Saturday, July 21, 2012

Gay Alternative

A while back I posted a suggestion that Christians can use science to argue against the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) agenda. I do not think that believers should use Biblical arguments in the public square. The highly charged anti-Christian bias in the media and academia overshadows any truth that might be applied directly from the Scriptures. Besides, this is a pluralistic republic; no one religious view is supposed to be imposed on anyone.

Just because we cannot use Biblical arguments in public does not mean they are invalid at home. A mom recently asked for my input with her treatment of a family member being indoctrinated with GLBT propaganda. She had formulated a well-reasoned three prong approach to which I may add a fourth after laying some philosophical groundwork.

We must accept as a foundational truth that some things in the Bible are timeless. We categorically reject the GLBT suggestion that God's injunction against homosexuality was cultural; it is rooted in who we are as creatures in God's image, not how we socialize as humans. That being said, the proscriptions in Leviticus and Paul's exposition in Romans 1 clearly place homosexual behavior out of bounds for sincere believers. There is absolutely no hermeneutic basis for saying that since "only" Paul forbids homosexuality and not Jesus, it is therefore an acceptable practice. I will return to this idea in conclusion.

The second reason the mom chose to defend an anti-gay position is that it is unhealthy. In the post I referenced earlier I linked to an article by the Family Research Council which exposed the health risks of the GLBT lifestyle. Plainly summarized, homosexuals die far younger than heterosexuals. This is due to numerous behaviors associated with gay sex which expose them to multiple diseases in addition to the HIV/aids risk. Believers must warn against all lifestyle choices which endanger health: smoking, excessive alcohol use, workaholism, overeating, and the like.

And while science is the topic, we must counter the argument that there is some genetic or biological cause for homosexual tendencies. No widely accepted, peer-reviewed study has shown any such causal relationship. Even if it were to be discovered, a bio/genetic link would not make the behavior any safer or less sinful. Also, to call something a healthy alternative lifestyle because it is genetic is like saying autism or Down Syndrome or Parkinson's disease are "healthy alternatives." Nonsense; they are aberrations, not "normal" alternatives.

The mom's final point was to remind us that we are called to love sinners regardless of the sin by which they are ensnared. For some reason we tend to create classes of sin which engender a more visceral response. We can love the thief, but hate the pedophile; excuse the glutton or gossip, but condemn the lesbian; support the adulterer, but excommunicate the homosexual. Sin is sin, and we are all sinners saved (or not saved) by grace. Our love is to mirror God's: universal and unconditional.

Having said that, I do believe there is a reason why perversions of a sexual nature get more attention. First, God created humanity as male and female. This dual nature comes closer to representing God's image than either gender could singly. Add the fact that normal male/female association eventually begets children (within God's ordained structure: marriage) and you have the fullest picture of the image of God. I believe the family was intended to come closest to representing the triune character of the Creator: Father, Son, Holy Spirit mirrored by father, mother, child. Mess with the family and you mess with the imageo dei. I believe the strong injunction against aberrant sexual behavior is rooted in the desire of God to protect his image in his creation.

The second reason that sexual sin seems worse is closely related and stems from its unique spiritual nature. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 that sexual sin affects humans at a deeper spiritual level than other sins. It is my opinion that this is because of the unique bond that God intended to be formed between a man and wife, ultimately producing children.  The intimacy of the conjugal act is reserved for the husband/wife relationship because it speaks to the deepest part of who we are as divine image bearers. All sin tarnishes the image, but Paul suggests that sexual sin actually is in a class by itself.

Many Christians reject this kind of thinking as too harsh, too unforgiving. Post-modernism drifts away from all absolutes of any kind. The uncomfortable truth is that Scripture clearly makes absolute statements about many things. Anyone hoping to forge a Biblical world-view must come to grips with the discomfort of absolute truth. It's either that or make it up as you go along. Inventing reality, playing make-believe is fine for children. It looks kind of foolish in adults.

No comments:

Post a Comment