much more complicated is discerning what distinctly Christian morals and standpoints should be publicly supported and codified by the state. That is a convoluted question that requires another book or series of posts, and one about which sincere Christians strongly disagree. Nevertheless, I do believe—against the LGBTQIA movement—that the Christian view of marriage as constituting a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman is not inherently burdensome, inequitable, or oppressive toward non-Christians. Rather, as I argue in more detail in my next post, it contributes to greater human flourishing for all, even those with same-sex attractions and who struggle with their sexual identity.

How did we end up here? Historical Perspectives on the LGBTQIA Movement

Leave a reply

End up here

In this series, we have been looking at the question of human identity and sexuality as it relates to the Bible and the LGBTQIA movement. We previously examined some of the biblical teachings and their implications for our God-given identity and role as human beings and sexually dimorphic creatures.

However, one of the consistent themes of the LGBTQIA movement has been either the rejection of the biblical narrative on human sexuality, or, at best, a significant revision of it. To better understand many of the reasons behind this revision and/or rejection, we must trace some of the history and ideology driving the LGBTQIA movement forward—or backward, depending on your perspective.

Although it roots run deeper, for our purposes we need only look back to the Enlightenment period of the late 17th and 18th centuries to trace some of the major sources of our struggle to adequately understand ourselves. It was here that widespread skepticism toward and even outright rejection of the biblical accounts of creation became more common. There was a growing emphasis on the rational power and capacity of the individual alongside a strong tendency to question all authority, especially religious tradition and authority.

Especially in the west there was a cry for a new way of knowing and for liberation from past conventions and constraints. It was thought that such a move would result in the ascent of human beings out of the mire of religious backwardness and absolutism, ushering in an age of rationality and human greatness. Protagoras’ famous phrase, “mankind is the measure of all things” became the modernist mantra of the educated elite in opposition to “God is the Master of all.”

Detached from a divine mooring, it was not long before all kinds of new proposals for defining human nature were offered in the halls of academia. Descartes suggested our affinity with autonomous reason, Hegel suggested our affinity with the inexorable Spirit, Darwin suggested our affinity with the apes, and Nietzsche suggested our affinity with the will to power. All of them suggested the absolute autonomy of the self.

Without a divine reference point, it was only a matter of time before everyone agreed that no one could agree on a basic definition of who we really are. With this growing confusion came the revision of moral standards, especially in the powerful arena of human sexuality.

If God is most clearly revealed in the appropriate functioning of both sexes in relation to one another, it is no surprise that Satan would work hard to confuse and distract us from a clear notion of who we are and how to follow God’s template for human flourishing. Sexuality cuts at the heart of our identity. Long before we define ourselves through family, personality, and actions, we are declared to be either “male” or “female,” even from the womb.

This undercurrent of looking to the self for a definition of the self still runs deep in contemporary culture where any appeal to a transcendent source of truth, justice, and authority is immediately suspect and often becomes the object of derision. But again, if we choose to reject a divine explanation for who we are and what that identity entails, there are a limited number of places we can go to find answers to our quest. We can turn to our families and social networks to find our sense of self through our relationships with other selves, we can look to the history and cultural traditions of our society, or we can gaze more intently at ourselves, looking within to find answers to our deepest queries of being and doing. Most of us do all of these in varying degrees, but when divine resources (like the Bible) are removed from consideration, we are only left with a conflicting proliferation of human answers in an attempt to discover who we are. We are fortunate that God’s image, though marred and distorted by sin, still offers echoes of the divine, keeping us from spinning off into unbridled foolishness. But without divine correctives, merely human answers become deeply distorted by sin and fraught with the limitations of our built-in finitude.

As the family further disintegrates and the social consensus of the nation continues to splinter and fall apart, this problem is further exacerbated. People are no longer given a clear explanation from parents and grandparents concerning who they are or where they can turn to find answers. Contemporary pop philosophy tells us we can decide for ourselves. This initially feels like liberation: No one can tell me who I can or cannot be! I can become anyone I want to be! But the resources found in the self are ultimately inadequate to tell us who we are. God designed us to need Him, alongside a healthy family and community, to help us understand both who we are and who we are meant to be. And notice, these are not necessarily the same thing.

The assumption that being “authentic” and “true to oneself” is the goal of human existence is only partly right. Authenticity has to be understood in a way that underscores not only the God-imprinted good in us, but also our inherent limitations and the sin-induced evil and foolishness we exhibit. If we deny these complex multiple realities, we will very likely end up expressing many authentically wicked and unwise notions of what it means to be human without even knowing it. In the area of human sexuality, we may lose sight of our identity as male and female and how we should express and live out our gender because we fail to embrace our status as sin-marred divine image-bearers, either in ignorance of or overt rebellion toward the God who created us.

In the end, rather than actively pursuing and conforming to a set pattern or template of what it means to be good, wise, and “normal,” we are told that true and meaningful existence stems only from the free choices we make and the experiences we encounter while making them. We exist not to conform to an external reality, but to transform our current experiences through the uninhibited decisions we make.

Again, a huge part of the problem, especially for non-Christians, is that they have very little beyond either themselves or their social networks to use as reference points for determining questions of right and wrong, good and evil, normal and abnormal. And the reference points they are receiving input and feedback from are increasingly detached from any sort of genuinely biblical perspective. If we are without external standards and are merely the sum of our choices, then our identities have the potential to be infinitely malleable. And if our gender is centrally related to our changing identity, it must be equally malleable.

Far more grievous than this, however, is the growing number of Christians abdicating to the spirit of the age regarding human sexuality. Of all the voices in the cacophony of perspectives on human nature and sexuality, Christians should offer and exhibit a biblically informed, thoughtful, clear, compelling, and unified story of who we are: We are male and female creatures created to reflect God’s nature. We are loved by Him and meant to know, obey, and worship Him.

What our fellow human beings decide to make of that glorious narrative is not our responsibility, but if we fail to let them know and see it through our lives, we deeply dishonor both them and the One in whom we live and move and have our being.

In the next installment, we will examine more closely some of the tragic (and often unforeseen and unintended) results of rejecting God’s perspective on human identity and sexuality.