On Homosexuality, A Response

With the recent development regarding California's proposition 8 I have been in many conversations with regard to homosexuality and my faith, and homosexuality in society. In these conversations I have heard one consistent theme in defense of homosexual people and their "rights". That argument is this: homosexuals were born into this, it is not their choosing.

Here is my response:

In the following article I will endeavor to show that homosexuality is not natural and that I disagree with the proposition that human beings are born homosexual. I will base this conclusion on three main arguments. First, because scripture, as the ultimate authority, says that they are not. Second, because it leads to the destruction of the species and third, because it cannot be shown to be anything other than a choice.

First, we will address the issue from scripture. Scripture says very clearly that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before the Lord, the participants of which will spend an eternity in Hell. Since I am aware that most people do not hold a sovereignty view of scripture I will not go any deeper into this argument. Those who do agree with the sovereignty of scripture already understand the basis of this point so I do not need to unpack it any further.

Second, not everyone agrees that scripture is the ultimate authority and thereby dismiss its teachings. If this is the case then you surely dismiss its teachings on all subjects, including creation and life in general. Your only recourse is to believe in the theory of evolution as a naturalist way of logically deciding issues regarding birth, life, death, creation and all that is in between, one of which would be homosexuality. Evolution is a global belief that necessarily shapes all that you believe, the same way that scripture globally shapes all that I believe, so for those who do not agree with scripture I will argue my point from the evolutionist’s perspective. The fundamental rule of evolution is the “advancement of the species”. All evolutionary scholars accept this as the key point of evolutionary theory. This ruling states that the changes made through evolution are for the purpose of bettering a species, whether that be to better adapt to an environment or to better hunt a specific type of prey that is more prominent is a certain region, or even if it is simply for defensive measures like better camouflage or faster speed. The point is that all the evolving serves the purpose of bettering a species. Homosexuality defies this one fundamental rule. Homosexuality destroys the species and would do so in one single generation. If all creatures of a species were homosexual there would be no following generation. This is definitely not an advance for the species.

There is also the natural, physical incompatibility argument from the evolutionist. Reproductive organs serve the foremost purpose of reproduction. While they do offer pleasure, this is for the purpose of motivating the act of reproduction; pleasure is not the purpose or central focus of those organs. So it follows that if reproductive organs serve the main purpose of reproduction and since it requires two different parties to effect reproduction, that the reproductive organ of party “A” would be compatible with the reproductive organ of party “B”. This is confirmed in the human species by the successful reproduction between a man and a woman wherein the reproductive organ of a man is completely compatible with the reproductive organ of a woman. Any act that puts these organs into a use that is incompatible with their design would be considered unnatural (where unnatural means “not the natural or intended use”). Since the reproductive organ of a man isn’t compatible with the reproductive organ of another man, this use can be logically considered unnatural and against evolutionary theory.

Third and finally, I believe that since homosexuality goes against both scripture’s teachings and the theory of evolution, that it cannot be a state into which they are born, as they claim. It is, and always has been, a choice made willingly by the homosexual person. I would argue this because every state into which a person is born can be clearly defined in the study of genetics. You can see genetically why someone has brown hair, or why someone is black or white, or why someone has green eyes versus blue. Yet there is not genetic evidence of a person’s sexuality. You can examine the genetic basis of both a heterosexual and homosexual and cannot distinguish the one from the other. This clearly refutes the claim that homosexuals were born as homosexuals. Genetically you can tell a boy from a girl, which is to determine their sexuality, but beyond that, there is no evidence.

You might instead propose that rather than homosexuality being a genetic state into which they were born, it is a condition of the body, much like an illness such as nerve damage, or cancer, etc, a condition which they cannot overcome. As with the previous argument concerning the state of a homosexual person’s birth, this “condition” cannot be shown to exist. Other conditions under which we are born are clearly evident, i.e. you can see a cancer cell, you can see damaged nerves, yet you cannot see any basis for a homosexual “condition”.

Note- I do agree that homosexuality is a condition, but rather than being a physical condition into which we are born I believe that it is a condition of the soul. As spoken of in Romans 1 and 2, this is a condition of the soul born out of idolatry, in which we chose to worship the creature rather than the creator and have therefore been given over to defilement through our fleshly desires, to our own destruction.

I believe that the claim by homosexuals that they are born as homosexuals is the product of persecution. Homosexuals have been persecuted for their actions, many times in horrendous and inappropriate ways. I ask myself, “what would I do, or what do I do, when people criticize, condemn and persecute me?” If I am honest with myself I must admit that I would try to shift blame. You would have no right or reason to persecute me if that for which I am being persecuted is outside of my control. If I can convince you that I had no say in the matter you must direct your persecution elsewhere. I believe that this is the basis from which homosexuals claim that they were born homosexual. It is their effort to relieve themselves from persecution.

Therefore, I feel that the above stated evidence leaves only one conclusion, that in spite of your worldview, and despite your desire or opinion of homosexuals as people, the act of homosexuality, and it as a lifestyle, are unnatural. Logically, and based on the evidences seen in science and genetics and cell research, and based on religious teachings, etc. there can be no other explanation except that those who live a homosexual life have chosen to do so.

That said, I do not agree with the persecution of homosexuals and it is not the purpose of this article to malign or defame them as people. In my belief, homosexuality is a sin and is the product of sin and they are no more guilty or worthy of temporal persecution than any other sinner, of which I am one. But as with all sin and the condition of the sinner, there is relief. As I have been redeemed from my sin, so also any other person, including the homosexual, can be redeemed as well. Through the sacrifice of Christ, payment for our sins has been made and provision has been given to us to help us overcome a life ruled by sin, this provision is the Holy Spirit and His work in our life to help renew us into the image of Christ. My desire would be that homosexuals recognize that they have chosen this life, that they are not bound to it in the same way that a person is bound to having blue eyes and that they can choose not to be, they can choose to be redeemed and change their lifestyle.

On Faith

On Faith, denouncing the anthropological view of faith, as constructed by man for his own glory and reviving the biblical model of faith that relies on God and gives Him the glory.

What is faith? Faith is a philosophical construct representing the work of God in our lives. It is the term used to represent the all-encompassing work of God in our lives. If we think of it in terms of logic we would say that it is the “unsubstance” or “idea” we hold that represents all that God worked in us, therefore it necessarily flows from God, is under His control (in reference to when and how and how much faith we have) and is purposed for His purposes (which Scripture says is His glory) and is therefore outside the control of man.

When we say that faith is the “unsubstance” or “idea” we are describing it in terms of human logic. Let us say that a bottle of water sits on the table in front of us. This bottle is a substance to be perceived. It has mass and is composed of collected, formed matter. It has essential attributes and defining properties. Now let us remove the bottle of water. After it is gone we are able, if necessary, to recall the image of the water bottle. This recollection in our mind is the idea of the bottle, an idea which has no substance. It is wholly without mass or matter, so we refer to it as an unsubstance, yet it still has essential attributes and properties, which can be referred to in our mind, within, or concerning, the idea.

So I propose that faith is not a “thing” to be had or held or claimed. It is a representation. It is the comprehensive definition, or idea we hold that refers to all of the work of God in our lives and in creation. It has no substance, and is therefore an “unsubstance”. “But faith is belief,” you might say. What is belief? Is it not a philosophical construct in and of itself? Belief is the idea we use to represent the position we take due to some impacting outside force or concept. It is “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”. It is vague. It is a term we have interchanged with faith because the “confidence” exhibited by belief is what is at the heart of faith.

Faith in its simplest form is the recognition of the work of God on our behalf (a recognition that can only be had due to the work of God, through the Holy Spirit, in our lives. This recognition cannot be had in and of ourselves, apart from God). This recognition is enabling. The past work of God in our lives enables the future work of God in our lives, this is how He ordained it. When scripture says, “have faith,” it is saying, “rely on the past work of God in your life, recognize what He did in the past and know that He will do more” (a knowledge that flows from His past work, and therefore from Him, still not of ourselves).

What have we done to the idea of faith to bring it to its present state? We have turned faith into an object to be acquired, an item that is quantifiable and able to be hoarded. We use terms like “have” more faith, or “grow” your faith, when in all reality all we have the power to do is reside in the grace of the Father in His previous work in our life, which in and of itself enables His further work, which is what most people refer to as having more faith. But this is where the concept of faith falters, for this act of recognition enabling the future work of God comes from God and resides in God, not in us. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9, therefore we cannot “have” more faith or “grow” faith, we simply receive faith, and use it. As it says in Romans 12:3, "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (emphasis mine). You can see clearly from this verse that the amount of faith you have is determined by, and provided by, God.

What of the amount of faith that we have? Scripture teaches us that the amount of faith is not the key issue, but simply the having of it at all. In Matthew 17:20, “²⁰ So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief;^[a] for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.” What is a mustard seed in this illustration if not the smallest item of relevance that He could use to speak of the power of faith? We as people speak in terms of how much faith it must take; all the while Christ speaks in terms of simply having faith. The mustard seed in this illustration is Christ’s way of saying that you don’t need much at all, He is saying that little is necessary. It is not the amount of faith that is important, because as I have already said, faith is not a substance and is therefore not quantifiable (some may object here and refer to Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and argue that it is "substance". This passage uses the term "substance" philosophically to define the "foundation" of hope, I refer to the term "substance" materially in its use regarding the "physical properties pertaining to matter" and as such the two ideas are not in conflict), it is merely an idea, which you have or have not received. That is not to say that the idea does not drive you to greater and greater works to the glory of God, or to say that you cannot rely more and more fully each day on the idea, on the past works of God in your life, it is merely to say that we cannot quantify the idea or it’s presence in our life. All we can say is that it is present and we are relying on it. The statement “have more faith” merely means to rely more fully on faith, to walk in a more complete reliance to it. What about Matthew 8:26 where Christ asks the disciples, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” Doesn’t this mean that we must have more faith? According to the hermeneutic principle the “analogy of faith”, we interpret scripture with faith that all of scripture is in agreement and never contradicts itself. That said, Christ says in Mt 8:36, “you of little faith” in regards to their fear, yet in Mt. 17:20 Christ says, “if you have faith of a mustard seed…and nothing will be impossible.” In one verse Christ says that with even the smallest amount of faith you can do anything, but in the next he reprimands the disciples having “little” faith. If we take the meaning of Christ’s words to refer to the amount of faith you “have” then these verses contradict each other, which goes against the analogy of faith I described earlier. What we must do is find an interpretation of these verses that keeps them in agreement with each other and in agreement with the whole of scripture. I propose that Christ is not talking about the amount of faith you have but the amount in which you exercise faith. In Mt. 17:20 Christ is saying that you need only have faith, period. In Mt. 8:26 Christ is reprimanding the disciples for not exercising their faith, not because they have to little. If we adopt this interpretation then we will maintain the unity of these verses and their agreement with the rest of scripture. To back up my interpretation further I will look at Mt. 14:31, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” Here Christ connects the two concepts for us. In Christ’s words, “you of little faith” He makes clear that faith was present in Peter. At the same time, by His words, “Why did you doubt?” He makes clear that it was not an issue of too little faith but an issue regarding the lack of exercising said faith. From this we can surmise that faith is not something you have more or less of, it is something you have or have not, and then if you have, it is something you exercise or do not. Let's not forget the truth of Romans 12:3, that God determines the amount of faith you have and provides it for you.

Why have we done this to the concept of faith? Two main reasons stand out to me for the creation of this false concept of faith. First, we did this to offer God a scapegoat. As the world cries out for a loving God and as we cry out for a loving God to relieve us from our suffering and shame, when He doesn’t, we can blame it on a lack of faith. Instead of wrestling with the soul shaking concepts of the sovereignty of God and His purposes in receiving glory, we simply blame it on a lack of faith in the person, thereby letting God off of the hook. The second reason we have done this is to retain control. With the false concept of faith it is up to us to “have” and “grow” our faith. We are in control of our spiritual walk. We decide without needing to rely helplessly on the “gift” of God. We did this because deep down, when God didn’t heal and didn’t relieve the suffering and we wrote it off as a lack of faith, we began to question God, having a basic knowledge of His sovereignty, and we asked ourselves, “is He really a loving God”, and we became afraid to let go of the control, just in case He is not. We fail to trust Him fully. We fail to look away from our desires and focus on His, once again showing our inability to “have” faith as the modern world has defined it. We cannot let go of our desire for our own glory, a glory we receive by the successful "having" or "growing" of faith.

Where does faith come from? “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”, Romans 10:17. Why must faith come by hearing? Because there must be some thing, some prior work on which to rely, or if God has moved in our lives there must be some means by which we connect the work in our lives to the God in heaven. Why must hearing come from the “word of God”? In order for faith to be true, in order for our concept of God’s work to be reliable it must be premised from truth, which is defined by and dependant on the word of God. What we recognize to be the work of God and how we relate that to Him all flows from the teaching of scripture. God defines the unsubstance of faith in His word. Therefore we can premise that faith comes from God, indirectly because it is defined by Him and without Him it would have no definition, and directly because He has given it to us, or from Him we receive it.

What are the implications of this concept of faith? This concept of faith reassures the believer of the work of God in their life. It is a sweet relief whereby we say, “thank you for this God, for I am not able”. We let go of the responsibility (one we were never able to bear in the first place) and allow God to have control. We recognize His work (which is faith) and His sovereignty, letting that become the framework, from which all else in our life flows, which in turn magnifies His glory (which scripture says is the purpose of faith). It forces us to reconcile our understanding of God with His sovereignty as Scripture explains it, because it removes the scapegoat. This causes us to formulate a new understanding of a “loving God” that is in complete agreement with a God who doesn’t always heal, which is the actual God of scripture.

This concept of faith as an “unsubstance” or perceived idea of all God has done in our lives requires complete and total dependence on Him, a dying to the flesh and living to the Lord.

²⁰ For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. ²¹ What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. ²² But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. ²³ For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 6:20-23

²⁴ And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. ²⁵ If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Galatians 5:24, 25

Eyes To See And Ears To Hear

As I was reading proverbs today I read the portion in Chapter 24, verses 30-34. I couldn’t help but see the wisdom in Solomon’s actions. I know that seems obvious, he’s Solomon, of course he is wise, but I am not just talking about his teachings or his writings, I am talking about his actions in this passage, actions that brought forth wisdom and wise teaching. Read the following;

30 I went by the field of the lazy man,

And by the vineyard of the man devoid of understanding;

31 And there it was, all overgrown with thorns;

Its surface was covered with nettles;

Its stone wall was broken down.

32 When I saw it, I considered it well;

I looked on it and received instruction:

33 A little sleep, a little slumber,

A little folding of the hands to rest;

34 So shall your poverty come like a prowler,

And your need like an armed man.

Solomon found opportunities for growth and learning from everyday situations. While walking through the land he passed by a field that was overgrown and the proverb says that he “considered it well” and “looked on it and received instruction.” He didn’t need teachers and books, he wasn’t prone to wisdom because he was a king and had all the best teachers in the land. He stopped and pondered everyday situations seeking to learn from them and draw conclusions based off of what he saw. Imagine what we could learn, not only about the world, but also about God if we would stop and listen (see Romans 1:19-20). If we could stop, pay close attention and just think on the things of the Lord we too could be wise like Solomon. We have all the same opportunities as Solomon did and even more so, because we have access to the Father directly, through the power of Christ and the gospel. This is what I want to start doing, to just stop and think about God and his glory and apply the gospel to everyday situations, that I might receive some wisdom in life that can better prepare me to glorify God.

Father I praise you for your ultimate wisdom and I thank you that you pass it on to us so freely. Help me to begin to stop and think on you and your glory and help me to begin to apply the gospel to everyday situations so I can see you at work in the world more fully, and also so that I can bring you greater glory. Give me eyes to see and ears to hear as I live in the world around me. In Jesus mighty name, amen.