Homosexuality: Why Does It Matter?

by Stephen N. Lee
I am homosexually attracted to other men, yet consider homosexual desires sinful. Many I tell
this ask, why does this matter? Een if homosexuality is a sin, so are a host of other thin!s. "hy
does this one matter in particular? #pinions on homosexuality, as sinful or not, matter because
they inole fundamentally different understandin!s of $od%s loe. &nalysis of the ar!uments
oer homosexuality reeals the iews of loe embedded within them.
& definition of sin is re'uired to understand how one%s opinion of homosexuality as sinful or not
mi!ht affect one%s understandin! of loe. (he Solid )eclaration of the *ormula of +oncord, a
Lutheran doctrinal statement adopted by ,-./, states that 0Sin, howeer, is eerythin! that
opposes $od1s law. St. 2aul says, 3&ll Scripture is useful for teachin!, for reproof, 4% 56 (im.
78,9:, and reproof is the proper function of the law; <=olb and "en!ert -.>?. (his defines sin as
anythin! contrary to $od%s will, which includes $od%s law, and specifically commends the @ible
as a determinin! source.
(he @ible contains three passa!es that directly address homosexual intercourse. #ne is found in
two separate erses from the book of Leiticus8 0Aou shall not lie with a male as with a womanB
it is an abomination; <,.866? and 0If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall
be put to death; <6/8,7?. &nother is found in , +orinthians 98>C,/8 0*ornicators, idolaters,
adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thiees, the !reedy, drunkards, reilers, robbers D none of
these will inherit the kin!dom of $od.; (he third is found in Eomans ,869C6F8 0*or this reason
$od !ae them up to de!radin! passions. (heir women exchan!ed natural intercourse for
unnatural, and in the same way also the men, !iin! up natural intercourse with women, were
consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and receied in
themseles the due penalty for their error.; &ll three of these passa!es clearly condemn the
homosexual intercourse <or in , +orinthians those who practice it? that they describe.
Goweer, do these @ible passa!es address 0the context of; homosexual relationships 0that we
experience today; <EL+& 6/?, or is the @ible silent about such relationships and thus irreleant
to modern debate? (his is fundamentally a 'uestion about the reasons for these condemnations
used by the author of Leiticus and by 2aul, the author of Eomans and , +orinthians. Some
ar!ue that their reasons concerned inherent 'ualities of homosexual intercourse which apply to
contemporary homosexual relationships. #thers ar!ue that the biblical authors condemn
homosexual intercourse because of 'ualities true only of ancient relationships. (he debate about
these reasons inoles a debate about what these authors iewed as sin and as loe.
#ne side sees the @ible as condemnin! homosexual intercourse because it contradicts the
inherent !ender differences between male and female indicated in anatomy <$a!non 7F?. $enesis
establishes these differences 0in the be!innin!;8 0male and female 5$od: created 5humankind:,;
<$enesis ,86F? and the first woman is described as 0a helper as his partner; <$enesis 68,.?,
which has the sense of opposite <$a!non 9/?. Leiticus lacks reasons why 0Aou shall not lie with
a male as with a womanB it is an abomination; <Leiticus ,.866?, but its ery phrase 0as with a
woman; su!!ests that 0the primary concern was ... behain! toward another man as if he were a
woman by makin! him the obHect of male sexual desires; <$a!non ,79?. In , +orinthians, 2aul
uses the word malakoi for homosexuals, which is translated 0male prostitutes; aboe but which
actually refers to effeminate men in !eneral <Martin II?. (his a!ain su!!ests that a primary
concern was confusion of the differences between males and females, in this case that of men
takin! on the female role.
In Eomans ,, 2aul explicitly describes both male and female homosexual intercourse as a
iolation of the created order of male and female <Eomans ,869C6F?. Ge describes homosexual
intercourse as 0contrary to nature,; which refers to isible 0thin!s 5$od: has made,; referred to
earlier in erse 6/8 specifically, male and female !enitalia <$a!non 6-F?. Since 2aul in Eomans ,
is discussin! pa!an !entiles, he is not directly appealin! to the creation stories in $enesis.
Instead, the New (estament scholar Eobert $a!non summariJes 2aul%s lo!ic with 02aul in effect
ar!ues that een pa!ans who hae no access to the book of Leiticus 5or $enesis: should know
that same sex eroticism is 3contrary to nature% because the primary sex or!ans fit male to female,
not female to female or male to male; <$a!non 6-I?. <+ontrastin!ly, this lo!ic would support
interracial marria!e, since all men and women possess these complementary parts.? (he
procreatie function of these parts corroborates 2aul%s conclusion, althou!h procreation is not the
primary concern.
Essentially, 2aul condemns homosexual intercourse as a counterfeit. Kust preiously, he uses
0exchan!ed; to describe idols as counterfeit !ods8 0(hey exchan!ed the truth about $od for a lie
and worshiped and sered the creature rather than the +reator, who is blessed foreerL &men;
<Eomans ,86-?. Now, 2aul uses 0exchan!ed; to describe homosexual intercourse as a counterfeit
of heterosexual intercourse. &ll heterosexual intercourse creates, for !ood or ill, a 0one flesh;
union between a male and a female <, +orinthians 98,9?. (his union re'uires two complementary
bein!s, each the 0missin! part; of the other. <Similarly, offsprin! physically unite two necessarily
complementary people?. "ithout this complementarity, homosexual intercourse can only ape this
0one flesh; union <$a!non ,>I?. (hus, male homosexuals 0receie in themseles the due penalty
for their error; in the dis!race inherent to such a manifestly counterfeit act <Luther 6.?.
(his illustrates 2aul%s !eneral conception of sin in the whole of Eomans ,. Sin is somethin! that
rebels a!ainst the manifest purpose of the +reator, in forms such as idolatry, homosexual
intercourse, or een 0eil, coetousness, malice; <Eomans ,86>?. Since loe fi!hts sin, loe
builds someone up into what $od created him or her to be.
#ne mi!ht ar!ue that people are born !ay, so affirmin! homosexuality affirms what $od created
them to be. Goweer, a person bein! born !ay does not necessarily exonerate homosexuality,
since een innate human 'ualities imperfectly reflect $od%s creatie intent. (wo Lutheran
doctrinal statements, the &u!sbur! +onfession and the &polo!y of the &u!sbur! +onfession,
state, 0all humans; are 0born with sin, that is, without fear of $od, without trust in $od, and with
concupiscence;, where concupiscence means the innate human tendency to sin <=olb and
"en!ert 7FC>B ,,7?. So humans seek clarity about $od%s intent in $enesis and the physical
desi!n of human anatomy. (he creation accounts in $enesis, een if myth, clearly describe the
differences between sexes as $od%s intent. &lso, althou!h people may be born !ay, 0#ne can
debate the 3naturalness% of homosexual ur!es. 4 Goweer, anatomy is not 'uite as skillful a
deceier and for that reason is a more effectie mediator of the truth; <$a!non 69I?.
In this iew, homosexual intercourse is still contrary to the will of the +reator. (he @ible
establishes that $od intentionally creates males and females different from each other. Guman
anatomy exhibits these differences. (he act of a man hain! sex with a man or a woman hain!
sex with a woman contradicts this continuin! witness, een thou!h !ender roles hae become
much less distinct.
Since homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual desires are sinful as well. Kesus states, 0eeryone
who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart; <Matthew
-86.?. Gomosexual lust likewise amounts to homosexual intercourse. In addition, the counterfeit
ar!ument expands to mean any romantic attraction to someone of the same sex as a counterfeit of
romantic attraction.
My own experience illustrates this lo!ic of $od%s creation of male and female. )esirin! to loe
other men, I turn to the romantic and sexual loe extolled by contemporary culture. Goweer, the
men to whom I am attracted, whether strai!ht or !ay, cannot !enuinely !ie or receie loe in
this form. Gomosexual desires treat men as women or women as men, of which they can only be
a counterfeit. Een a !ay man is neer a woman. *or these men to !ie and receie romantic and
sexual loe from me would only be a counterfeit of the actual !ifts they can !ie as male friends.
#thers adance reasons why the biblical texts do not apply to contemporary homosexual
relationships. (hey contend that the texts condemn homosexual intercourse because it contradicts
outdated ancient cultural conentions or because of the exploitation inherent in many ancient
homosexual relationships. Some 'uestion the releance of Leiticus, in the #ld (estament, to
+hristians, the people of the New (estament. &nti'uated commands, such as 0Aou shall not let
your animals breed with a different kindB you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seedB nor
shall you put on a !arment made of two different materials; <Leiticus ,>8,>?, appear directly in
between the two commandments a!ainst homosexual intercourse. Some ar!ue that Leiticus
condemns only the ancient practice of homosexual cult prostitution. &lso, some contend that the
primary concern was the cultural necessity of procreation.
(he passa!e from , +orinthians, accordin! to New (estament scholar )ale Martin, appeals to the
classical concept of effeminacy and to <particularly economic? exploitation. Ge ar!ues that its
term malakoi, which is translated as 0male prostitutes; aboe but literally means 0effeminate;
<Martin II?, condemns all who iolate the classical concept of effeminacy, which social
construct was based on male superiority. Ge contends that the reason for the condemnation of
arsenokoitai, translated 0sodomites; but more literally translated 0maleCbedders; <$a!non 7/9,
Scro!!s ,/9CF?, was that of people 0exploitin! others by means of sex, perhaps but not
necessarily by homosexual sex; <Martin I7?. (he contemporary New (estament scholar Eobin
Scro!!s states that 2aul condemns primarily exploitatie forms of the classical construct of
pederasty <Scro!!s ,69?.
Some a!ain ar!ue that 2aul refers in Eomans , with 0nature; and 0natural; to cultural
conention, not to the physical creation. Martin ar!ues that 2aul states that homosexuality stems
from idolatry, thinkin! 0once idolatry and polytheism were forsaken, homosexuality would cease
to exist; <Martin --?.
&ll these ar!uments hae flaws. )espite liin! under the new law of +hrist, 2aul clearly thou!ht
the commandments in Leiticus about homosexuality authoritatie, deriin! his term
arsenokoitai in , +orinthians 98> from two words in one such commandment in the Septua!int,
the ancient $reek translation of the Gebrew @ible <$a!non 7,-B Scro!!s .9?. &lso, Leiticus
cannot be primarily concerned with procreation, since it does not condemn other nonCprocreatie
acts such as masturbation or sex durin! pre!nancy and does condemn procreatie acts such as
adultery and incest with inClaws <$a!non ,77C,7I, citin! Leiticus ,.8,IC,-B 6/8,/?. Similarly,
2aul cannot hae been referrin! in , +orinthians to the classical construct of effeminacy, since in
chapter ,, he neer excludes men with effeminate lon! hair from the kin!dom of $od, as he
excludes malakoi in chapter 9. In Eomans ,, 2aul appeals earlier to the isible 0thin!s 5$od: has
made,; so the term 0natural; refers to this, not cultural conention. &lso, 2aul describes other
sins as rooted in idolatry <Eomans ,86.C7,?, but found amon! monotheistic Kews as well
<Eomans 686,C67?, implyin! that homosexuality too does not necessarily stem from idolatry.
"ith re!ards to exploitation, 2aul does not refer to it anywhere in his surroundin! comments of
his statement in chapter 9, either in his precedin! discussion of incest or his later discussion of
sexual immorality. Instead, he states of sexual immorality in !eneral, 0the fornicator sins a!ainst
the body itself; <, +orinthians 98,.?. In addition, both Leiticus and 2aul condemn both partners
in homosexual intercourse, not Hust one for exploitin! the other <Leiticus 6/8,7B Eomans ,86F?.
Supposin! that, despite these obHections, the biblical authors% reasons for condemnin!
homosexual intercourse do not apply to contemporary homosexual relationships, they are
ealuated usin! modern parallels of 2aul%s alle!ed reasons. In contrast to the exploitatie
relationships which 2aul condemns, carin! homosexual relationships are pointed out <Scro!!s
,6>?. (he Ean!elical Lutheran +hurch in &merica, in its social statement 0Guman Sexuality8
$ift and (rust,; ar!ues that some see lifelon!, mono!amous homosexual relations as e'ual to
marria!e in supportin! 0social trust; <EL+& ,.?. (his social trust is broken throu!h 0lies,
exploitation, and manipulatie behaior; <EL+& 7. n.6? and 0is !rounded in the practice of
mutual respect for the di!nity of all people and their consciences; <EL+& ,7?. Since conscience,
understood as 0the self%s internal court of Hud!ment; <cited in +(+E ,F?, refers to an indiidual%s
or !roup%s conentions about what is ri!ht and wron!, this refers to contemporary cultural iews
Hust as 2aul referred to ancient cultural conentions,. Indeed, an affirmation of conscience is
inoled in any contemporary affirmation of homosexual desire. (his depends upon that desire
bein! correct as an authoritatie expression of homosexuals% consciences, meanin! we allow
conscience to create morals.
In this iew of the biblical texts, sin is seen as somethin! that selfishly exploits another or
somethin! that iolates another%s conscience or conentions. Loe is seen as affirmin! all
peoples% practices and Hud!ments. (his is 'uite comfortable in our a!e, which holds freedom of
conscience in hi!h esteem. Aet it differs !reatly from the constructie iew of sin and loe. In
that, sin is any resistance of $od%s desi!n in creation and loe is about channelin! people into
their potential !ien by their +reator. Sin in that iew includes exploitation and disrespect, but
also includes serin! human creatures and their consciences rather than the +reator.
Supposin!, as ar!ued aboe, that homosexual practice <homosexual intercourse and desires? is
sinful, sin neertheless is not a choice. &lthou!h one can aoid certain sins by choice, one cannot
aoid all sin. 2aul makes this clear in Eomans F by statin!, 0I do not understand my own actions.
*or I do not do what I want, but I do the ery thin! I hate,; <Eomans F8,-? and 0*or I do not do
the !ood I want, but the eil I do not want is what I do.; <Eomans F8,>?. (hese statements about
actions resonate particularly with my frustration oer my homosexual desiresB I desire the ery
thin! I hate. Een homosexuals who hate their homosexual tendencies will continue to hae
homosexual desires and een, in moments of weakness, to commit homosexual acts.
&lso, een if homosexual practice is a sin, so are many other actions and desires which all
commit. +ommandments a!ainst other sins surround all of the three biblical passa!es that refer
to homosexual practice. In Leiticus, this includes the command, 0you shall loe your nei!hbor
as yourself; <Leiticus ,>8,.?. In , +orinthians 9, 2aul writes that 0the !reedy; and 0reilers; as
well as 0male prostitutes; and 0sodomites; <better translated 0effeminate; and 0maleCbedders; as
noted aboe? will not inherit the kin!dom of $od. <, +orinthians 98>C,/?. In Eomans ,, after
2aul condemns homosexual behaior as 0unnatural; and 0shameless,; he also condemns 0eil,
coetousness, malice4eny, murder, strife, 5and: deceit; <Eomans ,86>?, sayin!, 0those who
practice such thin!s desere to die; <Eomans ,876?. "ho on earth can truly say they hae neer
been !reedy or hae neer slandered another person, or hae neer deceied or enied another?
&s 2aul writes, 0all hae sinned and fallen short of the !lory of $od; <Eomans 7867?.
Aet 2aul opens this section of Eomans, 0the wrath of $od is reealed from heaen a!ainst all
un!odliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth; <Eomans
,8,.?, despite that this includes all mankind inoluntarily. (his seems unloin! and completely
unlike a $od who 0is loe; <, Kohn I8.?. In a sense, it is. Goweer, it fits perfectly well with the
understandin! that loe is about $od%s will, not essentially about respect for mankind. "rath is a
reasonable tool for turnin! people back toward $od%s will.
Now, I hate $od%s wrath. It is one of the best weapons a!ainst me in my stru!!le with
homosexuality. It leads me to shame of myself and my relationships with other men <een when
actually platonic? that hinders my trust in $od%s power and interactions with others. $od%s wrath
also hurts me in another way. *eelin! this wrath myself, I am tempted to be the serant of a
wrathful $od and inflict wrath%s shame on others.
Aet $od saes us from $od%s wrath by $od%s loin! !race. In Eomans ,, 2aul precedes his
discussion of $od%s wrath with 0I am not ashamed of the !ospelB it is the power of $od for
salation to eeryone who has faith; <Eomans ,8,9?. In , +orinthians, 2aul follows his statement
0wron!doers will not inherit the kin!dom of $od; <, +orinthians 98>? with 0&nd this is what
some of you used to be. @ut you were washed, you were sanctified, you were Hustified in the
name of the Lord Kesus +hrist and in the Spirit of our $od; <, +orinthians 98,,?. Since this
0you; refers to 0the church of $od that is in +orinth; <, +orinthians ,86?, homosexuals must be
included in the church. In my experience, since homosexual desire is a desire for loe in a
counterfeit form, homosexuals need assurance of the !enuine, sain! loe of $od.
(his sain! loe of $od differs fundamentally from the conception of loe used to affirm
homosexuality, althou!h both declare homosexuals free from $od%s wrath. In one conception,
$od saes all people, includin! homosexuals, 0throu!h the redemption that is in +hrist Kesus;
because all hae failed perfectly to loe $od and loe others as $od wills. In the other
conception, people affirm homosexuals because of their loin! mutual support and because of
respect for 0all peoples and their consciences; <EL+& ,7?. Since this counters $od%s wrath not
throu!h 0the redemption that is in +hrist Kesus; but throu!h the affirmation of human conscience
and !ood human work, this 0undercuts the church%s proper work of absolin! sinners in the name
of Kesus +hrist; <+(+E 66?.
(hus, the two different answers to whether homosexuality is a sin both rest on and perpetuate
fundamentally different understandin!s of loe8 one, that loe concerns mutual trust of other
people and support of what they Hud!e !oodB the other, that loe concerns support of what the
+reator Hud!es !ood in others. Een if homosexual practice is understood as sinful, +hristians
must show loe to homosexuals and include them in the church like all people who sin.
Goweer, this welcomin! loe stems not from affirmation of human conscience, but from the
redemption in Kesus +hrist. I know not what conception of loe others may choose, but as for
me, !ie me the liberty of $od%s salation from the death of my disobedienceL
Bibliography
+ommission on (heolo!y and +hurch Eelations <+(+E?. 0Eesponse to Human Sexuality: Gift
and Trust.; (he Lutheran +hurch D Missouri Synod, 6/,6. Mhttp 8NN lcms .or! N)ocument .fdoc ?
src O lcm P id O,.6/Q. "eb. &ccessed 6F Kanuary, 6/,I.
Ean!elical Lutheran +hurch in &merica <EL+&?. 0Guman Sexuality8 $ift and (rust.;
Ean!elical Lutheran +hurch in &merica, 6//>. "eb. &ccessed 6F Kan 6/,I.
Mhttp 8NN download .elca .or! NEL+& R6/ Eesource R6/ Eepository NSexualitySS .pdfQ
$a!non, Eobert &.K. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashille8
&bin!don 2ress, 6//,. 2rint.
=olb, Eobert and (imothy K. "en!ert eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the
Evanelical !utheran Church. Minneapolis, MN8 *ortress 2ress, 6///. 2rint.
Luther, Martin. !ectures on "omans. 2hiladelphia8 "estminster 2ress, ,>9,. 2rint.
Martin, )ale. Sex and the Sinle Savior. Louisille8 "estminster Kohn =nox 2ress, 6//9. 2rint.
Scro!!s, Eobin. The #e$ Testament and Homosexuality. 2hiladelphia8 *ortress 2ress, ,>.7.
2rint.
&ll Scripture 'uotations are from the Goly @ible, New Eeised Standard Sersion.