Why Homosexuality is sinful and against a healthy society
 |
| English: Gender symbols, sexual orientation: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality. Česky: (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Homosexuality involves sexual attraction to those of the same sex. Homosexuals may be either male or female (with the latter group sometimes referred to as lesbians). It may be constitutional (or static), in which case it is a “predominant and persistent psychosexual attraction towards members of the same sex”. This sexual preference is a fixed reality in the person’s life, even though it may or may not be acted on.
Alternatively, homosexuality may be situational (or dynamic). Situational homosexuality tends to occur when someone has a series of homosexual experiences during a specific period, for example, while imprisoned or during a war, but then reverts to heterosexuality when the situation changes.
Much of the modern attempt to justify homosexuality is based on the belief that certain people are constitutionally homosexual, possibly even at the genetic level. Various scientific and biological arguments have been advanced in support of this belief. It is argued that such people have not chosen to be homosexuals any more than other people have chosen to be heterosexual. Their sexual orientation is part of their very nature.
Another distinction closely related to that between constitutional and situational homosexuality is that between a pervert and an invert. A pervert, like the situational homosexual, is someone who is really heterosexual but occasionally indulges in homosexual acts. In other words, perverts distort their actual sexual orientation when they occasionally engage in homosexual sex. An invert, by contrast, is one who is genuinely homosexual. It is argued that homosexual intercourse by inverts is not a perversion or distortion because they are acting in accordance with their essential nature. They are constitutional or static homosexuals.
Traditional Attitudes to Homosexuality
In traditional Africa, homosexuality and lesbianism, same-sex intercourse and same-sex marriage were not mentioned in public. If they were mentioned at all, it was only in hushed tones. Given the traditional stress on procreation, even the idea of heterosexual intercourse without procreative intent was abhorrent. Homosexual intercourse was considered even more disgusting.
Two African leaders have articulated this strong feeling against homosexuality. Daniel Arap Moi, the former president of Kenya, is reported to have said: “Kenya has no room or time for homosexuals and lesbians. Homosexuality is against African norms and traditions and even in religion it is considered a great sin. Homosexuality is a scourge which runs counter to Christian teachings and African tradition.” Similarly, the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has said, “I find it extremely outrageous and repugnant to my human conscience that such immoral and repulsive organizations, like those of homosexuals who offend both against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society, should have any advocates in our midst or even elsewhere in the world.”
Mugabe blames Westerners for introducing homosexuality to Africa. However, it is historically false to assert that there were no same-sex relationships in traditional Africa. While there are no known records of same-sex marriages, homosexual relationships were known. In Northern Nigeria, some cultures had homosexual prostitutes called yan daudu. In the 1970s, these male prostitutes would come out annually to dance in the open square. Though female prostitutes were despised, male prostitutes were still more despised and were considered very degenerate.
Current Attitudes to Homosexuality in Africa
Over the past decade, homosexuality has moved from being a taboo topic to centre stage. One precipitating factor was the election in 2003 of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. This action created a crisis, with many African Anglican church leaders threatening to break away from the Anglican Communion. At a meeting of Anglican leaders in Zanzibar in 2007, the Rev. Peter Akinola and six other conservative archbishops refused to take communion with Katherine Jefferts Schori, the leader of the American Episcopalians.
Gay and lesbian rights groups are now speaking up and seeking legislation to protect homosexuals. In response, the governments of countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Rwanda have voiced their repugnance and anger at the idea that they should accept same-sex attractions and same-sex weddings. South Africa is the only African country in which such weddings are legal.
What are the main factors, apart from the election of Bishop Robinson, that account for this sudden change?
• Demands for freedom of speech and human rights. Today everybody has the right to express an opinion, even if their opinion is that of a minority or is ethically wrong. Taking a cue from their Western counterparts, homosexual advocates have come out of their closets and argue their case in terms of individual freedom and human rights, with the unflinching support of human rights organizations.
• Desire for morality to be based on empirical and scientific data. Psychological, social and empirical data have replaced biblical authority and religious conviction as authoritative guides to ethics and morality. In particular, homosexual advocates parade any scientific evidence that suggests that being homosexual is not a matter of choice but of constitution, regardless of whether the evidence is conclusive. Their argument is that if something is innate, it must be acceptable.
• Erosion and abandonment of traditional values and beliefs. Africa is experiencing a rapid erosion of the values and traditions that held the community together. A new generation of Africans are rejecting traditional beliefs and practices as backward and unacceptable in this scientific and post-Christian age. The community, which used to be the arbiter of morality, is no longer seen as authoritative. Elders have lost their place in the education and training of the younger generation. Fathers cannot tell their sons what is right and wrong, and mothers cannot do the same for their daughters. The god of individualism has been promoted by the all-powerful media and is the new source of authority and allegiance.
• Rejection of biblical revelation and ecclesiastical faith and practice. People’s world view is no longer shaped by the Scriptures and the church. Instead it is shaped by secular, humanistic thinking. Such thinking singles out love as the most important factor in marriage, and regards the question of whether those in love are heterosexual or homosexual as irrelevant. It is the presence of love that is decisive. Consequently the very definition of marriage is being challenged. In South Africa, the Marriage Act originally defined marriage as “the union of one man with one woman”, but after a legal challenge it was changed to “the voluntary union of two persons”. Such a change marks a clear rejection of the biblical and Christian definition of marriage.
• Advances in reproductive technology. In Africa, people got married in order to have children. However, these days “technology has broken the link between sexual intercourse and procreation; and this, in turn, has made the connection between intercourse and marriage unnecessary”. Homosexuals can now use medical options to have children without committing themselves to heterosexual relationships.
Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality
Homosexuality has existed for centuries. Plato’s Symposium makes it clear that love between men was widely known and accepted among the ancient Greeks. The prohibitions against homosexual relations in the Old Testament also indicate that such relationships were prevalent among the surrounding nations.
The first human inhabitants of the world that God created were a man and a woman (Gen 1:27). This first couple set the paradigm for marriage and sexuality, as the narrator of Genesis clearly states: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This position is endorsed by Jesus in 19:4–5. The relationship between Adam and Eve was clearly sexual, for the very next verse states that “the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Gen 2:25). The sexual relationship between a man and a woman is again endorsed in Genesis 4:1, which states that “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth”, where the word “lay” clearly refers to sexual intercourse. One can confidently say that Scripture teaches that heterosexuality is the norm. Homosexuality must thus be a deviation from this norm.
In its presentation of homosexuality, Scripture does not discuss whether this condition is innate or situational. What it does do is focus on legislation regarding homosexual acts and incidents of homosexual behaviour. The following are some of the key biblical passages.
• Genesis 19:1–11. The men of Sodom who wanted to rape Lot’s visitors were homosexuals. Lot told them that such behaviour was wicked, but they refused to listen to him. Their behaviour and their lack of repentance brought divine judgment on their city.
• Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. These two verses form part of what is known as the Holiness Code in Leviticus. They strongly condemn lying “with a man as one lies with a woman”. They describe such behaviour as “detestable” and prescribe the death penalty for male homosexuals.
• Judges 19 tells the story of a Levite who ended up in a similar situation to Lot’s visitors. He was on a journey and had to spend the night in the town of Gibeah. He was offered hospitality by an old man, but that night “some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, ‘bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him’.” They were clearly homosexuals bent on raping the male guest, even though the old man described their actions as “vile” and “disgraceful”.
• Romans 1:26–27. Paul describes male and female homosexuals as idolatrous and wicked, and as acting in a way that is contrary to nature: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” He has no doubt that homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion of the heterosexuality that God established at creation.
• 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:9–10. Paul groups homosexuality with other sins such as murder, adultery and idolatry. He states that all those who practice these vices, including homosexuals, “will not inherit the kingdom of God”.
Clearly, Scripture has a very negative view of homosexual intercourse. It makes it clear that those who engage in such behaviour do not enjoy divine favour and will attract both present and future condemnation and judgment. Any attempt to justify homosexuality and homosexual acts is foreign to the Scripture.
The Christian Response to Homosexuals
Given what Scripture has to say about homosexuality, how should the church and individual Christians respond to homosexuals and to the homosexual agenda?
The first point that must be made is that the church must not abandon the biblical position. Christians must accept that the Scriptures are the final authority in matters of faith and practice and provide the guidelines and qualifications for membership in Christ’s church. For example, one cannot call Jesus Lord and also confess that Buddha is Lord because that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. In the same way, one cannot approve of same-sex acts when the Bible explicitly condemns them. The Bible must be our yardstick for measuring what is right and wrong.
It follows that we cannot accept same-sex marriage. The scriptural view of marriage is that it is a relationship between a male and a female, and that sex should only take place within marriage. But these days society teaches that sex is purely a biological function, unrelated to marriage, and marriage is assumed to be based solely on love. Thus it is assumed that as long as two people love and care for each other, it does not matter whether they are both the same sex. We need to work to correct this shallow understanding of marriage.
But while we should refuse to condone homosexuality and same-sex marriage, we must be compassionate in our dealings with homosexuals. We do not have to agree with their behaviour or with their argument that it must be accepted, but we should listen to them compassionately and respectfully. Listening does not mean compromising our position.
We must also remember that homosexuality is not the only heinous sin in our world. Besides homosexuality, Paul’s list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 includes sexual immorality, adultery, greed, drunkenness, slander and fraud. These sins are equally wicked and evil. Yet those who have committed these sins have been accepted into our churches if they turn to Christ and turn away from their evil practices. We should do no less for homosexuals. The church must be willing to extend warm acceptance to those who have changed their ways.
Conclusion
The current debate on homosexuality is complex and troubling. As shown in the discussion above, the issues involved include “the meaning of human sexuality, the interpretation of Scripture, the use of empirical data, and the criteria for evaluation of moral action”.
One’s position on whether some people are homosexual by nature or choice will affect one’s response to the psychological, social and biological arguments regarding homosexuality. So will one’s view of science, particularly when it comes to the weight that should be given to empirical data when making judgments about human conduct. Those who have a relativistic view of ethics will tend to view homosexuality as a purely subjective and personal matter.
Christians need to give due weight to empirical and scientific arguments, but should never compromise their basic submission to the teaching of Scriptures. From a biblical point of view, homosexuality is a manifestation of our sinful nature and is contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. As Helmut Thielicke puts it,
Homosexuality cannot be put on the same level with the normal created order of the sexes; rather it is a habitual or actual distortion or depravation of it. It follows from this that the homosexual is called upon not to affirm his status or a priori to idealize it—any more than any other pathological disorder can be affirmed a priori—but rather regard and recognize his condition as something that is questionable.
In other words, homosexuality may indeed sometimes be innate, but that may merely reflect the fact that the fall has corrupted our human natures in many ways. We should not naively derive an “ought” from an “is”, and so we cannot say that the fact that homosexuality exists means that it ought to be accepted.
