Pastoral Guidance for a God-centered Response to LGBT by Pastor Manuel Pereira

 This article is intended to be pastoral. It is not designed for public argument or debate; it is written in an effort to minister to the hearts of God-fearing, people-loving Christians concerning the very challenging subject of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender movement (LGBT), and especially as it relates to the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. My aim is that through a biblical meditation and application of the gospel in this matter our hearts would truly reflect a more God-centered response and ambition, so that God may be glorified in and through His church in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

Here at the outset, I want you to know that I have heard several messages and read many responses to this issue, all Christian, and frankly have not been too terribly impressed. We should come to this subject, with breaking hearts and fear, with a deep sense of humility and overflowing compassion. This particular subject, more than most others, will test your worldview; and your response will serve as a testimony of your heart before God and men.

We will begin by considering the issue in its two major parts—civil and moral—and conclude with the challenge of a God-centered response.

I. CIVIL CONSIDERATIONS

Friday, June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage in all fifty states. This is a defining moment in the course of American history. Two men and three women disagreed with every generation in 200 years of America history and thousands of years of world history regarding the legal constitution of marriage. For the remainder of our years in this country, we will be responding; it is not a question of if we must respond, response is not optional. What we choose to do or not will be our response.

It appears that many Americans have casually adopted a neutral or complacent position. The public mentality of our day suggests that intolerance of any kind is not American. That tolerance of every kind (except tolerance of intolerance) is good, regardless of its moral connotation. That acceptance of all kinds is the American way—blurring all lines of reasonable distinction between the person and the person’s choices; confusing acceptance as it relates to the person versus acceptance as it relates to moral choices. Such confusion that obscures principles of morality and inherent dignities of differing human beings made in the image of God has the potential to confuse legal decisions in government. This seems to have factored into this situation. Whatever the case, the said decision made by the Supreme Court of the U.S. has serious legal implications and consequences.

Legally speaking, this ruling poses several threats to our Constitutional liberties. These are grouped into four basic categories of thought.

A. FEDERAL VS. STATE JURISDICTION

First, there is the issue of federal jurisdiction in matters pertaining to state issued marriage licenses. Federal versus state jurisdiction is a very important matter in this court case. The federal government should not be granted the authority to impose a new mandate that overrules what has been entrusted to the individual states concerning the institution of marriage. In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts mostly centered his arguments around the need to preserve the rights of the states rather than follow the turn of public opinion:

The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States … Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. … The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife” (Windsor, 570 U. S.) [1]

B. MANDATORY VS. PROHIBITORY LAW

Second, there is the issue of prohibitory versus mandatory law in matters of religious practice threaten constitutional rights. Prohibitory law effectively prohibits the doing of some act while mandatory law effectively demands the doing of some act. Prohibitory law is typically employed to cease unlawful prosecution, which is closely connected to the fundamental principle of liberty. Prohibitory law protects, while mandatory law demands that something in particular be done or done in a certain way.

Now, a shift from prohibitory to mandatory law, decreed from the U.S. Supreme Court, becomes particularly important in relation to the institution of marriage. Why? Marriage is not only civil, it is religious as well. Convictions regarding the definition and ceremonial practices of marriage are inherently religious in nature and have been for millennia—this is a universal reality transcending the cultures of the world and eras of history. So this Supreme Court’s ruling decrees mandatory law across all 50 states that imposes demands in matters that are essentially religious in nature. This encroaches on a violation of our First Amendment right to personal freedom of religion.

Again, Chief Justice Roberts states,

Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. … The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage (Ante, at 27). The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Justice Samuel Alito, joining Justice Thomas in his dissent, writes, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.” Elsewhere he says, “The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

We should consider that prior to the June 26 ruling, same-sex marriage was legal in 17 states (and the District of Columbia). But this was accomplished by representative government working through the appropriate channels of legislation. As a result, the laws accommodating same-sex marriage in these states did not at the same time mandate practices that would violate the religious convictions of others. Again, Chief Justice Roberts writes,

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.

Justice Clarence Thomas insightfully warned that this was inevitable to promote conflict:

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. … In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice. … Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

C. UNCONSTITUTIONAL “LIBERTY”

Third, there is the issue of perverting the constitutional intent of the term “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[2]

The State shall not “deprive” any person of life, liberty, or property. The authorial intent of the term “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment has evidently been revised in the Court’s recent ruling. The constitutional triad, life, liberty, and property, was largely influenced by the then current philosophy of law being discussed among Englishmen. In Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69), considered one of the most important legal treatises ever written in the English language, Sir William Blackstone described “liberty” in terms of immunity from government rule rather than benefits from government.

The rights of all mankind … may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty; and the right of private property: because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.
…
I. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.
…
II. Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.
…
III. The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists of the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.[3]

Justice Thomas affirms that “the Framers drew heavily upon Blackstone’s formulation.” Those responsible for writing and ratifying this amendment to our Constitution intended “liberty” to describe the protection of the individual to move about, determine his own vocation and living situation, acquire and use property without restraint or imprisonment from government imposition without due course of law. This point is addressed with a tinge of sarcasm by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

The five Justices who compose today’s majority ... have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.

He bemoans the majority’s revision of liberty:

Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

Insightfully, and in accordance with the original intent of the term “liberty,” Justice Clarence Thomas states his dissent as follows:

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
…
The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses.
…
Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
…
Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace.

Again, the issue here is not first a matter of same-sex marriage, but rather a matter of the Constitutional integrity of our government and the liberties it was established to protect. Justice Thomas concludes this point regarding the revision—or in his words the “inversion”—of the original meaning of liberty with a similar heart-cry:

The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.

D. UNCONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE

Fourth, and lastly, there is the issue of jurisprudence. This category of concern is interested in the philosophy of law and the place of the Supreme Court in relation to legislation. Chief Justice John Roberts plainly identifies this concern:

Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.
…
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.”
…
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role.
…
Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

In his closing statement, he centers his dissenting position not around same-sex marriage but the failure to uphold the intent and purpose of the Constitution of the United States:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

The implications of this action are great and potentially far-reaching. Joining Chief Justice Roberts is Justice Scalia, who expresses his desire to “call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy.” He writes,

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
…
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per­sonal importance to me. … it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar­riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Justice Alito expresses the same concern with remarkable words:

Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.

Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.

Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.

* * *

We need to know and understand the basic legal and Constitutional aspects of this ruling. As stated by the dissenting Supreme Court Justices, this ruling presents some serious threats to our Constitutional liberties. Extending beyond religious and moral convictions, our concern as God-centered Christians must include a sincere burden for Constitutional integrity in our American government. While our citizenship is first in heaven, we are “in” America, though not “of” America. We are stewards of God’s grace in this land and as such are responsible to so know, live, and speak the gospel as to affect our country with the fragrant influence of Christ. We are to live and move and have our being in the sphere of Christ as salt that preserves and retards the advance of corruption and decay. Our supreme goal is the gospel, and yet our stewardship of opportunity remains that we should vote as we are able and speak on behalf of God’s Word concerning what is right and wrong among the people of this land.

The science or philosophy of law, according to American history, establishes that law is given for the sake of justice, that is the upholding of what is right. This is clearly consistent with the biblical principle of law. First Timothy 1:8–11 states it this way:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Law is not intended to hinder righteousness or “the just.” It is intended to protect one party from the unrighteous acts of another. Biblically speaking, the highest use of law is the protection of God’s holiness and the well-being of human beings made in His image. God’s laws issue protection of what God decrees as right, as justice is to uphold what is right. But as evidenced in this case, there is an authority crisis in America. Law is predicated on an authoritative discrimination between right and wrong, but government is responsible for justice not authoring morality. At least this is what the Framers of our government understood. John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” American democracy was not originally intended to be the author of morality for the people; it presupposes a higher Authority from whom morality is determined.

This brings us to our next major set of considerations, namely moral considerations.

II. MORAL CONSIDERATIONS

The judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 26, 2015, was more than a civil judgment, it was a moral one. It inherently involves moral considerations that beg of an authority—an Author of right and wrong. These considerations have even greater than civil consequences for they transcend the courts of America and find themselves at the bar of God’s judgment; they are not merely matters of American government, but God’s government.

Biblically speaking, law is intended to restrain evil. Among the nations it is designed to sanction restraints that protect God-given rights to human beings made in His image. What is so remarkable about the ruling of June 26, 2015 is that it has overthrown one of God’s fundamental restraints, namely the protection of God’s institution of marriage and family. In a sermon entitled, “We Will Not Bow,” delivered on July 19, 2015, John MacArthur spoke these profound words:

This country talks a lot about terrorist attacks—and rightly so. Almost anybody in America can give you some kind of a listing of the most destructive acts of terror that have happened in our country. But let me suggest to you this: The two greatest attacks of terror on America were perpetrated by the Supreme Court. Not by any Muslim, but by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first one was the legalizing of abortion. Subsequent to that, there have been millions of babies slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers. It’s incalculable to even comprehend that. The blood of those lives cries out from the ground for divine vengeance on this nation.

The second great act of terror perpetrated by the Supreme Court was the legalization of same-sex marriage. The destruction of human life in the womb—in a sense, the destruction of motherhood—and now the destruction of the family itself. No bomb, no explosion, no attack, and no assault on people physically can come anywhere near that kind of terrorism. Our country is being terrorized by the people most responsible to protect it—those who are to uphold the law.
…
No human court has the authority to redefine morality. But this human court has said murder is not murder; and marriage is not marriage; and family is not family. They have usurped the authority that belongs only to God, who is the creator of life, marriage, and family. Any and all attempts to define morality differently than God has is a form of rebellion and blasphemy—blasphemy against God, against His holy nature, and His holy law, and His holy people.

What’s more frightening is that America is not the leader in the overthrow of God’s restraints against public sin. In fact, the U.S. is the 21^st nation to legalize homosexual marriage.

GOD’S GOVERNMENT

The U.S. Supreme Court is not supreme. God alone is supreme and His court alone judges according to perfect righteousness. God is the only Judge of all the earth (Gen 18:25), transcending all geographies and generations. We would do well to remember that America is here today and will be gone tomorrow—God alone transcends.

Psalm 2 speaks to the nature of God’s rule over the rule of nations and national leaders with striking profundity:

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”

The nations in their attempt to govern themselves rage against God’s government. Their efforts are given to scheming plans in vain; their efforts are futile and ultimately empty. The rulers of the earth are in one sense self-appointed—abusing their delegate authority as though it were self-derived authority and thinking that control and sovereignty in the lives of the people are actually theirs. Their strength comes from their collective efforts and wisdom. They take counsel together, imagining that the collective wisdom of men can overthrow the absolute wisdom and authority of God. Their convening courts and civil assemblies, when mounted against the Lord and against His Anointed, are expressly for the purpose of bursting the bonds or breaking the shackles of God’s restraints. Their efforts effectively demonstrate man’s desire to cast God’s laws off and far away from us. Liberty is their cry while rebellion is their modus operandi.

All of this, being miserably futile and vain, is pathetically laughable (Psalm 2:4). Instead, God holds these courts in contempt of His court (Psalm 2:4). While they formulate their man-centered verdicts and decrees, God says that He will finally speak to them, but it will not be in sympathy. When He speaks in response to the vain oppositions compiled against the Lord, His Son, and His law by the courts of the nations, He will speak in His wrath and terrify them in His fury (Psalm 2:5). This speech will be entirely Christ-centered, for this is the essence of His judgment: “As for Me, I have set my King on Zion, My holy hill. I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’” (Psalm 2:6-9). The point: Christ is the only true and finally Legislator, Judge, and Sovereign. The nations are His, not their own. He will call them to account, for He not only has instructed, warned, and will personally enforce His judgments (Rev 20:11–12), He has intervened into their rebellious situation. He has personally come to suffer their punishment on their behalf (i.e. “today I have begotten you”; cf.Acts 13:32-33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), to die in their place, so that they may be pardoned, acquitted, forgiven forever, being reconciled by His substitutionary sacrifice and thereby brought into a right and gloriously joyful relationship with Himself—they are His inheritance and possession. In other words, Psalm 2 is implicitly pregnant with the “good news” (gospel) that God has made provision for forgiveness through Christ and Him crucified, even in the midst of the moral rebellion of the nations. The only wise response is to turn from rebellion against God and His laws and instead establish laws in keeping with God’s honor, and that particularly in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ (Psalm 2:10-12).

These considerations are quite appropriate to the subject at hand. May it stir the fear of God in our hearts. May it move us to pray to God and proclaim Him to our fellow countrymen.

GOD ALONE DETERMINES RIGHT AND WRONG

The principle of law is to punish evil, not sanction it. But, again, this would beg the questions: What is evil? Who defines evil? God alone, being the standard and Giver of all good, defines what evil is; and evil is whatever opposes God.

God has revealed that sexual acts between people of the same gender are contrary to His design and good purposes. He plainly decreed to the theocratic nation of Israel, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22). The word “abomination” connotes the meaning of evil. It is a thing to be excluded from the desires and deeds of mankind. It is something that God detests or abhors. At the very least, God has plainly revealed that homosexuality is contrary to His design and good purposes and should not therefore be sanctioned by law.

Notice also that what is evil is the very act of lying “with a male as with a woman”—with no other qualifications. The nature of the act is wrong and not because it is committed by persons of an inappropriate age, or without mutual consent, or lacking mutual affection. The only issue that presents this act as an offense against God is that it is committed by two people of the same gender.

Now this principle has not changed through the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8); His moral standards do not change like shifting shadows. While food laws, holy days, and various cultural manners and customs are linked to the nation of Israel and in the New Covenant through Christ are assigned to spiritual wisdom and maturity (Rom 14, et. al.), sexual sin is never considered a matter of discernment or cultural accommodation for the sake of the gospel. Paul reminds us that “you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Eph 5:5). Elsewhere that “orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21). In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexual acts as the practice of “dishonorable passions” that are “contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26) and a departure from natural relations for the committing of “shameless acts” (Rom 1:27). Altogether it is classified as a judgment upon themselves (Rom 1:27). In short, “you would be hard-pressed to find a sin more frequently, more uniformly, and more seriously condemned in the New Testament than sexual sin.”[4]

There are plenty of resources that more fully address God’s moral verdict against homosexuality and sexual immorality at large. I recommend the 2008 special issue of The Master's Seminary Journal that was devoted to the subject of homosexuality for a scholarly analysis of the subject from a biblical perspective. Also, two recent works that I recommend are What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung and Is God anti-gay? by Sam Allberry. These and other resources address questions like: What about love? Why would God disapprove of two people who commit to live and love one another for life? Why did Jesus never speak against homosexuality? Are homosexuals born that way? Suffice it to say that the Bible reveals that God plainly determines homosexuality to be in class with other sexual immoralities and therefore is morally wrong—a sinful offense against God.

GOD JUDGES SIN AND OFFERS HOPE

God is holy and His righteous judgments are holy. God’s wrath is a function of His holiness acting in perfect righteousness and justice. All sin will be judged, including homosexuality.

We would do well to remember the judgments of God against sexually immoral acts in the past. Some of God’s past judgments are recorded in Scripture to furnish an example for our good, that we would learn to fear Him and honor Him with the life He gives. The offenses of Israel, including sexual immorality, “took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did” (1 Cor 10:6). Again, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11). Jude explicitly calls attention to Sodom and Gomorrah, those cities forever etched in the annals of this world as monuments to God’s judgment against sexual immorality, as an example for us to consider. Jude writes, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). And we know that what is intended by Jude as “unnatural desire” was homosexual impulse (Gen 19:5). We are not to look upon homosexuality, or any sexual immorality, lightly. We should also note that not all of God’s judgments are remedial, some are penal. We are to allow the past judgments of God to awaken a healthy and holy view of God and His moral decrees.

God is holy and His grace is holy. God’s redeeming love is a function of His holiness acting in perfectly undeserved grace. There is no sin so great—even in light of the highest demands of perfect justice—that the substitutionary suffering of Christ cannot satisfy. There is no offense too intense to God that Christ cannot cover with His substitutionary death. There is no judgment too great for grace to avert.

Judgment against sin is certain for all who sin, regardless of the type, kind, extent, or intensity of that sin. All sin, including homosexuality, will be judged by God without exception and in one of two ways: (a) either in the impenitent person or (b) in the person of Christ crucified on behalf of the penitent sinner. God issues stern warnings concerning sin of all kinds, but even more proclaims “good news” of great joy in the living hope of forgiveness through faith in Christ.

Both judgment and hope, pertaining to various sins including homosexuality, are captured in Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. 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” (1 Cor 6:9–11). May we make much of the hope that is in Christ alone for all, that the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers may experience the saving grace of God in being washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God!

GOD ALONE IS THE AUTHOR AND AUTHORITY OF MARRIAGE

God defines marriage, not man. Marriage is not a human creation, not simply a cultural custom, and not merely a societal norm. Marriage is not man’s; marriage is God’s. It transcends all segments of the world and is directly linked to creation, involving by definition the very nature of man and woman.

MARRIAGE IN SCRIPTURE AND CREATION

In Matthew 19, Jesus is approached by some legally scrupulous men who “came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’” (Mt 19:3). Immediately we notice that the question asked is legal in nature, “Is it lawful…” In the mind of Christ, legal questions about marriage depend on a right understanding of marriage as authored by God. Not only this, but two sacred volumes testify to the design and good purposes of God in marriage: Scripture andcreation. Jesus answers first by calling attention to the written Word of God, “Have you not read?” (Mt 19:4). The authoritative basis of all legal questions concerning marriage our founded in the written Word of God preserved for us in the Bible. Secondly, Jesus points to God’s second volume of revelation, namely creation. He says, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Mt 19:4). So not only does Scripture authoritatively reveal God’s design and purposes for marriage, creation itself witnesses to the same. Now in the context, Jesus is correcting a deficient understanding of marriage; He is not here addressing questions regarding homosexuality. Yet, even with regard to divorce, a right understanding of marriage is the issue. And for our purposes it is striking to note that a right understanding of marriage rests on a right understanding of the creation of the sexes: “he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” This is very important to the definition and morality of marriage.

MARRIAGE AS A COMPLEMENTARY ONENESS

Next, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 in full, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” There are several observations that can be made from this text. First, we note the singulars; marriage was originally created to be the institution of a covenant commitment for life of two individual people in oneness. Second, we observe that each party in the pair is distinguished and complementary in gender. In verse 23, it is clear that woman was made from man and in a very important and wholesome way for man. This speaks of complementarity. From this it is plain to see why the covenant of marriage is between one man and one woman, because they are human beings of complementary genders. By very design, they complement one another in such a way that they—and only two complementary genders naturally—may become one flesh. The principle of complementarity provides the moral reasoning for a “marriage” covenant being restricted to two people and not more. The chief principle is that gender provides the complementary nature of marriage necessary to serve the goal of oneness. And we know that the oneness intended in Genesis 2:24 includes the concept of sexual union, as indicated by its contextual reference in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. At the same time, it should be clarified that the mere contact of sexual body parts does not constitute the oneness of marriage. If this were so, then there would be no possibility of fornication, only adultery, since any act of sexual intimacy between those of opposite gender would constitute marriage. The oneness intended here is certainly more, but not less, than a sexual oneness of complementary human beings made in the image of God. Marriage is intended as a covenant that serves a wonderful and holistic oneness that cannot be achieved between people of the same gender.

Jesus goes on to say, “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt 19:6). What God has joined by both creation and matrimony, He has created for complementary oneness.

MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED

Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage, but it is certainly the normative result. Upon creating male and female in His image, He said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28). Marriage is not based on sexuality, sexuality is based on marriage. Fornication is sin because it disregards God’s designed context for sexual union; and a sexual union does not constitute marriage. Marriage is more than a sexual union; it is a lifelong covenant that establishes the only legitimate context for sexual union. The sacred gift of sexuality, as in any good gift from God, was never intended to be abused, misused, or terminate on self-centered ends. Marriage is the only God-given means for introducing children into this world, not merely raising them. These are realities about marriage, revealed in both Scripture and creation, that are inextricably linked to the union of one man and one woman.

MARRIAGE AND SOCIETY

Beyond this, we are concerned about the family unit as a whole and society in general. Marriage is the foundation to family and family is the foundation to society. When a society attempts to redefine marriage, to the exclusion of the nature of procreation, that society embarks on a suicidal trajectory. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, though not representing an evangelical Christian position, insightfully remarks,

For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.

Looking forward, he warns,

At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment.

The effects of this civil judgment has massive moral implications for individuals and society. As Christians, we should be very clear that marriage is an institution created for the goodness of all creatures made in the image of God; it is not a Christian institution. A God-centered response in this situation will require more heart than mere activism on the one hand and indifference on the other. The perversion of God’s design and good purposes will result in no little consequence. And our nation will suffer. Society will suffer. People in our communities will be affected. May we uphold God’s institution of marriage for the sake of His glory and the wholesome joy of His creatures.

MARRIAGE AND LAW

God alone has the authority to determine what is right and wrong. Building on this foundation, all honorable law is intended to protect what has been determined by God as right. If a particular human conduct or practice is at odds with what God determines to be right, that behavior is wrong and if committed becomes a personal offense against God and typically destructive to others and self. Laws, both from God and those rightly established by governments, are intended to protect from such offensive acts. Any law that sanctions activity which threatens the institution of marriage and family falls under the moral judgment of God and should be actively opposed through the proper channels of our representative government.

MARRIAGE AND LOVE

Marriage and love are not synonyms. To be sure, God intended marriage to be an institution of love. But love must not be confused with lust, sexual activity, or reduced to a mere emotion. Fundamentally, marriage is a covenant commitment within which personal expressions of love grow and reach levels of intimacy nowhere else experienced. These expressions of love are not primarily sexual; sexuality is only part of the intimacy that married couples were designed to enjoy. Marriage should not be defined by sex in the name of love.

It is interesting to see how terms are used and misused to frame arguments in advocacy of LGBT. Some words, like “love,” have been so redefined that engaging in a reasonable discussion over the matter can be very difficult; if not precluded. Other words, like “hate,” have also taken on new meaning. Yet these words are being used on signs, clothing, social media, and a variety of other popular mediums to project misconceptions and unreasonable arguments.

The whole debate has been predisposed in a negative framework of prejudice and presupposition. All opposition to same-sex marriage is categorized as hate, bias, bigotry, homophobia, etc., regardless of one’s reasoning or concern. If you oppose gay-marriage you are likely to be demonized. This is horrendous. Seeking to protect what societies, all over the world, have upheld for thousands of years is now being castigated as bigotry and hateful in the span of just a few decades.

Consider just a sample of the popular phrase-arguments used in this movement:

• "Love Wins"
  This is a prime example of the evident prejudice demonstrated in this movement. To label the victory of a same-sex marriage case as "love wins" is to presuppose that all opposition to same-sex marriage is opposed to love. This is a belittling and disheartening prejudice. The definition of love invoked here is misleading and misrepresents the nature of the issue. Self-centered revisions of language should not persuade our thinking. This type of language is calculated to invert the situation. It is all so very ironic. Those who promote such misleading ideals argue against the "closed-mindedness" of "religious fundamentalists." But what is meant by closed-minded? Is it not closed-minded to reject the possibility that you may be wrong? Is it not closed-minded to think that you know best, regardless of history and nature? Is it not closed-minded to reject an appeal to a higher authority?
• “Make Love Legal”
  Love is legal. Sadly, even sexual immorality is legal. It was not love that was being discussed in the courts, and it is not love that God opposes. It is the perversion of love in the unnatural, self-centered abuse of sexuality that is wrong. Love is beautiful, which makes the perversion of it all the more ugly.
• “Love is Love”
  So is the love to lie, steal, cheat, commit adultery, murder, etc., is that love still love? Is love to a dog the same as love to another human? Should bestiality be justified on the ground that love is love? Should adults be permitted to marry small children because love is love? Is love to my wife the same as love to my mother? Is love to your spouse the same as love to another person's spouse? Shallow tautologies like this are misleading at best.
• “Same Love, Same Rights”
  If it is the same love, then how come we are often told that we don't understand homosexual love? I grant that two people of the same gender can experience strong affections for one another, but this does not legitimize sexual activity between them.
• “Marry Who You Love”
  Many have said something like, "well if they love each other they should have the right to marry." But "rights" are not based on your desire for something. This kind of reasoning, taken to the extreme, would render all crime guiltless. If I really love something, then I should have the right to have it or do it. A more practical and closer to the point example is adultery. Would it be wrong for a man to leave his wife for another woman on the ground that he loves her? Should all people who think him wrong be considered haters, bigoted, and against love?
• “Love Knows No Gender, Race, or Color”
  This I completely agree with, but I disagree with the narrow and belittling definition of love intended here. Love and sexual intercourse are not the same.
• “Stand For Love”
  I pray that we do stand for love. That we make much of love—God's love. But I pray that we do not confuse love with sexuality. I pray that we stand for love in its fullest and purest and most powerful sense: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8).
• “Love Is Supreme”
  God alone is supreme. In as much as God is love, love is supreme. But lust is not.
• “Love is Louder”
  No, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor 13:4-7)

SUMMARY OF MORAL OFFENSES

In summary, sexual immorality morally offends in the following:

1. It rejects God’s plan and purpose for marriage
2. It is a mockery of that wonderful gift of marriage that God created for one man and one woman
3. It undermines God’s design for family
4. It rebels against God’s providence (individuals who blame God for the way they feel)
5. It is a sin committed against one’s own body (1 Cor 6:18)

Offenses that tend to be unique to LGBT include:

1. It is characterized by pride, mockery of God’s judgment (rainbow), and rebellion (“not ashamed”)

Most sins are not reveled in like homosexual sins tend to be. Most adulterers do not publicly glory in their sexual immorality. Most liars would not protest against laws that sanction the morality of truth, insisting that they have a right to say what they want to say. This pride manifests itself in a wide variety of ways. Someone recently brought to my attention that some homosexuals have gone so far as to assert that if you do not love them in their homosexuality, you do not love them. Imagine an adulterer saying that if you do not love them in their adultery, you do not love them. It should be cause for mourning to see that homosexuals tend to glory in their homosexuality. These are human beings, made in the image of God for the purpose of glorifying Him, who have rejected God and put themselves in his place.

It is a relation that is “contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26)

Not only is homosexuality immoral according to the goodness of God, it fundamentally exhibits behavior that is patently contrary to nature and purpose of our sexual organs. Homosexuality is a naturally evident misuse of God’s good gift of sexuality, being an overturning of His created order.

III. CONCLUSION

What is a God-centered response to of all this? How do we glorify Christ through this?

First, we must remember, with great sensitivity, that we can do what is right, wrongly. Intent is not justifiable cause for offense. Our every response, in thought, desire, word, and deed, should be aimed at honoring God and manifesting the humble, redeeming character of Christ to all.

A few suggestions toward a God-centered response follow.

1. WE MUST BEGIN BY EXAMINING OURSELVES

Peter writes, “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Pet 4:17). The point is that we who know and love God ought to all the more seek to honor Him in and through our moral lives. Our “small” sins are never justified by the “larger” sins of others. We must not focus our attention on the sins of others. It is to our detriment and the dishonor of God if we eclipse sensitivity to our own sin by focusing on the sins of others—we must begin by examining ourselves before God.

Stephen Charnock reminds us that we are privileged in our relationship to God and must therefore be all the more diligent to not betray our precious Lord:

Grace doth not privilege sin. … Christ takes more notice of the sins of his people than of the sins of others. Others’ sins are enmities: he expects no other from them; their sins are unkind, and more affect him. Their professions, mercies, covenants, assistances, privileges, require a suitable walk. Judas his betraying Christ did not so much trouble him as Peter’s denial of him.[5]

The starting place, then, for a God-centered response to this subject is sincere self-examination.

2. WE MUST NOT SINGLE-OUT THIS PARTICULAR SIN

Christians are often stereotyped as bigoted “homophobes.” The solution of some professing Christians is to simply—in the name of love—disregard God’s Word and endorse homosexuality as acceptable to God. God-fearing Christians who love Christ and love His Word are not homophobes; but they also do not disregard His Word, pretending that homosexuality is not offensive to God. The biblical response to this situation is not grounded in the fear of man, either in hatred against man for whatever reason or in the endorsement of man in disregard for God and His Word.

A God-centered response will begin with self-examination and move into grief over sin—all sin and not just some sins in particular. To be sure, God calls it an abomination, but other sexual and non-sexual sins are deemed an abomination to God. In fact, homosexuality, while treated by many Christians as THE sin of sins, is not even listed in the Lord’s “six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to Him” (Prov 6:16-19), whereas pride, lying, murder, premeditated evil, zeal and zest for evil, conscious deception, and the promotion of strife explicitly rank peculiarly on God’s list of abominations that the wise man would do well to remember. In Revelation 21, the sexually immoral are listed alongside idolaters and all liars (Rev 21:8). Homosexuality is included in a list of other sexual sins of immorality in Leviticus 20, including adultery (10), incest (11-12), and bestiality (15). Most often in the New Testament it is encompassed in the context of all sexual immorality, including fornication (sexual activity outside of marriage) and adultery (sexual activity in violation of marriage).

A God-centered response does not isolated homosexuality in its offense against God. Jonathan Edwards insightfully exposes the tendency of some to demonstrate a professed hatred and zeal against sin that at heart proves to be false if it singles out any particular sin:

And so as to hatred and zeal; when these are from right principles, they are against sin in general, in some proportion to the degree of sinfulness (Psalm 119:104, 28; “I hate every false way.”) But a false hatred and zeal against sin, is against some particular sin only.[6]

He goes on to further point out that a false zeal against sin is typically against the sins of others:

False zeal is against the sins of others; while he that has true zeal, exercises it chiefly against his own sins; though he shows also a proper zeal against prevailing and dangerous iniquity in others.[6]

We must be quick to listen to these words in all humility, without a hint of self-justifying excuse. It is the way of depravity to readily justify self while condemning others. Indeed, when human sin was first confronted by God, man’s response took this form. And the church is exhorted to manifest such a heart in the dealing with the sins of others:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted (Galatians 6:1).

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him (Luke 17:3).

A God-centered response would resolve to both (a) not isolate this particular sin and (b) never exploit the sins of others such that you think more highly of yourself. Again, we would do well to adopt the Christ-like convictions of Jonathan Edwards’ in this regard, as captured in his eighth resolution:

Resolution #8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.[7]

I doubt that most Christians who speak out against homosexuality do so thinking and acting in all respects as though they had committed the same sins and that no homosexual was more vile than they were; and that the knowledge of homosexual sin in others proved only an occasion for confessing and repenting of their own personal sins before God and man. But a God-centered response would be first concerned about God being offended; and while I have no reach into the hearts of others who sin against God, I do have full reach and stand nakedly accountable before God for my own sin. This then would become my first and most overwhelming response, with every secondary response being made in light of it.

Why is homosexual sin so often singled-out? Why is it often treated as a sin worse than others and detested with little to no compassion? One key reason is that most people who take offense at homosexuality simply cannot relate to it. It is altogether foreign to their appetites. They lack compassion because they can have no sympathy for a temptation that is not tempting to them. Most men can relate and therefore sympathize with compassion for another man who might be struggling with lust. This is because the man knows by experience the temptation of lust and can more readily identify with the other’s weakness. Sympathy often serves to mitigate our thoughts concerning the sins of others; without it, man is more prone to zealously condemn.

So-called “homophobia” is properly a form of xenophobia. Xenophobia literally denotes the fear of that which is foreign or strange to self. It is manifest in a deep antipathy for what is foreign. Merriam-Webster defines it as the “fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.” We would do well to carefully consider if our response may be fueled by some measure of xenophobia. It ought not to be; a God-centered response is inspired not by a fear of man or a fear of what is foreign but a fear of God.

This does not minimize the detestableness of homosexual sin; many of the sins that we commit are detestable, like pride. It serves to challenge the self-righteous heart to see that some sins are not more detestable than others simply because they are less attractive to you. We are not the measure of a sin’s detestableness; God is. We are inclined to think of our sins in a more respectable light, as though our sins were cleaner than the sins that we never commit. While man may accept some sins more than others, there are no respectable sin before God. Such manner of thinking is plainly man-centered and stands as an offense before God’s holiness. To be sure, there are degrees of offense and degrees of punishment in God’s economy of justice, but let us take to hear that God hates all sin and that the detestableness of a given sin is not based on its detestableness to us.

A high view of God sensitizes the soul to all manner of sin and not one species of it only. Esteeming God’s holy righteousness rightly produces not a minimizing of homosexuality but a heightening of all sin. So it is not that I am minimizing the unnatural passion of homosexuality, I am simply accentuating the godless passion of all sin.

3. WE MUST WORK AT CULTIVATING A GOD-CENTERED GRIEF

It is evident that much conviction and energy is arrayed against homosexuality by many who profess to love God. What is less evident is whether or not their zeal derives from their love of God or love of self. It seems that most who openly oppose homosexuality in our nation are driven more because of the impact it has on them and their families, on their communities and culture, rather than the raw offense it is against God. It appears that most are angry not over the shameless offense homosexuality is to God but rather over the demoralization of a nation and cultural heritage they love. This is not to say that it is wrong to be deeply offended, concerned, and grieved over cultural sins that impact our families, communities, and nation; it is, however, a question of our priorities and a challenge to order our energies according to those priorities.

Are we grieved because homosexual sin offends us or God? Is it because it disrupts and destroys our hopes for a more moral society? Is it because it imposes immoral images and ideals on our families? Again, it is not wrong to think these thoughts. I am not discounting a truly righteous anger, though I am warning that most who claim as much usually have logs in their own eyes that should be dealt with first. The point here is to challenge us to look at and think about this situation in a more God-centered way. I do believe that the more we love God the more we will grieve over sin (our own and the sins of others) more for its offense against Him and less for its offense against us. Though we grieve over the impact that the sins of others have on us, we recognize that this is a very natural response that does not require “work” and can be expressed from a self-centered heart; what requires “work” is the cultivating of God-centered grief. This is the challenge.

A God-centered response will be manifest in a God-centered grief of the sins of our nation. So it was with David, who cried out in Psalm 119:136, “My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law” (see also Ps 119:53; Jer 13:17). As Charles Bridges says, “if David was now suffering from the oppression of man, yet his own injuries never drew from him such expressions of overwhelming sorrow, as did the sight of the despised law of his God.”[8] To despise God’s law is to despise God and His will. This despising is foremost an insult and dishonor to the Lord. John Gill notes that “because the law of God is despised, His authority is trampled on, His name is dishonoured, and He has not the glory which is due unto Him.”[9] And Matthew Poole writes, “plentiful and perpetual tears, witnesses of my deep sorrow for God’s dishonour and displeasure, and for the miseries which sinners bring upon themselves and others.”[10] Daily a Christian has his occasions of such sorrow.

Charles Spurgeon eloquently articulates the spiritual maturity that God-centered grief manifests:

He wept in sympathy with God to see the holy law despised and broken. He wept in pity for the people who were thus drawing down upon themselves the fiery wrath of God. In his torrents of woe he became like the Lord Jesus, who beheld the city, and wept over it; and like Jehovah himself, who has no pleasure in the death of someone who dies, but that they should turn unto him and live. … That man is a ripe believer who sorrows because of the sins of others. In verse 120 his flesh trembled at the presence of God, and here it seems to melt and flow away in floods of tears. None are so affected by heavenly things as those who are much in the study of the Word, and are thereby taught the truth and essence of things. Carnal people are afraid of brute force, and weep over losses and crosses; but spiritual people feel a holy fear of the Lord himself, and most of all lament when they see dishonor cast upon his holy name.[11]

Strikingly, John Calvin comments on this verse in relation to his own day (approximately 1560), both calling forth and modeling God-centered grief over the sins of society:

If, in former times, the ungodliness of the world extorted from the children of God such bitter grief, so great is the corruption into which we at this day are fallen, that those who can look upon the present state of things unconcerned and without tears, are thrice, yea four times, insensible. How great in our day is the frenzy of the world in despising God and neglecting his doctrine? A few, no doubt, are to be found who with the mouth profess their willingness to receive it, but scarcely one in ten proves the sincerity of his profession by his life. Meanwhile countless multitudes are hurried away to the impostures of Satan and to the Pope; others are as thoughtless and indifferent about their salvation as the lower animals; and many Epicureans openly mock at all religion. If there is, then, the smallest portion of piety remaining in us, full rivers of tears, and not merely small drops, will flow from our eyes. But if we would give evidence of pure and uncorrupted zeal, let our grief begin at ourselves—at our seeing that we are yet far from having attained to a perfect observance of the law; yea, that the depraved lusts of our carnal nature are often rising up against the righteousness of God.[12]

This is apparently the case with Lot, who is commended for grieving over the sexual sin of his city Sodom. Peter indicates that Lot was “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)” (2 Peter 2:7-8). So also was Ezra grieved: “As soon as I heard this, I tore my garment and my cloak and pulled hair from my head and beard and sat appalled. Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of the returned exiles, gathered around me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice” (Ezra 9:3–4).

Thomas Manton wisely admonishes us in the way of God-centered grief:

Better be a mourner than a mocker and scoffer. … Would a man willingly put himself upon occasions of grief? … Others there are that by censures and bitter invectives seek to make the sinner, rather than the sin, more odious. This is to exercise malice and pride, not Christian affection. We should not censure, but mourn. Tears flow from charity, censures from pride; and by this means you lose a duty for a sin, which is a sad exchange. Others again are apt to laugh at them, and to make sport with the sins of others, but do not mourn. This is a vile abuse, and yet we are many times guilty of it. Men laugh at drunkenness, and make the slips of others matter of boasting and vain talk. This should rather set our hearts a-bleeding and mourning. He were a monster, rather than a man, that could see a man take a fall, even to the breaking of his back or neck, and turn it into a jest; or a man wound himself, and he make a sport of it. And shall we be more kind to the bodies than to the souls of men? Oh! consider the danger of these practices. As much as in him lieth he hath put himself into hell, and wilt thou laugh at it?” [13]

To be God-centered does not mean that we must be outwardly passive. Although a God-centered response will begin with self-examination and the dealing with one’s own sin, and will not single out any particular sin, it does not necessarily remain silent. The key is to keep your heart tender to the fact that all sin is first and finally an offense against God. So in light of David’s abomination with Bathsheba, he cried out, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Ps 51:4). When the prodigal son came to his repentant senses, said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you” (Lk 15:21). Paul teaches the Corinthians that “sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ” (1 Cor 8:12). Sin is first and finally against God, so our grief over sin should be first and finally over the dishonoring of God.

A God-centered response to this situation will intentionally and deliberately cultivate a God-centered grief.

4. WE MUST WORK AT CULTIVATING A CHRIST-LIKE COMPASSION

As discussed above, too many professing Christians lack compassion toward homosexuals. A lack of compassion betrays a lack of Christ. Although Christ, as God, is untouchable by temptation, since His divine nature cannot be enticed to sin, He intentionally condescended through Incarnation to take on “the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3) “to sympathize with our weaknesses” (Heb 4:15). So while He is impeccably righteous, perfectly just, and holy in nature, yet He still demonstrated great compassion for sinners: “And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it” (Lk 19:41); “And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart” (Mk 3:5).

This is radically unnatural to us. We are so prone to self-righteousness that we leave little to no room for compassion. Nor do we labor to increase our compassion for those by whom we are most offended.

The Apostle Paul demonstrated such compassion, even toward overt enemies of God, “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil 3:18). In a similar way, he said, “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” (Rom 9:2) because of his Jewish kinsmen who rejected Christ.

Thomas Manton, again, helps us to see that a Christ-like compassion will require,

 a frame of heart which all the children of God have. If you love God, and love your neighbour, if you believe heaven and hell, and have any sense of the truth of the promises or threatenings, you will be thus affected in some measure to mourn and grieve for the sins of others.[14]

A God-centered response will discipline thoughts and desires in an effort to cultivate a Christ-like compassion toward those enslaved in sin.

5. WE MUST PREACH THE GOSPEL IN A MANNER IN KEEPING WITH THE GOSPEL MESSAGE

The most vital response we could possible offer is the proclamation of Christ and Him crucified and risen. The greatest sin of homosexuality is not homosexuality, it is rebellion against God. The solution to homosexuality is not heterosexuality, it is Christ. Homosexuals do not need to be changed into heterosexuals, they need to be changed into lovers of God; a pure heart and clean hands will follow. They need to know and love God, just as every other sinner does. Heterosexual sinners are no more acceptable before God than homosexual sinners, so changing their sexuality does not change their destiny. Sexuality is not the issue, sin is.

The greatest issue is not even moral, in the sense of good verses bad deeds, the greatest issue is that their hearts are at enmity to God; their various sins serving to exhibit their hatred of God. This is true of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Even if all sexual sin were to cease completely, they would still stand in rebellion against God through some other means. This is one reason why we don’t want to isolate any particular sin when communicating the gospel to someone. So while it is a grievous burden to witness the demoralization of our nation, morality is not the hope of America. Moralism is no substitute for salvation, nor law for loving God. The greatest need of our nation is not more moral legislation, her greatest need is regeneration. The people of this and other lands need Christ, not merely better laws. We the church are God’s gift to the world supremely in the proclamation of the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now our point here is to call attention not only to the need to proclaim the gospel but specifically to the manner with which we proclaim it. We must remember that we, the Church, are commissioned to preach the “gospel” (good news) not condemnation. Protesting that “God hates fags” is highly offensive and unchristian. The news we have to bear is infinitely “good” so the manner with which we bear it should also offer an aroma of good.

This does not mean that we compromise any part of the truth; God forbid! A God-centered response will communicate the hard truths of the gospel in a manner that overtly seeks to keep self and self-righteousness out of the way. It also keeps the objectives of the gospel in clear view when it seeks to make known the riches of God’s grace. At the risk of oversimplifying the glorious reality of the gospel, we should ensure that at least three essential components are communicated in our presentation of God’s gracious good news:

• We must warn of coming judgment, for the sake of repentance.
• All sin will be condemned, either in the sinner or in Christ the substitute.
• God judges not by our standards, but by His. Using the Law of God to bring conviction over sin is helpful at this point (see the materials from LivingWaters below).
• Avoid the pitfall of allowing various arguments to derail your focus on the weighty reality of sin, even non-homosexual sin. In fact, it may be best to avoid the topic of homosexuality altogether, intentionally addressing other sins (lying, stealing, cheating, coveting, lusting, blasphemy, hatred, drunkenness, gossip, etc.).
• Keep the objective in mind: we warn of judgment for the sake of encouraging repentance, not condemnation.
• We must clarify repentance, for the sake of reconciliation with God.
• Repentance involves an awakened apprehension of the holiness of God and the odiousness of sin, a despising and confessing of it, sorrow and shame over it, and a turning away from and a turning toward God instead of it.
• Keep the objective in mind: we clarify repentance for the sake of showing the need for reconciliation with God.
• We must emphasize grace, for the glory of Christ.
• Make much God’s undeserved, unmerited, and abundant grace. Emphasize the fact that changing behavior is entirely impotent to reconcile a person to God. The wages of sin is death, but the free gift—emphasize the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23).
• Make much of God’s love as being demonstrated through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Rom 5:8).
• Should we warn of God’s wrath? Yes. But even more we should glory in God’s grace (Rom 9:22-23; Eph 2:7)
• Emphasize that no sin is too great for grace; homosexuals are no less eligible for grace than you.
• Keep the objective in mind: we emphasize grace for the sake of making much of Christ, not the sinner.

LivingWaters has recently made available a great evangelistic and evangelism equipping resource in the movie Audacity. Along with the video there is a helpful 32-page booklet entitled God & Sexuality, also produced by Ray Comfort a free to download.

Finally, as we think about the daunting task of proclaiming the gospel—an endeavor we must take up, we would do well to heed the words of Thomas Manton: “We cannot always prevail when we plead with you, and shall not be responsible for it. God never required it at the hands of any minister to work grace and to save souls, but to do their endeavours.”

A God-centered response will endeavor not to change sexual orientation or promote morals chiefly, but rather will be focused supremely on the proclamation of the glorious grace of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

6. WE MUST LABOR IN LOVE TO LIVE DISTINCTLY GOD-CENTERED

Not only our words, but our lives must manifest the gospel. Love should be our hallmark of our lives as Christians. Our labors should exhibit our goals. A passion for the glory of God should govern our affections and aversion, personally and corporately. Our attitudes, thoughts, desires, words, and deeds should release the fragrance of the love of Christ.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Cor 13:4-7)

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive (Col 3:12-13)

If we demonstrate these characteristics toward one another in the church, our words to our world will carry more weight. We are talking here about how we are to live out our lives together as Christians before a watching world. Our Lord commanded us,

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (Jn 13:34–35).

If we know this kind of love within the church, then surely our dealings with those outside the church will bear some characteristic resemblance. To this end, we are even commanded:

So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith (Gal 6:10).

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone (1 Thess 5:15).

I am deeply concerned about man-centered hatred and fear, especially as it relates to homosexuality. Any unregenerate heart can easily hate homosexuality; despising homosexual sin does not make it God-honoring. My prayer is that we all would display a sincere hated for our own sin with the same eagerness and readiness to condemn as we so easily do toward the sins of others that we cannot understand. If you can find no place for compassion toward homosexuals, it is likely owing to a lack of the gospel in your own heart. I am reminded again of the words of Thomas Manton, “The greatest sinners, when they are once converted to God, have the greatest compassion afterwards towards other sinners.” Our response to this sin must be in broken humility, tenderness, sensitivity, compassion, and a true love to God and burden for His honor.

A God-centered response to this subject will make much of God through an uncompromising labor in God-centered love.

Sola Gratia
Pastor Manuel Pereira