Does the NIV Mistranslate "Homosexual" to Attack Gays?

Question: Why does the NIV use the word "homosexual"?  I've heard the original word doesn't mean anything like "homosexual".  Is this evidence of a scheme of translators trying to attack gays through mistranslation?  What DOES the original text say regarding homosexuality?

Answer: Thanks for the question.  To begin an answer, I’ll cut and paste a portion of our white paper on homosexuality that deals directly with word meanings in the relevant passages.  You can email me and I'll gladly send the whole doc.

"I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV)

There is again, no special place given to homosexuality.  It is the same as any other sin. 

However, is Paul even talking about homosexuality per se, or something else?  He uses two key Greek words.  The first, “Malakos” here translated ‘male prostitutes’ means literally “the soft”, sometimes translated as “effeminate.”  This is a reference to men and boys who allowed themselves to be used homosexually.^[1]  Or “men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners”^[2]

The second word "Arsenokoitai" is a compound word, "arsen" which means “male” and "koitai" which means "bed" or "lying" - a word with clear sexual connotations.  So the straightforward meaning is men who bed or lie with other males.  Or “a male homosexual, or sodomite.”^[3]  Another lexicon defines the word as “one who lies with a male as with a female.”^[4] Strong's concordance defines the word as simply “a sodomite.”^[5]

I cite several lexical sources here for some authority on the meaning of these two words, since much ado has been made of their translation.  In fact, a lot of very late scholarship uses the ambiguity and uniqueness of these words to suggest that they do not refer to homosexuality at all, or at least not to homosexual practices per se.

Arguments are made by liberal scholars that “arsenokoitai” refers only to male prostitutes or that “malakos” refers perhaps to a slave boy kept for homosexual purposes – a common Greek practice (the implication being that Paul has nothing to say about male on male sex in general.)

But upon inspection, the two words side by side leave little doubt that Paul’s meaning is that homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong, not merely wrong because of the age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money between the participants.

In fact, “malakos” has a corresponding Latin term ("molles") which Philo uses to describe effeminate males who desire penetration by men.  Apparently Philo’s (and other ancients') problem with such men did not center on their exploitation of others, age difference, or acts of prostitution, but rather, around their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them by God/nature^[6].  And if this term only refers to boys (or girls) abused sexually by older men as claimed, one wonders why they are on the list of the "wicked" at all, and not the exploiters alone.

"Arsenokoitai" is likely a word invented by Paul ^[7].  It appears nowhere in literature before this usage in 1 Corinthians.  But that doesn’t mean Paul’s meaning is unknowable.  The structure of the word (man + bed/lying), clearly links it with the Mosaic restriction in Leviticus 18:22 – “do not lie with a man as with a woman.”  In fact, the Greek version of the Old Testament in use by early Rabbis used the exact same terms to translate the Hebrew.  In Paul's Rabbinical circles these very words were used to stress God’s absolute prohibition on homosexual behavior, in contrast to the very lenient attitudes of  the Greco-Roman period^[8].

We can sympathize with those who suggest that any translation (such as the NIV) which render these words using “homosexual” may be misleading.  Clearly “homosexual” is a loaded modern term (unavailable to Paul in the 1st century) and it doesn’t convey the literal meaning of the words Paul uses.  In our context the word “homosexual” often carries a heavy connection to modern understandings about orientation. Thus a person may feel this passage is condemning something beyond our control  whereas these two words are actually condemning sexual practices not orientations. 

Perhaps other, better English words might be used to render Paul’s terms, but it would be hard to be as explicit as Paul without being vulgar.  He could hardly be more clear about what he's condemning: the two roles involved in male homosexual sex:  The first (malakos) gives himself to be used by the second (arsenokoitai).  Those who engage in such practice, willfully repudiating God’s good creation design, along with ALL those involved in ANY unrepented pattern of sin (see the expansive list), are not eligible for the Kingdom."

So like many other instances of translation, "homosexual" is a fair but imperfect rendering of Paul’s meaning into English.  It might be that the evolution of attitudes about homosexuality requires more precision - not to conform the meaning to modern sensibilities, but to better communicate the meaning to changing modern sensibilities.

For example, as stated in our paper, if "homosexual" is taken to include the psychological condition of homosexual orientation, then that does mean that "homosexual offender" (NIV) is not a good translation.  In fact, if that's how people take it, "homosexual" is misleading and harmful.  Reason being it would convey that to be homosexually oriented is the offense in God's eyes, and yet no Scripture ever addresses orientation. Paul here addresses behavior.  And the behavior being addressed is clear, even if the Greek words have some ambiguity.

So, if we wanted to get more literal and stay away from any allusion to orientation, we could easily ditch the term "homosexual" (since Paul surely didn’t know that term).  A very rough paraphrase of "malakos" might be: "a man who acts like a woman in sex acts".  The second word is best understood simply as "those men who sleep with other men."  Of course you can see what that gains in accuracy it clearly loses in economy.

So while the use of "homosexual" is debatable, what is not is that any accurate transference of these terms into English cannot escape referring to homosexual practices per se.  The context is clear this can't be a reference merely to pedophilia (Paul did have that term available to him - chose not to use it) or temple prostitution (when the Bible wants to address that, it does so explicitly, not implicitly – Deut 23:17-18).  Instead we have here a simple reference to all male homosexual activity (Romans 1 deals with female homosexual activity.)  It is clearly condemned as sin - not conforming to God's good design - along with other things like greed and slander.

But the hope of redemption for all "the wicked" is made perfectly clear.  You can put Yours Truly on that list, of those who were in that category until they were "washed, sanctified and justified".  What amazing hope for all!
<sup>_____________________________________

[1]</sup> Arndt, William R. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1957, pg 489.
^[2]  Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?, pg 10.

^[3]Ibid, p 109.

^[4]Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg 75.
^[5]Strong, James, Strong’s Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, Riverside Book and Bible House, pg 16.
^[6] Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?, pg 10
^[7] Ibid, pg 10.
^[8] Ibid, pg 10.

Are Homosexual Sins the Worst Sins?

QUESTION:  I have heard in today's talk (6/29/08) that homosexual attraction and acts can be treated by Christians as among the long list of going outside God's plan for human sexuality in creation. Yet, I see in scripture as having a particular focus on homosexual acts and desires as especially offensive to God. Please explain the meaning of being image-bearers as male and female, scripture's naming of homosexuality as the sin of pride, and explain if there really is a particular condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible as more than just sinful sexual behavior like heterosexual pre-marital sex and heterosexual adultery.

ANSWER: Thanks for the question, and I’m glad you followed up because it gives me a chance to elaborate on an important point.  I can’t agree with your last statement as I must maintain as I did in my sermon that Scripture does not put homosexual behavior at the front of a graded list of sins.  Homosexual behavior is sinful.  But I disagree with you that it is “especially offensive” to God.  

Let me make my case in hopes that I can change your mind about what Scripture teaches on this subject.  First, when the Bible gives us lists of behaviors that are offensive to God, (as it does on numerous occasions), it usually doesn’t even include homosexual acts.  Jesus listed off sins when he said:

Mark 7:20-23  "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" NIV

We would think that if your assumption is true about homosexual acts being especially abhorrent to God, that Jesus would have used this moment to clarify that point.   But he doesn’t single out homosexual acts at all.  In fact, we should assume that he would have at least mentioned it in the list of unclean behaviors which he cites here, but he doesn’t even do that.  That doesn’t mean that homosexual behavior isn’t sinful (Jesus will be very clear that God's sexual design is complementary and heterosexual - Matt 19:1-9), the list here, is not exhaustive by any means.  But if we’re to accept your idea that God encourages special repugnance for homosexual acts, then we should expect Jesus to make that clear when he talks about sin here or elsewhere.  But he never does.

Neither does Paul.  Here again another listing of sins:

Gal 5:19-21  The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. NIV

 This list mentions several sexual sins but doesn’t mention homosexual sins once.  If they’re worse why aren’t they listed here?  Again this doesn’t mean that it’s not sinful (see below) but it clearly devastates any case that could be mounted to make homosexuality a cause for special revulsion.

So let’s look at another list of sins where homosexual behavior IS mentioned:

1 Cor 6:9-10 Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. NIV

Here, homosexual behavior IS mentioned in a list of sins which the Corinthians used to engage in.  The two words Paul uses in reference to homosexuality are Greek words that literally mean, “the soft” and “lying with a male”.  This is clearly a reference to male homosexual behavior, the former gives himself to be used by the latter.  This is sinful behavior, clearly.  It's a misuse of sex, along with sexual immorality and adultery, also listed here.

But you will notice that if Paul wanted to elevate our repugnance of homosexuality he would have put it at the front or the back of the list, or made a case about it’s special dangers.  No such case is made.  How are we to understand any “particular condemnation” from this passage?

Paul refers to homosexual acting out in another list of sins:

1 Tim 1:9-11  They are for people who are disobedient and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who murder their father or mother or other people. These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching… NLT

Again we have the word “to bed a male” listed here, (Greek: “arsenokoitai”) and again it is found in the middle of the list.  No special place is given, no special qualifiers are made, no elaboration on this sin – none whatsoever. 

You and I can agree that the creation sexual design is a narrow design:  One man, one woman, for life.  Where we can also agree, is that God’s Word makes the case against homosexual behavior less by calling it out as sin, and more often by describing and celebrating heterosexual marriage.  I agree, this heterosexual, monogamous model defines the boundaries of moral sexual behavior specifically because we are made to reflect God himself, a unity in diversity, Father Son and Holy Spirit.  So two genders are required to have this diversity that comes together into a shared oneness of marriage.

This narrow model then, has all sorts of perversions.  I can get parts of that design right and completely miss other parts.  While I may suffer less if I get only parts of it wrong, I don't avoid guilt.  For example, a homosexual couple may get the monogamous part of that design right, and miss out on the heterosexual part.  A polygamous family may get the heterosexual part right and miss the monogamous part.  The sin and heartache in just David’s household alone because he multiplied his wives in contradiction to the creation design (and God’s laws for kings, Deut. 17:17) shows the deep scars that come from ANY expression of sexuality (homo or hetero) not in keeping with the creation design.

Romans 1 shows us a downward moral spiral that begins with an idolatrous suppression of truth of God and seems at first glance to lead directly to homosexuality as the bottom of the spiral (Rom 1:26, 27).  But only if we stop there to make the “special condemnation” argument and ignore the context.

Keep reading:

“Furthermore,” Paul says in Rom 1:28-31, “he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” 

So if we want to make the case that homosexuality is not like other sexual sins but is in fact worse, this passage is no help to us.  By what logic is this passage elevating homosexual behavior over other sin?  By the fact that it comes directly after the rejection of truth about God? (Rom 1:24)  But shouldn’t that logically be the least offensive sin since, if we’re describing a scale, it’s the first foray into rebellion?  Shouldn’t the chronological order of depravity be that every step after the initial rejection of truth about God is a step down the ladder of evil?  

But if that’s the case, then the LEAST offensive sin to God is idolatry, because it comes first (Rom 1:23), homosexuality is second LEAST offensive because it comes second (Rom 1:26, 27) and (by this logic) the WORST sin in God’s moral order – worse than either of those – is ruthlessness because it comes last.  Reverse the order and it’s just as ridiculous.  If we reject this ranking of sins as arbitrary, then this passage cannot be said to elevate homosexual sin as the worst of sins.

When we turn to the Old Testament, the story is the same.  It’s probably true that Lot considered the heterosexual rape of his daughters to be less offensive than the homosexual rape of his angelic guests (Gen 19:8) but there is no commentary on the righteousness of this action.  It’s simply stated that he did it.  If we go to the sexual laws of Moses we read that homosexual acts are an abomination (Lev 18:22).  So yes, that’s very bad.  But here is a short list of other sins that are said to be abominable:

• offering a rotting carcass to God, Lev 7:18;  
• eating unclean animals, like pork Lev 11:10ff; 
• incest, Lev 20:12-13; 
• offering an idol to God, Deut 7:25; 
• offering your son or daughter in sacrifice to God, Deut 12:31.  

There is simply no special place given to homosexual behavior in the Bible.  It is clearly called sin, but it is never singled out as a special sin.  I’m not sure what Bible verse you may be referring to which calls it “the sin of pride”.  If you’d like to point that verse out, I’d be open to feedback.

So I think your case for “particular condemnation” is not supported by the Bible’s teaching.  My concern with our disagreement is that if you carry this idea into friendships with practicing homosexuals, you might project that ‘special condemnation’ onto them.  And that will only encourage a negative stereotype that Christians consider homosexuals as 'less than'.  Frankly, when the question was asked Sunday, I sensed it came from someone who has been told exactly that.  Which is why they sounded skeptical that such sinners could ever experience forgiveness and power of God.  

I wanted to assure them they can.  This is the message Paul sent to homosexuals in 1 Cor 6:11: “And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  [Emphasis added]

(We have a white paper dealing with this and other passages on the subject if you’d like me to send it to you.)

Is Sexual Orientation A Choice?

All the secular literature on this will say ‘no’.  But it is a somewhat defensive ‘no’ when we look behind it.  There are certainly parts of our sexual make up we don't choose.  But to say there is no choices we can or should make regarding the outworking of our sexual desires, is to make the situation far too simple.

Recently the celebrity Cynthia Nixon talked about her migration from heterosexual marriage to gay marriage.  She raged against those who said that because she ‘went gay’ that meant that she had been gay all along.  She found this offensive to her former male lovers and to her former self.  “Why can’t it be a choice?” She said.

She was instantly besieged by criticism from the homosexual lobby.  Why?  Because she had dared to question the sacred orthodoxy of “orientation”.  The orthodoxy simply states: sexual desires are hardwired, genetically, from birth and unchangeable and most definitely have NOTHING to do with choice.  To suggest they is any choice in the matter is to suggest they could be changed,  and this is the really offensive thing.  Because it would suggest that if there were a sexual ideal, that one could choose to conform to it.  This flies in the face of the highest value in our culture:  unrestricted sexual self expression.

She quickly was forced to clarify that in fact she DID have an orientation – bisexuality.  Ironically, this admission completely negated her earlier point.  Her point was about sexual freedom and choice.  She was claiming her right to have sex with anyone she felt attracted to.  By being forced to regurgitate the orthodoxy about orientation, she meekly confessed her earlier heresy and denied that people really do have choice in the area of sexual attraction.  Of course, she tried to retain her position as a person of “choice” by hiding behind her bi-sexuality.  She (a bi-sexual) could choose to have sex with anyone, man or woman. She can choose the gender of her lovers, but other poor souls less broadly wired, of course cannot.

But by labeling this bi-sexual lifestyle an ORIENTATION she meekly joined the ranks of all those completely predetermined by their sexual hard wiring who have no real choice in sexual behavior.  To expose how far she backtracked, one has only to imagine that if a tri-gendered race of aliens came to earth, she COULD NOT choose to have sex with them, because of course, she’s a bi-sexual, not a TRI-sexual.  The Nixon who made her first comment, would have proudly said she could have sex with the hypothetical aliens if she CHOSE.  The repentant Nixon denied she could ever take this freedom because we should only have sex with the people we are ORIENTED to have sex with.

Such a conversation, played out in the media, is leading some to question the very notion of hard and fast “orientation”.  A new phrase coined by some to describe the reality of complex human sexual attraction is “sexual fluidity”.  In a work entitled, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, one researcher suggests that women are much more open to sex with people irrespective of their gender.  The research shows that sexual attraction is fluid, changing, depending on a host of factors and conditions, both internal and external and does not stay static throughout one’s life.

As with Nixon, this work threatens the “orientation” orthodoxy, so the book begins with a series of disclaimers to keep the high priests from shouting ‘heresy!’ in the Temple of Kinsey:

Does fluidity mean that all women are bisexual? No…Does fluidity mean that there is no such thing as sexual orientation? No… Does sexual fluidity mean that sexual orientation can be changed? No… Does fluidity mean that sexual orientation is a matter of choice? No... Does fluidity mean that sexual orientation is due to “nurture” instead of “nature”? No…’

Methinks thou doth protest too much!  The disclaimers of the author, Lisa Diamond, are, of course, her clear statement that she is still one of the true believers in orientation orthodoxy.  (That, or she just doesn’t want a ration of crap from the media like Nixon got).  Yet she should be lauded for doing such controversial work and seeking the true state of the evidence when it comes to sexual attraction, even if it risks, from her worldview perspective, “misunderstanding” and “misuse” of that evidence.  

I will prove her a prophet since here I am “misunderstanding” and “misusing” her research – her strenuous disclaimers notwithstanding.  Because what I care about more are her facts, rather than her interpretation of her own facts, based on her worldview which I do not share.

Nixon and Diamond show that while most research in this area is done in the name of proving the normalcy and innateness of homosexual feelings, it winds up backfiring, showing that the orientation dogma is too simple, at worst a myth, or at best a deeply misleading term.

This conclusion about sexual fluidity is deeply upsetting to the orientation dogma, but it may also be upsetting for heterosexuals with a biblical view of sexuality!  There are those who assert their own heterosexual orientation, as dogmatically as any homosexual would.  But if sexuality truly is fluid, the heterosexual should acknowledge that if conditions were different in their sexual development, this proud heterosexual may, in fact, NOT be one!  If that deflates the pride of their sexual “purity”, so be it.  But Diamond's work (and human history) confirms that ALL humans are fully capable of a wide, wide variety of sexual expression – they are not “locked in” – and thus social and moral conditions and choices are as key to how one’s very fluid sexuality is allowed to develop and express itself as is our innate ‘wiring’.

Christians can acknowledge that heterosexual monogamy is God’s ideal, and further that most are predisposed by natural design to lean in that direction.  But they should also acknowledge that no one’s natural sexuality is “pure”.  In nature, sex has proven to have patterns, yes, but also to be almost infinitely morphable.  Clearly sex has an indisputable natural function, and Christians might make an argument for heterosexual sex being preferred simply for that reason.  But our view of sex is higher than merely as means of reproduction – it is lodged finally in the character of God who made us in his image, male and female.

Yet a person is no more born with a perfect reflection of this Image in their sexuality than they are born with an unmarred reflection of this Image in any other aspect of their being.  Thus the journey of a Christian’s life in the area of their sexuality is a journey of conforming our raw, fluid sexual nature toward the Image of God, as is the case in every other area.  This stands opposed to the naïve Christian view that thinks most people have a “pure” sexuality hardwired and perfectly acceptable to God as is, while a few other “pervs” have a life long struggle in front of them.

No.  We ALL have a raw, natural, seething sexuality that is fully capable of going in a myriad of directions, and through modeling, beliefs, habits - finally choices, we as free moral agents, are the final determiners of what that direction will be.

This is not to deny that inside the Kinseyan spectrum of sexual attraction, that people do not naturally, by a myriad of conditions in their person, come to life with sexual preferences.  They do.  But, despite this fact (or the causes of those preferences), the most common definition of orientation as inbuilt, absolute, unchangeable wiring is obviously, demonstrably mythical.  Orientation dogma implies that a homosexual could never or should never physically complete the act of sex with someone of the opposite gender – or visa versa.  This is clearly false.  

Homo-sexually oriented men and women have had spouses, and babies and then turned their sexuality on their own gender years later – claiming they were “hard wired” homosexuals the whole time.  Be that as it may, these homosexuals were clearly capable of having full arousal, and successful, consensual, heterosexual copulation and relationship.  The opposite is also true, men and women have considered themselves only attracted to the same sex for years until some later period where they undergo a profound change in sexual proclivity.  This, despite the raging claims of the priests of orientation that “reparative therapy” never works.  And while we scoff at “pray the gay away” programs, pointing to the many homosexuals who have undertaken failed attempts to change their orientation, it only takes ONE successful convert to prove that the orientation orthodoxy is a myth.  Just one.  I personally know of several.

History and experience have shown that, left without moral parameters on this raw, fluid sex drive, the human animal is capable of having sex, not just with the same gender, but with almost ANYTHING – inanimate objects, small children or even animals.  Is bestiality an ‘orientation’?  Is pedophilia an orientation? (At least one tenured psychologist says yes; so does this Dutch psychologist and Criminologist). 

These comparisons are always shouted down, but the shouters seem to have little scientific interest in the subject of sexual attraction, and more interest in protecting a belief or an ideology.  If we define orientation as, “one's natural preference in sexual partners,” orientations are myriad and must include things like pedophilia.  To not so argue, is special pleading based on societal revulsion - which is the very thing the homosexual lobby says is passé!

So orientation orthodoxy reduces down to this: when the kind of sex I am predisposed to have is (currently) socially unacceptable, it’s a mental disorder and needs treatment to change, but when the desire becomes more socially acceptable, it’s hard wired, it cannot be changed and to try is the height of intolerance and ‘ignorance’.  How very arbitrary.  Does not phenomena like bestiality or pederasty or bisexuality, or polygamy or polyandry show that human sexuality is raw and fluid and capable of INFINITE permutations?  And don’t we reason in these situations that just because it CAN flow in almost any direction, doesn’t mean it SHOULD?  On what basis then, is the homosexual urge exempt from a belief that complex sexual urges can and at times should be changed/directed?  On the basis of dogma, not science.

Sexual preference might be a much better word to use, and orientation scrapped in light of real world experience.  People prefer to have sex with the same gender or opposite gender or prefer both genders (or children, or animals, or many partners or just one etc).  The reasons for these preferences are very complex and certainly include biological factors.  But even within a single lifetime, an individual may migrate or change preferences based on a host of factors.  It happens all the time - and every time it does, it explodes the orientation orthodoxy.

In fact, in the small sample size of my counseling work, all those currently self-identifying as homosexuals have experienced sexual abuse of some kind that deeply affected their sexual choices in later life.  Most also spent an earlier season of life before coming out of the closet having heterosexual sex.  This is easy to explain for the priests of orientation orthodoxy – these people were under societal pressure and came out of the closet to embrace their “true nature” only when released by therapy or societal approval.

Perhaps, but this passes over the fact that they were able, despite their “true nature,” to direct their sexuality by their own choice!  “But they lived a life of tortured inauthenticity!”, is the autoreply.  Yes, perhaps there was great pain as they wrestled with complex and unbidden sexual desires, but what are we saying when we describe every instance of denying a sexual urge as “torture”?  Isn’t self-control a key marker of all good social behavior and emotional maturity?  The question then comes back to what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be denied?  Here, we are in the territory of morality, not sexuality (or science!).  The most honest science is telling us sexuality is a fluid mass of often competing desires built on complex causes.  Over this we ALL impose morality.  I admit, Christian sexual morality is stricter than secular morality these days, but let us not suppose that our morality is obsolete because it denies the science!

The orientation dogma will likely one day be exposed for what it was:  a useful tool of doctrinal conditioning to encourage a sexual orthodoxy designed to foster the acceptance of homosexuality on par with heterosexual monogamy.  Once this happens (and we’re almost there), there will be no more need to keep up the pretense that sexual attraction is some kind of sacrosanct, inbuilt, untouchable, unmovable predisposition that science discovered.  On that day we will simply have sex with whomever or whatever we want (Nixon’s first position), as an expression of total sexual liberation – the silly notion that we HAD to do it this way or that way, because “God/Nature made us this way” will be left in the dust.

While this dogma enjoyed preeminence, it was useful to crush dissent, shaming people for their ‘ignorance’ and ‘intolerance’ by imposing the authority of “science”. Someday, the science behind this argument will simply be left behind because everyone will see that whatever was important to know about the natural development of sexual urges, is basically secondary to the sexual choices I make with those raw urges.  

All men and women find some piece of their sexual desires to be something they do not find expedient and therefore they do not choose to act them out.  Is this hopeless repression?  Is this inauthentic religious coercion?  In some cases it has been, but not inherently so.  We all eschew sexual desires we find inexpedient, because they would bring negative side effects, or because we think them morally wrong.  And not just one-time desires either, but lasting, persistent dark desires we must consistently reject.  This is healthy!  The noble thing to do in such a case is not to allow ourselves to be told we are denying our “orientation” and are suffering from sexual repression.  No, the noble thing to do is to condition ourselves to bring our changeable sexual desires in line with our morals – through further choosing our psychological inputs, our spiritual inputs, and our relational inputs.

So, like Cynthia Nixon A, I’m inclined to dump orientation as a constricting, dogmatic formula that limits choice, limits freedom and liberty, and curtails our belief in the power of the human will to transcend materialistic processes.  At best, orientation science exposes the fact that people have different sexual preferences and these have complex causes some of which seem to come pre-wired.  We mostly already knew that.  But at worst, orientation science locks us into a sense of sexual destiny with our desires, whether we like them or not, whether we believe they are moral or not, or whether they are helpful or productive to our future and human flourishing, or not.

How Does Faith in Christ Affect Being Transgendered?

QUESTION:  I am a transgendered person (ftm) and am struggling with how this affects faith. Does the bible view being transgender the same way as it does being gay? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.

RESPONSE:  Hi, and thanks for your brave inquiry into this difficult topic.  You make perfect sense.

First, I admit beforehand that any response you’ll read here will be inadequate as a final solution to the struggle you’re having.  So out of the gate, I want to remind you that while this kind of Q and A can begin (or move along) a dialogue with you and the Christian Faith, the dialogue will need human contact at some point.  This is best done in the Christian community, where we all allow our struggles to surface in respect-filled, and trusted relationships with fellow travelers on the Christian path.  Good Christian counsel cannot be undersold as a tool in helping to uncover all the issues involved in transgenderism, and how it relates to faith in Jesus personally.

Of course, you already know about the culture’s voice on this issue which has been loudly tone setting – especially in light of recent high profile cases of transgendered persons, Caitlyn Jenner being the most notable.  The clear and consistent message outside the church is that transgender is normal, natural, and amoral.  Further, the only solution to transgender given in the press and by most physicians is costly and invasive gender reassignment surgery.

You’re suspecting that the Church’s response to this issue biblically will be along similar lines as our response to the gay debate.  You're right in this way:  we believe in sexual design.  Christians believe the world is made by a Designer.  And while we believe there are things inside of nature that do not conform to God's design, at a fundamental level Scripture teaches us to look at creation and say, "it is good."

So when we look at sex, it is right there, in the creation narrative, "male and female" - a complimentary design, which is not only said to be "very good", not only a means to "fill the earth", it is also said to reflect the communal oneness within God himself (Gen 1:27)!  Our gender then, and the duality of it is intrinsically good and an unalterable part of God's design for sex.  Jesus would double down on all this too, when he affirmed and summarized this design as faithful, loving, permanent and heterosexual (Matt 19:4-9).

Now, for the non-Christian, one of the reasons a multiplicity of sexual options seems reasonable is that they do NOT believe in Design.  Neo-Darwinism is the lens through which we look at everything, including sex.  So if you are here through a series of biological and chemical accidents without forethought, planning or design, then sex can have no inherent meaning or prescription.  Thus, I'm bound only to follow my sexual feelings wherever they lead.

Well, Christians, having submitted to a Mind higher than our own, cannot go there.  So the question of your spiritual walk is of utmost importance, because devotion to Jesus changes how you look at Design. Jesus does not just save the human soul, he means to bring us back into God's good creation designs.  So the Christian brings their very life (including gender and sexuality) under his good leadership.

If that is true of you, then the design question has been forever settled - sex has an order to it, and a prescription.  Think about Legos.  You could use those however you wanted, you could throw them at people as a projectile, or try to eat them.  But just looking at them, you would know, this is made for building stuff.  People are given sex as a gift, and they can and do use it however they want, but you don't have to study sex very long to realize it was made for something specific.

Therefore, Christian opposition to forms of sexual expression other than faithful, heterosexual monogamy has nothing to do with hate or discomfort or lack of science training or phobias.  It has to do with design.

Now, the Christian transgendered person may have no real incompatibility with “faithful, heterosexual monogamy” as God's design – they may simply wish to live that good design for themselves by reassigning their gender.  In this case, transgenderism may appear very different than homosexuality.  Surgery may seem the answer to live out God’s good design!

Unfortunately, I think that reassigning gender is essentially an impossible wish physically, with broad and unsettling side effects, as I’ll explain below.  It seeks to fix something that isn't broken (the body) by calling something fine that's actually broken (the mind).  To put it in Paul's words, we should rather seek the transformation of our lives by the renewing of our minds, rather than being conformed to the world (Romans 12:1,2).

If you have transgendered feelings, realize that no one comes to Jesus without their mind needing to be renewed.  So your transgendered feelings do not put you in an altogether different position than the millions of people struggling with addictions, depressions, bipolar, or anxiety disorders.  I hope you’re not offended by the comparison with other mental illnesses.  Rather than offensive, I hope it's merely self evident:  a person with a man’s body and XY chromosomal structure will function best with a male persona IN that male body.  And to have a female persona in that male body is by definition a malfunction – a disorder.

So, is the fundamental problem in the mind (which can change), or in the body (which cannot fundamentally change)?  

But perhaps you dispute that the body cannot change.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, says that sex change is “biologically impossible.” Dr. McHugh, explains that transgender surgery is not the right solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.  Transgenderism is actually a mental illness that merits treatment, and thus people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

He's collected studies that show the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people!  Also, Dr McHugh cites studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

The Christian view then, is that the promoters of gender reassignment as treatment for transgenderism are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their gender confusion as a right in need of defending, rather than as a mental illness that deserves compassion, understanding, treatment and prevention.

Take for example people who are “dangerously thin” and who nevertheless look in the mirror and see a fat person.  Their mental assumption about themselves is not in line with their actual nature, and this constitutes a disorder, which we call anorexia.  Here we CAN fix the mind in many cases, and no one thinks it's a good idea to try to fix an anorexic's body to make them feel thinner.  It's probably only because sex is involved with transgendered feelings that we don’t automatically use the exact same reasoning.  (Unrestricted sexual liberty, after all, is the idol of our times.)

For those who have had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”  At Hopkins Hospital they just stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

With the transgendered, as with the homosexual, we have observed that if a person has a personal desire and deep commitment to bring their feelings in line with sexual Design, great mental change is possible.  No change is possible without this, so abandon all attempts at coercive change for a husband, wife or child.  But change is even more probable, we believe, with the power of God in operation in the fully surrendered Christian’s life.

However, as my ex-gay Christian friend recently told me, they must not pretend or cover up their struggle – that will surely lead to frustration and probably a falling away from a faith they deemed “didn’t work”.

So the end game for the Christian transgendered person is not about Jesus “working” for them – it’s not about being happy – it’s not about being heterosexually attracted – it’s not about having all the right feelings – it’s not about sanctioning the feelings I do have – it’s about holiness!  The Christian doesn’t tell Jesus how the journey will go, he accepts the privations involved in obedience and straps in for the adventure of where Jesus and his grace will take them.

And likely that journey in Christ will not mean never wrestling with gender confusion again, but will mean being whole in Jesus, by faith forgiven and completed in Him, struggles and all, fully accepted, adopted, adored, and walking forward in trusting obedience.

For a fascinating personal story on this, go here.

Does being Christian and gay require Celibacy?

Question:

I appreciate your teaching on homosexuality - walking a line I often can`t always articulate or even fully grasp in the Tug of War with Biblical Truth and modern culture. I still struggle with asking anyone to remain celibate. It`s a lot to ask. For now, I for one am just grateful to acquire more real people in my life who are lesbians and gay so the whole thing can be taken out of theory into Love in action.

Answer:

This is such a difficult discussion for many, myself included, as we all have gay friends, and gayness is front page news every day. This is doubly difficult when loved ones either struggle with same sex attraction or are deeply convinced this is a civil rights issue and being on the “wrong side of history” is the newest unforgivable sin.

If so, this is a “sin” we Christians will steadfastly continue to commit, simply because we surrender to a wisdom higher than our own. On my own, I’d go with the flow. I don’t care to make homosexuality illegal, and I don’t care to want to proscribe it as another form of sexual expression – if that’s what a person wants to do. But I’ve taken my cues from a better Mind, one that I believe invented sex, so the core of my commitment to believe homoerotic sex is inherently “disordered”, lies there. Him, I've learned to trust.

But note, the “lifelong celibacy” requirement for gays turning to Christ, is not quite the dire picture we imagine. We imagine it’s dire, only because we have bought the whole package of what “gayness” is from a confused and defensive gay culture. Namely this idea that orientation is some inviolable, sacrosanct biological wiring that has no bend, no flex, no morph-ability.

Look, all arguments about “born gay” aside, the truth is people who have certain sexual preferences can choose to have sex successfully in ways that don’t align with those preferences. Some people prefer masturbation to copulation, but choose to not self-sex because they come to believe it’s a violation of a higher design, that sex was designed to be interpersonal; an intimacy building activity between persons, not narcissism.

Likewise, some people have been in heterosexual marriages for years, had children, then come out of the closet, announced they were gay the whole time, and left marriage and children behind. Whatever is true about their orientation, their actual experience (repeated by millions of gays) is that they were perfectly capable of heterosexual sex. Was it what they preferred? I guess not, but they CAN engage in such sex as they did so in the past.

And so, for the sake of Christ, lawful sex is readily available for the person with same sex attraction as it is for anyone else. It’s only in our current climate of torturous adherence to self actualization and constant self fulfillment that we could think a person eschewing one kind of sex for another because they believe it better for them, for others and for society in the long run, even if they prefer it less, is a terrible, immoral act.

It used to be that rejecting sex that you preferred for “lawful sex” that honored God and blessed human society was considered noble. Not any more, I guess. All that to say, a Christian struggling with same sex attraction is not cursed to a life of celibacy, unless the only sex they would ever consider engaging in, is homoerotic. Then, yes, celibacy is the only way to honor God with their sexuality.

But as I said, they can choose to participate fully in God’s sexual design, even if they harbor other desires. And let us not forget the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and good Christian counsel that may affect the “strength or direction of sexual desires” - contrary to popular dogma.

By the way, EVERY Christian who wants to walk faithfully in Christ does some of this "rejecting of sexual preferences". No one is “oriented” to always do sex God’s way. No one. So the homosexual is not in a unique position. Sexual preferences (and that’s all an “orientation” is after all) are quite literally legion. God’s sexual design is singular.

Now, is it less a stretch to discipline an unlawful heterosexual desire into God’s design than a homosexual desire? Perhaps. But Jesus did predict that the path of the disciple would at times strain the bounds of what we think is humanly possible (Matthew 19:26) And let's face it: everyone finds some parts of God’s sexual design agreeable and other parts less so. Most playboys are perfectly happy with the "Hetero" aspect of Christian sexuality but have a huge internal, physical preference problem with the monogamous part, or the permanent part. Some homosexuals are agreeable to the monogamy part, but clearly struggle with the heterosexual part.

It's only because we bought the culture's packaging of this issue that we think the Christian position on sexuality uniquely targets or is uniquely onerous for gays. It does not and it is not.
By the way, I love your attitude to be relationship with people who are gay and to be Love in action. Way to go. May God show off both his grace and truth through you. People need Jesus, not because they are gay, but because they are sin-separated rebels – a condition which predates sexual outworking. When we see all people that way, gayness fades to the background and God’s mercy can take center stage.

How Can We Defend Traditional Marriage From The Bible When It Allows Polygamy?

QUESTION:  How are we to defend marriage in the public square as being between ONE man and ONE wife when Old Testament is littered with polygamy?  “I'm barren so I’ll give you my servant”??  When talking to a non Christian, this whole idea seems so discrediting. I think these women are crazy to let their husbands sleep with anyone else but my goodness, how come these men don't just say no?!?!

RESPONSE:  Great question and let me address your second question first because it relates to the Biblical ideal.  And that’s important because if we can’t establish a cohesive biblical ideal, then it does seem weird to argue for a set of sexual morals in society when our holy book doesn't even seem to have a consistent message itself.  The fact is, despite instances of polygamy, the Bible DOES have a consistent sexual ideal and design.  In fact, the occurrences of polygamy in Scripture help us respond to the challenge of homosexuality in the present as you’ll see. 

God’s sexual model is revealed on the first pages in the creation narrative (Gen 1-2) and the same model is affirmed throughout the Bible, most importantly by Christ himself who actually deepened our understanding of the importance of it (Matt 19:1-9).  Finally Paul indicates that faithful, loving, heterosexual monogamy was the only marriage model the Church affirmed (1 Tim 3:12).

Yes, intermixed with this simple model are descriptions of sexual models and customs that conflict with it, but those have to be understood in relation to the overall teaching of Scripture and their specific intent.  The first description of someone perverting God’s marriage model is Lamech (Gen 4) who is the first polygamist.  His actions are not put forward as a new ideal or a new permissible option for marriage… he’s an illustration of what the Fall into sin has done in perverting God’s good design. 

So now remember when I taught on the difference between PRESCRIPTION and DESCRIPTION in Scripture?  God never PRESCRIBES any marriage model except one:  one man, one woman, for life.  He often DESCRIBES many other models in his Word.  Polygamy being one.  “Levirate marriage” being another – that was when a brother in law was required to marry his sister-in-law if his brother died without leaving any sons.  These are examples of marriage practices that God doesn't specifically initiate, but in some cases “tolerates” or “manages” until the new creation period brought in by Christ – who comes to RESTORE God’s creation desires and designs.  Polygamy is a fundamental desecration of this larger design.

When the law comes and talks about polygamy, keep in mind that it is merely a temporary steward of God’s People to temper the devastating effects of sin – not God’s ideal order.  So, for example, Levirate marriage was a specific form of polygamy that God tolerates in his law after the Fall to help widows be cared for who wouldn't be otherwise without sons.  In the new creation period, however, this provision goes away as widows are to be cared for by the Church rather than find plural marriage partners (1 Tim 5:16).

Therefore, polygamy being practiced by Old Testament characters or being talked about in the law of Moses is not an endorsement or presentation of “just another lifestyle choice” or evidence of conflicting marriage models.  Contrary to what this internet meme is meant to convey:

Remember, polygamy PREDATES Mosaic Law.  Thus biblical polygamy laws, rather than mandate the practice, are there to manage the extra hardships that come with this preexisting condition, the insecurity, and jealousy and infighting known in all polygamous cultures.  

Hence, the law about polygamy in Deut 21:15-17 – it is a law requiring that non-favored wives NOT be treated inequitably.  The transcendent moral principle is about fairness, not condoning multiple wives – and the implicit acknowledgement is that polygamy creates no end of ugly family dynamics.  Abraham’s story illustrates all the problems which this law is meant to address – in fact, part of his story is to teach us the steep price he paid for violating God’s marriage ideal!

Having said that, we should notice there are underlying “noble” intentions or cultural mandates surrounding polygamy - which may be why God doesn't come out and specifically challenge it with Abraham or other O.T. figures.  It was common practice in those days to build your household through a slave-wife if your actual wife was barren.  While that seems crazy to us, keep in mind just how critical it was to have children in the ancient world!  Children were EVERYTHING.  They were your retirement fund, they were your police/security guards, your work force, your fire department, your food security, your medical insurance, all wrapped up in one.  So now let’s say your wife isn't having kids.  How would you like to live your life without any of those securities?  I’m not saying it was right according to God’s creation design, but the need for polygamy was felt in the ancient world deeply, because of the rampant loss of male lives at childbirth and in war and work (it was a dangerous world to be a man!) and the importance of children on your security.

Now, in the same way, our culture feels a need for homosexual marriage because of the value we place on sexual freedom.  Homosexual marriage would seem as crazy to them as polygamous marriage seems to you.  Changing cultural conditions make certain forms of marriage more palatable at certain times.  Well, God’s Word speaks with a timeless authority above temporary conditions like a shortage of males or barren females (them) or an overemphasis on the value of sexual freedom and personal autonomy (us).  God’s design is not swayed by the transitory winds of want – it’s founded in God’s own unchanging character and our ACTUAL needs as his creations.

So we are not that different from them.  I’m glad you brought up polygamy in relation to the national debate about marriage, because it illustrates how ALL variants to God’s marriage model have some “noble” rationale.  A shortage of males makes it seem only natural and permissible to multiply wives, for seemingly good reasons:  survival, even compassion – for unmarried women would most likely turn to prostitution to live. 

Well, in our society, because we put such a high value on sexual autonomy, when we find some people who are genuinely sexually attracted to members of the same sex, it seems only natural and permissible to endorse homosexual unions – in fact tolerance would seem to DEMAND it.  

However, though some OTHER good is upheld in these diverse marriage models (compassion/survival in polygamy or freedom/tolerance in gay marriage) the Bible still says  “it is not right to do evil that some good may result.” (Romans 3:8).  Violating God’s revealed, and narrow sexual design is never right even if it achieves some partial good.   Given God’s clear creation sex model, if it was not right to marry many women no matter the cultural condition of the ancient world, how can it be right to marry someone of the same gender in today’s world?

So the sexual design in the Bible, from first page to last page, is clear - difficult, narrow, challenging - but clear.