The new Archbishop of Canterbury has knowingly ordained homosexual clergy. A Conservative MP declared himself gay last summer and his Party has used their acceptance of that fact as evidence that they are moving with the times. There is a pro-gay tide flowing and holding to traditional Christian standards of sexual morality is becoming increasingly difficult. 

The homosexual issue is an explosive one. To voice any reservations or disagreement with the direction of gay liberation almost inevitably invites attack and accusations of homophobia. However, we must not be bamboozled by gay activists or our current permissive culture. We must seek to be Biblical, loving and rational in our stance. Enemies of historic Christian sex ethics can be found both inside and outside the church. 

How to Argue within the Church

Within the church Scripture must be our authoritative guide, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. For those who claim to be within the church but do not accept Scripture, we need to move to the kind of arguments we will use later in the article for those outside the church. In his book ‘Issues Facing Christians Today’ (IVP) John Stott identifies basically four groups of texts which mention the matter of homosexuality directly. 

Genesis 19:1-13 (cf Judges 19)

Here we have an example of attempted homosexual gang rape (v5) which brings down the judgement of God. The original text uses the word know. The crowd wanted to ‘know’ those inside Lot’s house. This word can have its natural meaning of simply ‘becoming acquainted’ with someone or something. But it is also used in Scripture of sexual relations, Genesis 4:1. Some gay sympathisers have expressed the idea that a desire for sexual relations was not involved here, but rather that the crowd were concerned to know whether the strangers who had been admitted to the town were hostile. However, this construction is false. That Lot’s daughters were (inexcusably) offered to the crowd implies a sexual connotation to the episode, vv7-8. Further, the NT book of Jude plainly interprets the actions of the men of Sodom in terms of sexual perversion, Jude v7.

But here homosexual gang rape is in view and it may be argued that this text therefore does not pertain to ‘loving’ gay relationships. Therefore we must look further into Scripture.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

These texts, clearly forbidding men lying together as with a woman, are part of the holiness code for Israel. To get around them the interpretation is put forward that the prohibition is not of ordinary homosexual acts but of such acts performed in religious ritual. However, the context is against such an approach. For example, a similar argument would then make ‘ordinary’ adultery (not performed in a religious setting) permissible, cf Leviticus 18:20. This is plainly contrary to the seventh commandment, Exodus 20:14, Romans 13:9. Therefore we cannot accept the ‘religious ritual’ argument concerning homosexual acts.  

Romans 1:26-27

Here Paul speaks of homosexuality in terms of arising as a result of God’s judgement on godless society, as he gives people up to go their own way, vv24,26,28. The argument is brought that Paul is only referring to casual sex here and not to committed loving relationships. But that is to impose a distinction on the text which is not there.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10

These are two lists of sins which are incompatible with the kingdom of God, the law of God and the gospel. Again the argument is brought that these do not refer to committed loving relationships, but again there is no evidence for that. In the 1 Corinthians passage there are two Greek words relating to homosexuality. Of these words Jim Packer has commented, ‘arsenokoitai means literally male bedders…the second, malakoi is used in many connections to mean unmanly, womanish and effeminate, and here refers to males matching the woman’s part in physical sex,’ (Vestry Meeting, at St. John’s, Shuaghnessy, Vancouver, 2002). Notice also here that Paul affirms that people can be saved and change from homosexual lifestyles as he tells the Corinthians, ‘that is what some of you were,’ 1 Corinthians 6:11.

Traditional Christian attitudes do not just hang on these few texts. The prohibitions of homosexual practice in Scripture make sense only in the light of the positive teaching in Genesis 1 and 2 about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage - teaching specifically endorsed by our Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 19:4-6. 

This creation basis for sexual ethics answers the idea that the prohibitions of Scripture concerning homosexual acts were only relevant to the cultures of the Biblical times. Genesis is foundational for all human cultures. It also answers the idea that the ‘love-quality’ of a homosexual relationship is enough to justify it. True love is concerned with the highest welfare of the beloved, and how can it be loving to ignore our Maker’s instructions for sexual relationships? (See Romans 13:9 etc.)

How to Argue outside the Church

Christians interact with neighbours, colleagues, family and friends who are not Christians. Obviously just to quote the Bible to them will not suffice. They do not believe the Bible. How are we to rationally stand for God’s ways in a way which will be helpful and make sense to them? We believe God is loving. We believe that the laws which he has given are actually best for human beings. Therefore, once we know the facts, we should be in a position to put a case which is reasonable and will commend the Christian position and deliver us from the charge of being unkind, irrational and bigoted. There are at least three areas where we can try to make reasonable points in this debate.

Health

Medical professionals are clear that homosexual activity is very dangerous. ‘The shape of the bowel is not intended for the purpose of sexual intercourse. The muscle of the anal sphincter has to be forced open. The lining of the bowel is a single cell layer. As a result there is trauma and tearing. The semen action damages the bowel lining and the consequence is easy entrance to bacteria and viruses,’ Professor Elizabeth Duncan (Christian Institute Literature). Even the Durex condom manufacturer, on their website, have advised against anal sex.

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph at the time of the Parliamentary debate over the lowering of the age of consent a group of doctors said, ‘We believe that the health risks of anal sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, have been hushed up either because of a reluctance to speak about the subject, or by political correctness.’ The letter went on to speak of the fact that homosexual activity is connected with premature death.

Family 

Homosexual relationships are promoted as an ‘alternative lifestyle.’ This immediately asks a question of traditional family life. But historically it has always been some form of heterosexual marriage which has provided the backbone of every stable society. How can homosexual relationships be an ‘alternative lifestyle’ when there is no natural possibility of procreation? To put it bluntly, if all the world were gay humanity would die out.

Further the idea that to grow up in a homosexual family makes no difference to children (adopted or otherwise) is open to serious debate. In a recent project lesbian and single heterosexual mothers were recruited in the years 1976-7. The families were followed up in 1992-3, when the children were adults. Research found that 14 of the 25 young adults reared in lesbian homes had considered having a lesbian or gay relationship, compared with only 3 of the 21 young adults reared by single heterosexual mothers. In addition 6 of the 25 from lesbian homes had been involved in a sexual relationship with one or more people of the same sex, whereas none of those from heterosexual homes had had a same sex relationship, (see Letters, British Medical Journal, 24/8/2002).

Of course, some people may not be concerned if young people choose gay relationships. But the fact must be faced that there is a difference in the children. And if we take seriously the doctors’ warnings of the health risks involved in homosexual acts we ought to be concerned about young people getting into gay relationships.

Society

Many gay people are sensitive people and extremely caring towards others. But it can be argued that to choose a homosexual lifestyle precludes a person from contributing to the general good of society in various ways. For example, because of the health risks involved in homosexual sex the UK Blood Transfusion Service will not accept blood from any man who has ever had sex with another man, even if it was ‘safe sex’ with a condom.

To disengage sex totally from procreation also brings difficulties to society. The British government recently admitted for the first time that the decline in births may threaten National Insurance. The current ratio of 3.4 working people for every retired person will have fallen to around 2.4 by the year 2030. It would be inaccurate and wrong to say that homosexual lifestyle alone is causing such difficulties. Much of youth culture promotes the same ‘sex for fun, forget responsibility’ outlook. But the gay philosophy is part of that individualistic and hedonistic outlook which is beginning to undermine society.    

The Christian church, for the good of society generally, needs to humbly stick to its Biblical position with respect to sexual ethics. We must lovingly seek to support those who seek to follow Christ but struggle in the area of sexual identity, acknowledging that we are all far from perfect and constantly in need of the grace of God.

Back to main articles page

Top of page