Is It Love?

A friend recently sent me a link to an article from the Bible.org website titled All That Heaven Allows: Homosexuality and the Meaning of Love and solicited my opinion on it. The central thesis of the article is contained in the following paragraph: "We have just spoken about the need for love in the ethical debate over homosexuality. We live in a society that is obsessed with love. Our songs glorify it and our ads glamorize it. But the homosexual debate, probably more than any other issue, exposes a troublesome fact about our society: we don’t even agree about what love is. The central claim of the homosexual rights movement is that gays and lesbians should be allowed to love in their own way, and that a failure to accept them and their lifestyle as a permanent and open part of society is a failure to love. The central claim of all those who reject homosexuality is that it is an unacceptable way to express love. Thus, simply calling upon everyone to 'love' one another, without coming to some common understanding of what that means, will not solve the homosexual debate."

First, the focus of the Law of Christ is LOVE: Loving God with our whole heart and soul and loving each other as Christ loved us. Christ wants his followers to treat each other in the same fashion that they would like to be treated by others. This kind of LOVE seeks to minister to the needs of others - it is NOT self-seeking or self-justifying. Hence, it is fundamentally different from what our society is obsessed with!

Second, the central claim of the "homosexual rights movement" is NOT "that gays and lesbians should be allowed to love in their own way." What our community really wants is to be allowed to love in the very same way that heterosexuals love. Homosexuals want to be able to express their romantic feelings for another person in the same manner that heterosexuals express romantic feeling for their partners. Homosexuals want to be able to make the same commitment to their partner that heterosexuals are allowed to make to theirs. Hence, we are NOT seeking to love in a way that is different from the way that heterosexuals love their partners. In short, we want to be able to love our partners in exactly the same way that other folks love their partners! Moreover, the failure of society to permit homosexuals from doing so is inherently discriminatory and is NOT a reflection of the kind of love described in Scripture.

Third, Scripture defines the expression of love as showing patience, kindness, compassion, humility, and forgiveness to others (I Corinthians 13:4-7). That same passage precludes envy, boasting, rudeness, insisting on your own view being the standard for everyone else, rejoicing over the mistreatment of others, or cutting others off from your love. Indeed, Paul went on to say that true love never ends (I Corinthians 13:8)!

The article goes on to state that "the Old Testament Law specifies what behaviors and attitudes are inconsistent with love so we will not fool ourselves into thinking that we are exhibiting love when we are not. It also sets forth positive instruction in how we are to love one another in our marriages, families, friendships, and communities. Biblical morality is a morality of love, and nothing more or less..." NO, Jesus and Paul preached that "the Old Testament Law" is fulfilled by LOVE and was fulfilled by Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:17-20, 22:37-40 and Romans 13:8-10). Also, we must not forget that the Old Testament Law was directed at Israel - it was an integral part of God's covenant with THEM!

Even so, you will notice that ALL of the commandments related to male sexual behavior are directed at protecting their sexual partners, and the man himself, from hurt or harm (see Leviticus 18 and 20). Moreover, we can easily discern the application of this principle in commandments like those that forbid incest, bestiality, and adultery. In other words, the harm to both of the participants in the prohibited behavior is (or should be) obvious to everyone.

What about those commandments related to homosexual behaviors? I would answer that question this way: If we understand the behavior(s) which the author intended, we should be able to clearly discern the hurt/harm inherent to the prohibited behavior. In this respect, we could say that prohibited sexual behaviors (those of both a heterosexual and homosexual nature) were intended to protect the Israelites from hurting/harming themselves or someone else. Thus, when we understand that rape is always wrong, and that it would be especially onerous to treat guests in such a way, we begin to see the hurt and harm that the Sodomites wanted to inflict on their angelic visitors! In other words, what the Sodomites had in mind did NOT involve love, fidelity, or hospitality, and it should be clear that such behavior could have inflicted great harm on everyone (especially the visitors)!

Now, let's take a look at a couple of those Torah commandments. The two most prominent texts targeting homosexual activity are found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. First, we should note that these commandments, as were most of the other commandments found in Torah, were addressed specifically to the MEN of Israel. 

Moreover, in order to understand the context of these commandments it is crucial that we have some awareness of the sexual culture of the ancient peoples of the Middle East. In short, it was common practice to involve both male and female prostitution in the worship of pagan gods. Likewise, it was not uncommon for adult males to engage in pederasty (sexual relationships with male children). Finally, both male and female slaves were often forced to have sexual relations with their owners. Hopefully, we can all see that these types of homosexual behaviors are NOT consistent with loving one's neighbor and doing no harm to him.

We should also note that these ancient peoples had a very limited understanding of the workings of the human body and mind. For example, our modern notion of a "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference" would have been wholly unknown to them! Likewise, they were completely unaware of the presence and workings of hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the same-sex behavior being confronted in these commandments is consistent with the types of behaviors which were common to that time and place! After all, I would defy anyone to identify any hurt or harm associated with two adults enjoying coitus within the context of a loving, consensual relationship.

Moreover, the foundational Ten Words/Commandments of Torah makes infidelity/unfaithfulness a sin within the context of any committed relationship (see Exodus 20:14). What's more, once again, we can clearly discern how infidelity could inflict real hurt on your partner, family, self, and the likelihood that it would do the same to your partner in crime and his/her spouse and family. Finally, I sincerely hope that no one would be foolish enough to suggest that this standard was intended to only apply to heterosexual males. How much sense does it make to suggest that the same standard (fidelity) doesn't apply to females or homosexuals? Is anyone seriously going to suggest that those other groups were exempted from being faithful? Doesn't that strike all of us as being just a little bit absurd? After all, if we truly love someone, does it make sense that we would want to pursue someone else to satisfy our personal lust or need for intimacy?

Now, while most of us understand that Christians are NOT under the Law of Moses - that we are saved by grace and faith within the context of Jesus Christ (and that we are expected to operate within the bounds of the Law of Christ going forward), some will point to a couple of passages in the New Testament to suggest that ALL homosexual behavior is SIN (By the way, hopefully, NO ONE is suggesting that ALL heterosexual behavior is righteous)! Of course, in this connection, EVERYONE must admit that Jesus of Nazareth was SILENT on the subject of homosexuality!

Nevertheless, we read in Paul's epistle to the Romans that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26-27, ESV) Once again, the context of those times was temple prostitution, pederasty, and sexual exploitation of slaves. Moreover, I would submit that all three of those homosexual behaviors are inconsistent with both our own natures and the Law of Christ, and that the resulting hurt/harm should be obvious to all of us!

Likewise, Paul's warning to the saints at Corinth about unrighteous behavior excluding those who indulge in it from God's Kingdom (I Corinthians 6:9). Once again, without the context of the sexual behaviors and knowledge of the folks of that time, the passage is rendered undecipherable! In other words, it is a gross mischaracterization of these passages to say that they exclude all homosexual behaviors!

Thus, we can see that LOVE IS LOVE. Christians (straight or gay) are subject to the SAME moral standards in Scripture. Indeed, it is ridiculous to suggest that there is one standard for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals. Love fulfills the requirements of the Law. If love is absent there is sin. If love is absent, there is hurt and harm. If your nature is to be attracted to males, then it would be contrary to that nature to have sexual relations with a woman (and it would be inherently unfair and hurtful to her). Now, there are many things in Scripture that are difficult to understand, this is NOT one of them!