Recently, USA Today published an editorial written by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, a Baptist minister and author of the book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants To Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs The Job). In his editorial, he “questions” how the church is going to explain its position against homosexuality as “scientific evidence” will soon prove that the homosexual was “created” as a homosexual and did not choose to be one. The editorial followed a logical progression of thought and its conclusions are valid if its premise and substantiating facts are correct. But there we have a GIGANTIC problem! Cited below, in blue, are portions of Mr. Thomas’ editorial and a rebuttal of his “facts”
Before attacking the majority of what Mr. Thomas writes, there is a point where I must partially agree. (however, only partially!) he writes,
“Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.”
My disagreement with this statement is the word “only”. I believe the church has far more than JUST its moral authority. Foremost is the message of salvation and eternal life in the blood of Jesus Christ. But apart from that disagreement, Mr. Thomas is correct in that if the church loses its moral authority, it should “close up shop”. But the question is, “Where does the church derive its moral authority?”. The church’s moral authority is found in the Word of God- the Bible. While the Bible was recorded by man, it was recorded by the inspiration of God- it is HIS Word; not man’s. Therefore, when the church pronounces a position based on Scripture, it states what God has said about the issue.
Now, onto the arguments! Mr. Thomas has a fear that the church will lose its moral authority because the idea that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, as Bible-believers contend, will soon be proven false. He writes,
"This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice (emphasis mine). To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability."
I agree that if man is without choice, that is, if God made certain ones to be homosexuals, then how could God hold them culpable? But is there conclusive scientific evidence that states such? The answer is NO. Now I understand that his editorial was not meant to be a scientific thesis, but Mr. Thomas fails to even make any reference to any credible scientific studies. And what "evidence" there is, is by no means conclusive.
There is an old story of a number of blind men that stumbled into an elephant. One felt its legs and said that the elephant was like a huge tree. Another felt its tail and said that the elephant was like a rope. Another felt its ears, another felt its trunk and each came to a different conclusion as to what the elephant was like. Their evidence was accurate- it just yielded the wrong conclusion. Notice also the indecisiveness of Mr. Thomas' conclusion: it is either the mother's hormones, the child's brain structure, or DNA which causes homosexuality. Sounds like these scientists ran into an elephant! And since when do the laws of science state something "almost certainly"?
But the biggest problem with pinning homosexuality on a physical condition that leaves the person without choice is this. How can those who were homosexuals become heterosexuals? It is an absolute fact that some leave being a homosexual and adopt a heterosexual lifestyle. If they were born in a homosexual condition without choice, then there is no possibility of then changing sexual orientation. Some suggest that they are forced into a heterosexual lifestyle because of religious or societal pressure. But regardless of the motivation they are capable of changing and therefore, making a choice.
Mr. Thomas then goes onto explain that the reason Bible-believing folks are against homosexuality is that they misunderstand what the Bible teaches. He continues:
"So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all."
Unfortunately, the one who is misunderstanding Scripture is Mr. Thomas. He is correct in stating that if you accept one absolute (i.e. absolutes from the Old Testament), then you must accept them all. Mr. Thomas' solution to that is simply to disregard whatever he feels is not relevant to the church today. This is implied in his statement, "The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and a host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago." There is a reason why the church has "moved beyond" animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifices served as a temporary measure to cover the sins of man until "God [would] provide himself a lamb" (Genesis 22:8). God did just that in sending His Son, Jesus, who John the Baptist identified as, "the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The church today, no longer sacrifices animals because Jesus once and for all, died for our sins; we no longer need another sacrifice.
But another problem with the statement concerning accepting the Old Testament laws is that the laws given in the Old Testament pertained to the nation of Israel, not the church. That law did basically two things: it set forth the holiness of God and it instructed the Israelites how to live in light of that holiness. God's holiness does not change between the Testaments but how man is to live in response to it can and does. For example, Israel was commanded to observe the Sabbath day as a day of rest and worship. No such command is given to the church in the New Testament. However, man's constitution has not changed- we still need a day of rest and God is still worthy of worship and the church fittingly worships on Sunday, the day of the resurrection. The question then becomes, "What does the New Testament teach concerning homosexuality?". This will be addressed in a paragraph or two.
Mr. Thomas then goes on trying to justify homosexuality by citing Scripture which he believes proves his point. He violates his own principle of accepting one absolute and needing to accept them all. If what Leviticus says is no longer valid, then how can any other portion of Scripture be valid? Nonetheless, he writes,
"A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?"
The answer to Mr. Thomas' question is simple. The world that God created in Genesis 1 was ruined when sin entered into it in Genesis 3. If today's world was the same world that God created there would not be any war, any sickness or death, any poverty or lack, or anything that is immoral. But that is not the world we live in. We live in a sin-corrupted and consequently God-cursed world. In fact, Romans 3:10-12 states the exact opposite of what God pronounced in Genesis 1- "“As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” The homosexual did not exist in Genesis 1 so to say that God called the homosexual good is simply a perversion of Scripture.
Mr. Thomas then turns to the New Testament to seek support of his position. If perversion of biblical interpretation were an Olympic gymnastic event, Mr. Thomas would score a 10. He writes,
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely (emphasis mine) is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
Notice first of all the words I have emphasized, "most likely". In other words there is no certainty in Mr. Thomas' mind of his interpretation. The reason there can be no certainty is that his conclusion violates all the rules of good bible interpretation. There are no historical, contextual, grammatical, or linguistical reasons to limit what Paul writes to pederasty. He is interpreting Paul's writings to say what he wants them to say rather than what Paul wanted them to say. I assume Mr. Thomas is referring to the whole of Paul's writings on the subject since no specific verse or passage is given. If we look at the whole of Paul's writings on the subject we will see that Mr. Thomas has imposed his beliefs upon what Paul has said and us.
In Romans chapter 1 and verses 24 through 27, Paul addresses the issue with these words, "vile affections", "natural use", "against nature" and "unseemly". These adjectives are used to describe sexual relations "men with men" (verse 27) and woman with woman (verse 26- necessitated by the word "likewise" in verse 27). If Paul meant to limit his reference to pederasty he would have used the phrase, "men with child", but in that he specifically used "men with men", he clearly meant any homosexual relationship.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 6 and verse 9, Paul writes of those who are excluded from the kingdom of God. Included in the group are the effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. The word which is translated "effeminate" is the Greek word malakos, meaning soft and was a technical term describing the passive partner in a homosexual relationship (Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament, p. 402). The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" is translated from one Greek word, arsenokoites which is derived from the words arsen= a male, and koite= a bed. Literally, the word means, "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite" (The New Thayer's Greek English Lexicon, p. 74). Clearly, what Paul wrote includes the homosexual and is NOT limited to those who practiced pederasty.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul goes on to say that in order to avoid the sin of fornication (Greek word is porneia- a broad term including most if not all sexual sins) every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. While Mr. Thomas is correct in stating that promiscuity is condemned by the Bible, he is incorrect in stating that a monogamous relationship between homosexuals is permitted. Paul states that a man is to have a wife and a woman, a husband- nothing else! If monogamous homosexual relationships were included as permissible, then Paul would have needed to say something to the effect of, let every man have his own significant other.
In order to bolster his position, Mr. Thomas thinks he can appeal to the teachings of Jesus. He continues,
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat? On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
Once again, Mr. Thomas reveals his lack of biblical knowledge. Jesus did address the issue of homosexuality both directly and indirectly. Directly, He addresses the issue in Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21 where Jesus says, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” As before, the word "fornications" (porneia) encompasses homosexuality and is condemned by Jesus. He also indirectly addresses the subject in Matthew 19:5 where He speaks to the issue of divorce and cites Genesis 2:24, limiting a relationship to husband wife.
Mr. Thomas then states that the prohibition of Jesus against judging others and the admonition to love others should keep anyone from being critical of homosexuality. But there is no prohibition of judging in Matthew 7:1- there is only a prohibition of hypocritical judgment. In fact, as the passage goes on, when the person has removed the beam in his own eye, then he is to be involved in removing the mote in the other's eye which necessitates making a judgment. If all judgment were prohibited by Jesus, then He contradicted Himself in John 7:24 where He commanded that certain judgments be made of others. The Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 2:15 that a spiritually minded person judges all things. In context, the all things is limited to those things which are visible or manifested. I can not know what is going on in another's heart, therefore judging one's motivations is impossible and prohibited. But what a person does, or says is open to judgment and is commanded to be judged.
In citing Jesus' command to love one another, Mr. Thomas seems to think that loving means ignoring one's actions. Suppose there was a little child sitting in the middle of a street, playing and unaware of all that could happen to him. You are standing on the sidewalk near him. What should you do? According to Mr. Thomas' definition of love, the best thing to do is allow him to continue playing without even saying anything to him. But obviously that can not be loving. The loving thing to do is to encourage him to get off of the street. And if he refuses to respond to your command and you see the danger of an oncoming car, the heroic thing to do is to forcefully remove him from the street. The homosexuals are sitting in the street and there is an approaching car of God's judgment. If anyone truly loves the homosexual, they will seek to get them off of the street of sin.
Thinking that he has proven his case, that homosexuality is acceptable, Mr. Thomas seeks to correct the "error" of prejudice against the homosexual. He concludes his editorial, writing,
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered? The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Once again, if Mr. Thomas' premise (homosexuals are created that way- it is not a matter of choice) is correct, then his application in the preceding paragraph is appropriate. But, it is clear that his premise is not correct. Allow me to change the above scenario from a homosexual to a mass murderer. Should a person who is a mass murderer be allowed all the rights that non-murderers have? Obviously not. There are consequences to evil or immoral behavior. The mass murderer could have chosen not to murder, but he didn't, and therefore he and others lose certain rights. The homosexual can choose not to be a homosexual, but in choosing to behave in such a manner, he or she forfeits certain rights.
There is no train wreck coming for the church, at least not the church of Jesus Christ. In order for there to be a train wreck, the declaration of Scripture concerning homosexuality must be proven false and thusly, God proven to be a liar. The problem with comparing this issue with that in Galileo's day is that nowhere in Scripture did the Bible say the sun revolved around the earth. Yes, the church in Galileo's day was wrong, but it was wrong because it taught something Scripture did not. The problem with today's churches (what Mr. Thomas calls "mainstream religion") is that they too have left the authority of Scripture and are teaching things that the Bible does not. Jesus stated that He would build His church and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. There will be no train wreck for the church, but there may be one for Mr. Thomas' church.