What You Believe About Homosexuality Matters

One United Methodist Youth Pastor, Tyler Smither, stated his position that What You Believe About Homosexuality Doesn’t Matter. He wrote the article in light of the recent Phil Robertson GQ interview and  Frank Schaefer’s defrocking over performing his son’s same-sex marriage.

Smither is wrong that it does not matter what someone believes about homosexuality. The importance of what is believed on the subject is easily seen, for example, by how it divides each side, both for and against. The big issue Smither raises is the one he uses  as the reason why one’s position on homosexuality does not matter. He asserts that calling homosexuality a sin is “theologically correct” while staying silent is being “morally responsible.”

When faced with the choice between being theologically correct…as if this is even possible…and being morally responsible, I’ll go with morally responsible every time.

For Smither, it is morally responsible to stay silent on homosexuality while it is theologically correct to speak of homosexuality as sin.  This position raises a problem for Christians because there is no separating theological correctness from moral responsibility. Theology is basically the study of God and how He relates to the world.

Everything is theological. Everything.

Being morally responsible is theologically correct. Christian morality is based what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture. To pit theology against moral responsibility is to void any foundation for moral reasoning. Christians are to take every thought captive bringing in obedience to Christ and do all things for His glory. These commands include how Christians think about and approach homosexuality. Being honest about homosexuality being sin is about honoring God and tell the truth to those who are made in His image.

Of course, honesty is painful – sin is painful.

It is a shame that teens who identify as gay are about 3 times more likely to attempt suicide. And that 1 in 3 gay teens will attempt suicide. More horrible is when these teens succeed in their attempts. Some, like Smither, say these suicides and those attempted are reason enough not to talked about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. These kids have got to be protected from themselves so silence is the best path when it comes to speaking about their sexuality. But silence on this issue is promotes a bigger problem because kids are killing themselves.

Christians must speak-up because kids are dying; dying without Christ!

The morally responsible approach to homosexuality is not silence, but theological correctness expressed through the love of Christ. It matters what Christians think about homosexuality because it matters what God says about it. The responsible approach is to be honest that homosexuality is a sin; yet, Christians must do so in a way that those listening understand it is not the only sin. The morally responsible Christian approach is to stop pretending that all other sins of the world – sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, drunkenness, greed, theft, slander, etc. – are all okay except homosexual activity.

The homosexual and the heterosexual all come to Jesus as the sinners they are with all their sin attached. The love of Christ bids us Christians to speak up. By calling sin, sin the ground is laid to make sense of why anyone needs the gospel. Christians can explain what they believe about homosexuality by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ which offers freedom and forgiveness of sin. Christians can share the sins they were saved out of and the ones with which they still struggle.

Lives are at stake, we Christians must speak up!

Here I blog…


tagged as , , , , , , , in apologetics,Christianity,Church Issues,Culture,Gospel,morality,politics,relativism,theology

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Guest December 24, 2013 at 9:29 am

Actually, it is NOT theologically correct to call homosexuality a sin, just as it is not theologically correct to call heterosexuality a sin.  It is what people DO with their sexuality that is sinful…or not.  Heterosexual relations outside of marriage is a sin, but the sexuality of those so engaged in this is neither moral nor immoral.  Let’s use another example, just as alcoholism is not a sin (but drunkenness IS), homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin, but, biblically, a consensual homosexual act is a sin, just as a heterosexual act between two people who are not married–to one another–is a sin.  Now, the alcoholic–even one who hasn’t had a drink in 50 years–still has alcoholism; similarly, a homosexual or heterosexual who hasn’t engaged in a single sexual act is still a homosexual or a heterosexual. 
Why it is important NOT to confuse the sexuality of an individual with the manner in which one manifests that sexuality:  Calling homosexuality in and of itself a sin magnifies the degree of sinfulness of a homosexual act.  NOT calling heterosexuality in and of itself, but labeling heterosexual acts outside of marriage as sinful MINIMIZES the degree of sinfulness (as compared to a homosexual act).  Thus, the male and female who engage in an unmarried sexual act “feel” far less guilty than (to use the example in your blog entry) would the homosexual teenager who engages in sexual acts, feels guilty, gets clinically depressed, and commits suicide.  The latter has had it drummed into his or her head that his or her very sexual nature is sinful.  He or she knows that sexuality is what it is; it’s not going to change.  To be told that an immutable characteristic of one’s very self is sinful is, well, wrong.

2 Mark Lamprecht December 24, 2013 at 11:30 am

@Guest  I suppose it depends on how homosexuality is defined. I am using it broadly in response to the article linked in the first sentence. Even the http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx as more than simply attraction.

“Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.”

So, http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html.

3 LarryFarlow December 24, 2013 at 11:37 am

The idea of “sexuality” as some sort of innate, fixed condition apart from a person’s behavior is an invention of 20th century psychology. We have a sin nature – period. That sin nature manifests itself in many different desires across many different people all of which are desires to indulge the flesh. However, the desire to indulge in sex with someone of the same gender doesn’t point to the existence of an innate “sexuality” any more than a desire to engage in sex with someone other than my wife bestows on me a sexual “orientation” of adulterer.  Prior to the 20th century “homosexual” was a adjective, not a noun. I believe that’s the way it’s presented in scripture as well and therefore how we as Christians should view it today.

4 SethDunn December 24, 2013 at 3:25 pm

@Guest  You state, “To be told that an immutable characteristic of one’s very self is sinful is, well, wrong.”. To the contrary, it is biblical.  We are all born sinners.  We all have a sin nature.  It’s ironic for you to make such a stament disregarding sin nature here at Christmas time…which recognizes the birth of the only man born without a sin nature.


Previous post:

Next post: