By Cris Putnam
I recently read an essay by a Christian who thought Jesus might reply to a modern Chick-Filet protestor as He did the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. First, nobody is talking about stoning same sex marriage advocates. Furthermore, there is a more important distinction between the woman caught in adultery and the modern homosexual movement that was neglected. The woman caught in adultery was not marching in “Adultery Pride” parades. She had a sense of shame and knew her act was wrong, she was repentant. I cannot say the same about the Chick Filet protesters. The Bible is crystal clear on this issue: “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,” (1 Co 6:9) Notice that homosexuals are not singled out, it includes unrepentant sinners of all stripes. I wish these protestors would understand that the issue for Christians is not personal. We love God and if you love God, you will also hate what God hates. It is not matter of Christians hating dysfunctional people rather hating unrepentant homosexuality and for good reason because it will lead people to eternal hell.
Thus, we hate sin. The homosexual might ask why it it a sin? We could cite the bible from Romans 1:24-32 or 1 Corinthians 6:9 but I have found it unsatisfying because it seems sort of like “Because God said so.” While that ought to be good enough, we all have a tendency to question such pronouncements with “Why?” For that reason, I ground it in the creation order. It simply cannot be argued against that there is a definite biological order, indeed a necessity, when it comes to sexuality. Same sex attraction is obviously a violation of this order and purpose.
Because God has communicated real propositional truth to man in the Bible concerning this issue. It follows necessarily that the antithesis of God’s truth is false and this is the basis of what Francis Schaeffer called “taking the roof off.” The idea is that secular presuppositions invariably contain an incoherence that when pressed, lead to an absurd and intolerable conclusion. Without this realization, the unbeliever lives comfortably under a roof of irrational beliefs which shield him from the outside world. When the roof is removed, reality comes crashing in. One could use a reductio ad absurdum to take the roof off the idea that this is a healthy behavior as follows:
You say this is normal and healthy behavior and that we should all accept it as such.
If that is so then all normal healthy behaviors should be beneficial if universally adopted.
So as a thought experiment, let it be universally adopted and let’s ask how would man fare?
In one generation, the human race would cease to exist.
Therefore, there is a flaw in the idea that this is a normal healthy behavior.
The roof has collapsed and this is highly suggestive that the DSM II was correct in diagnosing this as a sexual attraction disorder. God forbade it for a reason, it is not simply an arbitrary rule meant to spoil someone’s fun. The principle point here is that there is a creation order and this behavior is a perversion of God’s intention for humans. It’s the behavior and the prideful attitude about it that we find offensive, not the mere proclivity, we all struggle with a sin nature. What I hate is the idea of giving in and calling it normal.