What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.¹ Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).²

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]³

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

²http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

³https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16^th November 2020.