Navigation Menu

Poll Question

Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? Please discuss below.


Author: Staff

View more articles by Staff.

Share This Post On
  • Jim Lockhart

    The Bible is quite clear: homosexuality (better described as “same sex attraction”) is a sin of condition and a sexual act with someone of the same gender is a sin of behavior. Homosexuality as a condition is one of being (i.e. what the person sees himself or herself as “being” – the person will usually describe himself or herself as: “I am a homosexual” and they will then usually say they feel they were “born this way”). Same sex attraction is an essential disruption of self (what the Catholics call an “objective disorder”) that is caused by Sin as the general condition of the world. Being attracted to others of the same sex is a sensual disorder that can be brought about by Sin as destroyer (sexual abuse, physical abuse, bullying, brutality, rape, etc.) which creates the damage of nurture or it can be wrought by the sin inherent in the realm of the Prince of the Air where emotional, physical, sexual, and other inherent needs or disorders can affect sexuality. The condition of same sex attraction is typically not a matter of choice; it is usually a matter of exterior influence such as outward personality (for example, a boy who “seems” effeminate is labeled a “queer” or a “faggot” by his peers – you can come to believe what people tell you that you are), emotional confusion (uncertainty about sexual feelings or the need to be loved and accepted by someone), or damage (abuse or rape). No matter, the condition itself is sin because it is not how God desires our being.

    The condition of same sex attraction sets up the struggle with behavior (i.e. engaging in a homosexual act) and behavior is always a matter of choice. A person disordered has to decide, as an individual creation of God, how to act in light of these feelings and the explicit statements against homosexual acts in the Word. What the individual will struggle with are feelings that can be so compelling that it might seem to be who they are as persons on the level of being. It requires answering the question: Do the compelling sensual feelings I have for my same sex define who I am or does God define who I am? The answer lies in the Word, from the story of Adam and Eve to Paul’s clear statements in his letters. The tragedy is that the sin of condition can lead to the sin of behavior which can then fix the condition as being.

    I know this explanation is not what you would normally expect but I believe it is the truth of same sex attraction (in which I include homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism, cross-dressing, and other aspects of gender confusion) and is why I believe the question is neither well-phrased nor helpful. First, we seem to want to reduce homosexuality to a simplicity that denies the actual struggle a person afflicted with same sex attraction has to fight. It is almost like we need a neat little box where we can classify people without having to actually deal with the underlying struggle faced by the person. If we cannot understand, empathize, or even sympathize with the individual and his or her struggle, we cannot do worthwhile ministry. Second, without an understanding of the condition of homosexuality, we cannot find the humility necessary to show love. We must understand that the sin of condition is something each of must fight alone with the world and with the help of the Word, prayer, confession, the example of Jesus, the fellowship of the Church, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Sin as a condition is a universal struggle and is why we (and the world) so desperately need the gospel. If we can see same sex attraction as a condition of our sinful nature, we have a connection with someone afflicted with same sex attraction. This connection can make us more willing to minister and offer the gospel in love and acceptance without necessarily approving of the condition. Finally, the question makes it seem like we just need to create a neat category of “sin”, vote on it, and then we can then just brush our hands together and tell ourselves that we have done all we need to do. We have declared it sin, we have declared those afflicted sinners, now what more do we need to do? The answer, so far as I can see it, is nothing.

    The better question would have been: What can we do to minister to those (afflicted by homosexuality or same sex attraction) (caught up in the homosexual lifestyle) (confused about what the world is saying about homosexuality)? The Baptist Messenger is uniquely situated to initiate and sustain a discussion where Oklahoma Baptists can give different perspectives, offer and consider testimonies, and make suggestions for ministry. Out of such discussion we can perhaps establish the outlines of a genuine ministry among Oklahoma Baptists. There is much to be said, much to be done, and much to be asked of our community of faith to minister to those afflicted with same sex attraction. Dr. Mohler and other leaders in our community have recognized that homosexuality is the moral issue of our times. It is crucial because the world has deemed us immoral and hateful in our attitudes toward homosexuals. The only answer we have is the gospel as it written and lived by us. We need more than the Word as a declaration of sinfulness; we need the whole gospel of life, hope, redemption, salvation, justification, forgiveness, confession, reconciliation, and new personality. We need to get this one right and the Baptist Messenger can help.

  • Sam Lee

    The question is the wrong question. What should be asked is: To what extent is the Bible authoritative on the subject? We all know what is clearly written about it. It could not be written more clearly. And it occurs in more than one place. But does it count? For example, the argument given by Presbyterians for their recent policy modification is that it doesn’t count because the Bible was written by people; so the Biblical proscription of homosexuality is nothing more than the prejudice of some human authors. Which leads to the logical conclusion that the Bible is no more authoritative than a book by Tammy Faye Bakker.

    While we have no way to put the question of authorship directly to the Almighty, what we can say is that if we accept the Presbyterian viewpoint, then it becomes perfectly OK for me to hate homosexuals, wish plagues of boils on Presbyterians, and openly treat both groups with blatant disrepect to extent that secular law allows. There being no authoritative documentation of the will of the Creator (all Biblical writing being merely the opinions of humans), then no church has any authority to bless or condemn any behavior; and the church becomes little more than a bunch of astrologers who make pronouncements for consumption by their flakey followers. (That portrayal, by the way, being the long term goal of the popular media.)

    Although, internally, the church can point to a clear Biblical definition of homosexual behavior as sin, this is a losing strategy for the cultural debate. The strategy of GLBT is to get homosexuality (for now, bisexuality later) legally defined, in an oblique way, as the equivalent of a racial minority: i.e. “Gay is the new black.” This is what is behind the equal protection argument for homosexual (for now, bisexual later) marriage. We also see this in the latest mandate to the California public schools.

    To counter this, one must apply science, rather than religion, to refute claims of genetics and biology (the basis for being a pseudo racial or ethnic minority). It essentially comes down to responding to the claim of being the new black with “No, you’re not.”

    A quick comment about the English language. Charges of “intolerance” and “homophobe” are blathered at those who refuse to buy a chunk of the GLBT real estate. Tolerance means thinking something is wrong but choosing to put up with it. Tolerance does not mean accepting it is right. If you think it’s right, then you’re not tolerating it. For the most part, Christians (yea, even Baptists) have been very tolerant of homosexuals for quite some time. And disagreement is not phobia (fear); it’s disagreement. We should insist on correct usage of the language.

    On homosexual marriage: The percentage of people who claim they are and want the legal status of marriage is so small that their getting that status is of virtually no consequence. What is of consequence is the social attitude about marriage that would lead to agreeing it makes any social sense: essentially, that marriage is all about YOU and what makes YOU happy. Since it’s all about your happiness, and homosexuals (for now, bisexuals later) are a pseudo racial minority entitled to the same happiness as other racial groups, then we are required to give them their happiness.

    If that’s all it is, then, as some editorials writers have recently suggested, the state should get out of the marriage business for everybody leaving it to people to establish living arrangements of their choice and call those living arrangements whatever they want to call them. The rationale is that if the state gets nothing from it, then it makes no sense for the state to put anything into it.

    However, I think (granted, not a historical expert here) a historical perusal of marriage will show that, in the vast majority of cases, it was established for social purposes. Societies established the legal status because it served to benefit the society — especially with the production and raising of the next generation (and getting the financial dead weight of daughters into somebody else’s house). It should be beyond debate that the status of marriage as a social responsibility in the USA has slipped so far that it has driven the illegitimacy rate to the point of causing widespread poverty, crime, and the decline in public education.

    One hears that extending marriage to homosexuals (for now, bisexuals later) won’t cause a mass decline in the status of marriage. Maybe not. But that isn’t the problem. The problem is that the social responsibility aspect of marriage has already declined too far and needs to be restored. But it can’t be restored because the only way homosexual marriage makes any social sense is if we lock in the purpose of marriage as being nothing more than a living arrangement for your personal happiness — something to which you are entitled, until you decide you’re not being “fulfilled” anymore and get out.

    While we might view it as sin, for the social debate what needs to be made clear is that, as a social responsibility for strengthening and providing for the future of society, homosexual marriage serves about as much purpose as a tricycle for a cat.

Read previous post:
Guest Editorial: How to win the culture war

by Paul Moody How can Christians win, in the culture war that is raging in our nation? In the first...