What's the Connection Between Socialism and Trans-activism?

QUESTION: You can't help notice how hip both Transgenderism, and Socialism are today.  But I'm further noticing explicit and implicit connections between the two.  What's the reason for that?

RESPONSE:  If you look into it, Socialism and LGBT rights has a long and interesting history.  Just this year, transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at a recent conference in Chicago dubbed, Socialism 2019.  Summarizing one of the panel discussions, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” one reviewer summarized how these modern socialists see themselves connecting to LGBT activism.

'Corrie Westing... argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.” ...pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.  Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.  The answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”  She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”

Many have wondered what the obsession on the political left is with Transgenderism.  Let's face it, they say, even if you have genuine concern for the freedoms and acceptance of transgendered people, we’re talking about a tiny fraction of the population.  Can that really be a winning political issue?  Why spend so much time on this?  Surely there must be some political expedience beyond a moral crusade for the right to have 48+ gender options on Facebook!

Turns out, there is.  This conference points overtly to the real reason – support for the trans-rights movement facilitates knocking out our inherent connection to biological sexual reality, which oppressively ties women to the family model that naturally arises out of binary sex.  This is gold for socialists who need a reason for revolution against oppression.

Now, where they see this as inbuilt oppression, built literally into the very fabric of sex, someone else may see a very different and liberating design.  If the binary nature of sex ties us to traditional family structures, it also provides a very immediate and local answer to our innate longings for purpose, belonging, connection and interdependence.  But if that is true, the socialist is very right to assume the traditional family is standing in the way of the Marxist dream, for it is the very thing keeping us from needing or looking to a Central Planner to find meaning, purpose or even aid or justice.  People getting their needs met in stable family structures and finding satisfaction in local control of their lives do not generally consider themselves oppressed. 

Well, there can be no greater threat to the central planning required by socialism than a happy people that doesn’t need its government, except for the most basic of protections.  Socialism/Marxism requires an inflamed, unhappy populace that demands its overseers be given total power to control the means of production so that experts can redistribute it, so everything can be fair - ostensibly to end all oppression and inequality.  

But if we are happy with home, with a family, with the provisions the stable nuclear family provides, with the freedoms that come from local control of power, such an inflamed populace never materializes – and Marx’s predicted revolution is dead in the water.

The only way to foment the Revolution that stubbornly isn’t happening in the West, is to break our "addiction" to family.  To do that, you have to find a way to cast the family as evil, as an institution of sexual oppression, and to undermine the sexual realities that underpin it.  So trans-activism is not ultimately a campaign to end injustice for 0.02% of the population, but rather is more fundamentally a means to undermine the biological realities of sex and cast binary sex as inherently oppressive.  

“Women can’t be free and equal, until women can be men” is the message.  Very few women, of course, will ever want to be men, but I think many, many women (and men) will gobble up the basic idea that unless I can be another sex, unless I can say no to my predetermined role conferred onto me by my gender, I’m not really free.  Thus, I am in some sense “oppressed” by nature.  If I remain tied to the biological roles that my sex inherently puts me in (having babies, if I’m a woman), I’m a victim of oppression.  Thus, revolt, rise up, cast off the role nature gave you, it’s inherently keeping you down and unequal!  

This is the Socialist Ideology inside the Trojan Horse of the Trans movement.  Break down and reinterpret sexual reality, to open up the plausibility and the attractiveness of Marx's long predicted revolution.   

I looked up this conference, and found it had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries.”  So we're not speculating about the connection as if it was some kind of conspiracy.  Marx's big idea needs an oppressor class.  As the middle class in America continues to thrive (despite increased wealth inequality, which is far less relevant than standard of living, by which measure the poor are doing better than ever), the idea that we need to revolt against the Gates and the Buffets of the world cannot get off the ground.  

But some bad ideas are like zombies and they refuse to stay dead.  Modern Marxists have had to invent a new oppressor class, and new oppressors and therefore new reasons for revolution to motivate us toward the Utopia.  This is it: the oppressors are cis-gendered persons whose traditional reproductive model ties women to home and family and children, takes them out of the workforce which somehow makes them oppressed.  To support this narrative, gender has to be seen as fluid, binary sex as a false assumption perpetuated by capitalists, and the work of gestation and reproduction painted as an unfair and unnatural "burden" to be freed from.

Of course, this whole story vilifies birthing and parenting as "less than" so how could such a program sustain a society?  The answer, in the newest version of the workers paradise, gestation is "open sourced" and we must assume some form of artificial, publicly controlled surrogacy will be the way all babies come into the world, and then would all be raised collaboratively.  At least in this, socialists haven't changed much..

Against this, is the Christian view.  We believe nature is not an unplanned reality.  Therefore, we believe we can read many things "out of" nature that reveal planning and design to us from the Planner and Designer.  When it comes to sex, we read out of sex, intention.  (Rather than reading "in to" nature whatever we want) Specifically, we see God's intention.  Not just for how we reproduce, but for who we reflect, namely God himself.  We see inside the binary nature of humans, the Image of God. To be born into your particular half of this mystery (male or female) isn't oppression, it's calling and mystical reflection of the divine, to be celebrated, not bemoaned or striven against. 

Christians can agree heartily with the new communist thinkers and sympathizers who (like the old ones) think the family a great and powerful obstacle to a secular paradise.  But unlike those who frame it and the binary sexual design underneath it as evil, we see a very great and powerful Good.

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.

Why Shouldn`t Couples Live Together Before They Are Married?

RESPONSE: The most obvious reason to not live together from a Christian perspective, is that you can't live together without sleeping together and God reserves sexual intimacy for the committed oneness of marriage. I address the specific issue of why and where in the bible God reserves sex for marriage here.

Regarding the specific reasons for not living together, the case is a strong (if the goal is lasting marriages) even putting the "fornication" issue aside. Cohabitation is a big deal these days - the national rate is literally sky rocketing. In fact, some family experts were getting excited to see that the divorce rate seemed to be dropping quickly a few years ago. Then they found out that the reason the divorce rate was dropping was not because people were more committed to their unions. The reason was that people were simply delaying marriage, and opting to live together instead.

But contrary to popular myth, this does not help a couple prepare for a life of marriage. Instead, these cohabiting couples break up MORE frequently than married couples, yet they often share assets, homes and even children. Thus their breaks up are every bit as heart wrenching and damaging to themselves, others and society as a divorce, but it just doesn’t show up in the divorcee stats, because technically they weren’t married.

Let's look at the common wisdom which says, “you wouldn’t buy a car without first taking it for a test drive, right?” This has a ring of truth, but the facts don’t bear it out. The reason, is simply because you cannot “practice” commitment.  Marriage is not a car, it's not a product you can "test" because at the heart is not services you consume, it is a promise you fulfill.  In fact, a consumerist view of marriage is very much at the root of marriage breakdown, since it puts the emphasis in marriage on what I get out of it.  The Biblical picture is the opposite: the emphasis is on what you put into it.

Think about the ironic contradiction of a trial marriage where you are specifically and intentionally NOT committed, and yet you are trying to practice commitment.  Like all married couples, a cohabiting couple does not call off the "trial" when they reach a problem.  They try to work these through.  Despite not being legally 'committed' to each other, they practice 'commitment' by sticking it out despite the flaws that are uncovered.  So they are truly pretending to be married in every way, EXCEPT for the ACTUAL commitment part. They always have the escape hatch.

And that "hand on the door" nature of the relationship may explain in part why in a majority of cohabiting relationships, after a few years, the trial marriage turns out to be a trial divorce.  These are break ups every bit as awful as a real divorce emotionally, financially and relationally. Turns out, this wasn’t a test drive at all. Test drives don’t hurt like hell!  Cohabitation often does because it throws much greater insecurity into the normal ebbs and flows and conflicts of marriage. Christian courtship without cohabitation can end without soul rocking, life long consequences. Couples might think this potential cost worth paying if the 'test drive' increases the chance of an eventual marriage lasting and being happy. But it does not, as several studies have graphically shown.

What these stats prove, is that there is nothing to be discovered or proven during living together that magically increases the soundness or longevity of marriages. In fact, ironically, no matter how long a couple lives together, marriage often alters a relational dynamic in a way that cannot be tested in advance.

Testing sexual compatibility is seen as a critical reason for premarital sex and cohabitation. But this is an idea borne of an age were people expect to have a dozen or more sex partners in their lifetimes. In that kind of a world, comparisons about sex are terribly important to a relationship. But if a person has a monogamy mind set, then the only really important thing about sexual compatibility that needs to be known before marriage is fundamental attraction. If the attraction is there (and this can be known easily without sex) then everything else necessary to great sex is simply mechanics and selfless attitude. These can be LEARNED. 

In fact, these are best learned not by firing through sex partners, but in an stable, exclusive environment where I’m not comparing my partner to 5 past lovers to see if I can be compatible with that person for a lifetime. And let's be honest: one could be a great and selfless lover, but their partner's past with multiple sex partners sets them up to be dissatisfied with the one great lover, simply because it’s ONE lover and not a variety of lovers!  Couples who cite sexual incompatibility as reason for their break up may often mean, "incompatibility with monogamy."

This exposes the contradictory expectations that most cohabiting couples are not willing to admit to each other.  Rather than a "test drive", what cohabitation is really offering to the woman and the man is something quite different and may be mutually exclusive.  The man is promised more regular sex without having to bother with altering his long term plans.  The woman is promised a step towards a real marriage which she may never get.

What we're finding is simply this:  real commitment again is the key to long term happiness and fulfillment, not a “trial run”. Whatever needs to be “test driven” before you “buy” can be tested easily and best without cohabitation and even without premarital sex.

If the goal is a marriage that lasts, not only God’s Word, but also the best data shows that cohabitation is not the way to go.  You might have heard new studies said this was not the case, but after analysis by Jessica Cohen, the latest reports again indicate: "premarital cohabitation was not linked to marital stability for women or men"

Is it permissible for Christians to engage in premarital sex?

QUESTION: We are an adult Christian couple both soon to have final divorce documents complete. Our question is: When we are dating, is there any place for sexual intimacy in this budding relationship or is abstinence the only correct path. Please cite Hard Scripture in addition to any pastoral counseling experience you have on this matter.

ANSWER: I think that the Scriptures give a clear answer to your question, namely that sexual intimacy ought to be reserved for marriage.

The Bible says in Heb 13:4-5 that "marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."  So this is the simplest description of how sexuality ought to be used by Christians in that it describes the two primary ways to MIS-use it: through adultery and sexual immorality.  One is the sexual indiscretion of married people (Adultery) and the other refers to the sexual indiscretions of unmarried people (Sexual Immorality).  In fact the Greek word used here and elsewhere, "pornea", is used for a wide variety of sexual sins.

This rule essentially puts a net around the act of sex, containing it's tremendous power within a safe zone.  Why is such a safety net needed?  Well, nothing can be clearer from the beginning of the Bible to the end than that sex is a powerful, spiritual joining (Genesis 2:25, 1 Cor 6:18).  Hence God's design for sexuality is that it be between a man and a women in a committed, covenant bond.  So the 7th commandment about adultery (Deut 20:14) and all other sex guidelines in the Law that follow (Leviticus 18) clearly reserve sexual intercourse for the relative safety of the marriage bed.

Since marriage was the norm in Jewish society, the only sex between unmarried persons addressed in the law, regarded virgins.  But here too we see again the underlying Scriptural premise that the bond of sex is in some sense permanent, because a man who deflowered a virgin would be required to marry her (Ex 22:16).

So you can see that you can't separate adultery from what is often called "fornication".  Which is why the same word is often used for ALL sexual indiscretion, because it's all essentially a violation of a single ideal - one man, one woman, for life.  From God's perspective, the act of sex is the act of marriage, for God looks at your sex partner as a "one flesh" partner.

This is what underlines Jesus teaching on sex.  The spiritual permanence of the sexual bond is why Jesus was so upset with the state of marriage in his own day.  He called out the Jews for their rampant divorce and remarriage culture.  He even called those who divorce and remarry adulterers!  Matt 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Why would he do that?  It's not because divorce is an unforgivable sin.  He says this because the Jews weren't seeing ANY sin in divorce at all!  They thought that if they followed lawful and fair Mosaic procedures for divorce  that God was indifferent about the whole thing.  But Jesus wanted them to see that they were dead wrong.  Inherent in all divorce is a desecration of God's larger goals in sexuality, which is the creation of lifelong, one flesh bonds.  So while they wanted to talk about what was "lawful" (from Moses, Deut 24:1) Jesus wanted to talk about what brings Life from God's original creation design (Matt 19:4-6).  Therefore, because of that higher, creation design that says sexual intercourse forms spiritual bonds ("one flesh unions") , Jesus wanted us to see that divorce creates a situation where on one level, the divorcee, even if lawfully remarried is, by a life long bond, someone else's spouse - therefore is an adulterer.

Now, I do not teach (as some Christian leaders do) that Christians cannot ever get re-married.  But i do believe it's almost impossible that a Christian can divorce and remarry without some sin in the picture.  Only in exceptional circumstance (Jesus mentions the presence of sexual immorality as one exception, Paul mentions abandonment) can a Christian think that the dissolution of a marriage is a faultless, benign exercise.  HOWEVER, there is forgiveness in Christ for all sins, even the adultery caused by divorce and remarriage.  Like all sin, it should be confessed and repented of - but repentance would not include divorcing your second spouse!  Obviously, what you repent of in divorce is that you didn't follow God's creation design with sex as permanent bond... therefore, repentance would mean sorrow for marriage failure and a strong commitment to a remarriage that lasts.

In my experience, when a person justifies their divorce (except in cases of physical/sexual abuse) it's usually a guarantee that the issues that lead to the dissolution of the first marriage will follow you into the next.  Without a long period of mourning, confession, repentance and God's forgiveness and healing work and without needed counsel and wisdom inside the Body of Christ, a divorcee is not ready for remarriage.  If you're wanting to have sex without marriage, it tells me that you're probably not fully repentant yet... meaning you have not yet fully brought your mind in line with God's mind on sex.

How can I say that?  Because again, the whole premise of Scripture on sex is that it brings a deep spiritual bond and therefore must be accompanied by commensurate physical and emotional bonds of permanence - IE the marriage promise.   Paul says to those having sex outside of marriage "1 Cor 6:16-7:1  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."  There is no such thing as casual sex in God's book.

So again Paul does what Jesus does:  he goes back to the creation design for sex and says the question a Christian should be asking about sex is not, "what is permissible?" but rather "what brings Life according to the benevolent design of the Designer of sex?"  Getting on God's page requires that we see sex through different lenses than pure pragmatism, or desire or expedience.  Paul concludes the matter with a fitting challenge for you and your partner:  "Flee from sexual immorality.  All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.  Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

I trust you'll find amazing amounts of LIFE down God's path, even if it means accepting the privation of abstinence in the short run.  God's way always means short term pain, but long term pleasure, if we, by an act of faith, will trust Him and obey.

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 1 Corinthians 7:36 justify premarital sex for Christians?

Question:

I have a Christian friend who’s rendition of 1 Cor 7:36 roughly comes to "if a man is sleeping with his committed girlfriend/fiancé, they are of age, and need to, let him do the things he wants to with her (have sex), it isn`t sinful: let them be considered married." Does that interpretation have any merit?

Answer:

Thanks for the note. Glad you’re interacting with your friend on this, but I do think he’s very wrong about Paul in 1 Cor 7.

First problem in using 1 Corinthians 7:36 to justify anything, especially a very contentious idea (essentially he’s saying premarital sex equals marriage) is that this verse is notoriously difficult for Christians to understand/translate/interpret for just the 2000 years. It might not be expected of the average Christian to know this about this particular verse, but taking up just 4 or 5 different translations will show that the language here is far from clear. So making a bold statement about Christian sexual practise based on this one verse is ill advised out of the gate. The broad scope of possible meanings is shown in this sampling of translations:

NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

ASV: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

Darby: But if anyone think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

God’s Word: No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn't sinning by letting her get married.

NLT: But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.

The key to understanding this is understanding three Greek phrases, translated “his virgin” and “past the bloom/flower” along with “needs require”. As you could see from the above translations, “his virgin” could have THREE possible meanings.

- It could refer to a man's daughter.

- It could refer to a man’s fiancé or

- It could refer to man’s own virginity. (Side note: when translations say “she” is “past bloom”, the gender is inferred from “virgin”, there is no gender assigned in the Greek. So it could be “his” virginity.)

Let’s look at the strength of each these interpretations: Darby sees this verse as a natural follow up to Paul’s whole conversation in chapter 7 about virginity where he promotes celibacy. This verse then, would be the “application portion” of that whole argument. So, if a man finds he is violating his own virginity (IE. experiencing the ‘burning with passion” Paul mentions 7:9) and he’s getting along in years, the man is free to marry.

This is probably weakest of the three because the possessive of virgin is almost never attached to one’s own virginity but to a person, usually (but not always) a woman whom you, in some sense, possess.

So the second idea is that “his virgin” is his fiancé. This is how most modern translations see it and your friend would agree. This is probably stronger than the first view, weaker than the last view. But even in this view, your Christian buddy has inserted two ideas that aren’t in the text and have never been inferred by any translators or commentators that I’ve read, ever. His assumptions are

- that behaving improperly means “having sex with” and

- that “let them marry” means “let them be considered married.”


Three things militate against this view. One is the question of why Paul would call premarital sex "behaving improperly" and then turn around and tell those engaging in it, "let them do as they please." This is very perplexing.

Two, is that the "behaving improperly" is connected to the “past bloom” in some way. The way early Christians did engagement” was through arranged marriages. Moderns assume that cohabitation was an option back then, but it was almost unheard of. Why? Because a man sleeping with a woman was always sleeping with someone else’s property. So no one willy nilly “shacked up” – a father wouldn’t allow it. It wasn’t just dishonorable, it was economically disastrous – unless he was paying for those services through prostitution. Yes, it was not unheard of (see John 4) but very rare, usually with widows (which precludes 'virgins' obviously).

So most men would be engaged to a woman, selected by their parents, sometimes for years ahead of matrimony. This implies that the “past bloom” comment is connected to not treating her marriage rights correctly, rather than “having sex” with her. The man in question is delaying marriage (because of Paul’s encouragement of celibacy) but he finds that his fiancé is getting older and “needs require” he do something. Again, why? Because she (or he) is not fit or suited for single life.

Therefore it needs to be said by Paul to such a man – you can go ahead and take her freely as your wife. Get married, it’s not a sin. The verb tense in Greek will not allow, “let them be considered married”. The context makes this obvious. He’s considering what a man WILL do, not renaming what someone has already done.

Third, your Friend has not understood other Scripture. There is no state of cohabitation that Paul ever endorsed as lawful sex. Widows were perhaps cohabitating with renegade elders in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy) and there he doesn’t say, “let them be considered married” if they want to make it right. He considers them fornicators, and calls them to repent, “settle down and get married” (1 Tim 5:14). The only other cohabitating we know of was the one that came under discipline when a man simply took his father’s wife (I Cor 5). If the marriage arrangement was so slippery to Paul that we could wave our wands over any two fornicators at will and say, voila, “married!”, then why not say that about the man who took his father’s wife and avoid the scandal? (We incorrectly assume that the scandal was that the father was still alive, in all likelihood he was not.)

After all is said and done, there's a strong case to be made that this isn't even about a man and his fiancé. It’s might be about a parent and “his virgin” which would be a daughter still under a father's authority. There's much to commend this view, since it takes historical context and all the language here into account. If a reference to a parent, the “behaving improperly” makes clear sense attached to “past bloom”. This would mean a Christian father has heard Paul extoll the benefits of celibacy, but the father knows this isn’t “proper” for his daughter. And seeing that she is moving past marrying age, this requires him to make a decision. And Paul then grants such a parent the freedom to do as he sees fit: Give her in marriage, let her be married to her affianced, despite the benefits of the single life.

Most early commentators saw this as the obvious meaning (Paul had talked to singles, marrieds and divorced, it makes sense that he apply his message to one final group: Parents!) As one example, this is John Calvin on this passage:

But if any one thinketh that it were unseemly for his virgin. He now directs his discourse to parents, who had children under their authority. For having heard the praises of celibacy, and having heard also of the inconveniences of matrimony, they might be in doubt, whether it were at all a kind thing to involve their children in so many miseries, lest it should seem as if they were to blame for the troubles that might befall them. For the greater their attachment to their children, so much the more anxiously do they exercise fear and caution on their account. [439] Paul, then, with the view of relieving them from this difficulty, teaches that it is their duty to consult their advantage, exactly as one would do for himself when at his own disposal. [440] Now he still keeps up the distinction, which he has made use of all along, so as to commend celibacy, but, at the same time, to leave marriage as a matter of choice; and not simply a matter of choice, but a needful remedy for incontinency, which ought not to be denied to anyone. In the first part of the statement he speaks as to the giving of daughters in marriage, and he declares that those do not sin in giving away their daughters in marriage, who are of opinion that an unmarried life is not suitable for them.

In all likelihood then, this isn’t even about engaged couples at all, but about fathers and daughters and reflects the authority in 1st century culture that father’s had over “their virgin daughters” until marriage and the responsibility they took in seeing them well wed in that culture – in conjunction with Paul’s encouragement of singleness. In any event “do has he please” cannot be referring to two unwed people continuing to sleep together and have it ‘considered’ marriage. This is a pretty blatant example of reading into the text what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself.

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.