Drawing from the material in the preceding chapters, we see emerging at least four reasons why those who engage in same-sex intercourse act contrary to God's intentions for human sexual relations.
(1) Same-sex intercourse is strongly and unequivocally rejected by the revelation of Scripture. Arguments put forward by advocates of homosexuality to undermine the contemporary relevance of Scripture are weak. Scripture does not reject same-sex intercourse because of some alleged ignorance of non-exploitative forms of homosexual behavior or genetic causation factors. It does not reject homosexual intercourse because of some misperception that only idolaters in the strict sense could engage in such behavior or because of some superstition about defilement and purity. It does not reject homosexual practice, at least not primarily, out of some need to assert the rule of men over women. Rather, Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation. Homosexual intercourse puts males in the category of females and females in the category of males, insofar as they relate to others as sexual beings. That distorts the sexuality intended by God for the health and vitality of the human race. God intended the very act of sexual intercourse to be an act of pluralism, embracing a sexual "other" rather than a sexual "same." The biblical proscription of same-sex intercourse, like those against incest, adultery, and bestiality, is absolute (encompassing all cases), pervasive (by both Testaments and within each Testament), and severe (mandating exclusion from God's kingdom).
(2) Same-sex intercourse represents a suppression of the visible evidence in nature regarding male-female anatomical and procreative complementarity. Complementarity extends also to a range of personality traits and predispositions that contribute to making heterosexual unions enormously more successful in terms of fidelity, endurance, and health than same-sex ones. Acceptance of biblical revelation is thus not a prerequisite for rejecting the legitimacy of same-sex intercourse. However, for those who do attribute special inspired status to Scripture, at any level, there is even less warrant to affirm same-sex intercourse.
(3) Societal endorsement of homosexual behavior will only accelerate the many negative social effects arising from such behavior by, first, undermining efforts to deter those already engaged in same-sex intercourse from continuing that behavior and, second, substantially increasing the number of people who both participate in same-sex intercourse and view themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. We have delineated five such negative effects:
(4) The practicing homosexual's own relationship with the Creator will be put in jeopardy. If we are to believe Scripture, the failure of the church to help the homosexual make the transition out of homosexual practice and into sexual wholeness will make the church an accomplice to the very form of behavior that God finds detestable. The church will become an enabler of the practicing homosexuals loss of spiritual transformation and, possibly, salvation.
In sum, it is not hard to see the wisdom of God in sanctioning only heterosexual unions.
These conclusions about the morality of same-sex intercourse have implications for both church and civil policy.
With regard to church policy, practicing, self-affirming homosexuals should be treated as any other persons engaged in persistent, unrepentant acts of immoral sexual behavior. They should be loved and ministered to; the church of God must struggle along with them and share in the groanings of the Spirit. They should also be called to a higher standard of behavior. Minimally, this means that those who will not abstain from same-sex intercourse are ineligible to hold church office.
In addition, if same-sex intercourse is sin, churches must make hard decisions regarding membership and discipline. If a church body (whether a denomination or local congregation) has no problems with enrolling or retaining as a member someone engaged in persistent and unrepentant acts of incest, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, or fornication, then practicing, self-affirming homosexuals should be fully accepted as well. However, if a church body would deny membership to such persons or put those who are already members under church discipline, then the same should be applied to practicing and unrepentant homosexuals. The key here is not whether the person is homosexually inclined but whether he or she is having same-sex intercourse and doing so in a "self-affirming" manner. The church can and ought to be generous in extending numerous opportunities for the homosexual who "backslides" into homosexual intercourse to be restored to the community of faith. I take seriously the words about the church forgiving "seven times a day" those who say "I repent" (Luke 17:3-4; cf. Matt 18:21-22: "seventy-seven times" or "seventy times seven"). The church should retain a certain "holy gullibility" about the genuineness of repentance in order to err on the side of grace. However, what the church has to be concerned about is allowing members to be free to engage in grossly immoral behavior (and homosexual behavior is so defined in the Bible), indefinitely refusing to repent, and substituting their own moral standards of behavior for those of Scripture without any expectation of sanctions implemented by the church. If persons indefinitely refuse to repent of such acts—declaring them to be wrong, expressing sorrow and regret, and renewing a commitment to refrain from such acts—some type of ecclesiastical discipline is surely called for. Otherwise the church ceases to stand under the lordship of Christ in any meaningful sense. Otherwise, too, it is impossible to make sense of Paul's approach to the comparable issue of a man engaged in incest in 1 Corinthians 5.
As regards the blessing of same-sex erotic unions by clergy, the appropriate position of the church could hardly be clearer. A union of two or more people who enter that union in whole or in part for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse, where the aforementioned intercourse is of a kind that can only be sinful in any and every circumstance—such a union cannot be blessed without sanctioning the form of sexual intercourse in question. Some pro-homosexuality clergy defend the blessing of homosexual unions on the grounds that all sorts of things are blessed, from boats and houses to friendships; that blessings are inherently good things; and that a blessing does not mean approval of all facets of the persons or things blessed. Such an argument is ludicrous at best, duplicitous at worst. Quite apart from the obvious fact that there are few people banging down church doors to receive blessings for non-erotic friendships, none of these examples mentioned above involves sin as a constitutive part of what is being blessed. Who would accept the contention that blessing a sexual rela-tionship between a man and his horse, a man and a ten-year-old girl, an adulterous man and his mistress, a man and his three wives, or a brother and a sister would be an innocuous event? Clearly, blessing such unions would send an unmistakable signal that the sexual intercourse that bonds the parties together is acceptable.
At the same time, there should be no impediment to church office for someone with a homosexual orientation or preference who remains celibate, does not endorse homosexual behavior, and gives every evidence of wanting to remain committed to the Bibles and church's teaching on homosexuality. In order to join as a member, or continue in good standing, the lesser standards of abstaining from homosexual intercourse or, in cases of occasional lapses, a willingness to repent should be adequate. In addition, even to those who cannot meet these minimal standards for membership, the church could show hospitality in other ways (for example, welcoming them as visitors to church meetings and reaching out to them in their homes). Through these means, as well, the church will have opportunities to communicate the gospel message.
On matters of public policy, Christians should work toward a society that neither prosecutes nor promotes homosexual behavior. In effect, this means, positively, Christians should support the decriminalization of homosexual behavior and full prosecution of crimes against homosexuals. At the same time, the church should oppose any attempts to make "sexual orientation" a specially protected class, or to grant to same-sex relationships status and benefits comparable to those married couples receive. The issues are too complex to address adequately here and will have to await elaboration in a future publication.1
The final word on the subject of homosexuality is and should always be: love God and love the homosexual "neighbor." The homosexual and lesbian are not the church's enemy but people in need of the church's support for restoring to wholeness their broken sexualitythrough compassion, prayer, humility, and groaning together for the redemption of our bodies. The old saying "Hate the sin but love the sinner" holds true, despite the shortcomings that it shares with all slogans. As David Wright notes, "It may sound simplistic, but i t . . . goes right to the heart of the gospel."2 The core proclamation of the gospel declares that God made amends for human sin while humans were still ungodly and hostile sinners, that God experienced the pain and agony of offering Christ up to death in order to rescue the maximum number of people from sin and transform them into Christ's image. To denounce same-sex intercourse and then stop short of actively and sacrificially reaching out in love and concern to homosexuals is to have as truncated a gospel as those who mistake God's love for "accepting people as they are" and who avoid talk of the gospel's transformative power. It is to forget the costly and self-sacrificial work of God in our own lives, past and ongoing.
The policy stances that the church must take toward same-sex intercourse do not diminish the believer's call to love the individual homosexual. Indeed, a keener understanding of the theological, social, and physical consequences of same-sex intercourse can potentially perform the salutary task of helping our "love abound still more and more in knowledge and all insight so that [we] may figure out the things that make a difference, in order that [we] may be pure and blameless heading into the day of Christ, having been filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God" (Phil 1:9-11). An ill-informed love can be just as destructive as hatred. Knowledge of truth is therefore essential to any appropriate exercise of love. It is not enough to want to love. One must know how to express one's love to particular people in particular situations. At the same time, it is not enough to know what is right. Knowledge can "puff up" or "inflate" the ego. It can become a weapon for exalting oneself over others in a smug attitude of moral superiority. It can turn into a tool for "depersonalizing" others. Love must be wedded with knowledge, faith must express itself in love.
In Christian faith this love comes about primarily by continual meditation on the good news of what God did for our own selves in Christ Jesus. God reached out to us in our sin. God paid the ultimate price to release us from self-centeredness for a relationship with our Creator. We have won something better, something more exciting and joyous, than the state lottery—not by luck, but by God's gracious design. No truly good thing will God spare us since on our behalf God did not spare even God's own Son. Even through the difficult times God can transform us into the image of Christ. We can be free from fear, from anger, from hate, from greed, from self-pity because the relationship with God in Christ transcends all else. We need not feel that we are "missing out on something" when we pursue only the abundant pleasures permitted by God for our own health. We are free to love, motivated to do so and instructed by the example of God's own love for us. We can redirect our love of self to a love of others, knowing that God has and will provide all we need. Thereby, we fulfill the command to "love our neighbors as ourselves." Out of our overflow of joy and peace and gratitude we are "constrained" to pursue others in love, whether we like what they do or not.
This book has been aimed at showing that affirming same-sex intercourse is not an act of love, however well meaning the intent. That road leads to death: physically, morally, and spiritually. Promoting the homosexual "rights" agenda is an awful and harmful waste of the church's energies and resources. What does constitute an act of love is befriending the homosexual while withholding approval of homosexual behavior, working in the true interests of the homosexual despite one's personal repugnance for same-sex intercourse, pursuing in love the homosexual while bearing the abuse that will inevitably come with opposing homosexual practice. It is the harder road to travel. It is too hard for many people to live within that holy tension. Yet it is the road that leads to life and true reconciliation; it is the calling of the church in the world. The real difficulty for the church lies not in assessing whether the Bible's stance toward same-sex intercourse is unremittingly negative, nor even (as is increasingly being suggested) in assessing whether the hermeneutical appropriation of the Bible's stance for our contemporary context sustains that witness. No, the real difficulty for the church lies in the pastoral dimension: the "nuts-and-bolts," day-to-day compassionate response to people whose sexual actions are recognized to be sinful and harmful to themselves, to the church, and to society at large.