Preface: This post was written as a classroom assignment directed at only two arguments. There are other arguments I do not deal with.
Argument #1: Experience of sound Christian teachings should show good fruit, not bad fruit. Studies show that LGB young adults are more likely to be depressed and suicidal when they experience family rejection. These are bad fruits, and we ought to reconsider the source of that fruit: our interpretation of Scripture. There are examples of reinterpreting Scripture based on past experiences: Not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised, and slavery.
This argument is correct in saying that faulty interpretations of Scripture can produce bad fruits. The first area where this argument falls short is the inference it draws from the study of young adults. It assumes that one’s non-affirming interpretation of Scripture necessarily leads to family rejection. Scripture never commands us to reject family members because of their sexual orientation. One may provide Luke 14:26 as a rebuttal to my assertion: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” However, this would be to take this passage out of context. Jesus here is speaking of denying oneself, not rejecting homosexual family members. In fact, anyone who rebukes children is repugnant to Christ (Mk 10:13-16). So what are the bad fruits? The argument seems to be that bad fruits are non-affirmative messages; but this is clearly arguing in a circle.
The source of our fruit is not in our interpretation of Scripture, but whether or not we are in Christ. A person may simultaneously hold correct interpretations of Scripture and bear bad fruit. Hence, a hermeneutic which employs personal experience as its truth-indicator is fallacious. Rather than imposing subjective experience onto the text, in a proper hermeneutic, the goal is to understand the text in its own right through various contexts. To conclude, this argument is not a strong one because it confuses the source of our fruit, and so, adopts a faulty hermeneutic.
Argument #2: The arc of Scripture points toward inclusion, not exclusion. Early Christians rejected certain forms of same-sex behavior—they rejected promiscuity in favor of monogamy. Scripture rejected promiscuous same-sex behaviors just as it did promiscuous heterosexual behaviors. Persons who were sexually different—like eunuchs and barren women—were cut off from blessings in the Old Testament but are now fully embraced by Christ.
The initial premise of the argument is well-founded: The Bible does reveal an unfolding story of how God redeems all people under one covenant. There is absolutely nothing to indicate, however, that the new covenant involves the acceptance of sinful behaviors for the sake of inclusion. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite. The point of God establishing the people of Israel was for them to be a light to the nations. This meant transforming and revealing YHWH to the nations, not accepting their paganism. When Israel failed, God established a new people in Christ. In this new covenant, the people, which include both Jews and Gentiles, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, are sanctified into a people who reflect God. The Gospel message is precisely that of all people coming to faith in Christ, who are then transformed into his likeness. The Kingdom of God never excuses immoral behaviors, in fact, it precludes them.
When Scripture talks about denouncing heterosexual behaviors, it is explicitly denouncing promiscuous heterosexual behaviors. Contrariwise, it does not make the same distinction with homosexual behaviors; rather, it appears to address homosexuality as a whole: “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom 1:27). To my understanding, there is nothing in the context that suggests that the object of their error is merely a certain kind of homosexual behavior. What is being denounced here is the lust and sexual deeds performed by two men. Clearly this generalization of homosexuality is not equally made for heterosexuality. Finally, the point regarding barren women and eunuchs has no correlation to homosexuality, for these were physical deficiencies and not ongoing sexually promiscuous behaviors. In conclusion, this argument fails to advance an affirmative case because it conflates Jesus’s message that all types of people are included in the Kingdom with the moral permissibility of sinful behaviors from those who are now included; it fails to consider the call to sanctification.
Source:
The Reformation Project. “Brief Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion.” Accessed March 22, 2024. https://reformationproject.org/biblical-case/
Comments