Is Homosexual Orientation “Natural?” : The Gay Debate – Part 5 (of 8)

Mr. Vines makes several points (the bold is covered in this post, click previous points to see my response):

Despite growing up in a loving, stable family, devoid of abuse, living an abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle, and desiring to have a family of his own someday, he has concluded that he is gay.
Traditional “anti-gay” views of the Church have forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s design.
The Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians, which means that references to the law in regard to homosexuality being evil are no longer valid.
The concept of sexual orientation is new, so the Bible cannot shed light upon this subject as ancient forms of homosexual acts were offensive or abusive, not examples of two people coming together in a committed relationship.
“Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change.”
Certain compound words around the New Testament references to homosexuality are really meant for the economic sexual exploitation of homosexuals.
The Church has been really harmful toward people of homosexual orientation and it needs to become more accepting of homosexuals and not so condemning.
Being different is not a sin and being “gay” is not a sin either.

Let’s dig into this a little deeper, if Vines is claiming that homosexuality is a natural thing then Christians should be more accepting of it and bless it when it is done within the confines of marriage, as Vines promotes. However, this is a big hurdle for most Christians as they can be very distrustful of homosexuals, because the stereotype is that they think that homosexuals are just lust machines.

His feelings have been hurt and like many who end up turning away from God, he blames the Church for that. However, my point is is that the Church should be pointing you to Christ whether you are struggling with homosexuality, heterosexual lust, drugs, alcohol, or any sort of addictive behavior or sin. You should be looking to Jesus to help you overcome these, not to the church. The church’s mission is not to point to themselves and say “come here and have healing,” but the church’s mission should be supporting you and helping you to grow towards Jesus in order to overcome your sins by living in the Spirit.

One thing I have not heard among homosexuals is that this behavior helps them get closer to God. I have only heard the opposite, that people get further from God. They blame the Church for alienating them, but even so, if they are in the right, should they not feel God’s peace? Is their alienation proof of the Church’s hatred toward them or proof that homosexuality is actually sinful?

Vines’ proposition is that gay people have a natural orientation that cannot be changed. It’s not something they choose. It’s something that they’re born with. That statement has been the resounding gong of the homosexual movement for ages. “I’m born this way.” Yet even those of us who are not homosexual are born with something that we struggle with in a personal way. All of us are messed up in one way or another, but when we come to Christ, God does not leave us this way. He cleanses us from all unrighteousness, not only in the spiritual sense, but in the mind, heart, and body. When you come to Christ, you actually want to do good, not because it is a rule to follow, but because God has changed your heart to want to.

As I have mentioned previously, there isn’t much proof that homosexuality is based on genetics. If genetics is not a major part, then it must be a mental/spiritual issue, an issue of self-perception. If it truly is a spiritual or mental issue, then the behavior and the perception can actually be changed. If it cannot be changed with the will, it can be changed by the grace of God and with the power of his Holy Spirit living in us.

I remember when I was around 12 or 13, I began to wonder if I might be homosexual as I had learned about Freud and his sexual psychology theories in 7th grade. I was also reading through Leviticus and the law at the time, reading through all of the things God doesn’t want done sexually. And by reading them, I found myself imagining those actions and I thought something was different about me. It was a strange time for me, until my dad told me a very powerful thing: “It is okay to admit that guys are attractive or good looking,” he said. “You will have all kinds of thoughts, good and evil, but just because you think it doesn’t mean you are destined to do it.”

You would not believe how freeing that was for me. I was not a slave to even my own mind. I have used that advice over and over again as I have had to face and overcome personal challenges. Even as a married man, I will admit there are times when I have thoughts of other women. I am cautious with how much I focus on these thoughts since I don’t want them to produce action. But, I know I don’t have to act on them. If such a thought comes to my mind, I can simply acknowledge it, remind myself why it isn’t right to actually do that action, and then let it go on its way into oblivion. Sometimes temptation can be quite strong, but we have to persevere, holding onto the truths we know about God from the Bible. Temptation may wash over us, but we have the power through Jesus to not let it flourish in us and become an action, a sin.

You know it’s perfectly fine to think other men attractive and good-looking or admirable for one thing or another. Sometimes these admirations are expressed differently between men than between women. Part of that is cultural expectations and part of it is learning how to treat other people properly.

While there are definite definitions of male and female, there is a broad spectrum of personality types. I myself am a pretty sensitive guy, which actually makes my wife happy as I can communicate with a higher emotional IQ that she can appreciate more than if I was more insensitive and ruggedly inclined. Being a man doesn’t always mean shooting guns and being strong; it can mean standing up for social injustices or speaking up for the weak. It can mean putting a compassionate, sincere, and caring arm around someone who is hurting or going through a tough time.

Even if homosexuality is caused by a truly natural genetic condition, that doesn’t always mean that it should be something to pursue or allow to happen either. People are born with all kinds of genetic problems all of the time, from down syndrome to sickle cell anemia. These people have to live with these conditions and some require special treatments, such as sickle cell anemia, in order to even stay alive. Should someone with these (or the many other conditions so many people have) just accept the fact of life and do nothing about it? The answer is ‘no,’ especially when it can be unhealthy or lead to the mistreatment of others. While these people are not “normal” in the sense that their bodies don’t operate like everyone else’s, it doesn’t make them any less human. Many continue to do their best to make their way in the world and have good and healthy relationships with others even while trying to cope with their genetic health issues.

Some may say that homosexuality is different from this; it is a special case. Well, what makes it a special case? If homosexuality is not a genetic or a psychological condition, then it resides in the realm of belief and thus becomes more of a religion than anything else. The only thing that makes a person homosexual in this case, then, is the person’s own belief of himself as a homosexual. This belief is the basis for the rest of the way he views the world, and thus is basically the definition of a personal religion.

Is the Bible So Outdated That It No Longer Applies to Gender Orientation? : The Gay Debate – Part 4 (of 8)

Mr. Vines makes several points. This post addresses his fourth point (in bold). Click on the links below to view my response to them:

Despite growing up in a loving, stable family, devoid of abuse, living an abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle, and desiring to have a family of his own someday, he has concluded that he is gay.
Traditional “anti-gay” views of the Church have forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s design.
The Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians, which means that references to the law in regard to homosexuality being evil are no longer valid.
The concept of sexual orientation is new, so the Bible cannot shed light upon this subject as ancient forms of homosexual acts were offensive or abusive, not examples of two people coming together in a committed relationship.
“Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change.”
Certain compound words around the New Testament references to homosexuality are really meant for the economic sexual exploitation of homosexuals.
The Church has been really harmful toward people of homosexual orientation and it needs to become more accepting of homosexuals and not so condemning.
Being different is not a sin and being “gay” is not a sin either.

Matthew Vines says that the concept of sexual orientation as a means of defining someone is a new idea and therefore the Bible’s doctrine against homosexuality cannot be applied to it because such an idea did not exist back then. Also, he points out that people who are same-gender oriented would agree that the homosexual acts described in the Bible, such as homosexual prostitution and extramarital homosexual intercourse, are just as bad in their eyes as in the Bible’s. According to Vines, Some people are born with a gay bend and there is nothing wrong with it so long as it is done in a committed, loving mutual relationship.

The actions of homosexuality have been around for millennia. The most famous example was Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). It also occurred in Israel (Judges 19). It must have been fairly common practice among non-Jews as God specifically points it out in the Law (Lev 18:22; 20:13). Paul mentions it in the New Testament as something to avoid (Rom 1:24-27; 1 Tim 1:10).

All of these, however, are what Vines calls “immoral” homosexuality. It is a homosexuality of rape, taking advantage, and sometimes even prostitution. He and I can agree on one point, this kind of homosexuality cannot be right. However, I disagree with Vines’ alternative. Is it possible to have a “holy” homosexuality, so long as it is within marriage?

The problem is that we see no Biblical example of this. There has been no unanimous revelation in the Church that it should be allowed. So why would God make people gay without having a way to satisfy that need?

Vines is right that we are probably the first people to define and classify people as homosexual in the sense of an orientation. However, is that classification valid? Are people truly homosexuals because they are born that way?

It seems only natural that what we desire and what we want should be right. That if there is an inborn “bend” toward something, how can we help but pursue that thing? However, may I remind you that we live in a fallen world? “Natural” doesn’t necessarily mean “right.” All people have some kind of bend toward something. Sometimes it isn’t harmful in the sense of certain interests and hobbies. However, some bends, such as addictive and sinful behaviors, are harmful to oneself and others. For instance, a man with a history of alcoholics in his family has a natural “bend” towards drinking alcohol. Should he do this? Is it healthy for himself and his family? Most would say that he should avoid it. However, we encourage homosexuals to continue in their homosexuality, which can be just as dangerous with the diseases that could result.

The interesting thing is that we can actually see genetically that a person has a history of alcoholism. However, we have not found the “gay” gene. Many people say that they feel it is true, therefore it must be. So I question how “natural” being homosexual actually is.

If we want to say that homosexuality is “natural” in the sense that it is a natural product of a fallen world, then I would agree with that statement. In this sense “natural” doesn’t mean “right.” Since we are sinful beings, it is only “natural” for us to want to sin, even if it isn’t what God intended for us to be and do.

However, that’s why Christ came into the world: to not only free us from the spiritual consequence of sin (eternal separation from God), but that through him we may begin to untangle the cords of sin that hold us back so that we can truly be the people we are meant to be even while we live here on the Earth.

We don’t really have a full knowledge of the homosexual societies of Sodom and Gomorrah, but we have only a glimpse to know that they were truly evil people. However, the Greeks had prevalent homosexuality in their culture, which started out as mentor-type relationships. It was definitely a confusing time for the Greeks and not every mentioned homosexual record was the same, but can we really say that all of these lacked the type of commitment Vines describes as more “modern”? Some of the homosexuality was actually quite heroic in that there were groups of men in armies who were supposedly so in love with each other that they fought more valiantly than other men.

So while the idea of sexual orientation is new, it is still an ideal that is totally unhealthy and inaccurate about the way things are supposed to be as God intended.

What Should Our Attitude Toward Animals Be?

I just realized that there were several questions I left unanswered when I previously discussed animals and souls. I want to continue the topic with a look at the proper attitude God wants us to have toward animals.

Instructions from God on Human Relationships with Animals

If God did indeed create animals with souls, rather than as mere empty shells meant to populate the world, then he would have given his world-stewards (mankind) special instructions in how to treat them and take care of them. He did this through the Jewish law. The following is a collection, though perhaps not exhaustive, of references to special instructions given from God to man in regard to the animals:

Man was not blessed to eat animal flesh until after the flood. (Genesis 1:29-30)
Man had the freedom/responsibility to name the animals, and action we still do today. (Genesis 2:30)
None of the animals were a suitable helper, giving God the need to create woman (Genesis 2:30-25)
God created garments to hide mankind’s shame after the fall. This was probably the first animal sacrifice. (Gen 3:21)
Abel sacrificed animals (sheep) to God, although it is not known whether they were used more for food or for clothing (Gen 4:4).
God demands an accounting of human lifeblood spilt by animals (Gen 9:5).
The just care for animals, but the compassion of the wicked is cruel (Prov 12:10).
If an animal hurts a human, it must be killed, but the owner is not to be blamed. That is unless it is an animal known to hurt others. If this is so and the owner has done nothing about it, then the owner is liable and must be put to death along with the animal. However, a fine could be imposed on him instead, allowing him to ransom his life due to the injury (Ex 21:28-32).
If an animal falls into another person’s hole or cistern that was not covered, then the owner of the cistern must pay for the dead animal (Ex 21:33-34).
If one person’s animal kills another person’s animal, then the live animal must be sold and the money split between the two of them. But, if the animal was known for being dangerous, then the owner of the live animal must pay in full (Ex 21:35-36).
If someone is caught who has stolen animals, they must pay 3-4 fold, depending on the animal (Ex 21:37).
God instructed several times not to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21).
The lifeblood of animals must not be consumed (Lev 17:13-14).
Whoever takes the life of an animal must make restitution, but whoever takes the life of a human must be put to death (Lev 24:21).
Animals are not to be mated with different species (Lev 19:19).
Humans should not mate with animals (Lev 20:15-16).
Jesus’ justification for healing on the Sabbath was that men would help their animals out of cisterns on the Sabbath, but not help sick people. Christ was making sure that emphasis was put on helping people as much (if not more so) than animals, even on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1-6).

God Cares for Animal Well-Being

From these verses we can pick out a few things about God’s character and attitude toward animals and his expectations for our attitude toward them. In general it seems that God cares for the animals and desires for people to not be cruel to animals. Examples of this are when he gives commands for animals not to be cooked in their mother’s milk and to have people make restitution for actions done against another person’s animal.

He also places a high value on lifeblood. This could be for the health of the human consumer as much as respect for animal life. I believe he longs to want animals and humans to be healthy, which is also why he commands animals to not be mated with different species. Most animals who are specially selected and have certain traits bred out of them are more susceptible to succumb to disease. The poodle for example, while a definite dog breed, is a very delicate creature as compared to the wolf.

The Proper Balance

The proper balance must also be placed when comparing animal life to human life. The Old Testament structure was to redeem human life with the sacrifice of animal life. This ended when the perfect human, Jesus, sacrificed himself to save the race from their sins. Animal sacrifice is no longer needed.

However, there are still disputes of when one person’s dog bites another dog or mauls a child. In God’s eyes, it is perfectly just for someone of the child’s family to kill the bad dog in recompense. This may be difficult for dog-lovers to accept, but the same thing applies to cats, cows, or any other animal. God made humans in his own image and we need to respect that, no matter how we feel about our own animals.

So while many buy all kinds of things for their animals, even clothing, in an attempt to anthropomorphize them, they are still just animals. People must be put first. Who might you be putting below the rank of an animal? Is it justified?

Does the Law Still Apply to Christians? : The Gay Debate – Part 3 (of 8)

Mr. Vines makes several points. This is a response to his third point (in bold). Click on the links to view my response to them:

Despite growing up in a loving, stable family, devoid of abuse, living an abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle, and desiring to have a family of his own someday, he has concluded that he is gay.
Traditional “anti-gay” views of the Church have forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s design.
The Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians, which means that references to the law in regard to homosexuality being evil are no longer valid.
The concept of sexual orientation is new, so the Bible cannot shed light upon this subject as ancient forms of homosexual acts were offensive or abusive, not examples of two people coming together in a committed relationship.
“Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change.”
Certain compound words around the New Testament references to homosexuality are really meant for the economic sexual exploitation of homosexuals.
The Church has been really harmful toward people of homosexual orientation and it needs to become more accepting of homosexuals and not so condemning.
Being different is not a sin and being “gay” is not a sin either.

Another view that Vines puts forward is that the Old Testament law does not apply to Christians, because of Jesus’ sacrifice and fulfillment of the law in the New Testament. This means (from Vines’ perspective) that references to the law in regard to the evil of homosexuality are no longer valid. This is not true at all and Biblically inaccurate.

It is true that whenever the Gentiles were let into the Christian fold that there was some controversy over whether or not that the Gentiles had to first become Jews before they could be considered Christians and therefore be required to follow the Old Testament law. In Acts 10 and 11, Peter has an experience, first a vision of unclean animals and a tablecloth and a voice saying “kill and eat.” Peter being a Jew said, “I have ever eaten what is unclean!” The voice said, “Do not call unclean what God has made clean.” He saw the vision three times and then was soon greeted by messengers from a God-fearing Gentile. Peter went with the messengers and spoke to the Gentiles about Jesus. The Holy Spirit came upon them as they believed, proving that God wants Gentiles as much as Jews, to follow in His ways. Peter shared his experiences with the Church and Christianity spread to the Gentiles through the efforts of various missionaries. One of these was a former persecutor of the Christians, Saul, who became known as Paul.

Over time, this debate over how much law the Gentiles should follow, if any, caused a dispute between Christians. The Bible records the account of the first Church council in Jerusalem to discuss this very issue in Acts 15. The apostles and presbyters (elders), “in agreement with the whole church,” decided to send the Gentile churches a letter which concluded with the following words:

“28 It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29, NABRE)

The Interlinear translates “unlawful marriage” as “fornication,” and other translations/versions translate it as “sexual immorality.” My question then becomes what then did the Gentiles use as their guide to know what was right or wrong in regard to proper marriage and sexual conduct? Did they simply go by what they felt?

James, one of the apostles that spoke during this council said in Acts 15:21: “For Moses [the Law], for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

This means that the Gentile Christians had already heard the law or at least heard about the law and saw the observance of the law in the witness of faithful Jews who were living in these towns. In fact, Paul on his missionary journeys would go into the synagogue first to speak with the Jews about Jesus. If he met hostility there, then he would go to the Gentiles. Thus, I think the answer to my own question, “where did the Gentiles go for the guide to sexual purity?” It was to the law itself, which some of them already knew about and had tried to follow.

I don’t say this, so that we should turn to the law for life, because it doesn’t really work that way. Paul speaks of rule and law followers (those following the law simply because it is a rule to follow) in great detail in Galatians. In fact the law’s purpose is to bring about the knowledge of right and wrong. It gives us God’s standard. Sometimes the law goes into such detail that a person can begin to be tempted with sins he never had thought of before (see Romans 7), but the law can’t free us from sin. Following the law will never prove to God that we are good enough to be considered righteous on our own. That is why we need to believe in Christ, because it is only through Him that we can have freedom from sin.

However, the law can be used as a measuring stick for our own righteousness, showing that we don’t measure up. Thus, if a person who thinks they are homosexual or has been an active homosexual reads the parts of the law that deal with that issue and finds themselves condemned… welcome to the club. Because, we all stand condemned. And as I have said, following rules will not earn your salvation. Jesus’ righteousness covers over our unrighteousness, if we believe in him, we are under grace and our wrongdoings forgiven. Should we continue in our sin? Pauls answers “Of course not!” (see Romans 6). While we cannot overcome sin on our own, we can do it by Christ living in us through the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:5-23, 8:9-11).

So I am sorry Mr. Vines, grace does not give you a license to practice homosexual marriage, not even under the New Testament, because the conclusion of the apostles and the early Church was that the parts of the law regarding proper sexual behavior still applied to the Gentiles. There has not since been any such universal revelation in the Church to repeal that fact.

Is the Church Responsible for Gay Loneliness?: The Gay Debate – Part 2 (of 8)

Mr. Vines makes several points. Here I am covering his second point (in bold). click on the other links to view my response to his other points):

Despite growing up in a loving, stable family, devoid of abuse, living an abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle, and desiring to have a family of his own someday, he has concluded that he is gay.
Traditional “anti-gay” views of the Church have forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s design.
The Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians, which means that references to the law in regard to homosexuality being evil are no longer valid.
The concept of sexual orientation is new, so the Bible cannot shed light upon this subject as ancient forms of homosexual acts were offensive or abusive, not examples of two people coming together in a committed relationship.
“Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change.”
Certain compound words around the New Testament references to homosexuality are really meant for the economic sexual exploitation of homosexuals.
The Church has been really harmful toward people of homosexual orientation and it needs to become more accepting of homosexuals and not so condemning.
Being different is not a sin and being “gay” is not a sin either.

Loneliness is Not God’s Plan for Mankind (Including Homosexuals), But It Can Be a Result of Being in a Fallen World

The next point he makes is that traditional anti-gay views of the church have forced homosexuals to be lonely which is against God’s design. I actually agree with him on this, however, I do not think that the Church is to take sole blame. In my years spent as a single person there were times I’m sure people wondered if I myself was gay. In American culture, particularly in the movies and other media that promote and establish it, there is very little mention of single people. It is all couples-oriented. I believe that is because there is less drama in being okay with being single. Even in Hallmark movies, very seldom do people not find their “match,” despite overwhelming circumstances. What about the people who are okay with not finding their match or for one reason or another, simply don’t? In this couples-oriented culture, (which I admit also pervades the Church in America) those who do not match up with someone of the opposite sex seemingly “must be gay.” Even though the Bible gives us examples of people who had the “gift of singleness,” as the Apostle Paul spoke of in his letters, if such people existed in the Church today, I am almost certain they would be considered, by some if not most, homosexual. The problem is that there are people with that gift in the Church today and they should not be labeled in such a way as it pushes them toward sin and away from the God they have such a great opportunity to know and serve.

By my mid-twenties, I was perfectly okay with remaining single. If things had not worked out with my wife, I would probably still be single here in my thirties. This is an odd thing, which some might label as “queer,” “strange,” or even “secretly gay.” However, I truly was able to turn my concern of finding a wife over to God. I will be honest, I kept an eye out for women who might be a good match, but in the meantime, I did my best to use my singleness to serve God.

Sometimes God calls you to do things that are out of the ordinary or different from the norm. These are great personal challenges that develop our faith and when we trust in God, bring us closer to Him. The world promotes all religions, except true Christianity. Thus, merely choosing to be a true Christian can be a lonely road itself. Should we trade trusting in our Savior for less persecution so that we can be less lonely or have what we want? The martyrs of the past declare a valiant “NO!” to that.

Also marriage doesn’t cure all loneliness. There are just about as many divorces of those claiming to be Christians as those not claiming to be. Marriage, while blissful for a time, requires work to keep going. While there may be similarities shared between a couple, there different ways people respond to the same stimulus. Sometimes a partner may need to be around people to be comforted when faced with stress. The other may need time away from people to think. If you have those two opposites in a marriage together, it can seem like one does not want to meet the other’s needs. It turns out they are just different people and if the needs are not communicated clearly, friction can happen in the relationship, creating an emotional wedge, which can cause a different kind of loneliness to develop. One which may be sought to cure by ending the marriage or seeking to fill that loneliness with other things such as alcohol, drugs, extramarital sex, or other such “medicinal” vices.

Back to Vines’ point that the traditional view of the Church has forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s original design in Genesis Chapter 1. I agree with this for the most part, however, I think Vines is trying to use this to say that this situation as justification for homosexual romantic relationships, because as God said in the beginning “It is not good to be alone.” Another thing to point out is that this circumstance mentioned in Genesis 1 is before the fall of man. Before Eve and Adam chose to sin, the world was made good. However, when the first couple went against God’s command, evil found its way into the world. We now live in a fallen world, where people don’t treat other people right. Something we need to realize is that the Church is full of fallen imperfect people who are (supposedly) turning to Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and entrusting in his resurrection and Holy Spirit to give them the power to overcome those sins.

While I admit that neither I or the Church are perfect, it does not give us an excuse to remain as we are. We all need to be a little more understanding, but we also need to challenge people to become better. I think that is where the traditional view comes from initially even though it can now often appear as a list of additional rules to follow. The crux of Christianity is that we turn to Jesus for our fulfillment, because if we trust in people they will let us down. If you read any article that has been written by an unbeliever or an atheist, you will not get far without them referencing supposed crimes of people in the Church. If they would have been trusting in Christ rather than the Church, then they wouldn’t have been disappointed and perhaps had a little more mercy toward those people. The Church is made up of broken people who point to Christ, the real person to turn to for salvation and fulfillment.

So when Vines blames the Church for making him feel lonely, I do not doubt that statement. But, I know that when I am feeling lonely and down, I can either turn to my sins for comfort, which usually only leaves me feeling worse, or I can turn to Christ and give him the burden. There have been many times God has drawn me near in times of loneliness and held me in despair. Where was the Church? Doing churchy things, I guess. I have been fortunate at times to be part of churches where it really does feel like family. I have also been part of churches where it felt like I had to constantly watch my back. Regardless, Jesus is still Lord of all, and He is the one to turn to in times of trouble, not the Church, and definitely not romantic homosexual (or heterosexual) relationships.

The Gay Debate: A Response to Matthew Vines – Part 1 (of 8)

When I googled the question: “Can a Christian be Homosexual?”, a link to a page by a fellow named Matthew Vines was among the top on the list. Mr. Vines is of the view that homosexuality should be allowed in the Church. A link to his page can be found here: The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality. I appreciate the work that he has put into this and I believe that he goes into very good detail, using various scriptures that either side of this debate could use as justification for their view. There are many points upon which I agree, particularly in the misunderstandings of the Church on the issue and past hateful reactions. However, many of his conclusions are off track and are a bit of a stretch in their support of the Church adopting homosexuality, especially homosexual marriage. I offer this post as a sort of rebuttal. I know that others have probably said similar things and have debated Mr. Vines on this topic in other media. If I come up with the same conclusions, I do not mean to misquote. All I am basing this article on is Mr. Vines’ analysis of the Bible, the Bible itself, and my own thoughts. Any research I have done will be quoted appropriately

Mr. Vines makes several points (I will cover the point in bold in this post; click on the links to view my response to them):

Despite growing up in a loving, stable family, devoid of abuse, living an abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle, and desiring to have a family of his own someday, he has concluded that he is gay.
Traditional “anti-gay” views of the Church have forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s design.
The Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians, which means that references to the law in regard to homosexuality being evil are no longer valid.
The concept of sexual orientation is new, so the Bible cannot shed light upon this subject as ancient forms of homosexual acts were offensive or abusive, not examples of two people coming together in a committed relationship.
“Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change.”
Certain compound words around the New Testament references to homosexuality are really meant for the economic sexual exploitation of homosexuals.
The Church has been really harmful toward people of homosexual orientation and it needs to become more accepting of homosexuals and not so condemning.
Being different is not a sin and being “gay” is not a sin either.

Let’s dig into this and see what conclusions we can make on our own and with the Bible as our guide, just as Vines claims to have done. I would suggest reading the transcript or watching the video linked above as I will be deeply analyzing his main points and arguments and it will be useful to have seen these to understand my points.

Homosexual Even With Good Upbringing

His first main point shatters what most anti-gay people claim as a cause for homosexuality. Despite growing up in a stable Christian home, devoid of abuse, in a church with traditional values, Vines says that he is still gay.

Here right out of the gate, I seriously have a hard time believing his statement. It would seem that if this is true, that his homosexual condition without a prior history of abuse is a rare one, an exception to the rule. Of course I am also assuming that homosexuality is a choice, whereas Vines is assuming exactly the opposite. However, if homosexuality is a sin, even those grown up in the best environments have a choice to go down the sinful path. If homosexuality is not a sin, but a genetic disposition, wouldn’t there be a history of homosexuality in his family? He does not mention much of his family history, at least not on his website.

I half wonder if he is just saying this to manufacture a reality where such a statement could be true. If homosexuality is a natural, unchangeable thing, then the Church does have problems in saying that is wrong. I will get into that a little later in the discussion when I talk about the “naturalness” of homosexuality. For now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and bare your soul in front of those who think/believe differently from you. While I disagree with him on many if not all of his points, I can say I admire him for that.

Abstinence: A Virtue and a Vice?

“I’ve never been in a relationship, and I’ve always believed in abstinence until marriage.”

This is a direct quote from his transcript and it gives some interesting information. It defines Vines to be a man of character, someone who has grown up in a younger Christian generation, the generation of I Kissed Dating Goodbye and other anti-dating books that were popular among Christian communities in the early 2000’s. I know, because I was one of those Christians and I read many of those books, believing what they said. However, many of us heterosexual people who once put our faith in these books have grown up and begun to realize how damaging such beliefs can be.

When you “kiss dating goodbye,” you can lose the ability to understand and have experience in romantic relationships. Without experience, how do you know a good relationship from a bad one? While I do promote purity in dating relationships, it is not unhealthy or unholy to participate in dating relationships as a teenager or older person. It is how we learn our own expectations and prepare for life with a significant other.

I myself dated several people over the years, both in my teens and early twenties. Despite this, I remained chaste until marriage. I would let years pass between relationships as I was not one to hop from one relationship to desperately search for another. While it was difficult, I learned how to be content in my singleness. When my wife and I finally did get together in my late twenties, I was prepared to either continue the relationship into marriage, or stay single.

In my single years, I became close to many different people of varying ages, both single and married. My local church became like family. Thus, I have experienced what Vines was saying that “family is not about sex.”

Thus, I am concerned that Vines, by not participating in relationships, may not have tested his homosexuality to its limit. How can he say that hetero-sexuality is not for him if he has not tried it out? I am not saying that he should go out and have loads of heterosexual sex to see if he likes it; that would be just as wrong as pursuing such a course in homosexuality. But, if sex isn’t a determinant to long lasting relationships, as Vines claims, what is so wrong with him pursuing one with a member of the opposite gender? Or if sex isn’t necessary for companionship, what is wrong with him having a good or best friend with a member of the same sex?

The best example of this is the friendship shared between Jonathan and David. They had a close bond with each other and looked out for each other, even though David’s existence and anointing would mean Jonathan wouldn’t have a kingdom to rule in the future. However, there are many in the gay community that would probably point to them and say that they were really gay, not just best friends. I would first argue against that, for one, how explicit the Bible was about the rest of David’s life, one would think it would also mention such a vice if David had one. Secondly, the Bible’s record of David’s personal affairs, the fact that he had many wives at the same time and his affair with Bathsheba, point out that the chink in David’s armor wasn’t homosexual lust as much as it was heterosexual lust, a sin that God punished him for the rest of his life.

God shows no favoritism. He punishes all offenders of lust, whether homosexual or heterosexual. It seems that the punishments aren’t bolts of lightning or rumblings of thunder, or even of fire falling from heaven. Many times the consequences of sin itself are punishment enough. However, Vines is not promoting a homosexual lustful lifestyle. He is saying that people have a bend one way or the other (I would add there is a “neither” as well) and that the homosexual orientation is not wrong or sinful. In some ways I agree with him (more on that when we talk about whether or not homosexuality is a sin).

Do Animals Need Redemption?

In my last post, I discussed the idea of animals having souls, why many pastors avoid the question and what the Interlinear Bible had to say about the creation account; the similarity in wording at animal creation to that of mankind’s creation. My conclusion to the question “Do animals have souls?” was a simple “yes,” but it left us with more questions to consider. I will attempt to answer three of these in this post:

Are animals considered “fallen” as man is, and if so, do they need redemption?
If there is a heaven for animals how do they get there?
Is there a hell for animals or do “all dogs go to heaven”?

Do Animals Share in the Fallen State of Man?

“¹⁹For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; ²⁰for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. ²²We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; ²³and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.” – Romans 8:19-25 (NAB)

The Apostle Paul was writing to the Roman Christians about the new life of the Spirit and how the Spirit, living in us after believing in Christ and acting on that faith, is in conflict with our sinful, “fallen,” nature. Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now that the Spirit dwells in us, we too have the power to no longer be slaves to our old sinful and harmful ways (Rom 8:2). In the verses quoted above he says that all of creation has been subjected to the effects of sin and is awaiting not only the resurrection of believers in Christ, but also its own redemption. This includes animals.

Paul says that creation “was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it.” This is a reference to Adam and the consequence of his disobedience recorded in Genesis 3:17-19:

“Cursed is the ground because of you! In toil you shall eat its yield all the days of your life. ¹⁸Thorns and thistles it shall bear for you and you shall eat the grass of the field. ¹⁹By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for you are dust and to dust you shall return.”

Paul explains earlier in Romans (Chapter 5) that because of Adam’s sin, all of mankind has been subjected to death. However, through Christ, all those who accept him are made right with God through him and are promised new life. Creation, too, then was subjected to death and disease because of Adam’s sin, but now has the ability to be renewed through Christ’s atoning sacrifice and resurrection as well. Because mankind originally was made to be the rulers and authorities of this world, the disobedience of our ancestors caused us to lose our place as rulers. Thus, for millennia, creation was subjected to a different set of rulers, Satan and his angels (see Ephesians 6:12), with whom we now struggle against in Christ. But, Christ has taken back this authority. “In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33). Jesus Christ has redeemed the whole world. Thus, there is no need for a messiah for the dogs, one for the cats, one for the chickens, etc. Since everything was made through him (John 1), all of creation, including animals, are being redeemed through him.

Is There a Heaven and Hell for Animals?

From the pulpit, we get a very simplified vision of redemption and what Christians have to look forward to. Many times the new creation is not even mentioned as being part of our resurrection story, and it really should be. Heaven and Hell can be quite simply explained while the reality may be more complex and thus not quite understood. It can be difficult to go into depth on the subject when a preacher only has so much time to dedicate to it. More of an effort can be made though to understand why heaven is really a place men should want to be and hell a place we want to avoid.

I believe there are many myths about heaven and hell that are implied by this over-simplicity, a subject for another time. But for example, is heaven an actual place, a reference to outer space, or the presence of God? And, is Hell the same thing as Sheol, or Hades, or is it the prison of eternal punishment, the Tartarus mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4? My point is that if we cannot completely grasp the concepts of heaven and hell for ourselves, how then can we understand the spiritual fate of animals? If we are not to be in judgement of other men’s souls in this life, how then can we act as judges of the souls of animals? I believe it is best in both cases to leave the judgement of the spirit and soul to God and entrust him with such matters. However, we do get a few glimpses that God does have a moral standard for the animals and that they too will share in the new creation.

Animals Were Used to Get Right With God

The entire Old Testament is based on the idea of using sacrificial animals to get right with God. From the first clothing of mankind (Gen 3:21) and Abel’s burning of the fat portions of his flocks (Gen 4:4) to God through Moses giving instructions in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy on which animals are to be sacrificed for which sins and impurities, we see that animals play an important spiritual role in covering mankind’s sins. Usually the animals must be without blemish or stain, signifying that innocent life must atone for spiritual shame. In several places in the Old Testament, God criticizes those who do not bring their best animals to sacrifice. Later, God expresses his frustration of the sacrificial system through the prophets that humanity had focused more on the actions of the sacrifice and forsaken the moral goals of the law (Micah 6:6-8), a concept that was echoed by Jesus (Matt 23:23) and the writer of Hebrews (Heb 10:5). Ultimately, the blood of animals could not fully cover the sin of humanity, because for every sin, there had to be more animal blood spilt. Christ came as a human sacrifice to bear the sins of the whole world. There is now no more need for animals to be sacrificed for human sins (Heb 10:1-18).

Animals Were Expected to Respect Man

Originally, all creatures in the world were given the freedom to eat plants (Gen 1:29), not each other. So the reason Abel slaughtered his sheep and offered the fat portions to God was probably not for food, but for the clothing of man’s nakedness, a result of the fall (Gen 3:10, 21). This may have been part of why Abel’s sacrifice was more appealing to God than Cain’s, although the reason for God’s favor is not directly given. This is only a partial supposition on my part. However, corruption of man continued and perhaps because of man’s ferociousness and disregard for sanctity of life, the animals learned to behave this way too. Perhaps they were even bred to be more ferocious by men as there seemed to be bloodshed and great wickedness occurring all over the world in the time before the flood (Gen 6). God foretold that the earth would produce thorns and thistles as man learned how to farm and breed plants that would produce edible fruit (Gen 3:18). This may have also applied to animals as man desired how to breed certain traits to benefit themselves. Not knowing how to accomplish this, it may have led to the corruption of all flesh mentioned in Genesis 6:12. In the same chapter and in Chapter 7, God distinguishes between clean and unclean animals that are to be on the ark, perhaps a distinction between those with less genetic corruption and those with more.

After the flood, however, God said he would change the animals’ attitude toward humanity as he allowed mankind to use them for food (Gen 9). Furthermore, he would demand an accounting of human blood shed by animals and fellow men alike (v. 5-6). Thus, we see that God holds even the animals to a certain moral code. Even if this be the only law to which he holds the animals accountable, it shows that they too have a moral conscience, however limited, offering further proof that they have a soul of some sort.

Animals Are a “Different Seed”

As to the fate of animals souls and how they are acquitted or condemned, I leave for God, their creator and ours, to decide. Not much is given or described for the spiritual life of the animal and perhaps this is because we are to focus on our own spiritual path to God. However, a good description of all creation’s resurrection can be found in 1 Corinthians 15: 35-57:

“³⁵But someone may say, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come back?’ ³⁶You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. ³⁷And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; ³⁸but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. ³⁹Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. ⁴⁰There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another. ⁴¹The brightness of the sun is one kind, the brightness of the moon another, and the brightness of the stars another. For star differs from star in brightness.

⁴²So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible. ⁴³It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious. It is sown weak; it is raised powerful. ⁴⁴It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

⁴⁵So, too, it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being,’ [Gen 2:7] the last Adam a life-giving spirit. ⁴⁶But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual. ⁴⁷The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven. ⁴⁸As was the earthly one, so also are the earthly, and as is the heavenly one, so also are the heavenly. ⁴⁹Just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one.

⁵⁰This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. ⁵¹Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, ⁵²in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. ⁵³For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality. ⁵⁴And when this which is corruptible clothes itself with incorruptibility and this which is mortal clothes itself with immortality, then the word that is written shall come about: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory. ⁵⁵Where, O death is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’ [Hos 13:14]

⁵⁶The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. ⁵⁷But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” – 1 Corinthians 15: 35-57

Fire to Prepare for New Growth

“¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out. ¹¹Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of person ought [you] to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion, ¹²waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire. ¹³But according to his promise we await new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” – 1 Peter 3:10-13

This spiritual and physical fire will consume all, but like a volcanic eruption or a forest fire, the blaze that consumes the old life provides fertile ground for new. If the physical world works in this way, how much more the spiritual world! Paul’s resurrection analogy of the seeds can apply here too. For this fallen physical world will finally die, but that will provide a way for a new heaven and a new earth to be established where the old once stood. This is all by the work of God through the redemptive power of Christ.

Thus, the more we study about animal souls, the more we realize the need for the redemption of our own. For Christ died to bring mankind and all creation back to God. So the question then becomes: are you going to be part of the new creation? Are you trusting in Christ for the redemption of your own soul with the hope that you will become right with God and share in the new heaven and new earth? Or, will you continue to be part of the old world, the old life that is consumed without hope of new life? Perhaps even our beloved animals sit and ponder and hope that their masters will trust in Christ and be a part of the new creation as they hope to be. In my first post, I offered that the best option for our animal friends’ souls is to entrust them to God. It turns out that it is the same with our own.

Do Animals Have Souls?

When I was two, my family had a dog named Lady. She was a good dog and very protective of me. She treated me as if I was one of her pups. However, though she served my family for many years, even before I was born, she was hit by a car and severely injured. My dad had to put her down as she was suffering from maggots and infection. It was the first loss I ever experienced. My mother told me that Lady was in a better place and that she went to heaven. In later years I would hear preached from the pulpit that animals don’t have souls and thus just simply cease to exist. Which is true? Do animals have souls or are they simply created beings that cease to exist upon death? Was my mother’s statement just something said to comfort her two-year-old or can there be some truth in it? If I want to be truthful, what do I tell my children when their pets die?

When I have questions like this, I could turn to a pastor or a scientist, both of which may agree or disagree alike. As I already mentioned, I have heard the doctrine of non-souls from a preacher in a message before. However, I have to wonder that if God made mankind to have a soul and we are similarly made, if they too could have a soul. Anyone who has had a dear pet and lost it has pondered this question at some point in their lives. Yet, I hesitate to go to a professional to hear simply another opinion, when I can go to the Bible itself for the truth. But first, let’s visit a few conceptual problems with the existence of souls in animals.

The Problem of Souls in Animals

The concept of animals having souls or spirits is not new. Hinduism, spiritism, animism, and Shintoism clearly state that animals can have spirits, some can even be deities in these faiths. Reincarnation is a belief not shared in all these religions, but worth mentioning as it promotes the idea that human souls could have origins in animals if that human had previously existed as an animal. However, these beliefs do not coincide with what the Bible says.

I can understand why, then, many Christian pastors steer away from the animal soul idea, because it can lead to worship of created things rather than the One True God, who is the creator of all animals (Genesis 1:20-25).

With reincarnation, the soul of all things is essentially equal in value as it can be transferred upon death into a new being, either more or less advanced. This contradicts the idea that God made man special in that he made mankind in His image (Genesis 1:27). Reincarnation cannot fit into Christianity as it is clearly stated in the Bible “it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgement” (Hebrews 9:27).

These answers, while they affirm that animals are not gods and that there is not a connection between animal souls and human souls, it still does not answer the question of whether or not animals have their own soul. To this we return to the Bible and the account of creation to find out how the animals were created and contrast that with the creation of mankind.

Similar Wording at Creation

When I began to look into this, I really wanted to get as close of a translation as possible. Because I also wanted this in other subjects other than just that on animal souls, I purchased an Interlinear Bible, one that has a direct English translation within the Hebrew and Greek texts (hence the name: “interlinear”). This has been very helpful in this study in particular. For in the Interlinear Bible, the word normally translated as “kind” or “being” in the creation of animals is translated as “soul.” Here are a few examples:

“And God said, Let the waters swarm with the swarmers having a soul of life; and let the birds fly over the earth, on the face of the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, having a living soul…” (Genesis 1:20-21, Note: words in italics are not actual translations of words, but are used to indicate the meaning of the original tense of the word using modern English).

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the soul of life according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth according to its kind. And it was so” (Genesis 1:24).

By comparison, the creation of man in the first chapter does not mention a soul, but that mankind is made in God’s image. However, in Genesis 2, the Interlinear translates as follows:

“And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).

I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I do notice some differences in the punctuation notation, which could mean that man’s living soul is different from animals. We could argue this even by context alone for from the first chapter, man is set apart as being created in God’s image and is given the authority to rule over the earth. In the second chapter, it is recorded that God blew the breath of life in his nostrils. It is unclear if the “breath of life” is something distinct to man as it is not recorded that God did anything similar with the animals, unless it is assumed that is how all living beings were made living. Regardless, we can conclude that man was set apart to be different from animals in that he was made in God’s image and that he was put in charge of the Earth. My question however is not that man is different from animals, but whether or not animals have a soul at all. Despite man being special, the Interlinear seems to simply state that animals do indeed have souls.

One Conclusion, Yet More Questions

Another point to make here is that while the creation of animals as souls uses very similar wording to that of mankind as souls, there is no mention of souls existing when the rocks and vegetation were created on the third day. Thus, there is not any strong Biblical argument for the existence of souls or spirits in other created things in the creation account in Genesis other than animals and mankind. Thus, religions that have such belief systems cannot have biblical foundations. However, I will concede some questionable references to rocks and trees in other parts of the Bible in this regard. I intend to discuss this topic to go deeper into this in another post.

Getting back to the point that we have basically concluded that animals do have souls, this opens up many other questions:

Are animals considered “fallen” as man is, and if so, do they need redemption?
What should our attitude towards animals be?
Is it natural for humans to communicate with animals or is demon possession responsible?
Does God place moral demands on animals for killing other animals or humans?
If there is a heaven for animals how do they get there? Is there a hell for animals or do “all dogs go to heaven”?

It would be unfair if I didn’t answer at least one of my original questions: “How can I comfort my child when they lose a pet?” here in the last part of this post. I will go deeper into this in my next post to answer more of these questions. But for now, since God created the animals’ souls, the best answer I have right now is similar to when trying to comfort loved ones of a deceased person of unknown faith. “They are in God’s hands now.”

Omnicron Trion

Seeking Truth in an Age of Uncertainty

Author: Omnicron