Homosexuality and The Church Alex D Montoya
Homosexuality and The Church Alex D Montoya
Homosexuality and The Church Alex D Montoya
*****
1
James R. B eck , “Ev ang elicals , Ho mo sex uals, a nd S ocia l Science,” JETS 40/1 (March 1997):83-85.
155
156 The Master’s Seminary Journal
proponents arrive at their conclusions abou t what the B ible teaches on homosexual-
ity. Then it will examine the key biblical passages dealing with the subject of
homosexuality. Following this will come a discussion of the implications both for
the homosexuals themselves and for the evangelical church.
Much of the debate which has arisen over the issue of homosexuality comes
from the approaches homosexual advocates have used in interpreting the Scriptures.
In fact, the battle raging in the church “is really about hermeneutics, about the
interpretation and u se of Scripture.” 2 Various forms of interpretation have been used
to arrive at conclusions wh ich support the homosexual lifestyle. However, unless
a consistent hermen eutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, each interpreter
will arrive at his own conclusion. The text will say whatever the interp reter w ants
it to say. Unless the literal, historical-grammatical approach to the interpretation of
the Scriptures is held strictly, the Scriptu res w ill cease to speak and thus cease to be
authoritative (cf. 2 Tim 3:15-17). Consider what approaches the homosexual
movem ent uses to arrive at its conclusions.
Subjectivism
According to homosexual advocates, the reade r imparts his meanin g into
the biblical text, making subjective, personal experience the ultimate test of truth.
One gay proponent writes, “Our discussion on whether quee rs have the H oly Spirit
can only be answered by meeting queer Christians, then bringing that information
back to the Bible and informing the Bible of truths it may or may not have already
known.” 3 Another proponent argues that the “basis for discerning what is sexually
right or wrong is probably m ore a m atter of intention and responsibility than
anything else.” 4
Histo ric-Scientific
Others liken the church’s position on homosexuality as evolving in the
same way as its position on slavery changed. As more information surfaced, the
church’s attitude changed. Similarly, the anti-homosexual bias is obliterated by the
progress of society. Such a view is epitomized by this statement: “What influences
lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture? New scientific, social changes, and
2
Kathryn Greene-McCreight, “The Logic of the Interpretation of S criptu re an d the Ch urch ’s D eba te
over Sexual Ethics,” in Hom osexuality, Science, and the “ Plain Sense” of Scripture, ed. David L. Balch
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 245.
3
Ch ris D. Kramer, “The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem: A M odel of Liberation of Queer Christians
Today,” Gay Theological Journal 1/2 (January-April 1998):23.
4
Tim Phillips, “Why I Don ’t Believe Rom ans 1 Is Talking About Homosexuality,” Gay Theological
Journal 1/1 (September-December l997):37.
Homosexuality and the Church 157
personal experiences are perhaps the greatest forces of change in the way we
interpret the Bible and dev elop o ur beliefs.” 5
5
Do nald Eastman, “Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness; What the Bible Does and Does Not
Say,” Gay Theological Journal 1/1 (September-December 1997):12.
6
Ray Ham mond , “Paul’s Use of !CE+;?5?3I/E in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10”
(ThM thesis, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, Calif., 2000) 19.
7
John J. M cN eill, The Chu rch and the Homosexual (Ka nsa s C ity: Sh eed An drew s an d M cM eel,
1976) 37.
8
Ro bin Sc rog gs, Th e N ew Tes tam ent a nd H om ose xua lity (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) 127.
9
M arti N issin en , Ho mo ero ticism in the Bib lical W orld (Minneapolis: Fortress, l998) 124.
10
Ibid., 125.
11
Ph ylis A. B ird, “T he B ible in Ch ristian E thica l De libera tion C onc ernin g H om ose xua lity: Old
Testament Contributions,” in Hom osexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture 168 [em pha sis
adde d].
158 The Master’s Seminary Journal
and damn ing sin. W ith the prospects of su re dam nation, the churc h mu st with
com passionate conviction declare such to be sin, yet a sin which—when repented
of— is covered by the grace of God displayed in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son
Jesus Ch rist upon the cross of Calv ary. Th e biblica l case come s next.
W hen considered contextually and objectively, the Scriptures are not silent
concerning hom osex uality. They alwa ys treat h omosexuality as a violation of the
divine order. T he m ajor reference s to homosexuality in Scripture are: Lev 18:22;
20:13; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Genesis 19; 2 Pet 2:7 and Jude 7. As
expected, pro-homosexual scholars have interpreted each of these texts in such a
way as to eliminate its applicability to the current ethical debate on the issue.
However, a literal, objective approach yields a much different conclusion.
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (18:22).
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them
have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguilti-
ness is upon them (20:13).12
12
All Scripture quotations are from the New Am erican Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.
13
Lindsay Louise Biddle, “Deciphering the Holiness Code,” Gay Theological Journal 1/1
(September-December l997):29.
14
M cN eill, The Church 57 -58 ; N issin en , Hom oeroticism 37-44.
15
Sc rog gs, The New Testament 13.
Homosexuality and the Church 159
Romans 1:18-32
The most extensive treatment of homosexuality is found in Rom 1:18-32
in the context of the apostle Paul’s argument that the whole world, Gentile and
Jewish, is under sin and thus in need of the righteousness of God provided in Jesus
Christ (cf. Rom 3:9-26). In his description of the sin of the Gentile world, Paul
shows God’s response to mankind’s infidelity. Three times Paul states that God
“gave them over” (1:24, 26, 28). G od jud ges sin with fu rther sin. H omo sexu ality
is a conseq uence o f mankind’s abandonment of the truth, a just punishment for
exchanging the truth for a lie (1:24) and thus a revelation of the wrath of God upon
unrighteousness (1:18). The context reveals homosexuality as a further manifesta-
tion of the “ungodliness and unrigh teousness of men, who su ppress the truth in
unrighteou sness”(1:18 ). The matter could not be clearer.
Yet revisionists have found ways to circumvent Paul’s assessment of
hom osex uality as sin and a violation of the ordinance of God. They have offered
numerous argum ents to explain away the supposed condemnation of homosexuality.
The proponents of homo sexu ality say that Paul is looking at the Gentile world and
16
John Bo sw ell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Hom osexuality (Chica go: U nivers ity Press, l980)
101.
17
Th om as E . Sc hm idt, Straight and Narrow (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, l995) 90-91.
18
Do nald J. Wold, Ou t of Order: H omo sexuality in the Bible and the A ncient Near E ast (Grand
Rapids: Baker, l998) 119.
160 The Master’s Seminary Journal
judging it by what w ould not be proper accord ing to Jewish law or custom.19
McNeill asserts, “Because of his Jewish background Paul obviously found rampant
homosexuality in Gre ece very shocking.” 20 Others argue that “Paul’s description
may be intentiona lly indeterminate. . . . His vague presentations . . . may also be
simply a part of Paul’s rhetorical strategy. Therefore, it is wise to refrain from
drawing detailed conclusions from Paul’s terminology about the nature of same sex
conduct in Romans 1.” 21 Scrog gs insists that Paul is not condemning homosexuality,
but the infidelity of the Gentile world: “Paul has a m ajor theological goal in mind;
ethical concerns or abom inations lie far from his purpose s.” 22
Probably the most accepted pro-gay explanation of homosexuality in
Romans 1 com es from Boswell wh o states that Paul is not condemn ing ho mosexual-
ity but homosexual acts comm itted by heterosexual persons. 23 He explains away
“against nature” or “unnatural” ( B"D NbF4<, para physin, v. 26) as not referring
to natural law as God ’s original purpose for mankind, but as the natural character of
the heterosexual pagan. Boswell argues for the existence of inverts (those w ho are
by nature homosexuals) and perverts (heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts).
Hence, he conclud es that para does not mean “again st,” but rather “more than,” or
“in excess of.” 24 Thus “bey ond nature” doe s not m ean “immoral.” 25 This leads him
to redefine the explicit terms whe re “dishonoring passions” must have very broad
interpretations, where “error” is a mistake and never moral turpitude, an d wh ere
“indecent” is merely not making a good appearance.26
W old and Hays hav e made a formidable rebuttal of Boswell’s thesis.27
W old show s that the use of physin in Rom 11:1-14 and 1 Cor 11:4 cannot be
imported into Romans 1. The contexts are to tally differe nt. 28 Furthe rmore, para
physin occu rred co mm only in Hellenistic Jewish usage to speak of that which was
against the divine design. 29 Hays concludes that
though he offers no explicit reflection on the concept of ‘nature,’ it is clear that in this
19
M cN eill, The Church 55.
20
Ibid.
21
Ni sse ine n, Hom oeroticism 110-11.
22
Sc rog gs, The New Testament 109.
23
Bo sw ell, Ch ristian ity 109.
24
Ibid., 111.
25
Ibid., 112.
26
Ibid., 112-113.
27
Wold, Out of Order 114 ff.; Richard B. Hays, “Relations Natural and Un natu ral: A Re spo nse to
John Bosw ell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” The Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (l986):190.
28
W old , Out of Order 185.
29
Hays, “Relations” 193.
Homosexuality and the Church 161
passage Paul identifies ‘nature’ with the created order. The understanding of ‘nature’ in
this conventional language does not rest on empirical observation of what actually exists;
instead, it appeals to an intuitive conception of what ought to be, of the world as designed
by God. Those who indulge in sexual practices para physin are defying the creator and
demonstrating their own alienation from him. 30
Although the main thrust of Romans 1 is the sin of Gentile infidelity, the
discussion of hom osex uality is not a mere illustration. Rather, it is a symptom of
their problem, which is the sin of idolatry.31 One therefore cannot dismiss this
reference to homosexuality as unimportant. Furthermore, the world of Paul knew
nothing of classes of people distinguished as “inverts” and “perverts.” 32 Paul is not
singling out a particular class of pagans. Rather he is showing the consequences of
idolatry upon their person s, even thou gh all do not practice the sam e sin. Pa ul is
showing that homosexuality is revolting because “it epitomizes in sexual terms the
revolt against God. It is sinful because it violates the plan o f Go d, present from
creation, for the union of male and female in ma rriage.” 33
It is difficult to understand how one can read Romans 1 and not conclude
that hom osex ual behavior is wrong and antithetical to the divine order. Paul, like
Moses in Lev iticus, clea rly uses terms a nd ex pressions w hich leave n o doubt as to
what he means. He states that God has given the Gentile world over “in the lusts of
their hearts to impurity” (1:24). In this he identifies both lesbianism and the gay
lifestyle. The list of expressions used for these vile affections clearly condemns
homosexuality:
30
Ibid., 194.
31
Marion L. S oa rds , Scr iptur e an d H om ose xua lity: Bib lical A utho rity and the Church Today
(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 21.
32
Ibid., 22.
33
Sc hm idt, S tr a ig h t a n d N a rr o w 85.
162 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Homosexuality and the Church 163
When the question of homosexuality came up for him in the church at Corinth, we can
34
Ham mond , “Paul’s Use of !CE+;?5?3I/E” 81.
35
Da vid E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Hom osexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” BSac 150
(October-December 1993):480-81.
36
Bo sw ell, Christianity 107.
37
Sc rog gs, Th e N ew Tes tam ent 83.
38
Ibid., 106.
39
Ibid., 36-37.
40
Se e W old , Out of O rder 189-96; Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality” 482-92.
164 The Master’s Seminary Journal
accurately suppose that Paul’s understanding would be influenced by the Old Testament
homosexuality law. And it is on this basis that he uses the term arsenokoitai, because
it accurately reflects the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. 41
Furthermore, Paul’s use of pornos and malakos lends credence to the view
that Paul had homosexuals in mind when he wrote arsenokoit s. 42
Paul is condemning sins and vices practiced by the unbelieving world,
which should not be practiced by God’s people. These are characteristics of the
“unrighteous” (1 Cor 6:9) an d the “lawless and rebe llious” (1 Tim 1:9). In light of
what some have done to these texts, the Holy Spirit’s warning, “Do not be
deceived!” (1 Cor 6:9), is understandable.
41
W old , Out of O rder 193.
42
Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality” 497.
43
Bo sw ell, Christianity 341-42.
44
W old , Out of O rder 80-81.
45
Ibid., 87.
Homosexuality and the Church 165
The sin of these miscreants abhorred secrecy; they blushed not, though the sun was a
blushing witness of their filthiness. They gloried in their shame because they had
outsinned all shame. Their hands were the organs and their tongues the trumpets of
wickedness. Would any but a company who had more of monsters than men in them,
have made such a demand in the open streets, as is mentioned in Gen. xix. 5, “Bring them
out to us, that we may know them”?47
Every debate on Christian ethics must end with the implications for the
church. All truth must lead to m oral action. This discussion on homosexuality has
some very serious and challenging implications for the evangelical church which
appears to be stalling in the mire of debate. These implica tions are four in numb er.
46
Ri ch ard J. B au ck ha m, Jude, 2 Peter, vol. 50 of WBC (Waco, Texas: Word, 1983) 54.
47
W illiam Jen ky n, Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude (reprint; Minneapolis: James and Klock,
1976) 139.
166 The Master’s Seminary Journal
through divorce (cf. Matt 19:6-9), through immoralities (cf. 1 Cor 6:16-20; 1 Thess
4:1-8; Heb 13:4), through violation of God’s ordained roles (cf. Eph 5:21-33), or
through perversion of the sexual roles (cf. Rom 1:18-3 2; Lev 18:27; 20 :13). “Have
you not read” is not a mandate for the church to adjust its theology of sex and
marriage to the opinion polls of the godless masses or the conflicting and prejudicial
scientific conclusions of depraved minds.48
Homosexuality is a perversion of the divine order. Period . There is no way
biblically or naturally to arrive at a different conclusion. True, man is fallen. Man
is depraved and beset with many infirmities, but “from the beginning it has not been
this way” (Matt 19:8). It should be the creature’s goal to live life the way the
Creator inten ded it.
Hence, to stand and condemn hom osex uality in all its forms as a perversion
of the divine ord er is not a symptom of homophobia, heartless prejudice, or narrow-
minded bigotry . It is to stand on the side of righteousness and truth and to obey the
One who said, “Yo u shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16). For the church,
God is the only One to please.
48
See Helmut Thielick e’s incorrect conclusions on homosexuality in The Ethics of Sex (New York:
Harper & Row , 1964) 261 -91 , wh ere h e arg ues that h om ose xua lity is abnormal, “but in the same way that
disease, su ffering an d pain are abn orma l” (282 -83).
Homosexuality and the Church 167
it has with him. Homosexuals do not deserve a weakened spirituality, much less a
sentimental pity. They nee d raw honesty from the chu rch ab out their doom ed state
unless they com e to repentan ce and faith in Christ.
Much rhetoric is wasted on the inverted nature of homosexuals and of their
inability to chan ge their lifestyle. The truth is that no sinner can change his or her
life apart from the power of God displayed in the gospel of Jesus Ch rist. We are all
“dead in our trespasses and sins and by nature children of wrath,” and the only
solution is to be born again by faith in the provision made at the cross of Christ Jesus
(Eph 2:1-6). The gospel alone has the power to transform lives, to transfer a sinner
from the power of darkness into the kingdom of Christ, and to empow er peo ple
totally for a life no longer lived for the lust of the flesh but for the glory of God (cf.
2 Cor 5:17; G al 5:24). Inability to chan ge be havior is never a reason to condone
such behavior. Inability simply humbles the sinn er befo re God, de claring his or her
absolute dependence upo n Go d’s grace an d pow er to convert (cf. Matt 22:29).
Such is Paul’s loving reminder to the Corinthians who were redeemed out
of the vileness of Gentile unbelief when he states, “Such were some of you; but you
were washed, but you were sanctified, bu t you w ere justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). He does not say, “such are
some of you,” but “such were some o f you”! There is hope, mercy, grace,
forgiveness, and a new life for homosexuals. Bu t such is found only in the gospel
of the Lord Jesus Christ. If homosexuals wish to be forgiven, they can be. If
hom osex uals wish to be changed, they can be. But they must come by way of the
cross.
The church must see in its task of evangelizing the homosexual the
importance of helping those who convert to become full and integral disciples of the
Lord in the local church. Unfortunately some do make homosexuality an unpardon-
able sin, or at lea st a sin forgiven but not forgotten. The church must extend a
com passionate hand to those who would be saved by the pow er of G od, an d disciple
them into the fullness of their inheritance in Christ and in the fellowship of the
saints. Conversion to Christ has many attractions which should not be withheld from
converting hom osex uals. The added scourge of AIDS demands from the church an
extra portion of compassion, energy, and wisdom. After all, the church has always
been and always w ill be the vanguard in dealing with humanity’s griefs and sorrows.
W e dare not do less.
“Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints”
(Jude 3). Ac cording to Ju de, false teachers w ill distort the truth to promote a
licentious lifestyle (Jude 4). Deviant behavior is never far from deviant doctrine.
Furthermore, God does n ot guarantee all will resp ond to His grace and repent.
Many will reject the truth and proceed to further law lessness, and on these be lievers
shou ld “have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh” (Jude
23). Peter likewise exhorts the church to be on guard so as not to be carried away
by the error of unprincipled men and thus fall from its steadfastness (cf. 2 Pe t 3:17).
The church does not become heretical by itself. It is deliberately led astray
by the devil and his emissaries (cf. Gen 3:1; 2 Cor 11:13-14). Satan’s agents dressed
as ange ls of light (i.e., theology professors, pastors, the Metropo litan Comm unity
Church, etc.) harass the true character of God through deception (cf. 1 Cor 6:9),
through distorting God ’s W ord (cf. 2 Pet 3:16), through perverse and persuasive
argumen ts (cf. Acts 20:30), and through a libertine and licentious lifestyle (cf. 2 Pet
2:2, 4; Jude 4, 8).
Thus the church of the present is following in the steps of the apostolic
church when it contends for truth by opposing those who would teach that
hom osex uality is a lifestyle fully acceptable to G od. The church has always stood
against every form of immorality and will continue to do so because it can do no
other. It is the guardian and defender of truth. The coming ou t of hom osex uality in
America is but one facet of the sexua l revolution of the 60s and 70s. Other
immoralities are pounding at the church’s door, such as pornography, pedophilia,
cohabitation, abortion on demand, and rampant divorce (i.e., legalized adultery).
Should the church give way before these because the populace approves them?
the homosexual community. The C hristian needs to be friend and witness to the
homosexual with such love, compassion, and wisd om th at such will respond to the
saving grace of God. Militant homosexuals should be handled with gentleness,
praying that God may grant them forgiveness and deliverance from the snare of the
devil (cf. 2 Tim 2:24 -26).
Finally, the church must be careful not to adopt the customs of the world.
W hat it tolerates today, its children will practice tomorrow. In an age of accommo-
dation and com promise, w hen chu rches are m ore interested in num bers than genuine
conversions, the church is in danger of ceasing to make holiness and truth the
motivation for its existence. The words of the apostle Paul are a fitting conclusion
to this debate on homosexuality:
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God
comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you
were formerly darkness, but now you are children of light in the Lord; walk as children
of light. . . . Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even
expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in
secret (Eph 5:6, 8, 11-12).