Leviticus 18 -- A loophole for homosexuality?

When I'm defending the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality, my go-to passage is not Leviticus 18 or 20.  Nor, as a matter of fact, is it Romans 1.

I'll often approach the topic more from a Genesis 1/Ephesians 5 perspective -- God's designs for marriage and sexuality being paramount.  However, what I constantly run into is the popular argument that Leviticus 18.22's language invokes the type of sexual violence common in the time period, which would render the English reading something more akin to, "A male shall not forcibly lie with another male, as such sexual violence is an abomination."

This understanding of the subtext, while maybe not entirely inaccurate, still misses the overall context of the chapter.  It also ignores the fact that the Hebrew word translated "lie" in English to connote sexual relations, does not here carry any violent overtones.  In fact, the word translated "lie" in other Old Testament passages might have the same root, but with a different connotation when elsewhere used to connote violence or ambush (i.e. "lying in wait," as per Deut 19.11; Prov 1.11).

That said, of course rape is not a modern sin and it is not dis-included from the sexual sins addressed in the Pentateuch (see Deut 22.25).  In fact, many of the sexual deviancies listed in this passage and others would likely involve some kind of violence.  Actually, I'd argue that all of them do.  After all, incest is most often the result of one family member taking advantage of another or using him/her against his/her will (see Judah/Tamar [deception] -- Gen 38.12-26; Lot and his daughters [deception, drunkenness] -- Gen 19.30-38; Amnon/Tamar [forcible rape] -- 2 Sam 13).

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of cases of consensual incest, of course.  Sin is tempting and seemingly justifiable for all sorts of twisted reasons.  I'm also not arguing that violence is a moot point when it comes to these sexual sins.  What I am arguing is that, if the issue at stake in Leviticus 18 were simply violence, and that the practice of homosexuality itself was acceptable on non-violent grounds, then we would be forced to say -- by that same standard -- that incestuous sexuality was also acceptable, in the case that both parties were consenting.  In other words, we can't just pigeonhole one act in this list as being explicitly violent, therefore rendering it acceptable in non-violent circumstances, and not also apply the same logic to the rest of the passage.

Ironically, this is not the perspective our culture holds when it comes to this passage -- obviously, incest is wrong (or at least not preferable) because we find that type of sexual expression unhealthy and distasteful.  Nobody marches for the rights of incestuous couples, even though there are state and national laws prohibiting legal unions between siblings and parents/offspring.  However, because our culture wants to endorse the practice of homosexuality, the caveat of forcible rape is applied to this passage to suggest a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

The larger context of the book of Leviticus is even more compelling.  The entire text resounds with the theme of God's holiness, emphasizing again and again the importance of the Israelite people living with radically different beliefs, customs, laws, and ethics than the nations surrounding them.  Specifically in Leviticus 18, the topic is sexual sins that were violations of God's standard of holiness for Israel.  As with the rest of the book, the laws He is here ordaining will separate His sanctified people from the practices of the foreign nations.  Specifically included in Leviticus 18 are incestuous acts, bestiality, sex during a woman's menstrual period, child sacrifice, and homosexuality.  The child sacrifice thing particularly seems out of place here, but the ritualistic sacrifice of children in the pagan Canaanite nations would definitely involve lewd fertility rites, and would symbolically defile maternity, paternity, and one of the divine purposes of copulation.

Again, sexual coercion or outright sexual violence is implied in nearly all the acts listed here, which is not excusable or unimportant.  But the central thrust of this passage is the bigger theme of violating God's standard of holiness -- regardless of how, when, or why they take place.  In other words, what do all these things have in common?  They all break God's design and defy God's purpose.  There are no specific details or conditions given for any of these practices, which means there are no circumstances that would render the act in question acceptable, and no circumstances that might provide a convincing case for the Almighty's approval.  In fact, the only "favorable" conditions in this text are deliberately removed from consideration -- that is, when it comes to a man taking his stepsister as a sexual partner, regardless of whether or not they grew up together, which is probably the only time we might culturally consider the incest to be a mere technicality and argue for its acceptability (18.9).  In that instance, there most likely wouldn't be any violence taking place, but it is still an act condemned for the standard it violates.

Bottom line, Leviticus 18 removes the issue of motive entirely and makes the blanket statement that any engagement in these types of practices is a violation of holiness.  For Israel to do any of them would be for them to live like the foreign nations, whom God was chastising for the very same sinful acts.  Such a disregard for holiness within the Israelite community would result in excommunication or death.  What is ultimately important, therefore, is that the specific conditions of the act in no way alter the fact that it is still sinful.

I'll leave it at that, because today's standard of what constitutes acceptable sexuality can't be determined by just what the Old Testament says about sexual conduct.  We can only dispel arguments that seek to prove homosexuality's acceptance in history, so that such twisted logic doesn't become a platform for modern acceptability.

Jesus certainly didn't come to eradicate the Law -- He came to fulfill it -- but He also came to inspire within us not a duty-bound obligation to rigorous customs, but a love for the same kind of holiness that God has always required of His people.  There is no way to reconcile any act -- that is still inherently sinful under any circumstances -- with a God whose perfect character demands perfection in His children.

And that's why the message of the cross is so potent.

The cross communicates that God loved us enough to buy us back from our enslavement to sin, at the cost of His own blood.  The cross communicates that there is a much greater consequence in store than any shade of loneliness or despair in this life can possibly foreshadow.  The cross communicates that none of us were able to fix our own problems, but that Jesus came to give us the power to make that possible.

The cross communicates that homosexuality is a sin you can be rescued from.  You are not beyond God's mercy.  Repentance is not out of the question.

The cross communicates that a far greater fulfillment awaits those who come spiritually hungry to the Lord than any human relationship can offer.

Love Won (A long time ago)

There has been a whole lot of talk since June 26th.  Since then, the internet has felt a bit like a minefield, and I've prayerfully stayed out of it.  However, I believe that verses 4-5 of Proverbs 26 come back-to-back for a reason, and there's far too much at stake in this issue to remain silent.

I've discussed biblical sexuality and biblical marriage extensively.  I won't rehash those discussions here.  In the midst of all the recent shouting, posturing, and criticizing from both sides of the argument, one statement has come back to settle with me, and that's what I want to share.

Peter Hubbard is the author of Love into Light (a highly recommended read) and pastor of North Hills Community Church in South Carolina.  He paraphrased another Christian's purpose statement regarding SSA, a statement that I think far too many Christians are afraid to make:

I accept you as a homosexual; I do not approve you as a homosexual.

Hear me out.

Accepting someone for who they are is not necessarily the same thing as condoning their choices.  It would be absolutely hypocritical for a Bible-believing Christian to redefine the nature of sin in order to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle.  After all, if we can redefine sin -- for any reason, be it cultural, emotional, evolutional, etc -- then we can eliminate the need for a Savior at all.  That's not at all what I'm suggesting.  To the contrary, if we as Christians choose to live in understanding ways with men and women who practice the sins of lying, gossiping, lusting, anger, or [insert any other "commonplace" sin here], then the reality is that we should also be willing to live in an understanding way with an individual who self-identifies as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.

We should be willing to accept, but not approve.

So, on one hand, we need to treat homosexuality the way we treat all other sins.

On the other hand, we need to be extremely careful not to treat homosexuality the way we tend to treat all other sins -- that is, to ignore them altogether.  Nothing corrupts so completely like justified and ignored sin, no matter how "small" the offense might be.  The heart that is convinced its sin is "safe" is dangerously far from God.  That unaddressed sin has undermined the very standards of holiness and worship.

The victory chant of the homosexual community over the last few days has been "Love wins."  My heart is broken over the fact that such a powerful phrase can be so misapplied -- first by Rob Bell to eliminate God as judge, and now by the gay community to eliminate God as lawgiver.  "Love wins" is an undeniably true statement, not because a rainbow flag now flies over our country, but because Christ shed His blood for sinners and rose victorious from the grave.  Love won a long time ago.  However, biblical love is also unyieldingly stern, especially when the well-being of the beloved is at risk.

In that regard, we as Christians should feel deep sorrow over and compassion for individuals who have willingly denied the truth and chosen to celebrate instead of crucify their sins -- running "helter skelter to destruction with their fingers in their ears," as songwriter Don Francisco put it.  Like stopping a child from running into traffic, we should earnestly desire to communicate the truth about love, forgiveness, and repentance -- not so we can argue and disprove opinions, but so that needy sinners can be rescued.  We should still be willing to speak boldly against sin while still reaching out to welcome the sinner.  

After all, that's the way Christ welcomed us.

We shouldn't be surprised by the ruling of SCOTUS, or alarmed at the reactions of the gay community.  After all, it was a long time ago that God released man to wallow in his sinful desires (Rom 1.24).  We shouldn't be surprised or alarmed when people who don't know Jesus live like they don't know Jesus.  For the same reason, we shouldn't insist on criticizing their moral choices without first addressing the state of their hearts.

Furthermore, we shouldn't overstep our place and stand in judgment over the homosexual community.  There is only one Judge and Lawgiver (Jas 4.12), and we who identify with Christ have no room to point out specks in other people's eyes.  We once walked in the same kind of self-deception as do homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders (1 Cor 6.11).  Peter Hubbard writes, "Any Christian who can mock a homosexual or speak unkindly to a drag queen is suffering from amnesia. We have forgotten what it is like to be without Jesus...  We need to remember the goodness and lovingkindness that God poured out on us.  God should have looked at us and been disgusted.  Instead, without condoning our sin, He loved us and saved us."

The key here is that God loved us and saved us without condoning our sin.  God absolutely accepts everyone as they are: broken, battle-scarred corpses overwhelmed by the devastating power of sin.  However, because God loves us, He is not content to leave us in that condition.  He breathes new life into us!  Therefore, though we each have our personalized sins and weaknesses which often feel so natural, so right, and so familiar, we are both compelled and empowered by the healing salve of Divine grace to break free of those chains -- to go forth and sin no more (John 8.11).  Love won not to free us to our own personal preference, but to free us from the things to which we were enslaved.  The bitter truth about spiritual slavery is that we don't realize how bad it is -- we like the choices we make because we make them at the whim of what we feel.  We are slaves to our own desires without even realizing it.

Love won a long time ago, awakening us to the treacherous reality of our sin and the overwhelming compassion of the Father.  

Praise God for the victory!

Praise God that He is not finished working!

Praise God that mercy is still freely available to those who deny and crucify their sinful desires in their desperation to follow Jesus.

If we as Christians are humbly willing to accept people who self-identify as homosexuals instead of treating treating them like infectious carriers of a disease, we can communicate the stern yet compassionate truth of the gospel.

Moving forward, let's do a better job of building these bridges instead of burning them.

Why the Term "Biblical Marriage" Is NOT Misleading

It's no secret that I believe in the sacredness of marriage.

As a husband, I understand that I bear the responsibility of humble, considerate leadership.  I also know the immense value of having a godly, supporting, and compassionate wife.  As a follower of Jesus Christ, I have a foretaste of divine intimacy through my marriage -- a relationship that all who love God will share with our Savior in heaven, for all of eternity.

For all of those reasons and more, I'm particularly keen to identify and address the problematic perspectives on marriage that exist more and more in our culture today.

This article, written by self-proclaimed "biblical scholar" Jennifer Bird, was published at the end of October and recently came to my attention.  Here, in order, are the sweeping claims she makes about "biblical" marriage:

1. Relationships that qualify for legitimate marriage in the Bible include polygamy, open marriage for the man, forcing a woman to marry her rapist, and levirate marriage.
2. Jesus advocates men leaving their wives and children in order to follow him and suggests that all men should be celibate (eunuchs).
3. As defined by the Bible, the woman is the property of the man in heterosexual marriage and is treated as being less than fully human.
4. The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a legitimate form of marriage, but rather condemns cruelty and failure to procreate.
5. God never defines marriage.
6. Love is not considered "foundational" [I'm inferring that she means important or integral] to marriage; therefore, because the Bible does not endorse a marital relationship of loving mutuality, proponents of this view cannot biblically condemn same-sex marriage.

If you're like me, you read that list, let your forehead hit the desk, then blink a few times and wonder where to begin.

Logical fallacies aside, there are a number of reasons why Bird's arguments are inaccurate conjecture.  I've already extensively discussed marital roles and sexuality and won't fully rehash that discussion here.  However, I do want to address a few of her bigger claims -- not because I disagree with her personal opinions, but because I disagree with her simplistic dissection of the Word of God.  The not-so-veiled message she conveys, addressing a culture hungry for opportunity to reject absolute truth, is that the Bible actually reveals God to be a little more tolerant of sexual preference than we've traditionally made Him out to be.

Homosexuality

It is Mrs. Bird's notion that God's condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament was less about the act itself than in its conjunction with other sins.  The two examples she uses are failure to procreate and sexual cruelty.

Of course, the fact that homosexuality is, by virtue of incompatible components, a failure to procreate, would mean it is still condemned by her logic.  In fact, were her reasoning sound, any sexual encounter -- even between a husband and wife -- that did not result in pregnancy would also be a punishable offense under Mosaic law.  While the bearing of offspring was of enormous significance to Israelite culture and an extension of marital joy -- not to mention a God-ordained responsibility -- it is not the lack of procreation that is being condemned in Leviticus 18 and 20.  Otherwise, all infertile marriages would be invalid by the same standard.

That's why, as Peter Hubbard so succinctly words it in Love Into Light, biblical sexuality is principally about "design and direction, not necessarily [the] achievement [of pregnancy]...  Within the covenant of a heterosexual marriage, sexual intimacy plays a variety of roles.  Pleasure and purity are just as sacred as procreation" (Prov 5.15-19; Song 2.8ff; 1 Cor 7.1-7).  God's command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply is still a directive to the human race, and its importance was undeniably the basis for a number of Jewish laws pertaining to sexuality.  However, husbands and wives were expected to complete and fulfill one another in wedded purity -- whether or not their copulation produced offspring -- and marriage ultimately was intended to glorify God through the husband and wife's unified sanctity.

If sex can exist solely for the purpose of pleasure within the context of marriage, and if infertility in Israelite culture was not a sin before God (even if it was a cause of cultural shame), then the issue with homosexuality is not with the failure to procreate, but with the nature of the act itself.

Mrs. Bird also uses the example of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, arguing that it was their practice of sexual cruelty and hostility toward outsiders that prompted God's judgment -- not their homosexuality.  However, this is evaluation doesn't consider historical or other biblical evidence to the contrary.  Jude 1.7 reveals that it was their "indulgence in sexual immorality and pursuit of unnatural desire" that was the cause of their condemnation, and two of the most significant Jewish historians of the first century, Philo and Josephus, both interpret Genesis 19:4-11 to refer explicitly to homosexual acts, not merely sexual violence:

About this time, the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God... they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices.  God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride. (Josephus -- The Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 11)

While Mrs. Bird may be correct that none of the biblical examples of God judging homosexuality involved "two same-sex people in loving relationships," the nature of the relationship becomes a moot point in the face of God's blanket statements, across Old and New Testaments (Lev 18.22; Rom 1.26-27; 1 Cor 6.9), that the act of homosexuality in any context is a sin that should not be practiced by anyone who claims to love Him.

Monogamy, Divorce, and Adultery

"Did he say 'Blessed are the cheese-makers?'"

It's no secret that the words of Jesus are some of the most misconstrued teachings in all of history.  In her article, Mrs. Bird alludes to Luke 14, claiming that Jesus' statement in that passage -- that an individual's unwillingness to "hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters" made him unfit for discipleship -- is allowance for spousal abandonment if it is done in the name of Jesus.

Even a cursory knowledge of Jesus' teachings is enough to put a damper on this perspective.

The sentiment Christ expressed through the notion of "hating" family on His behalf was a challenge a). to value the Kingdom of Heaven above any human relationship, and b). to disallow dissuading opinions of family members that might otherwise keep the individual from following in His footsteps.  Jesus taught that the two most important biblical commands are inseparably linked: to love God above all else, and to love others more than ourselves (Mark 12.30-31).  Therefore, it is equally unacceptable to violate marital vows and fail to love a spouse "in the name of Christ," or to forego worship or ministry on behalf of a spouse.

Both Jesus and Paul further expanded on this idea.  The simple truth is that a married man will constantly face the challenge of maintaining two responsibilities -- one, to please his wife; two, to please God -- and he must balance those things so that neither relationship is neglected (Matt 19.10-12; 1 Cor 7.32-35).  On the other hand, a single, chaste man is capable of pursuing one priority: to please God alone.  Furthermore, a man who is a eunuch by choice has taken his commitment one step further and removed from himself the possibility of sinning physically (whether through masturbation or sexual intercourse) and has declared that all of him belongs to the Lord and not to any human being (including himself).  Jesus specifically said that the lifestyles of celibacy or choosing to be a eunuch were not for everyone, and only those who are called should attempt!  Therefore, while neither Jesus nor Paul directly encouraged men to be celibate or eunuchs -- nor, for that matter, did either imply that married individuals are somehow second-rate Christians -- they were pointing out the freedom that the single individual has to devote him- or herself to the wholehearted worship of God.  After all, God Himself decreed that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen 2.18); a man who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains the Lord's favor (Prov 18.22)!  The point of these passages is to make clear the fact that the marital lifestyle contains its own set of complications, just as the single lifestyle does.  No matter which walk of life we choose, the primary relationship is the individual relationship with Christ.

I think it's important to track further through the healthy tension that exists between these ideas.  According to the Bible, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is God's design for humanity.  Yet marriage also brings the potential to hinder the individual's relationship with Christ.  Furthermore, while the relationship with Christ should remain the primary relationship even in a marriage, spouses can sin by making church, ministry, or personal covenants detrimental to their marriages -- just as worldly things can also steal our focus from our wives and husbands.  As believers, we need to recognize that our relationship with Christ exists to the inclusion of our spouse, and that it is never acceptable to pursue Christ instead of our spouse.   In fact, I would argue that you can't pursue Christ without also pursuing your spouse.  As Paul argued, there are no legitimate circumstances other than infidelity that are grounds for divorce (1 Cor 7.10-11), and that husbands and wives should live in ways that are mutually edifying (Eph 4.15-16; 29-32).  That doesn't mean we merely live to encourage each other in our jobs and hobbies, but that we inspire one another in our hand-in-hand pursuit of Christ together.

All that being said, Mrs. Bird does pose a challenging question when it comes to the issue of polygamy.  I myself have to wonder why God chose to pronounce legal punishment for sexual immorality when it occurs in same-sex acts, bestiality, or as a violation of another covenant marriage, but not when it involved multiple marital partners.  Since God desired His people to be monogamous and follow the design He established at Creation (for the record, Mrs. Bird's assessment of Genesis 2 in her article is completely incorrect), why did He not outline punishment to be exacted on those who took multiple wives?  Would that not have been more of a deterrent than simply allowing them to discover on their own what a mistake it was?

While I don't have one definitive answer, there are several reasons why I believe God chose to act in this way.

True, the Bible might not explicitly condemn the practice of having multiple wives in the Old Testament (though the practice of polygamy is nowhere protected, endorsed, or regulated in the New Testament church).  However, the Bible does extensively portray having multiple sexual partners as a flawed variation on God's design and sharply contrasts that lifestyle with the image of the exclusive, monogamous relationship God desired to have with His people (Gen 29.30; Deut 17.17; 1 Sam 1.4-7; Mal 2.11).  In much the same way that the Law of Moses did not encourage divorce but merely regulated an existing practice, God also permitted the practice of polygamy -- partly for the benefit of procreation (especially in the instance of levirate marriage -- a childless widow could marry a brother of her deceased husband in order to provide her with an heir and financial stability), and partly because the practice had crept into Israelite culture long before they were even a defined people group, and to forbid the practice would have necessitated divorce.  Therefore, just as God permitted Israel the right to practice legal divorce -- because they were going to do it anyway -- likewise, He permitted polygamy.  In other words, when God found it necessary to establish ground rules for divorce (Deut 24) as well as for how to treat a second wife (Ex 21.10), it was because He was providing legal protection for the parties involved. Regulations like these were directly intended for the protection of Israelite women from unsavory alternatives: false accusations of infidelity, wanton sexual and physical abuse, favoritism and neglect, excommunication from the assembly, shunning by family and friends, and execution.

Jesus cut to the heart of the matter in Matthew 19 when He reminded the Pharisees who challenged him on this topic that it was their own rebellion that had made divorce necessary -- as well as all other rules surrounding Jewish sexuality.  That's why I think the best answer to the question of why God chose to allow these practices instead of mandating punishment is that He has "given over" the world at large to the practice of sinful desires (Psa 81.12; Acts 7.42; Rom 1.24).  This is not because He has given up on them or because He doesn't care about our behavior, but -- again -- because they are going to pursue those things anyway.  Therefore, God specifically conceded to Israel practices such as polygamy, slavery (a topic I've also discussed previously), and divorce in order to show them the emotional and spiritual costliness of living in ways He did not intend.

The other side of this issue is found in Paul's assessment of the law in Romans 5 -- that where sin abounds, revealed by the law, grace abounds sufficiently to cover the trespass.  One of the ways God has always communicated His grace is by withholding immediate retribution upon sin.  He will one day judge man's wickedness, of course, but He stays His hand for the time being, extending grace, mercy, and opportunity to a world that would rather play around with sex and pleasure than acknowledge His providence.  God didn't command every sin in Jewish culture to be punished by law because one day all sin will know just punishment by the law of His eternal character.  All sin must be punished: even the sins that Christ removed from His followers were punished at Calvary.

He was punished on our behalf, and the righteous wrath of God against our iniquities was satisfied.

One day, the world too will know judgment, which is why -- historically and presently -- God has allowed wickedness to continue, not because it is acceptable, but because He still extends the opportunity to repent.

Patriarchy, Abuse, and Women's Rights

"English Breakfast tasted like powdered wig anyway!"

American culture at large misunderstands God's directive of patriarchy as badly as it grasps the concept of submission.  After all, we live in a nation that looks back to its origins and subscribes to the belief that, if we don't like the authority over us, we have the right to defy and overthrow it.  For that same reason, feminist ideology looks at the the world's unfortunate history of misogyny, connects it to biblical patriarchy, and cries "unfair."

This is another example of man misappropriating a biblical directive and warping it to meet his own interests.  God established man as the head and leader of the household and woman as the supportive home-maker.  He did not intend for man to be domineering or cruel, nor for woman to be peevish or weak, but these are characteristics that have defined marriages through the ages.

However, that doesn't mean the system is flawed -- only that our adherence to it is.

Biblically, a woman wasn't to be considered any less human or the "property" of her husband -- not even under Old Testament law.  While the buying and selling of human beings does exist in the Bible, a man who purchased a slave and made her his wife was no longer permitted to treat her as a slave but as a wife.  Furthermore, any man who obtained a wife through war, through the death of a brother, or by going behind his father-in-law's back was held to the same standard of providing for his wife (or wives) the care she (they) deserved.

When the Bible speaks of wives submitting to their husbands, it is not commanding mindless obedience or the surrender of the woman's right to her own opinion.  To the contrary, biblical submission is the wife willingly placing herself under the authority of her husband, recognizing that God has given to man the role of loving leadership and to woman the role of loving support.  That no more gives the husband the right to be withholding, condescending, or abusive than it gives the wife the right to be nagging, insubordinate, or bitter.

Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible does God endorse violence or aggression -- sexual or otherwise.  In fact, Proverbs 6 states that two of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood and hearts that devise wicked plans, which clearly encompasses the realm of sexuality in marriage.  Therefore, when Mrs. Bird makes the claim that acceptable biblical marriage includes "forcing a woman to marry her rapist," she is taking a difficult passage of Scripture and forcing the wildly inaccurate assertion that God -- God who is love; God who shows mercy; God who extends grace; God who abhors violence, arrogance, theft, and wicked schemes -- would look favorably upon rape as an acceptable means of acquiring a wife.

For the sake of argument, let's look at the three scenarios in the Deuteronomy passage Mrs. Bird references.  The first involves a man who sleeps with a betrothed virgin while in the city; the second, a man who rapes a betrothed woman while in an isolated place; and the third, a man who coerces a virgin who is not betrothed into sexual relations while in the city.  The location of each scenario is as important as the sentences God pronounces.

In the first instance, a woman who was legally engaged to one man has sex with another man.  In this instance, no one is given the benefit of the doubt.  The woman did not cry out for help -- neither during the act (though it occurred in the city where individuals who could hear her screams were close enough to rescue her) nor afterward when she had the opportunity to come forward to her husband-to-be and accuse her rapist.  Therefore, the evidence points to consensual sex, probably not restricted to an isolated incident.  The text would imply that they were most likely discovered in the act.  Therefore, both the man and the engaged woman were put to death, because being betrothed in Jewish culture is on par with being legally married.  In other words, the crime in this scenario is adultery.

In the second instance, a man rapes a legally engaged woman far away from the city, where she could have screamed for help but no one was around to rescue her.  In this instance, the benefit of the doubt goes to the woman: her protection is more important than the man's reputation (which, by the way, is unheard of in patriarchal societies where a man's word would normally override a woman's without a second consideration).  The engaged woman's accusation of rape would have be enough for the man to be executed.

In the final instance, a man sleeps with a legally single virgin in a place where their sexual involvement is discovered.  The word "seize" in the text certainly suggests that the sexual act involved violence or coercion (it's the same word used for rape in the previous scenario at any rate).  However, while the Hebrew word ("taphas") means to attack or to capture, it is elsewhere written as "yaresh," which means to take possession or to dispossess -- as in the seizure of an enemy's city.  It's a word which means "to lay claim."  Therefore, while the word in context certainly implies rape, the fact that the scenario is set in the city or a community where they are discovered in the act (whether because the girl was screaming for help or because they were interrupted by an intruder), would allow for the possibility that the sex was perhaps consensual (if unlikely).  Additionally, the fact that the pronounced sentence is a fine instead of death further highlights the important caveat that the man in this scenario wasn't violating a legal marriage, and was therefore "laying claim" to a woman who is not legally obligated to another man.  Another possibility is that the act of "seizure" was happening behind the back of a father who did not approve of the relationship, in which case "seize" would imply an act of deception as opposed to an act of violence.

In the event that the text does describe a rape, however, the punishment is for the man -- not the victim.  What Mrs. Bird would interpret as "forcing the woman to marry her rapist" is really the other way around: the rapist is forced to make restitution for his crime.  As Matthew Henry stated it, "The law was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of."

First, the hefty fine levied upon him was the bride price, but the requirement to live with the woman he'd violated would be a heavier burden to carry: he'd be entering into a family who would have nothing but disgust for him for what he'd done to their daughter and sister, and he'd be financially dependent upon an angered father-in-law until he could provide for his own family.  Second, though this might seem outlandish to Americans, the command to marry the woman was for her physical and emotional protection.  The law again gives her the benefit of the doubt, that she was indeed coerced (as opposed to doing the seducing herself!), and would not be subject to the punishment for sexual immorality she otherwise might have faced.  Furthermore, the opportunity for her to marry after being raped, according to Jewish rituals of purification and atonement, would have been slim to none.  Fair or not, any other suitor would shun her on the basis of her sexual impurity; therefore, she would live the rest of her life alone and uncared for.  Third, in the absence of capital punishment, the opportunity is therefore provided for repentance and restoration.  Because sex belongs in marriage, any Jewish man who engaged in sex with an unbetrothed virgin would be obligated to marry her in order to protect her shame as well as to correct the wrong that has been done.  If this was done in the form of rape, what was taken from the woman certainly cannot be returned; however, by becoming her legal husband, the man will then serve her for the rest of his life to atone for his sin.  This is not an opportunity for him to continue to abuse her: no husband is allowed to "diminish [the] food, clothing, or marital rights" from his wife (Ex 21.10).  This is the consequence he has brought upon himself.

Again, as hard as any of them might be to swallow, such cultural laws as the one in Deuteronomy 22 were always intended for the protection of the innocent woman -- even in the instance of rape.  God no more commanded violence toward women than he commanded infidelity -- in fact, He absolutely hates both of these things.  Though His people might fail in this regard, God is always concerned with care for the lowly, the poor, and the downtrodden, and He promises them justice and hope.  The countless instances of men in the Bible and in history abusing, objectifying, and betraying their wives are misapplications of God's design for patriarchy.  Never is the practice of emotional, sexual, or spousal abuse endorsed or commanded by a loving God, who -- contrary to Mrs. Bird's simplistic assessment  -- repeatedly decreed that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies, be faithful to them, rejoice in them, and prefer their needs above every last shred of self-interest (Lev 20.10; Deut 24.5; Prov 5.18; Mal 2.14; Ecc 9.9; 1 Cor 7.3; Eph 5.25; Col 3.19; 1 Pet 3.7).

The roles of husband and wife only function properly when they are understood as a partnership.  The husband might have authority over the wife, and the Bible teaches that a woman will wrestle with her desire to be the leader in the relationship (Gen 3.16), but there is no inequality built into the biblical model of marriage.  The husband is not closer to God or superior to his wife.  She merely chooses to place herself in a role that supplements her husband's, offering encouragement, insight, and wisdom that he might not himself possess, and practices a willingness to follow his lead.  The husband, therefore, has the great responsibility of considering his wife, of providing for her and valuing her opinion on decisions, but also being careful not to place upon her the burden of being the leader -- not because she can't handle leadership or authority, but because it is his God-given responsibility to be the spiritual compass.  It is a man's inherent tendency to shirk responsibility while it is the woman's inherent tendency to crave control, which is why it's easy to point out relationships in which the wife "wears the pants."  However, it is God's intent that a man should model Christ to his wife, being her strong, compassionate leader, embodying the role of Christ to His people through their marriage.

If this model is understood and followed, things like infidelity and abuse cease to be factors.

The term "Biblical" isn't misleading -- it's misunderstood

There are three underlying problems with Mrs. Bird's article, all of which undermine her conclusions about marriage.

The first is that she presumes fallibility in traditional understanding of the biblical text on the basis that they are limiting and archaic.  In other words, her position is the same adopted by many modern skeptics: "traditional" interpretations of the Bible, while groundbreaking and worthy of recognition, are flawed and can't be fully accepted.

I certainly won't argue that the biblical scholars of bygone eras were perfect or complete in their understanding of the Word of God -- after all, in this life we only perceive the truth through a dimly lit mirror (1 Cor 13.12).  For that matter, Martin Luther tore the book of James out of his Bible and Augustine couldn't make up his mind about baptism.  However, I do know that God has given to His followers direct access to the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2.16), that we are made capable of understanding divine principles by the Holy Spirit, and that -- just as He raised up leaders with spiritual insight in biblical times -- God has raised up theologians in more recent history who have collectively steered the church universal in the pursuit of righteousness.

Are there areas of disagreement in Christendom?  Certainly.  The nature of human opinion makes them virtually unavoidable.  However, the core precepts of God's Word surpass human opinion, and they have been plainly understood since Christ Himself taught them -- since God ordained them.  It would be foolish of us to disregard the wisdom of our spiritual forefathers simply because we live in the midst of a culture that has chosen the creature over the Creator.

The second problem with Mrs. Bird's argument is that she fails to differentiate a biblical precept from the biblical record.  In other words, just because something is in the Bible doesn't make it "biblical" in the sense that it is a prescribed Christian behavior.

The Bible is the means of understanding God.  It contains historical records, allegories and parables, poetic introspection, litanies of His gracious acts, sweeping descriptions of His character, letters of spiritual direction, and -- above all else -- the account of the Lamb of God's perfect sacrifice on our behalf.  The Bible is the spiritual history of humanity's constant rejection of God's divine ordinances, in defiance of God's continual extension of mercy.  Therefore, the Word of God records the sinful acts of mankind as well as the righteous ones.

In fact, it records more failure than it does success.

Both the failures of wicked men (which are not to be emulated) as well as the successes of righteous men (that are to be replicated) are recorded in the pages of Scripture.  There are also instances of righteous men falling into sin (i.e. King David) just as there are instances of wicked men being objectively, morally "good."  Therefore, just because things like murder, incest, genocide, marital instability, and other countless acts of wickedness are recorded in the Bible doesn't mean God endorses them: it simply means that mankind has always had a penchant for wickedness and even as followers of Christ we can never let down our guard when it comes to sin.  That's why the Bible teaches that man cannot justify or save himself (Rom 3.10; Eph 2.8), and that Jesus is the only means of salvation (Acts 4.12).

The final problem with Mrs. Bird's article is the issue of improper context.

The books of Old Testament Law have an entirely different audience with an entirely different focus than do the gospels and epistles.  Though Genesis through Malachi still have historical and spiritual relevance today, they are not directly applicable to the New Testament Christian in the same way they were to the Old Testament Jew.  The old covenant under the law has now been fulfilled and made obsolete in Christ, and we have been given a new covenant of grace (Heb 8:13).  Now, that doesn't mean that the Old Testament is less important than or inferior to the New Testament.  Despite the differences in audience, culture, and covenant, the same message of love for God (expressed through devotion and obedience) and for others (expressed through the death of self-interest) has always been the joint theme God sought to impress upon His people (Deut 6.5; 1 John 2.7).  The extensive situational laws recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy were all predicated on the summarizing basis of the Ten Commandments -- which in turn were predicated on the primary commandment to love and worship the Lord God above all else.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to base a "biblical" definition of marriage on Old Testament law alone.  Proper biblical theology is recognizing the conjunction of all biblical teachings with the unified purpose of understanding the ways in which God expressed His grace to mankind through all eras of human history.  What we ultimately glean from studying Mosaic law is the underlying truth that Israel failed to recognize: that holiness through works is impossible, that God always intended for them to rely upon Him alone, and that all the sacrifices and rituals in the world could never accomplish the redemptive work Christ took upon Himself.

What we don't glean solely from the Pentateuch is a unified definition of biblical marriage, because a biblical marriage doesn't simply follow Jewish traditions or mimic stories found in the Bible.  A biblical marriage conforms to the overarching standard of God's holiness in terms of obedience -- obeying the rules of design (one man, one woman, forever) as well as the rules of interaction (fidelity, kindness, mutual respect, etc).  A biblical marriage ultimately considers how God intends human relationships to mirror His love for us, and is structured to bring the married individuals closer to one another as they grow closer to God.

In Sum

C. S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity that "good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either."  That of course begs the question of who is "good" and who is "bad."  What Lewis was getting at is that there is a level of spiritual understanding that only comes through mature faith -- a life radically changed by Christ, and radically dedicated to Him.  That's why, to those who would reject the truth of the Bible, the "word of the cross is folly" while those on the other side cling to it with hope and security (1 Cor 1.18).

At the risk of sounding elitist, it only makes sense that people who are "outside the fold" would not completely understand the complexities of the Bible -- not to the same degree as someone who believes it wholeheartedly.  After all, the authority on Michelangelo's work is not the Survey of Art student who may have a blossoming appreciation for High Renaissance but isn't quite sure how to fully differentiate one artist's work from another's.  The authority is the museum's curator, the man who has devoted his entire career to studying Michelangelo's life, work, and legacy, and who fought the Board of Directors for the opportunity to bring Michelangelo's work to his museum -- solely for the benefit of those who also would desire to study the master artist.

There is perhaps nothing more dangerous to faith than amateur theology.  That's why Paul urged believers to bring every thought captive (2 Cor 10.5), James cautioned against double-mindedness (Jas 1.8), and Peter spoke repeatedly of sober-mindedness (1 Pet 1.13; 5.8).  It is so easy to be swayed in what you believe if you don't know what you believe.  It is only through habitual, earnest, and humble study of God's Word that the disciple will have opportunity to grow in spiritual maturity -- to know and understand God and His principles and to nurture a discerning spirit.  Not everyone has to be a scholar, of course, but every follower of Christ should know and understand the pillars of biblical truth and be prepared at all times for sneak attacks by false doctrine.

Objections to biblical truth like the ones Mrs. Bird raises are understandable.  Many who come to faith in Christ find one or more biblical directives difficult to swallow.  However, the problem is not that God's law is somehow cruel or unfair.  The problem is that we are unwilling to allow God to be bigger than our sexuality and bigger than our problems.  We don't like the idea of a God who gives specific parameters, and we don't like a God who doesn't give us the cushy lives we feel we deserve.  It is only by recognizing that we are unworthy of the grace He supplies -- by acknowledging that our opinions, our sense of morality, and our desire for comfort aren't worth nearly as much as the Word of Truth -- that we can truly begin to understand Him and truly know that He is good.

Sexuality, Pt 4: God's Design

Part I // Part II // Part III // Part V
____________________________

Every design can be broken down to its most essential components, based on their functionality.  There is nothing in the natural world that exists without function, even though we might not necessarily be able to identify all the particulars.  Heck, even Target wall art and useless yard-sale nicknacks both serve purposes (albeit not ones that I will tolerate in my house).  Whether we're talking about atoms or appendages, and whether you look at the universe through the lens of creationism or evolutionary theory, it is undeniable that there is functionality in the material world.

The water cycle.  The food chain.  Oxygen.  The sun.

All of these serve a purpose.  All of them are co-dependent in the natural system.  Were one piece to become misaligned, the entire Rube Goldberg would come to a screeching halt.

And speaking of sex...

Maybe it sounds cold, simplified, or ultra-conservative, but human sexuality is also ultimately defined by its functionality, not unlike these other elements of the material world.  Maybe you like to think of sex as a cathartic, spiritual, or social tool, and the biblical mandate sounds restrictive and limiting to your sexual freedom.  Maybe you think that God doesn't care about sexuality.  Maybe you just don't want Him to know what goes on in your bedroom.

Regardless of what we might be prone to think, however, the Bible records God's function and design for human sexuality.  Not unlike the universe operating on its infinitely complex system of ropes and pulleys, one kink in the strings of sexuality can bring the entire system crashing down.

In the Beginning

God originated His plan at creation, a plan that has neither altered over time nor been adapted to make provision for human preference.  You're probably already familiar with the story out of Genesis, but if we're going to discuss the rightness or wrongness of sexuality, we ultimately have to return to its origin in order to determine its purpose and functionality.

In the first chapter of the Bible, the story of creation is abbreviated.  Tim Keller wisely makes the observation that Genesis 1 and 2 together form a literary couplet, much in the same vein as Judges 4 & 5 and Exodus 14 & 15, where "one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or a poem about the theological meaning of the event... Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a 'song' about the wonder and meaning of God's creation... [while] Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened" (The Reason for God, p 97).  We can see the poetry infused into the very text.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them. 

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then, Genesis 2 more specifically documents the mode of creation:

7 ...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... 15 The Lord God took the man [Adam] and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, 

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

So that's the account.  Now let's discuss the particular elements and their implications.

"The man and his wife" / "male and female he created them"

Not even a dog would suffice as Adam's sidekick.

There are plenty of biblical passages with easy to misunderstand subtext.  Not so here.

God designed the base unit of humanity in a pair: one man, one woman.  One male and one female.

No "helper fit for Adam" was to be found in all of the created world.  God's miraculous act of forming Eve from Adam's rib was not His Plan B or an afterthought.  Instead, the specific delay in creating Adam's helper serves as a very intentional reminder to mankind -- even in the beginning -- that man requires a very specific counterpart, and that no other piece of creation had the necessary functionality to fulfill that role.  Eve was created specifically to supplement Adam, to strengthen him, and was symbolically taken from his side as a picture of the intimate and deeply connected relationship a husband and a wife were intended to share.  He, to nurture, protect, and prefer; she, to support, embolden, and encourage.

This was God's first and only design.

"A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife"

This is the establishment of biblical, God-honoring marriage.  Mankind has continued to utilize this lifestyle throughout history -- as much for love and companionship as for the very survival of the human race.  God gave Adam -- a man who had no earthly parents himself -- the instructions to pass down to his future sons: leave your father and mother (in modern terms, become financially independent of them) and become emotionally, physically, and spiritually joined to your wife, for the rest of your life on earth.

Modern society doesn't place nearly as much emphasis on marriage as did older cultures.  Today, it's widely considered more of a novelty than a practicality.  It's treated as a romantic pastime for people who are in love, which is why the marriage can be so carelessly discarded when it grows old or complicated.

"A much wiser and more mature view of the world," this generation argues, "supports cohabitation and committed relationships.  Marriage as an institution has failed."

Of course, the reality is not that marriage as an institution has failed, but that we as human beings have failed.  With the entrance of sin into the world came individuals and even whole societies that have disregarded and even perverted marriage, the core human relationship, extracting the one quality they found attractive and warping it into something that existed only for the gratification of their lusts.  This type of sexual brokenness was one of the first consequences of the break in fellowship between God and man, and continues to be among the most debilitating and self-destructive human behaviors.  Without marital parameters consecrating sex as a sacred act -- something to be protected and valued by a husband and wife -- the leap to things like homosexuality, bestiality, and rape becomes remarkably short.

However, the fact that deviant sexual behavior has existed in one form or another since the fall of man does not mean that its longevity is evidence of its legitimacy.  Sin's very existence is not proof of its acceptability.  Perhaps our society doesn't consider itself wicked for its wanton sexual escapades, nor for its stunning divorce rate, but the all-knowing God of the universe certainly doesn't lose track.  He is a just God who absolutely does not desire to condemn anyone (2 Pet 3.9); yet for those who refuse to acknowledge His absolute truth, there can only be one, final fate.

Marriage, the holy union of one man and one woman, is the order God established in the beginning.  Its sanctity is just as important today as it was then.  It is not an archaic practice or an empty commitment, and in itself is not a broken institution: to the contrary, its parameters are broken only by the ones who practice it halfheartedly.

"They were not ashamed"

Prior to sin entering the world, Adam and Eve's sexual relationship was perfect.  Their intimacy was characterized by joy, beauty, and innocence.  There was no shame to mar the perfection.  Neither wondered what sex with someone else would be like, nor was there any emotional baggage from previous relationships to cloud their marriage.  There was no fear that the ways in which they were physically engaging were wrong.

Whether our culture wants to admit it or not, sexuality makes an emotional mess of us all.  All intimate acts that do not take place in the confines of a loving, committed marriage ultimately bring only regret.  Maybe not in the moment, but certainly when it's over.  Maybe you regret that it's gone, or maybe you regret that you ever engaged sexually with that person.  Maybe you don't know what you feel, or maybe the shame disguises itself as a type of nostalgia for a past relationship that once meant so much.  But no matter the form it takes, this lack of fulfillment is all part of the same thing.

Adam and Eve knew perfect sexuality, one that was untainted by sin.  That was God's design -- for sex to be a beautiful, enjoyable, and fulfilling expression of mutual love and commitment shared between a husband and a wife.  However, both they and we chose the alternative: the allure of sin, which promises something better, but leads only to all manner of brokenness.

Guilt and shame come with the package of practicing sexuality outside of marriage -- as rightly they should.  And yet, when we begin to acknowledge the wrong that we've done, we find that God offers a forgiveness like no other -- a perfect, once-and-for-all redemption that, while not necessarily eliminating the consequences of our sin, does remove from us the judgment we have earned.

God delights to show mercy to all who come in true repentance.

"Be fruitful and multiply"

Let's be frank.  Sex between a husband and wife is not only for producing children.  Marital intimacy serves many purposes, not the least of which is simple enjoyment shared between husband and wife.  It is an expression of mutual dependence and affection, a beautifully unifying experience, and an emotional type of glue.

However, sex is also the vehicle of human reproduction.  That's Health 101, right?  Simplistic though it may be, it's still worth mentioning because the push for homosexual "rights" is essentially a denial of the importance of continuing the species.

"Don't be ridiculous," some would say.  "That's taking it too far."

Well, at its root, homosexuality claims, "I want sex only the way I want it."  And from a purely physiological standpoint, same-sex intimacy cannot produce offspring.  Sure, same-sex couples can adopt, or they can utilize modern medicine and surrogate mothers or sperm donors to crudely construct a family for themselves.  However, because that type of devised parenthood does not occur naturally, and because that is not the way God intended for the family to be structured, it is a strong indicator that the practice of homosexuality not only lacks functionality but also goes completely against the system's design.

"You did NOT just make that joke."

Again, sex is not only for making babies.  Not every couple will want children, and not every couple will be able to have children.  God's directive to Adam and Eve was much more purposeful because they were the only human beings on the planet at that point in history.  However, just because the earth is fully populated in the modern era, and just because we've got what we think are new and updated ideas about sex, doesn't mean that God's design should be forgone.

That would be *ahem* to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

~*~

Maybe it seems like I've shifted gears a little bit, but in the modern era, any discussion of God's design for sex will inevitably lead to the issue of homosexuality.  Pardon my bluntness, but there really isn't any room for argument on the matter when it comes to having an accurate biblical perspective.  Just as the pursuit of intimate heterosexual relationships outside of marriage is sinful, so also is the practice of homosexuality.

I feel that a caveat is necessary here.

Please understand, my goal with the remainder of this post is not to attack homosexuality, to lambast those who practice or sympathize with it, or to add to the argumentative noise of the internet.  However, the truth of the Bible is absolute, and it will offend people when it rubs up against their divergent choices.  Jesus told the masses that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt 10.34) -- not because He desired to infuriate the world, but because they would inevitably be infuriated by His personal challenge to their sinful lifestyles.  With this post, I don't in any way intend to be militant, aggressive, or angry.  I'm a sinner in need of grace, just like every other person in this world.  It has been my goal throughout writing this series to accurately portray biblical sexuality and share truth in a constructive and understanding way -- not to hurl accusations or to elevate my personal opinion to the same level as the Word of God.

Bearing that in mind, remember -- as I stated in part two of this series -- that the contemporary push for marriage equality is not just a harmless desire for the right to personal sexual expression.  Maybe on the surface the gay agenda is just an innocent quest for individuality, but its pursuit to achieve a new label -- a label handed down by the legal system that not only legitimizes but also promotes their lifestyle -- is an attempt to crack the shell of God's moral law.

That makes it not just an issue of sex.  It's a rejection of absolute truth.

The homosexual community doesn't like that aspect of biblical rationality.  They don't like moral absolutes or one-way-to-heaven theology because they want to dissect the Word and enable one tiny violation.  Just one can't be damning, can it?  However, as the Bible attests, the way to enter heaven is through the narrow gate (Matt 7.13).  Just as the rich man must leave his wealth behind, because he can't carry it into heaven with him, so also the man who makes his identity his sexual preference must shed his lustful activities, because his gratification profits nothing in the light of eternity.

Maybe that sounds unfair.  "I was born this way," the homosexual man would say, "I can't help it."

The truth is, we are all born in sin.  We were all born "this way."

Contrary to what many conservative Christians might think, the Bible actually supports the modern hypothesis of genetic predisposition, because it teaches me that I am born into sin (Psa 51.5) -- both spiritually and physically (in other words, genetically).  So yes, homosexual tendency probably does find its root in a malformed gene or hormone imbalance -- not unlike every other sin humans have tendencies to commit.  Yet even still, that doesn't excuse me from my own culpability.  In other words, genetics are no more an excuse for the way I am than a difficult home life is.  I'm still every bit responsible for the sins I commit, whether I point the finger at my genetic makeup or my family.

Even as a believer, sexual sin was a struggle for me all my dating life, and it was hard to stop.  However, just because it was hard to overcome the temptation doesn't mean I had the right to claim I was born that way and continue.  Just because it was my flesh's inclination to pursue sex doesn't mean I was morally excused to float in my carnality instead of swimming upstream.  Therefore, even if my genes do predetermine my propensity to sin in a sexual manner, that doesn't mean I have a get-out-of-jail-free card.  In the same way, the man whose genes predetermine his addictive behavior doesn't have the liberty to abuse alcohol and live his life in a drunken, angry stupor.

Whatever our struggle, we're still held to the same standard of holiness as is the rest of the human race.  We either meet that standard through the person of Jesus Christ or we fall short of it.  The beauty of the Scriptures is that He enables me to lay aside my predisposition to sin -- an enslavement to which I'd be completely broken without Him.  The blood of Christ enables me to rise above my inherent genetic weaknesses and become a new creation in Him.  If we refuse to acknowledge this fact, then sure -- we truly can't help ourselves.  We remain slaves to our sin, dead in our trespasses, and willfully ignorant of salvation.  But if we genuinely desire to know God and to pursue lives with meaning, then we will be willing to look past our weaknesses and accept His divine help to overcome them.

Frankly, the "this is just the way I am" argument seems so defeatist to me.  "I can't help it," this perspective claims, ultimately (if unintentionally) implying that homosexuality is nothing more than a genetic weakness, and one that cannot be overcome.

Who wants to live a life where all that I am and can be is predetermined by a genetic factor?

Who wants to live a life where I can't help who I am, so I'll not even try to change?

Wouldn't a more invigorating existence be to rise above what we are?  By the way, Christ enables us to do that.

Keep in mind, though, that our desire for sinful things isn't an indication that our wants are "natural" -- only that our hearts, as John Calvin astutely proclaimed, are wicked idol factories.  We wrongfully think that things besides a loving God and His basic laws will satisfy our cravings, and make idols out of them.  We deceive ourselves into thinking that what we want is our right, that what we want is perfectly acceptable, and that no one has the right to tell us it's wrong.  Anything we place in greater prominence to God and His law becomes an idol -- anything we choose to worship instead of Him.  Whether that's sex or money or something else entirely, it is the very definition of sin.

That being said, has homosexuality become the "cardinal sin" of our decade?  Unfortunately, yes.

All sins are equal in God's eyes.  Being guilty of one is to be guilty of them all (Jas 2.10), and homosexuality is no different.

However, if the gay community feel especially targeted by the church, it is because they are the only group in recent history that has so radically attempted to justify its sinfulness via legality.  Their pursuit of total political, social, and religious validation of their lifestyle is an attempt to eliminate their own spiritual culpability.  What they perceive as a type of civil oppression is millennia of cultural rejection coming to a head.  As previously stated, perversions of sexuality have existed since the fall of man, and while countless individuals have engaged in them, these types of sex acts have always been regarded by the larger community as deviations from the natural order and ostracized.  Only in this modern era, the age of moral relativism, has the drive for recognition made the practice of homosexuality a culture of its own.

In fact, the current generation views the homosexual agenda as a matter on par with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.  From that long-in-coming social upheaval, the world finally recognized that the color of a man's skin shouldn't determine his status or rank him according to old-world notions of racial hierarchy.  Similarly, the homosexual community argues, the rest of the world should finally pull its head out of its keister and recognize their right to every civic privilege that heterosexual people enjoy.

Frankly, I find it insulting that the homosexual community liken their struggle for recognition to African Americans' life-or-death battle for equal rights -- and I'm not even black.  The Civil Rights movement wasn't about legalizing a sinful practice, it was about abolishing one.  Furthermore, a man doesn't have the choice to not be black or to not be white, though either can certainly embrace their racial identity as something God has specifically designed.  However, a man does have the choice whether he will pursue the biblical notion of sexuality or a worldly one -- regardless of what temptations he might experience.  What the Civil Rights movement ultimately taught the world was that the color of a man's skin doesn't make him a sinner.  What the Bible teaches, on the other hand, is that being a human does, and that no matter what justifying labels we slap on our sinful behaviors, they are still condemning.

Though they might cry victim and insist that they have done nothing morally wrong, the homosexual rights crusade doesn't have the same footing to stand upon as did the Civil Rights movement.  We can look again at the Genesis account where God created Adam and Eve specifically male and female, with the intent to harmonically and cooperatively fill social and spiritual roles.  We can look at the modern-day pharisees' favorite passage in Romans 1, where Paul explicitly states that homosexuality is an abomination and an abandonment of the "natural affections" God intended.  No matter which way you slice it, if you claim to have an accurate, biblical understanding of sexual immorality, then you must recognize homosexuality as simply another aspect of the broken nature of this world -- not unlike the racism against which Martin Luther King Jr. fought, a cause for which he would ultimately give his life, in order to see it finally abolished.

This type of hatred is the result of a malformed understanding

of grace, and is every bit as despicable to God as the practice
these individuals are condemning.

Now, have the methods of opposing marriage equality employed by the church been fair, respectful, and pleasing to God?

Certainly not all of them.

Certainly not all of them.

Though the core principle that homosexuality is a sin is 100% biblical, Christendom's manner of conveying that truth has often been equally as sinful.  I am deeply distressed by the church at large's stance toward homosexuality, and moved for a community of individuals who desperately need to hear the love, forgiveness, and regeneration of Christ proclaimed -- not just His judgment.  As bearers of the truth of God, we have a tremendous responsibility to communicate in love that life-changing knowledge to the gay population.  Such a message of grace is most palatable when it is presented to sinners by sinners.  Let's never forget that we're imperfect also, restored to favor with God only by the blood of Jesus Christ -- which we did not deserve -- and that the truth we bear is not our own.

Problems Inherent to Homosexuality

Homosexuality is not a functional application of sex.  It is a misuse of God's design for human intimacy.  It ignores His intent for family structure and denies the opportunity and privilege of natural procreation.  Furthermore, it is fraught with philosophical and logistical problems, separate entirely from the fact that human anatomy itself is not conducive to the homosexual act.

For starters, homosexuality can't be considered evolutionary.  In addition to going against the Bible, it also contradicts Darwinism.  You might be of the impression that afore-mentioned scientific developments are evolution in motion -- that our new ability to perform sex change operations and grow organs and babies in petri dishes is the process of our species evolving into a superior form, and that homosexuality is just one result of nature's inevitable course.  However, the undergirding principle of evolutionary theory is natural selection, or the survival of the fittest -- the preservation of the essential (the functional) in order to develop into the superior.  Without natural reproduction, the theoretical evolutionary process breaks down entirely.

Homosexuality is therefore not evolutionary.  It's devolutionary.

Another problem inherent to homosexuality is that its practice weakens potential same-sex friendships.  For the same reason it is difficult (I would argue near impossible) for a man to be close friends with a woman without creating romantic attachment, it is difficult for gay men or women to have any type of mutually encouraging, spiritually uplifting relationship that isn't at least vaguely tainted by sexual tension.  The Bible prescribes discipleship-based relationships between members of the same gender for the sake of encouraging one another in godly living.   It's why there are men's Bible studies and women's Bible studies: to specifically tackle struggles and challenges inherent to gender -- many of which involve relationships with the opposite gender.  That endeavor would be completely undermined by romantic connection.  Therefore, SSA throws a wrench into the whole concept.

Homosexuality is also problematic to our modern culture because, through its aggressive push for legal recognition, it has opened the door for other deviant sexual behaviors to achieve the same type of legitimization.  For example, though pedophilia is still considered a psychiatric disorder, it has more recently been described as a "disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges before or during puberty, and because it is stable over time" (Brian L. Cutler, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law).  Still illegal, perhaps, but now labeled as something slightly less harmful -- something slightly more sympathetic.  The fact that something like homosexuality -- something once universally considered a deviant sexual behavior -- is now vying for recognition as a legitimate practice means that other deviant sexual behaviors are equally in the running for that type of recognition.

Maybe that seems unfair.  I'm certainly not saying homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia.  However, I don't think their conjunction in this regard is an illogical stretch.  If both homosexuality and pedophilia are violations of God's design for sex, then the legitimization of one is the opportunity for the other.

Jesus requires His followers to do hard things

You've probably been told by the internet, the TV, and even wayward pastors alike that you can be a vibrant part of the church, love God, and still keep your homosexual lifestyle.  You've probably been told that God loves you as you are and that Biblical judgment of sexual sins is for those who don't love God, or for those who are unfaithful to their sexual partners.

This all sounds fantastic to a world that desires no absolute truth: live your life how you want, with a flexible moral code that feels like complete absolution, under the twinkling eye of a "favorite uncle" type of god who allows you to be your own person and make your messes, but still slips you candy at the dinner table.  That notion of "god" makes Him out to be a spineless entity with no real power to help -- a god completely undeserving of our time, dependance, or adoration.

On the other hand, a God who controls the universe, who sustains life and exists beyond full human comprehension, who insists on His absolute law and His absolute glory because He is the rightful, supreme being, yet who made a way for us to have an intimate relationship with Him by sacrificing His Son on our behalf...

That's a God worth believing in.  That is the God of the Bible.

Make no mistake about this: if you are in a homosexual relationship, neither your life nor your actions can be pleasing to that type of God.  That's not because your sin is worse than any others.  The same standard applies to anyone who lies, steals, or sins sexually with members of the opposite sex.  We can't claim to love God and yet continue in sin.  Mistakes are one thing; habitual, lifestyle-based sinning is another.  The God of the Bible requires righteousness of His followers: in order to follow Him, we must take up a cross and walk in His footsteps.  Grace is free to all, but costly to those who choose it.  In order to become like Christ, we must give up our notions about how life should be, the sinful desires that we want to pursue, and our selfish philosophies about what we deserve.

God absolutely does accept you just as you are, weaknesses, failures, and all.  But He is not content to leave you that way.

You might say, "You've never struggled with same-sex attraction, so this is all easy for you to say."  And you'd be right.  However, I have my own temptations to overcome -- temptations that have been difficult to let go of, sins that have felt like "no big deal" and "my right" to take.  It's hard to overcome personal weakness.  It's especially hard to overcome sexual sin.  However, with the strength God supplies, it is not only possible, but also truly fulfilling to find our satisfaction ultimately in Him and Him alone.

We can't follow Him if we insist on keeping our pet sins with us.  Heterosexual or homosexual, we need to recognize that God requires obedience from His followers -- not because that's what saves us, but because that obedience is the evidence that He has saved us.  To lay down our sinful desires is to demonstrate that our true desire is -- above all else -- to love and to glorify Him with our lifestyles.

Yes, it's hard.  But it's functional.  And He is fulfilling.  This is what we were beautifully designed to do.

Ephesians 3.20: Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.