As I continue from part 1 (please read part 1 first), I’m going to focus on the primary biblical passages that have led me to maintain that homosexuality is sinful and not as God intended for humanity. I’m a practicing Christian, therefore what the Bible says is important to me. This post is not a research paper nor met to be exegetical, but rather more personal in nature as I consider Scripture.
⇒⇒ Genesis 1-2. God made a man and a woman. The man needed someone similar to him, yet different. Being alone was not good. Making a second man would not have worked out. The man and woman were made to complement each other. Two men or two women do not complement each other in the same way. Furthermore, both a man and woman were needed to properly reflect or image our Creator God. The creation of the woman stemmed from necessities rooted in the very nature of our God. Femaleness is an aspect of the Imago Dei too. In addition, Genesis 2:23-24 states:
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
In Genesis, the pattern is set that it is a man and a woman that come together in marriage. It speaks of a mother and father, and a man and a woman becoming one. This is the pattern we see throughout the Bible. We don’t see examples of homosexual or lesbian couples in the Scripture. (Yes, there is adultery, divorce, polygamy, incest and rape in the Bible but it is not being endorsed as God’s plan or ideal for humanity. See this post for further thoughts.)
Even symbolically in the Bible, it is consistently a man and woman coming together. For example, in the New Testament the church is referred to as the female bride, and Jesus as the male groom. Or in the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as the wife, and God (YHWH) as the husband.
⇒⇒ Sometimes it is brought up that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Gospels” – With the point that if homosexuality was really sinful or a big deal, surely Jesus would have addressed it. But Jesus not directly mentioning this can actually demonstrate the opposite point! Jesus did not need to bring up homosexuality. Remember that He was primarily speaking to a Jewish audience, and there would have been an underlying assumption that homosexual behavior was sinful. Jesus generally brought things up when he had new or clarifying teachings (and did not hesitate to do so!) as he challenged assumptions or the status quo, and He did NOT do this with homosexuality.
Also, there are many sins that Jesus did not specifically mention in the Gospels! If that is the litmus test, a number of immoral things can be knocked off the sin list.
Additionally, Jesus did indirectly address homosexuality. Jesus discusses marriage, and it is always in the context of a man and a woman. There is no hint of it involving two people of the same sex. Jesus also refers to both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, emphasizing creation, and a male and female coming together as one. We should not overlook the significance of Jesus referring to these foundational verses in Genesis.
⇒⇒ Romans 1. I wrote a paper where I carefully looked at the entire issue of sin in Romans chapter 1, but here we will focus on the issue at hand. We are entering a section of Scripture where sin is being expounded upon in detail. Humanity is sinful, and the essence of sin is to put self in the place of God. Sin gives birth to more sin. Verses 26-27 expand upon sexual immorality, specifically bringing in lesbianism (verse 26) and homosexuality (verse 27). Same-sex sexual activity is being discussed in a section of Scripture specifically about sin. Yes, many other types of sin are mentioned too, and we don’t want to focus only on the sex sins to the neglect of the other types, yet I see no way around this: Same-sex sexual activity is sinful.
In an effort to see homosexuality as acceptable, some “pro-gay theologians” (as they are called) may state these verses in Romans 1 only refer to heterosexuals who involve themselves in same-sex sexual activity, as this is unnatural for them. (If you are naturally attracted to the same sex, then it is not sinful behavior for you.) This is a very strained interpretation of the text, as the text makes no differentiation between “true” and “false” homosexual behavior. The passage also uses strong language in regards to same-sex sexual activity such as vile, shameful, and against nature.
In addition, when “men” and “women” are referred to in these verses, the Greek words used are arsenes and theleias. These are specific biological or sexual words. Both words are rarely used in the New Testament, and when they do appear it is in verses emphasizing the gender of the subject. The point is that that homosexuality is biologically unnatural, not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural for anyone.
But again, many sins are mentioned in this chapter. Look at the “vice list” in verses 29 to 31. It covers a wide variety of sin, and is not selective but inclusive or encompassing. Everyone should find they are guilty of something on the list. As Dr. Pyne summarizes:
“the apostle’s purpose…was not to highlight particular evils and single out certain persons for condemnation, but to reject summarily all kinds of evils and to include all persons in the the need for salvation.“ [1]
That is the point – we are all sinners who need Jesus. Yet, sadly Christians can be guilty of narrowing in on the homosexuality in this passage.
⇒⇒ The opening chapters of Genesis, the references of Jesus to these foundational issues, and Romans chapter 1 are the key and critical passages for me. Perhaps some other verses in the Bible can be explained away, but I see no way around these chapters.
NOTE: My argument thus far has mostly relied on verses that do not directly mention homosexuality but rather underlying principles. Even without mentioning Romans 1, I think there is a valid underlying principle that sexuality as God intends it involves a man and a woman in the bond of marriage.
In other words, in the debate over same-sex relationships, it is sometimes said that it is “about only 5 or 6 verses in the Bible” that directly mention it, and this is used to make us look foolish. But I think that is a simplistic view that fails to consider deeper biblical principles. Those 5 or 6 verses are a secondary, not primary, reason for the view that same-sex relationships are sinful. Those verses simply confirm the underlying biblical principle.
There are random verses in the Old and New Testament that specifically refer to homosexuality as sinful. For example, in the New: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. Some pro-gay theologians state that such verses are only referring to pederasty or promiscuous pagan temple sex that took place in the ancient Greco-Roman world. There may be some validity here. Certainly those things were included. Yet, it does not seem that only those things were in mind. Wider scriptural principles on the complementary nature of man and woman must be taken into consideration.
Concluding thoughts: My point in part 2 has simply been to present the conclusion I have come to and how. If you did not read part 1, please make sure you do so. This is a tough issue. I once was at a progressive/liberal Christian festival, and approached the “gay Christian” booth for some genuine discussion. How could they reconcile their Christian faith and homosexuality? We talked. I listened. They listened. I cried. If I could reconcile these 2 things, I would. But I can’t. Their answers did not work for me, and were stretched and contrived. Besides studying the Scripture, I’ve read a whole stack of books on this issue. I will try to be as compassionate and grace filled as I can towards those who struggle with same-sex attraction. I am not out to argue with anyone or condemn anyone. I struggle with sin too. Thanks for listening.
*A few more thoughts here: More on the something topic
Book review: From Queer to Christ.
Book review, Washed and Waiting, Reflections on Christian Faithfulness & Homosexuality and thoughts on friendship HERE.
[1] Robert A. Pyne, Humanity & Sin (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999), 211.
Enough Light 
Very nicely done, Laura. No one who is being honest could ever accuse you of being overly judgmental or unfair to the issue by reading this. Your compassion is very clear.
I especially like your treatment of Romans 1. I like Dr. Pyne’s quote that “the apostle’s purpose…was not to highlight particular evils and single out certain persons for condemnation, but to reject summarily all kinds of evils and to include all persons in the the need for salvation.” Everyone is guilty before God. Everyone needs a Savior.
Thanks GeoJono. I appreciate your encouraging comments. It is very difficult for me to write on this topic.
Hi Laura. Thank you for these posts! I have a couple of questions.
1. You say that God wants heterosexual relationships because they entail two different people complementing one another. Does that presume that men are a certain way, and that women are a certain way—-stereotypes, if you will?
2. I cannot gainsay your interpretation of Romans 1. On the I Corinthians passage, as you know, there is debate about what some of the Greek terms mean, but I don’t want to focus on that in my comment. My questions concerns Genesis 2. God created the woman so that the man would not be alone. In your opinion, according to God, are the only options for homosexuals to be alone, or to be married within a heterosexual relationship?
Hi James, thanks for the dialogue. In regards to number 1, I’ll link to 2 former posts of mine: Masculine and Feminine Stereotypes and the Church, and A More Feminine Men’s Ministry? (Evangelicals and Gender Distinctions). While men and women are different and complement each other, not all men and women are exactly alike or can be put in a box. There is a spectrum or some flexibility…
Regarding 2, this is so tough. I’ve attended conferences/events on this issue, and spoken personally to people on all sides of it. Yes, it seems that those would be the 2 options: singleness/celibacy, or be married within a heterosexual relationship. I know, that puts some people in a hard position. Yet, the other option (same-sex marriage or relationship) can’t be reconciled with the Scriptures.
On perhaps a related but different issue: I think marriage and children can be elevated to an idol like status in evangelicalism. Singles (for whatever reason single), and those married without children can be ostracized or made to feel less. We aren’t teaching a biblical “contentment with circumstances” or looking at the possible positives of singleness or childlessness.
**This comment added later: In light of singleness or childlessness, here is a post: The idol of marriage and children in the church.
Thank you for your response, and for the links.
Good food for thought, Laura.
Just read this post and your previous one. You’ve addressed this with such grace and truthfulness; I admire that. I haven’t wrestled with this issue in depth as you have, but I, too, don’t see anyway to reconcile Christianity and homosexual behavior. Do you have any ideas on how the church can best support those who both struggle with same-sex attraction and desire to remain celibate? I’m sure it’s really tough for those in this position, and it’s unlikely that most people would feel safe opening up at church about this struggle. I’d like to help, if I could, but I don’t know how.
Good questions Laura. I think one thing is for Christians to be more open and honest with each other about their struggles – no matter what those struggles may be. Unfortunately, I still seem to encounter a lot of “put on a happy mask” mentality or people sharing superficial things. Philip Yancey likes to say that church should be more like an AA Meeting – I agree! I guess one can lead by example. But that is tough also. When I have at times tried to lead by example, it was clear I made everyone uncomfortable. I remember the testimony I heard once of a Christian who struggled with same-sex attraction – and what helped him most was a group of Christians who were essentially like an AA meeting…open and honest about their struggles with sin.
I really appreciate the way you’re approaching this issue, Laura. You’ve sincerely looked at the issue with humility and compassion, honestly trying to find what you believe the Bible teaches on the issue. Can’t ask for more than that.
On a related issue, do you have thoughts about how gay rights and gay marriage should be treated legally? Since we do not live in a theocracy, should people be allowed to live as they please in this regard?
Thanks Nate. Our culture/society has changed so much in the last 25 years or so, that I think Christians need to re-evaluate their approaches in the public and political arena. Ways to “fight” that may have been fine years ago, just come across as hateful now. You are right, we aren’t a theocracy. Perhaps Christians need to focus on more indirect ways to influence culture? We may need to accept that we’ve lost the culture on gay marriage, and learn to live within it. For Christians, it is ultimately God and the church that blesses and sanctions our marriages anyways – not the state.
I do think that gay marriage laws should have exceptions for churches – that churches opposed to gay marriage are not forced to allow their premises to be used for gay marriage ceremonies. Or that there are perhaps exceptions for businesses directly involved in marriage – such as wedding photographers. Yet, the gay lobby cries this is discrimination written into law. But it seems there should be some two-way tolerance. If one side wants tolerance, it seems the other side must exhibit some tolerance too. And I wonder, why would a gay couple want a wedding photographer opposed to what they are doing? As a Christian, I sometimes seek out Christian or otherwise like-minded business to support. Wouldn’t a gay couple prefer to do the same? I wouldn’t want someone to perform a business service for me only b/c they were forced to by law and feeling uncomfortable about it. Etc. Just my rambling thoughts….
I agree. I think there should be some latitude for some of these businesses to opt in or out of things like this. I know it’s a tricky situation, since we wouldn’t want a restaurant or doctor’s office to be able to turn people away for race, gender, religion, etc. But I agree that pulling in churches, photographers, and the like is a bit different. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Very well stated.
Pingback: More on the “something” topic | Enough Light
Reblogged this on Enough Light and commented:
I’m re-blogging this past post of mine since this issue is particularly relevant as the church denomination I am a part of (UMC) is struggling with this issue at their General Conference. The UMC I attend takes a conservative stance on homosexuality, as do I. In 3 posts, which you can see further links to, I share my thoughts as graciously as possible.
Laura, you gave and informative and truthful opinion backed up with God’s Word on a very sensitive topic. I enjoyed reading how you structured your post. Thank you for sharing. I know it is often hard to offer an opinion that differs with many others, including that of many Christians. Thank you.
Thank you Debra. It is really nerve-racking to speak out on this issue.
Pingback: Same-sex attraction, Gender and Sexuality series | Enough Light
Pingback: Oh good, Jesus didn’t talk about that… get out of jail free card! | Enough Light