30 Questions & Answers on Homosexuality and the Bible

Question 1: Aren't Christians being selective with Old Testament law when they appeal to it with respect to homosexuality, while ignoring Old Testament commands about clothing, food, etc.?

In some sense, yes, because we are singling out the moral law, which is exactly what the New Testament trains us to do. The book of Acts distinctly separates the ceremonial and liturgical laws from the moral law. The Lord told Peter not to distinguish between clean and unclean animals any longer (Acts 10:9-16). At the same time, the Jerusalem Council clearly confirmed the continuation of the moral law (Acts 15).

Paul tells us the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, which obliterates that distinction in the holiness code. Nevertheless, Paul regularly returns to the moral law of the Old Testament to show and defend the character of righteous living in general and the commandments against same-sex acts in particular.

If we still depended on the Levitical code for our understanding of sex, the church would have an incomplete picture of human sexuality. Thankfully, Scripture provides us with a comprehensive picture of this issue in the New Testament. 

As a result, the church's basic understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual acts is not finally rooted in Leviticus; it is rooted in the New Testament, and specifically in texts like Romans l. The consistent identification of all same-sex acts as explicitly sinful reveals the unquestionable continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Question 2: Since Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality, how can we be certain he considers it sinful behavior?

Jesus addressed a multitude of sins throughout the four Gospels. As evidenced in the Sermon on the Mount, he explicitly affirmed the continuation of the Old Testament moral law and its intensification in his kingdom. At the same time, there are many specific issues, both ancient and modern, for which there is no specific scriptural text explicitly revealing what Christ said during his earthly ministry. This does not mean we cannot know what Christ believed and taught. 

In answering a question about divorce, Jesus himself stated that God's plan from the beginning was that a man and a woman be united in marriage. Jesus affirmed the Genesis pattern of complementarity, and he honored the institution of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman (Mark 10:2-9). 

At every single point, Jesus affirmed the Old Testament's judgment against sexual sin. Moreover, he pushed the point even deeper by moving from the Old Testament's prohibition of the external act to an even bigger concern-the sinful nature of the human heart.

Question 3: Some scholars have asserted that Paul's writings about homosexuality are actually about abusive homosexual relationships (i.e., rape, prostitution, etc.). Isn't it the case that what Paul says does not apply to consensual same-sex relationships?

Due to the work of Robert Gagnon and many other biblical scholars, we know that this was not the case.' Secular historians of the Roman Empire also record clear examples of consensual, adult same-sex relationships in the Greco-Roman world. Paul knew exactly what he was condemning. Christians need to remember, given the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture, that when Paul condemns something, the Holy Spirit condemns it as well.

When we cite Paul, we cite the Holy Spirit. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 5 present a very sophisticated argument for the sinfulness of same-sex acts and same-sex relationships. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul demonstrates an undeniable belief in the sinfulness of both the passive and the active participants involved in the act of male same-sex intercourse.

This is stunning given that the secular view in the ancient world only viewed the passive participant as the shameful one. In the ancient world, the passive partner in male homosexual intercourse was shameful in taking the role of a woman, but the active partner continued to act in an essentially masculine way. Paul, on the other hand, by grounding his argument in Leviticus 18, demonstrated that both partners were engaged in a sinful act and under the threat of divine condemnation.

Question 4: The biblical authors did not have the category of orientation, so aren't they talking about something different than we are?

If sexual orientation refers to a pattern of sexual interest and arousal, then the Bible is actually quite explicit about this. In Romans 1, for example, Paul addressed not only men who have unnatural relations with men and women who have unnatural relations with women, but also those who burn with same-sex passions toward one another.

This language reflects sexual preference and a pattern of sexual arousal that corresponds with the modern concept of sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Bible recognizes something even more fundamental than a sexual orientation-it recognizes a sinful orientation. Scripture communicates that every single human being is born with a sinful orientation.

We all have a pattern of interest, ambitions, and temptations unique to us. Further, every single human being who has experienced puberty has a sexual orientation that, in some way, falls short of the glory of God.

Question 5: Is homosexual sin worse than other sins?

It is very tempting to suggest that all sins are equally sinful. In some sense, every single sin sufficiently justifies our eternal damnation and separation from an infinitely holy and righteous God. Yet not all sins are equal in ambition, context, or effect. They are not all equal in ambition because some sins are so deeply rooted in a conscious rebellion that they amount to blatant disobedience or refusal to believe. 

With regard to context, the Bible itself distinguishes sin. Some are described as "against nature" and others are not. Paul did this in Romans 1 when he spoke about homosexuality. He used the same argument in 1 Corinthians 6 when he showed that sexual sin has a particularly sinful quality since it is, unlike other sins, directed against the body, which he argued is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Even in the Old Testament, some sins are referred to as abominations, which effectively set them apart from other sins.

Nor is all sin equal in effect. Some sins cause physical death. Others cause far less immediate and apparent consequences. For this reason, even the criminal justice system recognizes different levels of criminality and assigns different penalties for different criminal acts. The Old and New Testaments make the same distinction. Nevertheless, every single sin is opposed to the infinite justice and righteousness of God and thus deserving of God's righteous punishment.

Question 6: Are people born gay? Doesn't this mean God made them gay?

No adequate scientific evidence exists that suggests an individual can be "born" with a same-sex sexual orientation. Nevertheless, the testimony of those struggling with same-sex attraction reveals that that attraction and sense of sexual interest can come very early. Indeed, it can come so early that many people cannot pinpoint how early such an interest appeared.

Christians should not run from this question.

Biblical theology reminds us that the consequences of the fall are so comprehensive that we should expect sin to impact everything from our self-centeredness to molecular structure. If a biological cause or genetic link explaining same-sex attraction is ever discovered, Christians should be among the least surprised.

Such a finding would certainly inform our pastoral understanding and approach to persons with a same-sex orientation because we recognize that sin even affects our biology.

Such a discovery would reveal what will likely be a lifelong struggle of sexual interest and personal identity, even for someone who knows Christ as Savior and seeks to live in holiness before him. That being said, an analysis of the current data reveals no adequate scientific evidence for a "gay" gene.

Furthermore, most geneticists believe that something as complicated as sexual orientation is not likely to be simply traced to a single gene. That is simply far too simplistic an understanding of human genetics. Christians must remember that we live in a culture in which people instinctively ascribe authority to reports trumpeting a scientific discovery.

This often leads to a change in moral judgment, even when that report is not replicated by other scientists or is later withdrawn. Christians should not be surprised if the day comes when the preponderance of evidence suggests some biological pattern of causality.

The discovery of a "gay gene" would not force the church to abandon its position on the sinfulness of homosexuality, nor would if nullify the clear teaching of Scripture or validate same-sex attraction. 

As those informed by Scripture, Christians must constantly remember that the natural world we now experience is a natural world tainted by human sin and under God's judgment. This is why we depend on Scripture to understand God's pattern for human flourishing and trust what it says about the morality of same-sex acts rather than what a scientific journal says.

Question 7: More and more evangelicals are embracing same-sex unions. Isn't this an issue where we can agree to disagree? If not, why?

We can "agree to disagree" in the sense that the issue is likely destined to be one of lasting disagreement. If we are committed to Scripture, human flourishing, the gospel, and love of neighbor, however, then an issue of this magnitude compels us to plead with and attempt to persuade those who will face the eternal wrath of God if they do not abandon their sin for Jesus.

Our greatest responsibility is to point sinners to the cross of Christ and the promise of salvation for all who believe.

Those with common sense on both sides of the issue rejected the suggestion that there can be a third way or that some kind of neutral ground can be reached. There are many issues-same-sex marriage and homosexuality central among them-on which the answer eventually must be a yes or no.

Every single church must eventually accept or reject the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. Every congregation, Christian institution, and religious organization will eventually have to make a decision on the issue of

homosexuality.

There is no integrity in the resignation to simply "agree to disagree" on an issue in which the gospel and the authority of Scripture and ultimately the eternal state of human beings-are at stake.

Question 8: If the church cannot come to a consensus on this issue, doesn't that mean the Bible is not clear?

To answer this question, we have to go all the way back to the Reformation. One of the great affirmations about Scripture made by the Reformers is what is known as the perspicuity of Scripture, which is another way of talking about the clarity of Scripture. Scripture continually speaks in such a manner that clarifies issues, not obscures them.

The reality in a sinful world is that our understanding is often unclear even where Scripture is clear. The Reformers pointed to the clarity of Scripture in order to affirm that any Christian who opened the Bible heard the word of God and faced the decision to obey or disobey.

That was true when the church received the New Testament and when the Reformers asserted the principle, and it remains true now. If people who affirm the truthfulness of Scripture cannot come to a consensus on this issue, the problem is not in Scripture-it is a failure to rightly understand and obey it.

Question 9: Since the sexual revolution uses the rhetoric of the civil rights movement, should we differentiate between racial identity and sexual identity?

In response to this question, Christians must engage carefully in the task of biblical theology. The diversity of races and ethnicities comprises part of God's plan (table of nations in Genesis 10). The Bible also indicates that God is pleased that his human creatures are organized by families, clans, languages, and nations. Furthermore, Revelation 5 indicates that this pleasure is an eternal pleasure for God.

Those gathered around the Lamb's throne are men and women from every tongue, tribe, and nation who have all been ransomed by Christ. Thus, Scripture celebrates racial differences. The Bible celebrates these distinctions as part of God's glorious diversity in creation. The Bible, however, unquestionably expresses only one legitimate pattern of human sexuality.

Only one framework exists in which conjugal acts can be enjoyed and celebrated-the monogamous, the faithful marriage of a man and a woman. The Bible consistently declares anything outside of this framework as sin. Christians, therefore, must think carefully on this issue. 

Even though we accept that certain individuals have different sexual orientations, we do not accept sexual orientation as synonymous with race or ethnicity. We recognize racism as sin because it denies and subverts our common descent from Adam and Eve and our common origin in the will of the Creator.

We do not celebrate the diversity of sexual "orientations" because the Bible does not allow it. In matters of the law, this issue is often framed in terms of "mutable" and "immutable" characteristics.

For Christians, however, these terms do not go far enough. This issue is not simply a matter of parsing out what is "mutable"' and "immutable" in a person's character. Instead, as Christians, we must return to the theological foundation provided for us in the doctrine of creation. We must ask ourselves one question: Was this part of God's original plan and purpose for his human creatures?

Question 10: What is a theologically faithful definition of sexual orientation? Does sexual orientation affect one's sexual identity?

Christians must be honest enough to recognize that the modern secular understanding of sexual orientation has legitimate insights that we can appropriate in a way consistent with evangelical theology, Scripture, and the Christian tradition. Christians in general and evangelicals, in particular, must admit that we have often had a very superficial understanding of sexuality. We assumed for centuries that people simply chose their pattern of sexual interest.

The modern secular concept of sexual orientation suggests that every single human being who has reached the age of sexual maturity is characterized by a specific pattern of sexual interest that includes sexual arousal, sexual fantasy, sexual expectation, and a hope for specific sexual fulfillment. From the vantage point of biblical theology and Orthodox pastoral counsel, the modern notion of sexual orientation helps us see how deeply situated matters of sexual interest, sexual arousal, and sexual fulfillment really are in our lives. 

If these matters are so embedded in our lives, we must recognize the sinful and harmful superficiality in telling those who struggle with a same-sex orientation to just simply stop being attracted to someone of the same gender. Nevertheless, this does not mean we are allowed to resign ourselves to whatever sexual orientation and pattern of arousal we discover in ourselves.

Rather, as children of God, we must submit ourselves in every respect, including our sexual identities and orientations, to God. This submission is an act of obedience that leads to human flourishing.

Sexual orientation first became a public issue because those pushing for the normalization of homosexuality argued that sexual orientation simply had to be accepted at face value as normal and natural. That, however, is simply not the case. While we should understand the legitimate insights the concept of sexual orientation offers, we should also remember that a disordered sexual orientation reveals the sinfulness of sin. 

It is important to note that sexual orientation often reflects our sinful orientation. Some are more tempted to dishonesty, others to temptations of pride, others to temptations of greed, and others to temptations of lust. The reality of a sinful orientation does not reduce or nullify the distorted

nature of that orientation-not in the slightest.

Question 11: Is experiencing same-sex attraction itself sinful? Do Christians who experience same-sex attraction need to repent of their orientation, or only of homosexual action and lust?

First, this is not a question limited to issues of sexuality in general, or sexual acts and sexual orientation in particular. This question relates to the larger theological question of temptation and behavior. 

Every child growing into maturity recognizes the distinction between the temptation and the act. Every criminal law system also understands the difference between the temptation and the act. Rather than imprisoning people for every criminal temptation, the law distinguishes between the temptation of a criminal act and the performance of a criminal act.

Every parent understands that same distinction when raising children and when they look in the mirror. Therefore, Christians must distinguish between temptation and the performance of sin. Still, there is indeed something sinful about being tempted to rob a bank. 

Obviously, it is less sinful than robbing a bank. And its consequence and the effects are certainly quite different. We would be right to say, "Even if you have the temptation, don't perform the act," but we would be wrong to say, "The temptation is not an issue of sinful consequence."

We tend to assume that an uninvited temptation is something for which we are not accountable. But no one knows himself well enough to fully understand where our temptations come from or to what degree we have given ourselves over to that interest.

Christians, therefore, must pray that we not be tempted, just as Jesus instructed his disciples to do in the Lord's Prayer. Finally, we come to the issue of defining sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a pattern of temptation. Again, we must stress this is not the only pattern of sexual sin. Heterosexual sinners are tempted to lust toward someone of the opposite sex. 

Married persons are tempted to lust for someone who is not their spouse. A person who has a pattern of same-sex attraction is tempted in a similar manner. Same-sex orientation, however, cannot be channeled into a legitimate sexual outlet whereas a heterosexual orientation can be channeled into the faithful, monogamous institution of marriage.

For this reason, same-sex orientation presents a greater struggle. Must a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction repent of the mere feeling of attraction, even if he does not act on that feeling or lust in his heart?

Because same-sex attraction is a disordered attraction, some degree of repentance certainly needs to happen. Consider this analogous scenario. Imagine a teenage boy who has become a Christian is assigned to read a particular book in school. He is not responsible for choosing the book; the teacher, after all, assigned it to him. Something of a sexual nature is presented in the book, and he finds himself aroused and interested. He does not, however, give himself to lust. He simply moves past the explicit passage. Later, the explicit passage comes back to his mind.

Once again, he refuses the temptation to lust. Nevertheless, he will almost surely feel some sense of guilt for letting thoughts resurface in the first place. Every time these thoughts come to his mind, the boy is making a moral decision, even as he wards off lustful thoughts with repentance and by grace. Most Christians recognize sinful things that are unintentional and not premeditated regularly enter our minds.

Nevertheless, these thoughts arrive, and so these thoughts produce some moral accountability, even though we seek to push them out of our fantasies and imaginations.

This common experience is among all Christians-indeed among all humanity and it reveals that sin is more deeply rooted in our hearts than we ourselves know. This is one of the reasons repentance regularly marks the Christian life. People struggling with same-sex attraction must understand that they are in the same position as any other sinner. We all need to live lives of constant repentance, recognizing that the entire Christian life is one of constant temptation to sin and simultaneous call to obey Christ.

This, of course, does not minimize the particularly difficult challenges those who struggle with a same-sex attraction face. But these men and women should not be separated from the rest of the body of Christ into a different category of sin and sanctification. For this reason, Christians need to be candid with one another and not assume that only a few people in their home church struggle with sin. Every person in your church struggles with sin.

Question 12: Should a Christian attend a same-sex wedding ceremony if Australia votes YES to same sex marriage?

The simple answer is no, but, of course, there are a number of complex issues we must think about here. We can all understand just how excruciatingly difficult it will be for Christians to not attend or participate in the same-sex ceremonies of family and friends. It is tempting to think that our presence at the ceremony can be understood merely as an act of identification with the two people involved without giving moral approval to their union. But no one attends a wedding with a suspended moral judgment. And this is precisely the problem.

Attending a wedding ceremony always signals moral approval. This is why The Book of Common Prayer (which has provided the traditional ceremonial language known to millions of people throughout the centuries) contains the phrase that asks if anyone knows any cause that should prevent the marriage-"speak now; or else forever hold your peace."

These words reveal the historic function of the wedding ceremony as a gathering of celebrants who come together to grant moral approval to the union of two people in marriage. Attending a same-sex marriage ceremony is to grant a positive and public moral judgment to the union. At some point, that attendance will involve congratulating the couple for their union.

There will be no way to claim moral neutrality when congratulating a couple on their wedding. If you cannot congratulate the couple, how can you attend?

Some Christians may point to the example of Jesus, who regularly ate with sinners, as a warrant for attending a same-sex ceremony. While Jesus clearly did extend table fellowship to those who were publicly known to be in sin, his constant call was to repentance.  In no case in the Gospels did Jesus ever allow his presence to endorse sin.

Further, eating a meal with someone is not a celebration of any particular sin. When Jesus did appear at a wedding, as in the wedding of Cana in Galilee, his

presence was intended to show moral approval. Attending a same-sex wedding today would send a very different signal from that set by Jesus in the Gospels.

Question 13: Should we use the term "gay"?

This question must be answered in different ways depending on the time, context, and individuals. The contemporary movement to normalize homosexuality has intentionally shifted descriptions such as "sodomy"

to "homosexual" and then to "gay."

Furthermore, activists now embrace words that were first used as hurtful descriptions (such as "queer") as a way of identifying their own cause. Even among those advocating the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage, there is no unanimity on the correct language. Thus, the seemingly endless series of initials: LGBT, LGBTQQ2IA, QUILTBAG – all these relationships endorsed the term gay.

More recently, there has been an effort to move beyond gay to a multitude of other possible words. Christians speaking about these issues should use language that is the clearest and least intentionally offensive. At the same time, we lose something when we use the word gay. This is true of any word that seeks to avoid moral clarity. Unlike other words, homosexuality has the advantage of speaking with sharp particularity to the actual issue at stake.

Question 14: Can a person with same-sex attraction

change his or her orientation? If so, how?

At one level we must answer this question with affirmative conviction. Yes, a person with same-sex attraction can change. Christians must proclaim that those rebellious sinners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be redeemed by Christ and conformed to his image by the Holy Spirit. 

We can affirm this without hesitation because of God's promises in Scripture and because of the gospel's transformative power. At the same time, the process of sanctification and the radical change from sexual sinner to a life of purity and holiness is never simple. The redemption of someone with same-sex attraction does not instantaneously produce a heterosexual orientation.

The New Testament displays the difficulty of escaping patterns of temptation and sin. In Romans 7, Paul demonstrates the tension Christians experience between - new life in Christ and indwelling sin. There is simply no easy way to escape the lingering effects of our sin even after conversion to Christ.

We must honestly state that it is humanly impossible to reverse our sexual orientation by force of will. In light of this, all Christians, especially those tempted by sexual sin, must lean into the truth of justification by faith alone and a sanctification progressively worked out in us by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Word. Christians must trust that our bodies and sexual orientations will be fully redeemed when Christ returns and consummates

his redemptive work.

Many Christians struggling with a same-sex sexual attraction indicate that the struggle is lifelong. Some have testified of great gains and some have testified of a reversal of sexual attraction, though this seems to be given to a minority of believers in this struggle.

Regrettably, Christians have often sinned against those who struggle with same-sex orientation by suggesting that their patterns of sexual attraction can be easily altered. The effects of sin are so devastating, pervasive, and situated in us, however, that change is never easily accomplished.

While Christians should be thankful that Romans 7 reveals the nature of indwelling sin in the believer, we must also maintain a genuine hope about the potential for growth in godliness. The same Paul who cried out in despair, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" also cried out, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom. 7:24-25).

Even in our body of death, we are being freed from the power of sin. Ultimately, someone with a homosexual orientation can change. Behaviour will be the first area to change. When we come to Christ, our first responsibility is to align our behavior, including our sexual acts, with the clear revelation of God in Scripture.

Then, by pursuing the means of grace, the Holy Spirit can increasingly bring our sexual orientations into obedience to the Word of God. We cannot promise that this will be complete in this life, but we can be fully confident that he who began a good work in us will complete it in the end (Phil. 1:6).

Question 15: Should a pastor promote reparative therapy? If a believer is dealing with same-sex attraction, should he or she pursue reparative therapy?

The best evidence seems to show that reparative therapy works for some but not all. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to predict when this type of therapy may or may not be helpful. The evidence suggests that reparative therapy is most helpful for those who express the deepest desire for the therapy to work and for those whose same-sex behaviors were, as they themselves admit, more episodic than those who fully embraced a same-sex orientation.

Forcing someone into reparative therapy, however, is likely to do more harm than good. Christians should never expect salvation from reparative therapy, nor should we offer the promise of sanctification by any mere therapy.

Salvation comes only in the gospel of Christ and sanctification only in the ministry of the Holy Spirit through the Word. Nevertheless, there are means we can use that help us grow in grace. We must make certain we never place our hope and trust in a therapeutic promise. Therapy will never save us. Only Christ can do that.

Question 16: Should Christian parents allow their children to play at the homes of children who have parents in a same-sex union?

Christians tend to swing between two problematic extremes on this issue. On the one hand, we often believe that friendship with someone forces us to deny the sinfulness of his sin. On the other hand, Christians often mistakenly believe biblical faithfulness requires us to separate from anyone involved in ongoing public sin. Neither of these options is faithful to the gospel.

Since a simple yes or no will not serve us in this situation, I propose that we remember the following truths and let them inform our worldview and ethical decisions on these matters.

First, I would encourage Christians not to radically separate from our neighbors in such a way that we prohibit our children from playing with their children. Instead, we should make every effort to develop real and authentic friendships with our LGBT neighbors. Paul tells us "not to associate with sexually immoral people" (1 Cor. 5:9). He follows up these words with, "Not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world ... since then you would need to go out of the world" (v. 10).

The context of Paul's words shows us that he is telling us to avoid sexually immoral people within the church-that is, with those who claim to be a Christian brother or sister (v. 11). Paul's words provide a crucial theological model for faithful living. Christians are in the world in order to preach the gospel and to work for the good of our neighbors so that they might live more flourishing lives and follow Jesus Christ. That can only happen if we develop genuine friendships with our neighbors. The real danger is not that we allow our children to play in the homes of same-sex couples. 

The real danger is that Christian parents do not teach their children a comprehensive biblical understanding of the gospel, sin, scriptural authority, and sexuality. The Christian parents who fail to disciple their children before sending them into the home of a same-sex couple (or any other part of the world for that matter) are setting their children up for theological confusion and great harm.

Question 17: Is the affirmation of the moral legitimacy of same-sex sexuality grounds for church discipline if the believer affirms the inerrancy and authority of Scripture? Isn't this just a quibble over interpretation?

An affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture and a total commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture are not the same. Many people propositionally affirm the inerrancy of Scripture yet approach Scripture in a manner which is inconsistent with the conviction that the Bible is true and trustworthy in all that it reveals.

Affirming biblical inerrancy is necessary, but it does not guarantee an accurate handling of the biblical text. Paul told Timothy, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). The task of interpreting Scripture is indeed complex, but the character of Scripture provides us with a basic framework for the interpretive process: read Scripture as God speaking; interpret Scripture by other Scripture; affirm and presuppose the theological

unity of Scripture; and approach Scripture with faith seeking understanding.

The only way one can neutralize and subvert the clear teachings of Scripture is by treating Scripture as not inerrant or full of errors.

Regrettably, many who claim to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture treat the Bible as if it is full of errors. We must always remember that the interpretive community of scripture is not the individual- “I think this means.”

The interpretive community of Scripture is the believing church. This does not mean we should adopt a Roman Catholic notion of an authoritative council within the church or a special anointed priesthood. Instead, the New Testament points to the believing congregation as the interpretive community of Scripture. It is simply not enough to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture propositionally. One must also stand with today’s faithful believers and those throughout the ages in their reading of and obedience to God's Word.

Question 18: Ancient creeds and confessions do not address marriage as a matter of Christian orthodoxy. Isn't demanding adherence to traditional marriage inconsistent with the history of the church?

Our affirmation that a traditional understanding of marriage is essential to Christian orthodoxy is only inconsistent with the history of the church in that a traditional understanding of marriage has never been challenged in the way it is today. History testifies that heresy precedes orthodoxy in formal assertion. 

Every ancient creed was written in response to heretical teachings. In other words, theological controversies forced the church to state clearly its convictions on pressing issues. Thus, the fact that marriage was never addressed by any of the ancient creeds or confessions demonstrates that it never needed to be addressed because it was never a matter of controversy. Creeds are contextual documents-theological responses to sub-orthodox teachings situated in a specific time and context. Errors are not corrected until after they arise.

That no one ever questioned the biblical and traditional understanding of marriage as the covenant union of a man and a woman explains why the church never addressed the issue of marriage in a creedal or confessional format. The church did not call councils to address problems that did not exist.

Question 19: If I am a Christian who experiences same-sex attraction, should I pray to not have homosexual feelings?

Every Christian should pray exactly as the Lord taught us to pray in the Lord's Prayer: "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10 KJV). This kind of prayer not only longs for world systems to align with the kingdom of Christ but also longs for our lives to align with God's will. It reflects a desire to become more faithful to Christ and more conformed to his image. This certainly includes our sexual orientation.

We should also pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" (v. 13). Asking God to draw us away from things that tempt us should be the content of our prayer. We should ask God to replace temptation with holiness.

Heterosexuals are also tempted sexually. "Lead us not into temptation" is a prayer for both the heterosexual Christian and the Christian battling same-sex attraction or any other form of sexual desire.

Question 20: If I am a Christian who experiences same sex attraction, will I become more heterosexual as I become more mature in my walk with Christ?

Some Christians in this situation will discover an increased self-understanding of heterosexual orientation. I know couples who have come together as husband and wife after one or both struggled with same-sex attraction, and who found great fulfillment and joy in the gift of heterosexual marriage and the gift of children.

But this should not be the universal expectation. Many other believers strive to be faithful to Christ and obey the Word but experience no heterosexual pattern of sexual arousal. Progressive sanctification through the Holy Spirit will come for Christians who experience same-sex attraction, but that does not mean they will become more heterosexual the more they grow in godliness. Sanctification leads us into holiness and out of sin.

This is why sanctification may lead an individual with same-sex attraction into holy celibacy, rather than heterosexuality.

Question 21: What should someone who has an ongoing, seemingly unchanged pattern of same-sex attraction do in obedience to Christ?

That Christian must, by the authority of Scripture and in obedience to the gospel, submit everything she is to Christ. For someone who has an ongoing, seemingly unchanged, and perhaps unchangeable (in this life) pattern of same-sex attraction, the call to holiness would appear, in most cases, to be a call to celibacy. In all cases, it would be a call to avoid sexual sin and any celebration of a sexual orientation that disobeys God and His Word.

No escape from same-sex attraction may come. Thus, celibacy, honored by Christ himself and regarded by the apostle Paul, would appear to be the requirement of faithfulness and obedience. The Christian church has failed in not affirming the gift of celibacy. It has failed to show how the gift of celibacy reflects obedience to Christ and the glory of God.

The Christian church has also failed to honor those who give themselves to lives of celibacy for the sake of the gospel, a lifestyle Paul commended for its advantages (I Cor. 7:25-40). Celibacy allows a person to do things for Christ's kingdom that a married person simply will not get to do. Christians must embrace sexual renunciation for the sake of Christ. All Christians are called to sexual renunciation for at least some time.

For heterosexual believers, this means voluntary sexual renunciation until marriage and a renunciation of all sex outside of marriage. For those with same-sex orientation, this means sexual renunciation for a lifetime. Jesus himself honored those who, for his sake, made themselves "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12).

For those for whom marriage would not remedy sin, celibacy is the only other option, and the church should honor it just as it honors marriage. It is, in so many cases, a considerable sacrifice. We should take Jesus seriously when he speaks of honoring those who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. That shocking language shows that there are those who, in obedience to Christ, are willing to forsake the fulfillment of the flesh in sex, intimacy in marriage, and the joy  of having children. If they do this for Christ and for the service of the gospel, they should be honored for their sacrifice. Jesus does not hesitate to honor such people. Neither should we.

Question 22: If a transgender individual gets saved, should the church require them to undergo a restorative sex change operation so that they are anatomically their original gender?

Eventually, every will face a question like this. The first thing we must remember is that the gospel is for everyone-regardless of gender identity. The gospel is for the transgender and the transsexual just as much as it is the one who identifies with his birth gender.

The gospel promises wholeness in Christ and calls us to holiness. Thus, in response to the gospel, all true Christians seek to live in obedience to the God who created us male and female. Obedience to Christ means that we seek in every way to progressively move toward embracing our birth gender rather than lingering in rebellion or confusion. This is not to suggest that the progress of sanctification is easy or instantaneous. The Christian life is a long obedience in the same direction. In other words, obedience can be slow progress.

What if the individual had undergone medical procedures and sex change operations before coming to Christ?

Would surgery now be pastorally required or advisable in order to obey Christ? This situation requires the loving council of a local church to help this particular Christian understand what "long obedience" in this circumstance would involve.

Pastors and congregations should consider age, context, and even physical and physiological factors when determining a course of action. But even without surgery, Christians in this situation should publicly and privately identify themselves according to their birth gender. Surgery is a secondary question to be handled with pastoral wisdom and sound medical advice.

Question 23: What is the relationship between body

and gender? Does anatomy determine gender?

Modern brain research suggests that the brains of men and women have some crucial differences. But the essential biological gender identity is established by physiological realities that are, in the vast majority of human beings, immediately identifiable upon birth.

When a baby is born, physically identified, and declared to be a boy or a girl, this is an affirmation of God's lifelong purpose for that individual. The Bible tells us the body reveals identity to us in that respect and in others as well. For a very small portion of people, only about one in every fifteen hundred births, the birth gender is indeterminate. These individuals are now most often medically referred to as intersex. This birth anomaly which is identified by medical science as an anomaly-requires the parents first and the individual later to make some essential choices.

These choices are matters not of obedience versus disobedience, but of wisdom and mercy. In such cases, we must always strive for the good of the individual. This issue is not the same as rejecting one's clear biological

sex. These are different issues and call for a different pattern of response.

Question 24: Aren't laws that give Christians the right to refuse goods and services to a same-sex couple for their wedding bad?

Same-sex marriage proponents want us to believe that sexual orientation is morally equivalent to race. This is the logic they have been successful in advocating. They believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation equates to discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. If this is right, then Christians must condemn refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding as sin just as they would condemn refusing to provide flowers for an interracial wedding as sin.

But sexual orientation is not the same thing as race. The reality is that people in countless businesses will now be coerced into approving the moral status of same-sex relationships because they are being forced to participate. Most of these businesses would not discriminate against same-sex couples or individuals in general, but only when participation would require them to make a moral statement that violates their Christian commitments. Refusing to bake a cake with a message celebrating a same-sex marriage is simply not the same thing as refusing to seat a same-sex couple for dinner. One is an act of despicable discrimination. The other is an act consistent with religious conviction concerning the nature of marriage and sexual morality.

Question 25: Homosexuals testify that marriage makes them happier and does not hurt anyone, so how can this be wrong?

One of the most dangerous ideas about today's morality is the suggestion that we should limit human behavior only on the basis of identifiable harm. Reducing morality to the avoidance of harm is dangerous because it tends to reduce harm to that which is immediately identifiable in an individual's experience or in society at large.

Legalizing same-sex marriage does not mean the heterosexual couple next door will experience immediate harm. It does mean marriage as an institution is harmed, however, which weakens the social cohesiveness and health of the entire society. The problem with arguments concerning the morality of harm is that much of what causes the most devastating and lasting harm is not readily apparent. In many aspects, the law recognizes that reality by establishing patterns of right behavior. The violation of these patterns would cause no immediate harm to a specific individual, but the lack of them would weaken the entire society.

Question 26: Should the government legislate morality?

Every government legislates morality because every law has some identifiable moral purpose. Even administrative laws and traffic ordinances have a moral agenda to ensure public safety, promote order, and prevent accidents. Yet the most contentious and central issues of the law are so steeped in morality that it is foolish to suggest that the government should not legislate morality. Laws prohibiting theft, murder, assault, rape, and kidnapping make a strong moral judgment rooted in a clear moral consensus. These laws legislate morality. When someone argues that the government should not legislate morality, the limiting of a specific personal behavior especially sexual behavior is almost always the issue.

Yet the law will always legislate morality, even if it refuses to legislate on a specific issue. Removing legislation or declining legislation is always a political act. When it comes to legislating morality whether the issue is sex or some other lifestyle issue-every sane, stable, lasting society legislates vast areas of morality. Even when moral issues are not made matters of legislation, they remain a matter of cultural decision, social responsibility, and moral consequence.

Question 27: Should the government play any role in legislating marriage?

In some sense, this question seems to assume that churches have been in the marriage business all along and that the secular state is the latecomer. But human history and virtually every human society show that civil marriage has always been an interest of all human governments. Furthermore, marriage is pre-political. The government recognizes marriage as the most basic molecular structure of society; thus, every government has historically privileged and protected marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In order to preserve society and its interests, governments must honor the marital covenant, promote procreation, and encourage parents in child rearing.

Government, however, can never get out of the business of marriage or escape the responsibility of defining marriage, because government, by its very definition and nature, must determine who is accountable to whom, to whom children belong, who has the rights to make decisions on behalf of others, and what should be protected as the zone of intimate interest for the society itself.

Question 28: Should the church get out of the marriage business?

The church can certainly get out of the marriage business if the marriage business means the wedding business. The church can easily get out of the wedding business, but it cannot get out of responsibility for marriage. The church has a duty to uphold and honour marriage because Christ himself demonstrated the importance and centrality of marriage for human society.

The New Testament reveals that the church must make decisions related to sexual morality, assign responsibility for the raising of children, outline distinctions within the household, and define the roles of a husband and wife. While these may not be interests of the state, they are inescapably interests of the church.

Question 29: If Christians press the state to recognize our view of marriage, aren’t we forcing our religious commitments on society?

This would certainly be a legitimate argument if the Christian church independently came up with the definition of marriage as a heterosexual and monogamous covenant based on God's revelation in Scripture and then told secular society they had to agree with us. But that is both a legal and historical fiction.

Secular society itself consistently defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman throughout millennia of human history. It often did so without any reference to Christianity, and, in most of the world, without any reference to the Bible. The notion of marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman is neither exclusively Christian nor exclusively biblical.

Obedience to the Scripture means that believers cannot forfeit the definition of marriage found in Scripture, but civil societies around the world have not operated uniformly on the basis of Christian conviction. Nevertheless, they have-until recently-uniformly established marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Question 30: Why should Christians care if same-sex couples marry? If they are unbelievers, why should Christians dictate their actions? Shouldn't we just worry about preaching the gospel?

This question is based upon the false premise that Scripture assigns the accountability to marriage to Christians alone rather than to society at large. Christian concern for marriage is deeply concerned with the moral risk taken by unbelievers when they marginalize, reject, subvert, or harm marriage in any way.

Christians believe this risk threatens acting parties with eternal consequences. It is quite selective and arbitrary to say that when it comes to same-sex marriage, Christians should not ask unbelievers to act like unbelievers. Why should that request be limited to same-sex marriage? Should it be applied to other aspects of the criminal code? Should Christians not expect non-Christians to live by the same civil laws they live by? Should Christians require non-Christians not to murder or steal?

The law places demands on us on purpose. Laws exist because God gave the gift of law to human society for our protection and good, which are provided for both the believer and the unbeliever.