What the Bible Teaches about Homosexuality

The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) has voted to ordain practicing homosexuals.

Before the amendment, the constitution required clergy to live “in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” The amendment instead requires ministers to “submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.”

This is sad news indeed. Somehow the PCUSA has decided that homosexual conduct is consistent with submission “to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life.” Even though the Bible unambiguously prohibits homosexual behavior, the PCUSA is now claiming to submit to Christ’s Lordship while setting aside Christ’s teaching as revealed in scripture (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). This shows that the real issue here is biblical authority—something that was set aside a long time ago in many churches of the PCUSA.

Here are some of STR's resources on what the Bible does teach about this issue.

This week's feature article by Alan Shlemon addresses a common objection, "Jesus Never Said Anything about Homosexuality.  Does It Matter?"

Greg's teaching on common misunderstandings about what the Bible teaches: 'Setting the Record Straight:  The Bible and Homosexuality"

Comments

[Ken]

Looks to me like the change would also allow for their leaders to engage in heterosexual fornication without rebuke, too. The news media spin on this has misled in indicating that the PCUSA, until now, barred people with homosexual feelings from serving, when it has been behavior that has been the issue. I've written about this already on my blog (click me). Glad STR is covering it.

[RonH]

And if what the Bible 'teaches' is just so much ink on a page?

[Bill]

... And if RonH asks leading rhetorical questions (again and again)?

[thomas]

"And if what the Bible 'teaches' is just so much ink on a page?"

What if that question is just binary on the internet?

[dave]

While this law is no doubt bad news for many Christians who have invested their lives, time and money in the PCUSA, many others who are condemning the new stance on Homosexuals promote adultery in their own pulpits and congregations.

Just as Scripture clearly teaches against Homosexuality, it also teaches against the re-marriage of divorced people calling it adultery.

[TomD]

As someone who lived the homosexual lifestyle for 11 years and gave it up for Christ, this is deeply troubling. I know what the homosexual lifestyle is about and it is anything but these innocent lovelies that the media portrays to us as just wanting the same rights as any heterosexual couple. They have all the rights that any other single person has.

What is the point of homosexual marriage anyway? They can not have children, and their whole lifestyle is about, defined by and lived for sex. This has no place in Christianity. Let them truly repent and give their lives to God the way I and many others have. I am deprived of NO rights.

[RonH]

Bill and thomas,

Perhaps the question has no impact on you but I had my gay friends, neighbors, and family in mind when I asked it.

Do you really object to the style I used? What style can I adopt then to raise the issue so that you will not make the style the issue?

RonH

[Ron Henzel]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. Apparently this kind of story is no longer considered newsworthy by the major Web news outlets. My search for this story on Google News produced only local links.

[thomas]

It's not the style of the question necessarily Ron, it seems like that kind of question reduces any authority to nothing, gainsaying to the nth degree.

Do you disagree with the Biblical text on this point only or on all (most) points? If just this point, then maybe some refutation (dealing within the Biblical framework) is in order.

I don't want to cause unneccesary hurt to anyone, but I also want to take the Bible seriously.

Do you have friends, family or neighbors who are or are seeking to be clergy in the PCUSA?

[Bruce Byrne]

dave,

There are biblical exceptions to the "remarriage=adultery" teaching. I would agree that the church has not taken this teaching seriously enough, but don't think any comparison with homosexual behavior is justified. I'm inclined to see them as separate issues.

[dave]

>Bruce, if you are thinking of the "except clause" in Matthew 19:9, it doesn't work. The innocent woman having been put away by an adulterous husband in the first part of the verse, still commits adultery along with her new husband when they marry.

Adultery damns the soul just as homosexuality does, so it is the same weight of an issue.

[Bruce Byrne]

dave,

Your interpretation of Matthew 19: 9 is not shared by the majority of Christians. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has issued a position paper on divorce and remarriage that I believe is faithful to the biblical texts and represents the majority position within Christianity. You can find it at:
http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/divorce--remarriage/

To others:

The issue within the PC(USA) is whether or not unrepentant sinners (of any variety) can be ordained to high office. The majority hold that repentance from sin is required before ordination; a minority hold that homosexual behavior is not sinful per se and thus no repentance is necessary per se. The minority have taken control of the political apparatus of the denomination and here we are. There are many, many faithful pastors and members within the PC(USA) who are struggling to find a faithful response to this latest development. They would appreciate your prayers.

[dave]

>The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has issued a position paper on divorce and remarriage that I believe is faithful to the biblical texts and represents the majority position within Christianity.

>> Those in the PCUSA also believe their stance on Homosexuals is faithful to the biblical texts.

The Protestant Reformed Church on the other hand has a very solid rebuttal of your position.

[RonH]

Hi thomas,

Allow the possibility that the Bible's stance on this point is not Right, capital 'R', and you have to consider the view that the Bible's view is wrong.

Many other Biblical stances don't threaten to flip in this way. Maybe the Bible isn't Right about murder - most alternatives would still hold that the Bible is right, small 'r', on this point.

RonH

[Paul Rodden]

I'm wondering what the staff of STR will do if/when their own denomination(s) does the same thing?

Will they leave and join another that condemns homosexuality? And what if that one caves in? Start their own, or end up a Phelpist, if that's the only one left?

It's taken 500 years for the real effects of the Protestant Revolt to percolate through, but it's now firing on all cylinders, and it's only going to escalate more rapidly. There's nothing to stop it rolling down the slippery relativist slope now the Bible's been kicked away from underneath it.

I wonder whether it's going to be a celebration or last rites in 2017?

[FrankK]

Homosexual behavior wasn't an issue that had an effect on human societies until Martin Luther found a nail big enough to go through the whole 95 theses?

Seriously, I know I twisted your words a bit and I hope that you take what I wrote as "tongue in cheek" as I wrote it, but Paul, the church has been struggling with the issue of homosexuality since long before Oct 31, 1511. Consider the condemnation of "rapists of little boys" in Canon 71 of the Council of Elvira back in 305 AD, the condemnation of male homosexuals in Canons 9 and 10 of the Council of Neoceasarea from 314 to 325 AD. When was Christianity legalized in the Roman Empire, 313 or so? Those councils predated the Roman Catholic Church, and even if they didn't, those condemnations show that it's been a problem in the church for a very long time. And guess what? All the condemnations and adopting of new rules didn't fix the problem. The magesterium, concerned, compassionate and brilliant men to be sure, didn't fix the problem. You might probably have somewhere in your library a copy of everything produced by the Council of Nicea; check out Canon 9. For a more concise and easily obtained history of how deeply the issue of homosexuality has affected the Roman Catholic Church even until modern times, take a gander at Nicholas Cafardi's "Before Dallas"; chapter 1 should convince you that even though I lack the sort of religious and philosophical insight of most of the people here, I just might be onto something. My point is that homosexuality isn't a "Protestant" issue and we are not alone in having to deal with it in our churches. It's a human issue, the consequences of which every church, including yours, struggles with; we know that because every church has left a paper trail of how they've tried to deal with it.

If you look at Bruce Byrne's comment, you'll see an even more insidious problem, too. It's not just about homosexuality. In "Love Your God With All Your Mind", Dr. Moreland suggests that one of the big problems is that we've made a horrible transition from being an "ideational" society to being "sensate", with the fantastic consequence of that transition being that the society fails because it lacks the intellectual firepower to govern itself. That again isn't a "Protestant" problem; it's a human problem. What Bruce points out is that the PC(USA) is being victimized by a minority who have figured out a way to impose their will on a body of faithful believers who constitute the majority. That should be grim news for all of us, not just reformed Christians.

[FrankK]

I probably should have read my comment a third time before I posted it, as I dragged issues about child molestation into the discussion about homosexuality to try to say that the church has always been dealing with issues of Biblically proscribed sexual acts. I think I equivocated and really didn't need to do it in order to make the point I was trying to make. My apologies to everyone.

[Mo]

Thank you for your bold testimony, TomD! Whenever I get into discussions on this topic, I mention the many people such as yourself, who have left this lifestyle behind.

There's never any response to it. Apparently, you don't exist! (But I know you, for I have known others like you.)

God bless you!

[Mo]

(Ugh, I wish STR would implement editing capability on its commenting system.)

The last line in my prior comment should read:

(But I know you DO (exist), for I have known others like you.)

[InRussetShadows]

Someone out there thinks that "sola Scriptura" implies that homosexuality is not sinful. *shaking head* I really don't even know what to say to such leaps of logic except to point out that's what they are. The practice of homosexuality is fairly common in the RC priesthood and has been a problem for straight men seeking the priesthood for many years.

[InRussetShadows]

I doubt anyone here much cares for the proposition that the Bible is incorrect, Ron. Do you have a motivation besides being a troll? I'm just curious.

[RonH]

Alright Mo,

What does TomD's 'testimony' say about other people that requires a response? What does their 'testimony' say about TomD?

Given the biological factors the term 'lifestyle' is, at best, incomplete.

InRussetShadows,

I think there are others here that would agree with me that What if I'm wrong? is a great question to ponder.

I gave one motivation above: my friends, neighbors, and family members. Another is my passion for the truth. Another is an desire to understand the Christian views and stances I find expressed here.

RonH

[Brad B]

"I think there are others here that would agree with me that What if I'm wrong? is a great question to ponder:

It's not a question I haven't considered RonH, it's got to be asked once someone engages in a introspective investigation where the rules of logic determines what will be accepted as true in the ultimate sense if possible.

So, it has been asked and answered with the biblical revelation passing the coherency test like no other writings claiming such authority and governance over the thoughts of mankind. I know you have your doubts about that, but I dont think you've ever wrestled with the uncertainty and skepticism that your favored authority[sense perception] yeilds. When the Bible mocks the builder who builds on a foundation of sand, it is talking about just this. Christian thought is sitting squarely on the Rock of pure knowledge and the Author of pure Reason, the divine Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Those who reject this foundation have nothing substantial to build even subsequent coherent propositions upon. Those subsequent coherent propositions in and of themselves pass the test of coherency but are ungrounded--resting on opinions and assertions of men. Under scrutiny, they ultimately fail the coherency test plainly such that even a novice logician can see it--if he's open to see. Yet men suppress the truth in unrighteousness even in the the face bare naked spectacle, that is hiding in the open only because of an unwillingness not an inadequacy in ability to use logic.

Well, I am not going to go on, I only want you to understand that your search for truth is not really all that honest--although I believe you are sincere in your estimation that you are aiming at honesty in search of truth, but in fact you're under the control of a deceiver not, but not uncommon to all mankind under Adam.

Your demeanor here on this blog is admirable, so I dont mind interacting with you, nor do I think you are a troll, but I hope at some time your understanding is unboud in the future.

The Word of God says this [and also many other things] regarding the noetic effects of sin on man. I hope you'll consider reading thoughtfully:

Eph 4:17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,

Eph 4:18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

Eph 4:19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

May God have mercy on those we interact with.