Answering Questions About Homosexuality #12

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the twelfth post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 12: Won’t the church lose its appeal to the broader culture if it expends too much energy fighting against gay marriage?

Most healthy churches want to grow. Most Christians want to see the world reached for Christ. Most pastors want to see their communities impacted for God’s kingdom. But if we expend time dealing with controversial topics like gay marriage, don’t we run the risk of alienating people and diminishing our overall impact?

The answer is yes. We do run that risk. But it is a risk we must be willing to take.

At New Life, we have been going through a sermon series lately called “How Shall We Then Live,” which is focused on ethical issues such as abortion, racism and marriage. These are polarizing and controversial topics. They can lead to heated discussions. Some people might choose never to come back to our church because of a certain view that is presented. This is certainly not my desire, but it is certainly a real possibility.

I have made this observation before, but I say it again — it is somewhat stunning to note how many Biblical issues are front and center in the national dialogue these days. People are struggling to understand the value of a human life. Our society seems to be totally frustrated with regard to race relations. Our Supreme Court has redefined marriage to mean something it has never meant before. All of these are issues to which the Bible has much to say; meanwhile, our neighbors, classmates, friends and co-workers are all observing, listening, processing the national debate, thinking these things through, and forming their opinions. And will we, God’s people saved by grace, redeemed to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, be content to sit back and say nothing?

Christians should never intentionally seek to offend or alienate people, but sometimes God’s people are called to say unpopular things. God told the prophet Jeremiah to preach God’s word to Jerusalem, with the accompanying promise that the message would be resisted (Jer. 1:19). His message was so firmly resisted, in fact, that he received a beating for it (Jer. 20:1-2). But he preached it anyway (Jer. 20:9). Hundreds of years later, Paul also had a message for Jerusalem, a message of a crucified and risen Savior so unpopular that his friends urged him not to make the trip (Acts 21:12). But Paul went anyway, knowing it would lead to prison and maybe death (Acts 21:13).

In contrast to Paul and Jeremiah, we have Pontius Pilate. He was convinced that Jesus was an innocent man. He wanted to release Jesus from custody. He knew the right thing to do. But he also wanted to be popular with the people, and eventually their voices prevailed with the result that Pilate “delivered Jesus over to their will” (Luke 23:20-25). The will of the people won the day, and the Son of God was crucified.

Martin Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ . . .”

Francis Schaeffer wrote in 1982: “Where is the clear voice speaking to the crucial issues of the day with distinctively Biblical, Christian answers? . . . We can expect the future to be a further disaster if the evangelical world does not take a stand for Biblical truth and morality in the full spectrum of life.” It’s 33 years later – have Schaeffer’s words proven to be prophetic?

Let me clarify that I am not advocating an angry, self-righteous posture that sees the world as the enemy and is constantly looking to pick a fight with anyone in disagreement. Schaeffer also said, “There is nothing more ugly than an orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.” But some evangelicals in the early 21st century are simply too worried about what the world thinks, and too eager to be viewed as hip, enlightened, progressive. As Erik Raymond wrote recently, it is the “clamoring for relevance and respect” that can so easily lead the church into error.

Rick Warren, popular author and pastor of Saddleback Church in California, said it well when he was on the hot seat about gay marriage on Piers Morgan Live. Warren said, with millions of people watching,  “I fear the disapproval of God more than I fear your disapproval or the disapproval of society.” Amen Rick.

It is an important question to ask: whose approval do we really want – the world’s, or God’s? If it is the latter, I submit that a little unpopularity with our culture is a small price to pay for faithfulness to our Lord.

Next week’s question: After 12 entries in this blog series, I think it’s time to bring it to a close. Keep an eye out for blogs on other topics coming soon.

Answering Questions About Homosexuality #11

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the eleventh post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 11: If Christians are against gay marriage, does that mean they are filled with hate?

Perhaps you’ve seen the bumper sticker: “Hate is Not a Family Value.” It’s a quick little slogan that is intended to give the impression that anyone who holds to traditional “family values” must be driven by hate for those who disagree with them – most specifically, homosexuals.

Of course it is regrettably true that some Christians are driven by hatred, or at least some level of animosity, toward those who disagree with them. This is a very sad thing, especially since Jesus said that people will be able to identify his disciples by their love (John 13:35), and since Paul said we are to “do good to all people” (Gal. 6:10), even those outside the church; and since Peter exhorted Christians not to retaliate against those who insult them, but to bless them instead (1 Peter 3:9).

But is it fair to assume that an expression of disagreement with a person’s opinion or lifestyle must be motivated by hate? If this were true, wouldn’t it equally apply to homosexuals who disagree with traditionalists? Are they motivated by hate too?

This gets to one of the most glaring inconsistencies of those who have promoted the cause for same-sex marriage. Very often, their arguments are built on the alleged foundation of tolerance, in the assumption that it is unacceptable for one person to say that another person’s moral position is objectively wrong. Disagreement of this kind is seen as an expression of hate or intolerance.

But it should be acknowledged that everyone is intolerant to some degree. There are opinions and behaviors that all of us think are wrong, and we don’t mind saying so. Our society, for instance, has laws against murder, rape, burglary, extortion and child molesting, among many other things, and for this we are all very grateful for the “intolerance” of our police departments and court systems. Parents are quite willing to express intolerance for the rebellious behavior of their children, and rightfully so. Most of us will not hesitate to say that the ideas of Hitler or the Ku Klux Klan should not be tolerated – not that we should forbid free speech, but that such opinions should be universally held to be morally wrong.

If all opinions and behaviors were to be equally tolerated, we would have moral anarchy, a society where nothing is truly right because nothing can be said to be truly wrong. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”

True tolerance is when we allow all opinions to be expressed, when we engage in a give-and-take discussion about the worthiness of those views, and when we extend respect to those with whom we disagree. But to say that someone who disagrees with you is filled with “hate” is ironically its own kind of intolerance.

I would exhort all Christians to examine their hearts as to whether their views on gay marriage are in fact driven by some level of hatred, anger or animosity. If this is the case, then repent. Hate is not a family value, and it is not a Christian value either. But Christian, don’t let the world convince you that a strong moral stand makes you a hater. Truth and love always go together (Ps. 85:10, Eph. 4:15, 2 John 1:3).

Next week’s question: Won’t the church lose its appeal to the broader culture if it expends too much energy fighting against gay marriage?

Answering Questions About Homosexuality #10

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the tenth post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 10: What’s wrong with homosexual relationships so long as no one is harmed?

Is any harm being done when two people of the same gender choose to engage in a sexual relationship with each other? When you see a gay couple walking down the street holding hands, or when you see a gay couple shedding tears of joy in being able to finally marry each other, or when you see a gay couple serving together in their local church, it certainly makes it seem like no harm is being done in their choice of lifestyle. Who could possibly object to two people loving each other?

This is another frequently used argument in support of homosexual practice. But those who use this argument neglect to acknowledge that sin is insidious. It often does its damage in subtle, underhanded ways. It is sneaky and deceptive, wreaking havoc behind closed doors, in the deep recesses of our hearts, sometimes when we don’t even realize it, and other times only after years and maybe decades have passed.

Isn’t this precisely the tactic used by the serpent in the garden? Eating a piece of fruit from a tree seemed so benign, so inconsequential, so harmless. When questioned by the serpent, Eve told him that God had commanded her not to eat of the tree, or she and her husband would die. Satan’s immediate response: “You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:3-4). In other words, there’s no harm! What could possibly go wrong after eating just one piece of fruit? And yet here we are, centuries later, still dealing with the dreadful consequences of one tiny sin.

It is my contention that homosexual activity is harmful, for several reasons. But a couple of disclaimers are in order before we proceed.

First, it needs to be acknowledged that all sinful activity to some degree is harmful, and that includes heterosexual sin. People are harmed when a heterosexual couple gets divorced, or when someone becomes addicted to pornography, or when young women get enslaved in the prostitution industry. Like throwing a rock into a pond, there are always ripple effects to our sin.

Second, by no means am I suggesting that homosexuals have some kind of malicious intent in their choice to engage in same-sex relations. I don’t believe that homosexuals want to cause harm to anyone. Quite to the contrary, homosexuals are kind and sensitive people who are simply looking for love, acceptance and companionship, just like the rest of us.

But that doesn’t mean there are not unintended consequences for the people (and those around them) who engage in the homosexual lifestyle.

First of all, there is ample evidence that there are significant health risks involved in gay sexual relations. The risk of anal cancer is 4,000 percent higher among homosexuals, according to The Journal of the American Medical Association. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2010 that men who have sex with men are 44 times more likely than other men to contract HIV, and 46 times more likely to contract syphilis. The Medical Clinics of North America found that 65 percent of homosexuals carry hepatitis B. (for more information on the health risks of homosexual activity, see chapter 5 of Making Gay Okay by Robert Reilly, or chapter 6 of Straight and Narrow? by Thomas Schmidt.)

Dr. Paul Church, a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty, gave this assessment of the dangers of homosexual activity (and was actually relieved of his duties at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston for doing so):

“The evidence is irrefutable that behaviors common within the homosexual community are unhealthy and high risk for a host of serious medical consequences, including STD’s, HIV and AIDS, anal cancer, hepatitis, parasitic intestinal infections, and psychiatric disorders.”

Secondly, homosexual marriage with adopted children will by its very nature deny a child at least a mother or a father. As was stated by Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians after this past summer’s Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage: “The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family.”

There is a grave inconsistency in asserting that there is something uniquely important about a father in a child’s life, and at the same time holding that it’s acceptable for two women to raise a child in the absence of any fatherly presence (see an earlier blog for more reflection on this). If it’s true that “father’s matter,” as the New York Times proclaimed last year, wouldn’t it be harmful to deny a child the possibility of ever having such a positive influence in his/her life? (Of course a similar dysfunction would arise if a child had two fathers and no mother).

Admittedly, there are many cases in which a broken heterosexual marriage will also leave a child without a father or mother, but heterosexual marriage is designed and is inherently equipped to provide children with both a mother and a father. When heterosexual marriage fails to provide both parents to a child, it is considered an abnormality or aberration. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, will by necessity deny to a child the blessing of a mother and father.

Interestingly, children of gay parents are speaking out about the negative consequences of their upbringing. One of those is Katy Faust, who wrote an “Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent.” She makes it clear that she loves her same-sex parents, and that she is not saying that a same-sex attracted person is incapable of parenting well. But the problem, she says, is the missing parent. “We are made to know, and be known by, both of our parents. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound.”

A third reason why homosexuality is harmful is just plain common sense – children do not come from homosexual relationships, and if a society does not produce children, that society will die. Of course it’s unlikely that a society would become exclusively or even predominantly homosexual in orientation (although I suppose it’s not impossible), but any increase in homosexual marriages will produce less children, which will restrict the human race’s ability to fulfill God’s command to “multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28).

This blog will no doubt be regarded as hateful toward homosexuals, but that is not the intent. To speak against homosexual activity is not an example of intolerance or bigotry; it is an example of love and compassionate concern for those who are engaging in a dangerous lifestyle. My sincere desire is that heterosexual and homosexual people would know the grace and mercy that is offered in Christ, that they would be freed to walk in the way the Lord has commanded them, and that their days would be long. (Deut. 5:33, Jer. 7:23).

Next week’s question: If Christians are against gay marriage, does that mean they are filled with hate?

Answering Questions About Homosexuality #9

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the ninth post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 9: Are all homosexuals going to hell?

In all discussions of controversial matters, particularly the question of homosexuality, it is important for Christians to consider not just what they say, but what other people hear them saying. Just because you assert something that seems crystal clear to you, does not mean it is crystal clear to your hearers. Often, when we make a statement regarding theology or ethics or morality, people will read between the lines and hear a statement that we actually never intended to convey.

For example, when a Christian says, “Homosexual activity is sinful,” people often hear us saying, “All homosexuals are going to hell.” But is that what we are really trying to communicate?

There is a frequent misunderstanding among some Christians, and certainly among many non-Christians, about the way it comes to be decided in God’s mind that a person would go to hell. Many assume that it goes something like this:

A person is born into the world. That person is basically good until faced with some kind of important moral decision, such as whether to accept Christ as Savior, or whether to commit himself to some kind of illicit lifestyle. If the person makes the wrong choice, God then responds with a decision to send that person to hell. The implication is that it is only the “big sins” that qualify a person for eternal condemnation.

Christian theology actually teaches something quite different. It is not just the big sins that make people guilty before God; it’s the small sins too. James 2:10 says, “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Gal. 3:10 says, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” The sin of envy or coveting or lust will send a person to hell just as quickly as the sin of homosexuality. This is why even the most faithful Christian has no justification to feel smug or self-righteous in comparison to a person struggling with same-sex attraction – all are in need of grace, because nobody has abided by all things written in the Book of the Law.

Bottom line is this: if a homosexual person goes to hell, his or her sexual orientation will not be the reason for his/her condemnation. Sinners are not condemned for any one particular sin at the exclusion of others; instead, sinners are condemned for possessing a heart that from Day 1 is set against God in rebellion and defiance. In Eph. 2:3, we read that we are “by nature children of wrath” – that means that we are under the wrath of God naturally, because of who we are by nature, not because of any one specific sin. As I wrote in an earlier blog about the question of whether homosexuals are born with their sexual orientation, we don’t become sinners when we commit our first sin; we commit sin because we are by nature sinners.

So, are all homosexuals going to hell? The answer is no, because some homosexuals, by the grace of God, will humbly recognize their sin, call upon Jesus for forgiveness, and will seek by the power of God’s Spirit to conform their lives more and more to the righteous requirements of God’s Word. This is precisely what Paul meant when he wrote: “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Next week’s question: What’s wrong with homosexual relationships so long as no one is harmed?

Answering Questions About Homosexuality #8

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the eighth post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 8: Since all sins are basically the same, why do Christians get so bothered about homosexuality?

“Nobody’s perfect.” This is a frequently used axiom to assert something the Bible clearly teaches, which is that everyone is a sinner. And since all sins make us liable to the condemnation of God, it is sometimes asked why we should become more concerned about one particular sin over another. We’re all sinners in need of a savior, right? Enough said. A sin is a sin. Therefore, not only should we not make moral judgments of one another, but we should also regard homosexual activity as a sin just like any other. That’s how the reasoning goes.

Of course this question makes an assumption at the outset that needs to be explored in more detail – are all sins really the same? In terms of our legal guilt before God, the answer is basically yes. It only takes one sin to separate us from God and bring a person under his displeasure. James 2:10-11 says if we fail in just one point of the law, we are guilty of breaking all of it. Adam and Eve simply ate a piece of fruit – seems like a relatively minor sin – and yet it plunged the whole world into sin and misery. So in this sense, “small sins” are just as bad as “big sins.”

But there is another sense that needs to be considered. When it comes to the consequences of sin, and the way our sin affects our relationship with God, we can’t say that all sins are the same. In daily life, we know that while jaywalking and murder are both violations of the law, there will be very different consequences for each.

Biblically speaking, when Jesus was questioned by Pontius Pilate, Jesus said to him, “He who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:11). Jesus tells a parable in Luke 12 in which he makes a distinction between a disobedient servant who knew his master’s will, and a similarly disobedient servant who did not know his master’s will. The former will get a “severe beating,” but the latter will get a “light beating” (Luke 12:41-48). Clearly God regards some sins as more serious than others.

This parable highlights an important factor related to this question, which is that our knowledge or ignorance of a sin apparently has some bearing on how serious it is. And this has special significance for the question of homosexuality.

Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that when God created the world, his existence was plainly revealed to everyone. It was made self-evident and obvious. People have suppressed that truth in their unrighteousness, but God’s attributes are so clearly perceived in the way God created the world that people have no excuse for denying his existence (Rom. 1:18-20).

Paul then goes on in Romans 1 to say that when God created man and woman, his will for how they should relate sexually was also plainly revealed to everyone. It was made self-evident and obvious. That’s why Paul refers to homosexual activity in Rom. 1:26-27 as something “contrary to nature.” In other words, it is opposed to the natural pattern of God’s created order. It is a rejection of what everyone knows to be true – that God designed men for women, and women for men, not men for men or women for women.

So, is homosexuality the worst of all sins? No, I don’t think so. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would seem to have a claim to that distinction (Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10). But I also don’t think it was arbitrary that Paul chose to use homosexuality as Exhibit A in his explanation of how the wrath of God is revealed in Romans 1. There seems to be something particularly egregious about it because it is a denial of what is obvious in God’s created order.

As Robert Gagnon has written: “An absurd exchange of God for idols leads to an absurd exchange of heterosexual intercourse for homosexual intercourse. A dishonoring of God leads to a mutual dishonoring of selves.”

Does this mean that other sins, particularly heterosexual sins, are somehow less serious and deserve a pass? Can a person excuse his/her adultery or pre-marital cohabitation on the grounds that “at least we’re not homosexual”? No. That is hypocrisy of the highest order and should be challenged. See an earlier blog entry for further comment on this question.

The good news is that there is no sin that is too serious, too egregious, or too dishonoring for the grace of God to forgive. All sins, no matter how small, need the blood of Christ, and no sin, no matter how big, is beyond the reach of the blood of Christ. And the more we come to grips with the seriousness of all sin, the more we will rejoice in the good news that, “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom. 5:20).

Next week’s question: Are all homosexuals going to hell?

Answering Questions About Homosexuality #7

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the seventh post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 7: How can you say homosexuals are wrong when they are born with their sexual orientation?

This is one of the most commonly used arguments for the idea that homosexuality is morally permissible: If some people are born with a sexual orientation that is directed toward people of the same gender – if, in other words, God “made them that way” – then how can anyone possibly blame them for doing what is normal to them?

First of all, it has not been decisively concluded that homosexuals are born with their particular sexual disposition. The American Psychological Association, for instance, wrote in 2013 the following: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

Of course any pro-LGBT representative could produce a number of studies that would suggest that homosexuality is indeed genetic, to which I could respond with my own selection of studies showing the contrary. But “battle of statistics” games are cumbersome and rarely productive, and quite frankly, whether homosexuality is biologically genetic or not is beside the point.

What I mean is this: theologically speaking, every single person is born into this world with a disposition toward sinful behavior. We don’t become sinners only when we get around to committing our first sin; instead, we sin because by nature we are sinners. We enter the human race with rebellion in our bloodstream. Paul says we were all infected with this sinful disposition by the disobedience of Adam, the very first man (Rom. 5:19). David wrote that he was “brought forth in iniquity” and was conceived “in sin” (Ps. 51:5).

Therefore, it doesn’t really matter if there is a “gay gene,” because the more fundamental problem is that all of us, whether homosexual or heterosexual,  are born with a sin gene. The most relevant factor in this discussion is not our sexual orientation, but our sinful orientation. This sinful orientation is the fountain from which spews all kinds of sins – theft, slander, adultery, murder, and all kinds of sexual immorality, including homosexuality (Mat. 15:19).

Bottom line is that every sin committed in human history can be traced back to the sinful disposition that we all inherited from Adam, and yet this fact does not excuse anyone from the sins he commits. If anyone says he is without sin, he lies to himself (1 John 1:8). The whole world is accountable to God for its sin (Rom. 3:19).

Our orientation toward sin does not get us off the hook. We can’t exonerate our adultery or slander or theft by saying we were “born that way” – even though we actually were born that way! If anything, this only magnifies our malady – we are a race of creatures with a profoundly serious problem, a sickness that is in our moral DNA, and one from which we can not find freedom apart from a radical act of redemption by Jesus Christ himself on our behalf.

Lately there have been several reports that alcoholism may be genetic, but I don’t think anyone would suggest that this gives license to individuals to “come out” and proudly identify as alcoholic. A genetic disposition toward alcoholism is not permission for the alcoholic to freely indulge in his addiction. No amount of genetic causation gives permission to indulge or celebrate immoral behaviors. As Robert Reilly says, “The immutability of the condition or of the inclination is irrelevant to the moral character of the acts to which they are predisposed.”

One reason why gay activists want so badly to show that homosexuality is genetic is so they can conclude that the behavior is irreversible. Already, states are passing laws that ban “conversion therapy” – the attempt to change the sexual orientation of gays and lesbian minors. I fully understand that it is rare for homosexual desires to be completely changed into heterosexual desires, and that some who have been “converted” end up going back to the gay lifestyle, but we should not ignore the fact that successful conversions do take place. It is possible. And to deny that it is possible robs homosexuals of the hope that they can be different.

Check out the story of Rosaria Butterfield, a former lesbian English professor at Syracuse whose academic focus was feminist and queer theory, but who was converted to Christianity and is now married to a man. Or Jackie Hill-Perry, a poet and hip-hop artist who once engaged promiscuously in the lesbian lifestyle but also became a Christian and is now in a heterosexual marriage. Or Allan Edwards, a PCA pastor who has struggled with same-sex attraction but is happily married to a woman. You can here an NPR interview with Edwards here.

All of these individuals have found that through the Gospel, change is possible. For some, change is slow, painful and perhaps small. We shouldn’t expect that everyone’s experience will be like Rosaria Butterfield’s or Jackie Hill-Perry’s, nor should we shun the person for whom same-sex attraction remains strong and seemingly unchanged. But the logic of Hill-Perry in the following quote should give everyone hope, no matter what is their sin struggle:

“I think we’ve made God very little if we believe that He cannot change people. If He can make a moon, stars and a galaxy that we have yet to fully comprehend, how can He not simply change my desires?”

Next week’s question: Since all sins are basically the same, why do Christians get so bothered about homosexuality?

Answering Questions About Homosexuality #6

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Below is the sixth post from Pastor Bob in an ongoing blog series designed to help Christians think through the issue of homosexuality in a careful and Biblical way. For more on the reason for this series, click here.

Question 6: Why do Christians get so uptight about homosexuality when Jesus didn’t even talk about it?

Is that true – Jesus didn’t even mention homosexuality in all his teaching? Really?

It is true that in the Bible there is no record of any instance in which Jesus spoke directly about homosexuality. From this, the conclusion is drawn that the issue must not have been very important to him. For instance, British author Francis Spufford writes that Jesus seemed to be “weirdly unbothered about sex,” that he expressed “no opinions whatsoever” about homosexuality or gay marriage, and that “what we do in bed is not specially important to him.” (p. 116).

There are at least three responses to this assertion.

First, we can’t expect that Jesus would speak directly to every single potential ethical question that has faced humankind throughout every culture and in every period of time throughout history. In his earthly ministry, he was located in a specific cultural and historical era that had its own ethical questions and difficulties. Apparently, homosexuality was not among the most pressing issues of his day, so it was not addressed, just as presidential candidates today don’t feel the need to assert their position on slavery. Do we conclude from their silence on the issue that they are “weirdly unbothered” by slavery? Of course not. It simply means that the issue of slavery was a more pressing issue in another time.

It should be noted that Jesus also doesn’t explicitly condemn spousal abuse, cocaine addiction, or air pollution, but because of broader moral principles taught by Jesus and in the rest of the Bible, I’m quite confident He was against all of those offenses.

Secondly, to draw the conclusion that homosexuality is acceptable in Christianity simply because Jesus didn’t address the issue specifically is to betray some serious misunderstandings about orthodox Christian theology, both related to the doctrine of Scripture and the person of Christ.

As Christians, we believe Jesus is God in the flesh —  that the God who created the heavens and the earth, and who was active in the Old Testament to deliver his people from bondage in Egypt, and to give them His law so they would follow and obey it, is the same God who took to himself a human body in the person of Jesus Christ and lived on this earth 2,000 years ago. Jesus is the God of the Old Testament in human form. That means that whatever God declared in the Old Testament also came from the heart of Jesus as the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity. John 1:14 says Jesus is the “Word became flesh,” but go back to John 1:1 and notice that the Word (Jesus) existed from the very beginning. Col. 1:17 says Jesus was “before all things.” This means that when God said in Lev. 18:22 that homosexual activity was an “abomination,” those were the words of all three persons of the eternal Trinity – Father, Spirit, and the Son too.

Thirdly, the case can be made that Jesus actually did express his disapproval of homosexuality, though in a more indirect way. For instance, in Mat. 19:4-5, Jesus reiterates the Biblical foundation for heterosexual marriage by saying, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” This is the pre-fall, pre-political, transcultural, God-endorsed ideal for marriage – one man and one woman – and it is affirmed and taught by Jesus in the New Testament.

Also, in Mat. 5:17, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but rather he came to fulfill them. In this statement, Jesus is basically saying, “I affirm and support what is written in the Old Testament law.” And of course that would include Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, both of which refer to homosexual activity as an “abomination.”

So, contrary to what is frequently said, Jesus did have an opinion about homosexuality: it is displeasing to Him and contrary to God’s design for marriage. And yet Jesus also says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden . . .” (including those who struggle with same-sex attraction), “ . . . and I will give you rest.” (Mat. 11:28).

Next week’s question: How can you say homosexuals are wrong when they are born with their sexual orientation?