One of the many common arguments as to why homosexuality is ok, is because Jesus was supposedly silent on the subject. It’s an interesting, albeit weak, argument. Others are somewhat like it: Jesus never said anything about it explicitly. Why? Because Jesus doesn’t care about what people do with their bits and bobs when having sex with people. Hasn’t he got better things to do, like bringing down ruthless dictators like Ghaddafi? Who wants an all-knowing, personal God when you can get a flaky shadow of yourself who panders to your own demands and prejudices? Oh yes, it’s okay for Him to be personal when He gives us comfort and understanding when others so unfairly judge us, but when He makes demands and gets private by telling us what to do with our private of all privates, then we like Him to be the deity who simply watches us from a distance, as Better Midler once sang.
The argument that Jesus condones homosexuality because he never explicitly taught against it is widespread, but it is an ignorant one:
1) I have never spoken publicly against many types of evil, such as corruption, infanticide, bribery and political kickbacks, rigged elections, brutal dictatorships, but that does not mean that I condone any of them. Most of my friends have never commented on these things, but I would not assume that they condone those evil things because they are silent on them. So the philosophical assumption behind this assertion is false;
2) Jesus was a rabbi with gobsmacking authority (Matt. 7:29, 9:8, 28:18), which was given to him by his heavenly father. If Jesus had taught a doctrine of sexuality which deviated from the orthodox position from Genesis 1-3 and permitted homosexuality, he would have been discredited and without any disciples. He would have been sidelined: worst, he would have been crucified and stoned to death. No rabbi would ever have preached in favour of homosexuality in 1st century A.D. and got away with it. Simple;
3) In Matthew 19, in a debate on marriage and divorce that was initiated by the Pharisees, Jesus upheld the Genesis 1-3 model of marriage. It’s worth quoting Jesus’ words here: And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ”Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ’Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh‘? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (ESV) A man will only cleave to a woman in marriage: it is explicitly stated! Therefore the Levitical laws on sexuality are upheld. He also tells the Pharisees to go back to the Law, so he is not actually saying or writing anything new here, and nor is he debunking the Law as outdated or irrelevant. In fact, it is the most relevant source of insight on the matter.;
4) With respect to the Torah law of sexuality (Genesis -Deuteronomy), including those explicitly on sex, Jesus said himself that he came to fulfil them, not to junk any of them. They are not abolished (Matthew 5:17-20): Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (ESV) Does that include the principals on sexuality? Absolutely, because in verses 27-30 of Matthew 5, he lays down the law for every man who lusts with his eyes (which is almost every man these days, by my reckoning);
5) Jesus is one of the members of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit): he has not changed (Hebrews 13:8 says,“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (ESV) The Father and the Spirit are the same: they have not changed. The Law has not changed, and neither have those who made the law;
6) Jesus restored sexually broken people, but he never condones their lifestyle. To the woman caught in adultery in John 8, he said, “Your sins are forgiven: go and sin no more”. So he says to all living in the prison of homosexuality and other addictive, compensatory behaviour.
If you’re angry and confused about all these things, don’t settle for quick, easy one-liners that sound great to the ear. Think them through (which is my first point) and go to the Truth Maker. Only Jesus has the answers. He never condones homosexuality and during his ministry on earth he never condoned it. He never explicitly said anything on it, but any faithful reader of the Bible would know that he would not have permitted any gay relationships, be they sexual or non-physical. If you’re angry and confused, then admit those feelings to God and genuinely seek the right answers, because they are there, even though they are hard to digest. Don’t settle for easy answers. And if you must, make a sign like the person on the left :)
***
I recently read an article by a man named Andrew Marin, who wrote a book on homosexuality and how the church needs to love gay people. He reported how he went to a gay pride march and hugged a man in skimpy white underwear and that it made him feel ‘proud’. Without quite explaining why he thought this, he made the assumption that Jesus would have hugged this man too. Marin, the president of the Marin Foundation, established his ministry because he wanted to “… build bridges between the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community and the Church -through education, research, and diverse community gatherings. The President … seeks to elevate the conversation between these two groups so that true healing can occur”. I don’t know Marin or what his real motivations are, but I am very cautious about people conducting ‘ministry’ work like this. It is on thing to apologise for sinful excesses of the church, but it is another to do so by allowing the community being witnessed to, to set the agenda.
The Marin Foundation assumes that ‘true’ healing is found in ‘elevated conversation’, but I have my doubts about that: 1) What are the conditions and the framework of these conversations? 2) Are they one-way conversations, or two-way? 3) Are people being won over to the gospel and to Christ, which is where ultimate healing is, or is it merely a conversation? 4) Would Jesus hug people who are flagrantly opposing him in sin? Yes, he hung out with socially marginalised people and with rebellious types like tax collectors and sinners, but the ones he fellowshipped with and showed affection towards were those who came to him for healing and regeneration 5) Is Marin propagating this kind of thing because it really is effective in ministering to the sexually broken or does he have more self-driven motives to do this? At first glance, many would find this teaching very appealing, though I doubt it will stand the tests of time, trial, and success.
It’s always easy to put words into Jesus’ mouth, but it’s too clever by half. His supposed ‘silence’ is mean to be an indicator of blessing, and fine-sounding arguments attempt to make Jesus do things that may not make sense on closer inspection, but they are wanting.