Gay

Spiritual Aspects of Transgenderism and Christianity

One of the many hot-button topics that is affecting our culture today is the idea that one’s gender may or may not depend on one’s physical expression of the genetic gender of that individual. For example, a person may be genetically and biologically male, but feel like his gender identity, who he really is on the inside, is that of a female. Thus, he/she questions which gender should be expressed. To express his male outside would seem to force him to attempt to express his male nature by practicing social norms that other males exhibit. However, inside “he” feels like this is an act. He is not being true to herself, because she really feels like a female. Which gender should be accepted?

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

Thus we have a faint introduction into transgenderism. While it seems like such a straight-forward issue for many, it is a real struggle for some. Despite many people using this issue to draw attention to themselves and seek a popularity that they may not otherwise have had without identifying as transgender, I do believe it is a legitimate issue for some. Therefore, I wish to discuss it here in depth to help those who are truly seeking to find themselves. I anticipate that I will offend both sides of the argument, but I seek to understand the truth, not merely take a side.

What Does It Mean to Be Transgender?

This is a question for the ages and it depends on who you ask and who you talk to within this group/movement of people. For some it is simply that one believes they are truly the opposite sex than what is expressed genetically/physically. For others their sexuality is more “fluid” or rather their gender/sexuality is beyond defining by mere male or female, hence the trans in “transgender.” Back in 2014, Russell Goldman of ABC posted an article listing 58 of the possible genders one could choose for their Facebook profile. I don’t currently have a Facebook account myself, but I’m sure that number has increased since then.

In a Times special edition entitled The Science of Gender, Katy Steinmetz wrote the article “Infinite Identities,” in which she had interviewed different young people who are within this movement. She explains that even those who are within the movement have trouble keeping up with what certain labels mean. Here she quotes Nick Teich, a transgender man who started the first summer camp for transgender youth in America in 2009:

“We have a growing number of kids who identify as genderqueer, nonbinary, gender-variant. People put ‘demigirl,’ ‘genderless,’ ‘no gender,’ ‘all genders,’ ‘pangender.’ We get things all the time, and I’m like, ‘What is this? I have to look this up.’ “

Since Transgenderism is so hard to define, I believe that for me to attempt to do so here would do a disservice to those involved. Perhaps a better question would be to ask: “Is it invalid to classify a person based on their biological sex?”

Yet, even that has its complications, as I will discuss further when I cover genetic abnormalities of the sex chromosomes. Today, however, I wanted to discuss more along the spiritual aspects of Transgenderism and how it relates to Christianity if at all.

Who Am I on the Inside?

This seems to be the question at the core of Transgenderism as if one’s “inside” doesn’t match the outside, then there is a feeling that in order to be genuine and real, one must take up the attempt at making the outside match the inside. But, where does this “inside” reside? If genetically and physically a person is a male, but feels on the inside that he is really a female, what is meant by “inside”?

Once we have gone beyond the physical and genetic realms of being, we approach the realms of the mind, soul, and spirit, which for the sake of argument will blend together as a “soul” issue. In this sense, Transgenderism can at its initial phase seem more spiritual than Christianity, because it is the attempt at making the natural fit the supernatural.

But, that begs the question as to whether a soul has a gender/sex identification with it at all. Some religions (even facets of Christianity) promote heaven as a place where all your sensual desires will be met. However, this may not be the case if in fact the soul/spirit has no gender at all. Let’s see what the Bible has to say about this.

A Gendered Soul?

A group of Jews called the Sadducees posed a question to Jesus about marriage and the resurrection. According to their customs if a man was married and had a brother and the man died, then his brother would marry the widow to continue his brother’s line. The question was: if a man had seven brothers and each died in his turn and married the same woman, whose wife would she be at the resurrection?

Jesus answered by saying that they didn’t know the scriptures or the power of God. “At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30 NABRE), he said.

“Well,” you might say, “there may not be marriage in heaven, but open sexual intercourse may be allowed.”

While I hate to disappoint you (and perhaps myself) in this matter, I believe that God equates marriage and sex. For there are laws in the Old Testament regarding sex and marriage. Namely if a man seduces a virgin, he must pay the bride price and make her his wife. If there is a refusal to marry by one party or the other, he must still pay the bride price (Exodus 22: 15-17). While this is similar to our system of child support, it seems to me that by establishing this law for the Jews God made sex equal to marriage. This is a concept that may be foreign to our modern ears as there have been major strides in our culture to separate sex and marriage as two distinct things, especially since the 1960s.

Regardless, sex and marriage are part of our physical experience. If indeed our souls, our spiritual selves, are like the angels and the angels are genderless, then it would follow that our souls, too are genderless.

This seems to work as this is how we are all equal in God’s sight, despite the fact that we all have different heritages, sizes, strengths and weaknesses and even different genders in our physical selves.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Physical Descriptions Are Valid, But Limited

Back to my original question: “Is it invalid to classify a person based on their biological sex?”

The answer, I believe, is “no.” If our souls are not gendered then it is perfectly valid to classify ourselves as male or female in the physical sense. We are only describing our physical bodies.

However, sex/gender isn’t the only thing that defines us, nor is our worth/value merely limited to the physical aspects of ourselves. Our soul has an infinitude of depth to it that cannot be completely defined by physical definitions. I blame our over sexual culture for instigating the idea that we can somehow define ourselves with sex and gender. We are simply not limited to this.

We are so much more.

However, we should not be surprised that people are acting “lost” as they try to define themselves. The only way to be found is to go to Jesus and accept him as savior.

The only definition you will need to know then is that you will have become God’s child. The rest (male, female, cis-male, a-gendered, all-gendered, … whatever) doesn’t really matter as much.

Is Being Gay a Sin?: The Gay Debate – Part 8 (of 8)

Photo by Deelin on Pexels.com

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.

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

Once again I find myself agreeing with Vines on his view that being “different” is not a sin, but then in the same thought, I must disagree with his view that “being gay is not a sin either.” Then again, it all comes down to definition. What does it mean to be gay?

The “Queer” community has done some work for us in this. It is called the Decahedron of Q and it can be found at this website.

The Queer community has tried to identify the various forms of queerness, which they label as a minority. Included in this list are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, allies, and pan-sexual. Definitions for each category can be found on the website as well.

However, as a Christian, can I really condemn all of these as sin? Who of us hasn’t questioned their own sexuality? I myself questioned my sexuality at different times in my life; does that make me gay? Paul the apostle describes himself as what may be considered “asexual” by the definitions given in the website. Does that make him “queer” too? 

Some of these categories are defined only by desires and others by actions, so it can be difficult when someone confesses that they are homosexual to determine what exactly is meant. It is important for us as Christians to ask penetrating questions so that we can understand where they are coming from, help them with their spiritual needs to get to Christ, and lead them in their journey of sanctification. Having the Queer community define queerness in these categories is extremely helpful and helps us to understand that what is communicated when someone says “I am a homosexual,” may not always mean that they are participating in an active lifestyle.

My advice for the Church is to define sinful homosexuality as the active kind, one in which partakers are active with partners. The inactive homosexuality or queerness may or may not be sinful. Even Jesus said that if you lust for a woman, you commit adultery with her in your heart. However, as I mentioned, desires are not necessarily sin in-and-of-themselves. Most of the time they are merely temptations of sin, put there by either the Devil or our own sinful nature. It seems this view is the most Biblical view to take as it treats homosexuality like every other human desire.

Homosexual marriage, then, would fall into the category of active homosexuality. Even though it would be a union recognized by the government (and some churches), it is not acceptable to God. My advice for those homosexuals who have remained abstinent as Vines has would be to attempt several heterosexual relationships. And by attempt, I mean an actual relationship, not active sex. Purity should be promoted in all hetero- and homo-sexual relationships. I think in a real mutual relationship, you will find that loneliness dissipates, not because sexual desires are met, but because you have someone to share life with. For those not desiring marriage, pursue close friendships in purity as well, because there is great value in having a friend that is closer than a brother.

“What if I am already in a homosexual marriage?” someone might say. My simple answer is to go to Christ and really pray for guidance. He will give it. My hard answer is to seriously consider divorce. I don’t like saying that because I hate it and I know God hates it also. But, God has allowed it, perhaps in foreseeing this day. Holy divorce is not unprecedented, as those Israelites who had broken the command to not intermarry with people of the surrounding sinful nations repented through divorce in order to be obedient to God (see Ezra 10), so it may be that a similar thing must occur with someone who is in a homosexual marriage. As I have said, it is a difficult topic upon which I hope to shed more light on in future posts.

Why the Church Needs to Be More Accepting of Those of Homosexual Orientation: The Gay Debate – Part 7 (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.

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

Vines argues that the church has been very hateful towards homosexuality and that they need to be more accepting. According to Vines, homosexuals need to be allowed in the Church and that the Church should bless homosexual marriages, especially those who have been abstinent and pure.

While I agree with him in that homosexuals should be accepted at church, I disagree with him in his belief that the Church should promote and bless homosexual marriage in an effort to “fix” the homosexual’s loneliness. But, you might ask, how can you have one without the other?

Photo by Ric Rodrigues on Pexels.com

The role of the Church is to bring sinners to Christ for redemption. It is to accomplish this by sharing truth and providing a place where kindness, compassion, fellowship, and Biblical teaching can provide growth to the believer. It is not the Church that does the redeeming or sanctifying, that is Christ’s job. The goal of the Church is to encourage one another to do the right things even when it is painful and to be a source of comfort, while it stands uncompromising on the truth, so that people can become better through the power of the Holy Spirit.

So when I say that the Church should be accepting of homosexuals, I mean it for the same way it should be accepting of people of every sin: alcoholics, adulterers, murders, gossips, etc. The problem is that when someone comes to Christ, the old nature is gone and must be done away with and we must live in the newness of Christ. I don’t believe that homosexuals are so much more sinful than anyone else; that they cannot come to a church service or should be discriminated against to not be allowed. We as a Church need to love them and bring these people to Christ!

Now as far as becoming a Christian and then continuing in the acts of homosexuality, that is a different story. We are all fallible and even as much as we would like to be able to be dunked in water and pledge our lives to Christ to shine in perfection for the rest of our lives, that is rarely the case. Sin will always try to poke its head back into the life of the new Christian. While we still turn to Christ, there are times when Christians fail. It sometimes takes the rest of our lives to get sin sanctified out of ourselves. Ask anyone who has a past of habitual sin, such as alcoholism or lust. It can be very difficult to get out of these sins and when it is finally accomplished, the desires are still there. It is a practice of relying on Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to be able to overcome the sins of the flesh. It is good to have people in the Church you can trust for accountability in the journey to overcoming; we can’t do it on our own.

If it is so difficult for a heterosexual to overcome sin, why should we be surprised when a homosexual struggles with it? Or on the other hand, why should the homosexual expect the bar to be dropped for him when no universal revelation (as that which occurred when the Gentiles were let into the fold) to do such a thing has been made to the Church as a whole? 

Some proponents of homosexuality argue that since a great amount of divorce is allowed in the Church (and therefore adultery, as not all are for simple marital unfaithfulness, as Jesus spoke of marriage in Matthew 5:32), then why can’t homosexuality be allowed? There are different circumstances of divorce in the Church. Some were divorced before coming to Christ. Thus, Christ’s grace has covered their past sins. Some have become Christians while their spouse has not, causing a rift and eventual divorce. Some Christians marry non-Christians and over time have issues that cannot be resolved. Sometimes both are Christians and divorce occurs. There are hundreds if not thousands of reasons why divorce happens at all. I will let God be the judge of their hearts as to what is legitimate and what has been done for selfishness reasons.

However, I do believe that the Western Church today has become overly gracious to the point that important steps of faith like repentance have been put by the wayside to boost numbers. Of course not all churches are this way. 

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Some churches have strict rules regarding divorcees in leadership. While divorcees can still be active members of the Church, many denominations require extensive investigation and discussion into a person’s personal matters before they can assume a leadership role, especially that of a pastor. This investigation occurs even when the divorce is legitimate. Other such investigations occur in other cases of known sin. Churches want their place of worship and activities to be a safe place for people to come to know Christ. If you are a former pedophile, don’t expect to be promoted to youth leader without some investigation by the elders. Should not the same be said for homosexuality if it is indeed a sin?

A lot of the stigma of the Church being against homosexuality is the belief that homosexuality is the last great sin before judgement as seen in the extreme cases of Sodom and Gomorrah. Much of this is due to the fact that at one time the Church held such prominence in the society that most citizens were considered Christians. To this day there are people who equate being an American with being a Christian, or vice versa. Thus if America is found sinful, then we are on the verge of judgement. 

I do not doubt this since God is a judge of nations, but being a Christian is not tied to our citizenship on this earth. It supersedes it. The fact that America, Britain, France, or any other country has sin in their culture is a sign that they need the truth of Christ now more than ever!

Allowing or promoting sin in the Church will not bring someone closer to God. In fact, many people who have turned away from the Church have done so in disgust of this very thing. Usually, someone in the Church is put upon a pedestal (figuratively) either by their own power or by others, and when it comes out that this person has done something awful in his office (or sometimes in his past), then these people leave that church and sometimes don’t try another, thinking that all churches must be this way. To an extent, all churches have messed up people in them and some grace must be applied. However, when a leader does something harmful to someone else in abuse of his power and authority, the other leaders of that church should confront him and decide upon a punishment, which would probably end up being termination of the person’s contract. 

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Wise leaders know their weaknesses and don’t put themselves in a position to fail. For example, I know several male pastors who counsel both men and women. When counseling men, the door can be closed, but when counseling women, the door is left open where other church officials can hold the pastor accountable. It is not that they particularly struggle with heterosexual lust, but that they don’t want anyone to be able to accuse them of misconduct. If there is a person who struggles with homosexual lust on the other hand, perhaps the door could be closed with members of the opposite sex and open with members of the same sex. Perhaps in this day and age, it is best to leave the door open at all times. Regardless, there are safety precautions to take when letting new Christians, who are also in the process of sanctification like everyone else, lead. Those who do not take precautions are usually the ones who end up giving into their old desires and disgracing the Church and Christ.

Thus, the Church needs to decide if homosexuality is a sin. Again, here I distinguish the desire to want to act out homo-sexually (most would label this the ‘homosexual’) and the actual acting out of homosexual acts (the active homosexual). Most people have that pet desire, that one sin that they struggle with and wish to be easily taken away. It can be drugs, alcohol, pornography, adultery, or any blend of desires. These people are sometimes born with these desires, have learned them along the way, or act on these sins in order to medicate some abuse from the past. Yet, they are all still sinful. 

Having those inborn desires, doesn’t make the homosexual a special case; it makes him like the rest of us.

A Lesson in Linguistics: The Gay Debate – Part 6 (of 8)

Photo by John-Mark Smith on Pexels.com

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.

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

Vines says that certain compound words which reference homosexual behavior in the New Testament may not apply due to the syntax (the literal meaning) of the word and the context (meaning gathered from the use of the word). The main word that he mentions is Paul’s use of “arsenokoitai,” which is a compound word from two words: one meaning “man” and the other meaning “bed” (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).

His point is that most compound words are put together to create a new word and so the literal meanings of the original words cannot be used to describe the thing the new word was created for. Let’s take a look at a few modern day compound words he mentioned and see if this is true.

Butterfly – a compound word of “butter” and “fly.” If you have ever caught a butterfly, you would understand why it is called this. Butterflies have a powder on their wings that feels and sometimes looks a lot like butter. While the flying insect is not made of butter, it seems that it is aptly named.

Photo by Tinthia Clemant on Pexels.com

Honeymoon – a season of life shortly after one is wed, in which the spouses get to celebrate their commitment to each other in a sensual and enjoyable way. Taking the literal words: Honey – something sweet; and moon – the heavenly body that usually references the night. By combining these two words together you get a literal meaning close to “sweet night.” Being married myself, I cannot disagree with that meaning. 

Now that we understand its It can be used in its original meaning, people have used it in other contexts to refer to a season of easiness or bliss. It can be used in an employment context, for instance when your boss informs you “the honeymoon is over.” That means that the initial part of the job is over and now much more is expected of you.

Understand – This one I admit is more difficult to define by its semantics alone. It means to know another person’s knowledge as they know it. “Under” of course means below. “Stand” – could be a position of a person, place or thing, or it could be referencing an actual physical object. To have “understanding” in this sense would mean that you possess the knowledge that is deeper (underlying) than the superficial knowledge, or that you possess enough basic (underlying) knowledge of a topic upon which to build further knowledge. This could be in the case of anything, whether you are talking about knowledge of a subject, idea, or relationship information. 

My point is this: that even though the compound words do reference a new thing, which has a new definition, often the meaning of the original words are important to that definition. I think we find the same thing with our analysis of Paul’s compound word. If Paul has created a new compound word that means “man bed” or “man bedder,” how else can the insinuation mean but a homosexual act?

Now in regards to context, there are various studies by the Christian gay movement and Vines himself concluding this word is grouped with others that are referencing the immoral situation between men at the time. It was more of a prostitutional situation in which some men were selling younger men and boys to be sex slaves for other men. A lot of sinful things were happening with that whole situation and Paul was right to say these things were wrong (as the proponents for Christian homosexuality would agree). 

However, included in this condemnation is the “man bedder,” the one who is taking advantage of the boy prostitutes. This is the one who is engaging in and initializing the active homosexual behaviors. So what is the sin: the prostitution, the taking advantage of innocent boys, or the homosexual act? Why not all three? It would seem to me that this would fit in the context of the whole Bible. 

“But no,” my gay friends would say. “This does not represent a mutually consenting relationship.” I would agree, but adultery is also a “mutually consenting” relationship which is punishable by death in Old Testament Law (as is homosexual relations), which is still applicable as I have discussed in Point 3. You don’t get rid of sin just because both parties agree to do it. In fact, both parties were supposed to be punished and deserved death for both homosexual acts and adultery. Thus, I think it is best to conclude that the whole mess is sinful.

Another point is that many of those fighting for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Church bring up that Paul is using a rare word that does not have a lot of outside cultural use or reference. The cultural words used commonly would have applied directly to the situation. Perhaps Paul was trying not to be profane in his references to the homosexual abuse situations. Or, maybe Paul was ahead of his time and created the word to apply to such a definition as to match our “modern” definition of the active homosexual, the person with the tendency or “bend” toward homosexual activity who is actively engaging in the behavior.

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

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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):

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):

 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).