Can a Christian be a homosexual?  Can a Christian behave homosexually within the context of Christian teaching?  Is homosexuality a normal sexual orientation?  Why are some people homosexuals while most are heterosexual?   Homosexuality has been around throughout recorded history. Why is something, considered by many to be abnormal, such an enduring human trait?   Many homosexuals believe that God made them that way and therefore it is perfectly all right to behave homosexually. Does God make some humans to be homosexuals?  Why would God do such a thing?  Why would God create a heterosexual orientation in most people and instruct them to behave accordingly and thereby be fruitful and multiply, and at the same time create a homosexual orientation in some and instruct that to express that orientation is sin? 

       Most homosexuals don’t see their homosexual orientation as sin.  Many homosexuals are Christians.  Some Christian homosexuals believe that their homosexual orientation is contrary to what God intended and they fight to suppress homosexual behavior, believing such behavior is sin.  Other Christian homosexuals accept their orientation as normal and have no qualms about behaving as homosexuals and don’t consider it sin. 

     Biblical scripture shows God creating a heterosexual orientation at creation.    

            Genesis 1:27-28:  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth”

       Genesis 19:4-7:  “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, ‘No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing."   

       This passage appears to give a clear example of homosexual behavior being defined as a wicked thing.  Defenders of homosexuality have concluded, however, that it is not homosexual activity in and of itself that is being called wicked but the attempted gang raping of the men staying with Lot.  It is argued that such attempted gang rape cannot be equated with a loving homosexual relationship.  It is further argued that if you’re going to conclude that homosexuality is wrong because of this example of attempted male rape, then you would have to conclude that heterosexual activity is wrong because of incidents of heterosexual rape. Therefore, it is not the thing (homosexual conduct) but the misuse of the thing (gang rape) that is seen as a wicked thing in Genesis 19.  It is also argued that sexual misconduct was not the reason Sodom was destroyed.

       Ezekiel 16:49-50:  “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

     It’s pointed out that nothing here is said about sexual misconduct and you can’t necessarily imply it from the phrase detestable things.   But what about Jude verse 6-7?

      Proponents of homosexuality point out that a number of Biblical scholars believe that Jude is equating the sexual behavior of the Sodomites with the Angels that had sexual relations with the daughters of men as recorded in Genesis 6.  It’s pointed out that the men of the city wanted to have relations with the Angels that visited Lot and were, therefore, going after “strange flesh,” much as the Angels were going after flesh different from theirs in seeking relations with the daughters of men.  It’s also felt that the “strange flesh could relate to relations with animals.  

       Homosexual proponents conclude that you can’t prove that Jude is speaking specifically of homosexuality when he speaks of Sodom being destroyed because of sexual immorality and going after strange flesh.   

    In Leviticus 18 we see much instruction as to what was considered acceptable sexuality. In verse 22 we read, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”  This appears to be a clear and straightforward statement.  However, proponents of homosexuality will dismiss these Levitical regulations on several grounds.

       1) These regulations are part of the Old Covenant system, which has been abrogated, and so these regulations are no longer valid. Related to this objection is the observation that many Old Covenant laws are no longer kept, so why do Christians arbitrarily pick out some laws as still being applicable?  In reality, most Christian groups don’t arbitrarily choose what is abrogated and what is not.  Many Old Covenant laws are reaffirmed in the New Covenant.  The sin lists of the Apostle Paul make this very apparent.  Homosexual behavior is included in these sin lists.

       It is taught by proponents of homosexual behavior that the Laws of Leviticus 18 and many other Old Covenant regulations are purity laws that God gave Israel to separate them from the Gentile nations around them.  The claim is that Christ came to do away with such separation under the New Covenant and therefore such laws are abrogated.  There certainly were purity regulations, such as the laws dealing with clean and unclean food, that served to separate Israel from their gentile neighbors.  These laws were discarded under the New Covenant so Israelites and Gentiles could dwell together in unity and not be separated by rules that were determined to be inconsequential. 

      It is quite a stretch, however, to conclude that the laws governing sexual conduct in Leviticus have been abrogated.  In addition to the prohibition against homosexuality, we also find prohibitions against adultery fornication and incest in Leviticus 18.  All these forms of behavior are condemned under the New Covenant as well. 

       These sexual conduct laws appear to have a universal application and are certainly not limited to Old Covenant Israel.  Leviticus 18 teaches that it was the violation of these laws that defiled the nations. This clearly shows that these laws had application to all peoples and where not purity laws for Israel only. The scriptures do not record that the nations were defiled because they didn’t keep the Sabbath, Holy Days, food laws or their failure to wear tassels on their garments.  Leviticus 18:24, records that the nations were defiled because of sexual misconduct. "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. This shows a much wider applicability and permanency of these laws as opposed to others, which became disposable under the New Covenant.

       Breaking these laws regarding sexual relations could not have defiled the nations surrounding Israel unless they applied to those nations. It is apparent that God was simply reconfirming these sexual conduct laws to Israel so they would not repeat the sins that brought down the nations around them.  These were not some kind of new laws just for Israel. This is very strong evidence for the prohibition of homosexuality in general and not just certain expressions of it as some claim.

        A review of  Leviticus 18, however, will show that idolatrous worship practices is not what is being addressed here as claimed. While the pro-homosexual Christian contingent goes into a great deal of analysis as to how homosexual practice was part of idolatrous worship, the overall context of Lev.18 is all types of sexual behavior.  Moses is addressing the way God wants the Israelites to sexually conduct themselves at all times under all circumstances.

       Even if Moses were addressing idolatrous worship practices, why would one conclude that prohibition against certain types of sexual behavior, including homosexual behavior would be limited to such worship?  The Christian defenders of the homosexual life style are grasping at straws with these arguments. 

        In the Ten Commandments we find the fifth command saying we should honor our father and mother.  If two homosexuals who are living together choose to acquire children through adoption or surrogate birth, such children cannot honor as father and mother two men or two women. The fifth commandment presupposes a father (male) and mother (female) as parents.

       New Testament scripture also shows homosexuality to be contrary to what God intends. These prohibitions appear straightforward and self-evident.  Yet, to an increasing number of Christians and Christian leaders, Paul’s teaching in regard to homosexuality is not saying what it appears to say.

       Here, as in their evaluation of Leviticus 18, Christian defenders of homosexual behavior go to great lengths to try and demonstrate that Paul is speaking of behavior tied to idolatrous worship practices and is not prohibiting homosexual behavior in a “loving relationship” between same sex couples.  It is also felt that Paul’s depiction of women as exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones pertains not to lesbian activity but to unconventional sexual activity with men.  Clement of Alexandria and Saint Augustine are cited as supporting this position in their writings.

       If it could be demonstrated that Paul is making his comments relative to homosexual behavior only within the context of idolatrous worship practices, there is no indication that Paul is approving such behavior outside of such practices.  Why would he do so?  Paul was trained as a Pharisee and as such would have been very diligent to uphold the implicit purpose for sex as seen in the Genesis account of creation, that purpose being propagation of the human race. 

       In the cultural backdrop of Judaism, the primary reason for sex was procreation. Sexual acts, which did not work to fulfill this goal, were frowned upon.  This is seen in the writings of Philo and Josephus who were both contemporary with Paul.  Philo specifically "condemns men who knowingly marry barren women.  He called them “antagonists of God and enemies of nature" Similarly, regarding homosexual behavior, Philo says that the active partner was against nature because he "does not procreate." Clement of Alexandria, saw procreation as the goal of sexual activity.

        It is pointed out by defenders of homosexuality that there is no record of Christ addressing this issue during His ministry.  Christ didn’t address it because in Judaism it simple wasn’t an issue.  There was nothing to address.  Paul, on the other hand, did need to address it because it was a big issue in the Gentile world of the first century.  The church at Corinth had some serious problems with sexuality, as well as a host of other things.  So Paul addressed this issue head on.   

     1 Corinthians 6:9-10:  “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."            

    The Greek word translated “homosexual offenders” in this passage is arsenokoitees.  Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines this word as “one who lies with a male as with a female.”  The Arndt, Gingrich, Bauer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature is considered the premiere source for how Greek words are to be understood in first century communication. This lexicon defines arsenokoitees as, “a male homosexual, pederast (a male adult that practices anal intercourse with a boy) or sodomite.”

    Pederasm was a common practice within the Greek and Roman societies of the first century AD.  Defenders of homosexual behavior feel that when Paul uses the Greek arsenokoitees, he is not speaking of homosexual activity among consenting adults but is addressing this common practice of sexual activity between adult men and young boys.  It is pointed out that this would be no different than we today condemning heterosexual activity between an adult and a child (a pedophile), which certainly would not mean we are condemning all heterosexual activity. 

     It is pointed out that there are other Greek words that Paul could have used that are much more descriptive of adult homosexuality which he did not use.  It is felt that Paul is addressing unlawful heterosexual behavior such as adultery and unlawful homosexual behavior such as pederasm. But he is not attacking hetero or homosexual behavior in and of itself.     

            1 Tim. 1:8-11:  We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.  We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, (arsenotoitees) for  slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

        Here, as in the passage in 1 Corinthians, defenders of homosexual behavior feel that Paul is addressing pederasm rather than homosexuality in general.

       In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul said that male prostitutes would not inherit the kingdom of God. The Greek word translated “male prostitutes” in the NIV and effeminate in the KJV is malakos.   It is found in only two other passages in the New Testament and has the basic meaning of soft.  It is found in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as referring to men who wear soft clothing are found in Kings houses.  The context in Matthew and Luke does not suggest anything immoral or inappropriate. The word malakia, which is derived from malakos, is found three times in the New Testament and refers to someone with a sickness that Christ healed. Yet in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul uses this word squarely within the context of sexual misconduct.  Some Christian writers argue that since the basic meaning of this word is “soft,” we can’t know for sure what Paul meant and therefore we can’t associate Paul’s statement with sexual misconduct.  

     It is obvious; however, Paul is using this word in a sexual context. The Arndt, Gingrich, Bauer Greek-English Lexicon shows malakos used in Greek literature outside the scriptures to mean effeminate and of boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually. Proponents of homosexual behavior view this as referring only to pederastic behavior.  Since Paul separates his statement about malakos and arsenotoitees it would be equivalent to saying the same thing twice if both these Greek words are relating only to pederastic behavior.

     So what do we have here?  We have an increasingly vocal Christian homosexual community looking at the same scriptures that have been traditionally used to condemn homosexual behavior as not condemning such behavior at all but simply dealing with unlawful use of homosexually no different than the scriptures deal with unlawful use of heterosexuality such as adultery and fornication.  This is how the leadership of major Christian denominations justify their acceptance of homosexual practice as acceptable behavior for a Christian.

CONCLUSION:

       So what is the conclusion to this issue?   Let’s do an overview.  Genesis shows God creating male and female to propagate the human race.  In Matthew 19, Christ confirmed the Genesis account when He said “at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 

      These are gender statements that point to the union of two people of opposite sex.  Nowhere in scripture will you find such gender statements pertaining to two people of the same sex. All scriptural discussion of gender related issues such as marriage, divorce, procreation, adultery and fornication are found in the context of heterosexual relations.  On the other hand, all references to same sex sexual relationships are in the context of condemnation.  While it could be argued that Paul is referring to specific types of same sex behavior in his condemnations, Paul gives no hint of supporting homosexuality.  Every statement Paul makes relative to homosexual behavior is to condemn it.  When Paul addresses issues of marriage, there is no hint of same sex marriage.

           1 Corinthians 7:2-4: "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.  The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."  

         As covered above, Leviticus 18 shows clearly that laws dealing with sexuality were not limited to Israel but applicable to the gentiles as well as it was the breaking of such laws that defiled the gentiles. 

      The fifth commandment tells us to honor our father and mother. This command presupposes a male and female parent.  This instruction is also found in the New Covenant teaching of Paul. In his letter to the Ephesian church Paul writes:

        Ephesians 6:1-3:  "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.  "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise-- "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." 

        Some may argue that since God created human nature and obviously places prohibitions on its expression, it is conceivable that God creates homosexuality and places restrictions on it as well.  You could even argue that homosexuality is just another expression of human nature.  Human nature, however, is common to all humans.  Homosexuality is not.  Therefore, this argument will not stand.  It would be much more reasonable to conclude that homosexuality results from specific developmental dynamics that occur in some individuals.  God didn’t make homosexuals anymore than He made pedophiles or any other deviant sexual orientations.  For God to create homosexual orientation would run contrary to His purpose for man.  God instructed man to be fruitful and multiply.  That can’t happen through homosexual activity.   

        There are many theories as to why some become homosexual.  Everything from genetic abnormalities and hormonal imbalances to social, cultural and environmental dynamics has been considered.  Nothing conclusive has been identified.  I personally suspect that all these dynamics are involved to one degree or another. 

        When all scriptural passages relating to sexuality are studied, you will not fine one hint of support for homosexual behavior as being acceptable in God’s sight. It just isn’t there.  All scriptures that address homosexual behavior place it in a bad light. A Christian who has a homosexual orientation must realize that expressing such orientation in sexual behavior is contrary to what God intended.   It is as much of a wrong expression of sexuality as is adultery or fornication.  It isn’t easy to contend with a homosexual orientation.  The same intensity of sexual desire experienced by heterosexuals will be present in a homosexual.  Some homosexuals are able to become reoriented.  Most go to their graves as homosexuals. 

       It is well recognized that many who call themselves Christian engage in sinful sexual activity such as adultery and fornication.  Some Christian homosexuals may try to justify their homosexual expression because of what goes on in the heterosexual Christian community.  This obviously is not the solution.  The Christian scriptures are very clear as to what sexual misconduct is.  In the case of homosexual behavior, the behavior, in and of itself, is sexual misconduct, not just particular expressions of it as is the case with heterosexual misconduct.    

       Proponents of homosexual behavior will teach that love should be the overriding dynamic and homosexual behavior within a loving relationship should be accepted. While two homosexuals may love each other, the expression of such love in sexual activity is still contrary to the will of God as seen in the scriptural narrative.

       What should be the Christian response to homosexuality?  In view of the overriding prohibition against homosexuality found in the scriptures, the Christian has no choice but to look upon homosexual behavior as a sin.  The Christian must also recognize that being a homosexual is not sin.  Many Christian homosexuals fight all their lives to resist homosexual behavior.  This is no different than an alcoholic having to fight the sin of drunkenness.  Being an alcoholic is not sin.  Expressing such alcoholism in excessive drinking is a sin by scriptural standards.

        As Christians, we need to love homosexuals no different than anyone else. Christ loved the women caught in adultery and forgave her. But he also told her to go and sin no more. If a homosexual wants to fellowship with other Christians, it is incumbent on a Christian to accept and love that person. If that person chooses to openly behave homosexually within such fellowship, as a Christian one could not approve of their behavior.  This would be no different than loving a heterosexual while disapproving of sexual sins they may commit.  We all sin.  We all need to recognize our sin, repent of our sin and forgive each other and be forgiven by God. 

       Homosexuality has become a contentious topic within the greater Christian community. I trust that this essay has provided an honest and straightforward investigation of the issues involved.  

 

RETURN TO HOME PAGE