That the Bible presents homosexuality as a sin, there ought to be no question. The practice is, in the Old Testament and the New, objectionable to God, and by extension, objectionable to those who love God. For Israel, a people separated from other nations as governed in a religious context, homosexuality was punishable by death – as was adultery, bestiality and illicit sex of virtually any kind. The homosexual was unwelcome in Israel and condemned in Moses’ law. In the New Testament, the point is on the nature of homosexuality. The matter of legal sanctions is not addressed. The shift in the New Testament from a corporate application of God’s laws is moved from a people (Israel) to the Church and the individual for responsibility. The person is left to his or her own moral responsibility in various matters. If this is true, the homosexual has legal right to be as he or she chooses to be. Morality is left to God for judgment.
Assuming this personal responsibility, and having the clarifications of Scripture, the Christian ought to accept the concepts of freedom as they are generated by the State. The homosexual has, by this perception, all the rights and privileges of society’s laws and may follow his/her life course as the laws may indicate. There should be a difference in the core understanding of what is legal and/or moral. We may believe Scripture can do no other than to label homosexuality a sin, and to go further, to assume that it will be evaluated in whatever divine evaluation there may be. But that judgment is not a temporal decision. Spiritual views are related to a different context than that applying to human and legal rights for all human beings. Some persons may lack moral approval from the biblical context. The homosexual may live with that, as the Christian lives with all the negative perceptions heaped on Christian views and persons. We cannot assume that all differences, right or wrong, can be erased between groups. They can learn tolerance that does not mean approval of all factors. At some point, we can hope, there will be objective analysis of issues, and by orderly recourse make life more civil for all concerned. All have citizens’ rights.
Those who see homosexuality as a moral, not a legal issue, wonder why the attraction within same sex circles cannot be achieved in a non-sexual context. Whatever happened to friendship? Homosexuals have even tried to posit a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan in the Bible. Both men were married, and ample evidence there shows they were not homosexuals. When one understands both the meaning of friendship, depth friendship, and sexuality, it becomes a mystery why two persons of the same sex would give up the meaning of friendship by imposing sexual intimacy upon that friendship. I have had several male friends with whom I have enjoyed deep, natural, human relationship, except that we would not confuse our friendship by adding in the discrepancies of sexual exchange. Why must the human love found in friendship be hindered by an intimacy that creates duality of meanings to the intimate and social world? Friendship deserves a fair hearing. The friendship of Jesus with the disciples provides magnificent model for me. Jesus, unmarried, found a fulfilling friendship with disciples, not confused with sexual context. Scripture offers a special relationship between two persons of the same sex in the bond of life. One member, holding the weaker position, had his/her ear bored, and the loving bond slave was created. The two persons are engaged to each other for life, and only to each other, by mutual agreement, and held just as firmly together as a man and woman choosing marriage. The relationship was one of love, but had no sexual connotation. The argument given of God is that we design society that is fitting to nature but with moral values from God. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020