Russell Mckinney's Blog

Straight Talk About God and Life

The Bible and Homosexuality

The issue of homosexuality has once again been front and center in recent days. First, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a state ban on gay marriage violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. Second, celebrity blogger and outspoken homosexual Perez Hilton created quite a stir during his stint as a judge at the Miss USA 2009 pageant in Las Vegas. During the Q&A portion of the contest, Carrie Prejean (Miss California) had the misfortune of being on the receiving end of Perez’s question. The question was, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” Man, talk about loaded! Whatever happened to, “Should you win the title of Miss USA, how would you use your crown to promote world peace”?

For the record, I hate beauty pageants. All of the charitable causes and college scholarships in the world can’t change the fact that they are a shameless celebration of outer beauty and an enticement to lust. I watched them when I was a hormone-driven teenager, and I promise you that I didn’t care one iota about the talent competitions, the Q&A segments, or the evening gowns. I just wanted to see beautiful women in bathing suits. I’m not proud of this. I’m just telling you how it was. Not surprisingly, when I gave my life fully to Christ, I stopped watching beauty pageants. To me, they are barely a notch above “soft porn.”

Still, I couldn’t help but empathize with Carrie Prejean when I heard what had happened to her. Many people are now saying that she lost the pageant when she answered Perez’s question by stating that she believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Frankly, I don’t know whether or not that answer cost her the pageant. What I do know is that it is absolutely INFURIATING that Perez got away with asking the question. Someone should have drug out one of those extra-long staffs, the kind with the big crook at the end, and yanked him backstage. Of course, I can’t feel any sorrow for the Miss USA pageant. Keep in mind that they did select Perez to be a judge. When you ask a pseudo-celebrity who thrives on controversy to be part of your show, you get what you have coming to you.

In case you haven’t guessed, I’m not a social activist or a politically correct person. I’m a Bible-teaching pastor. As such, it’s my job to make people aware of what the Book teaches about homosexuality. And what it teaches is that homosexuality is rank sexual sin. It isn’t the only sexual sin. Premarital sex, adultery, incest, and bestiality are on the list too. But, please, let’s declare an injunction on trying to make the Bible and homosexuality compatible. If the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality as sin, it doesn’t condemn anything as sin!

If you are interested (and many aren’t), the scriptural case against homosexuality is as follows:

1. Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6: God’s plan for the sexual relationship is obviously man-woman.      

2. Genesis 19:1-29; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jude v.7: Homosexuality was rampant in the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorroh, and God destroyed those cities for their wickedness. The Ezekiel passage uses the word “abomination” in reference to homosexuality, while the Jude verse describes the sin as giving one’s self over to sexual immorality and going after “strange flesh.” 

3. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17: Under the law that God gave the Israelites to live by, homosexuality was a crime. More than that, it was a capital punishment offense (Leviticus 18:29, “cut off” means “put to death”). Again the word “abomination” is used in the Leviticus verses in reference to the sin. Furthermore, the context of the Leviticus 18:22 verse groups homosexuality with incest (Leviticus 18:6-18) and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23).

4. Judges 19:11-30: This passage gives an account from the days when various Judges ruled over different parts of Israel. It labels a group of homosexuals as “perverted men” (New King James Version).

5. 1 Kings 14:21-24; 15:9-15; 22:41-46; 2 Kings 22:1-2; 23:7: The homosexuals (“perverted persons” N.K.J.V.) who are mentioned in these passages were pagan, religious prostitutes who played major roles in the worship of false gods. There is a distinct pattern that is seen in the passages. During the reigns of good kings, these sodomites were banished from the land. During the reigns of wicked kings, they were allowed to remain in the land.  

6. Romans 1:18-32: These verses trace the origins of homosexuality and lesbianism back to mankind’s rejecting of God and embracing of idol worship. Homosexuals and lesbians are labeled as people who have: a knowledge of God (v.18-21), no excuse (v.20), a lack of glorifying God (v.21), a lack of thankfulness (v.21), futile thoughts (v.21), foolish, darkened hearts (v.21-22), a profession of wisdom (v.22), a foolishness about them (v.22), a bent towards idolatry (v.23), unclean, lustful hearts (v.24), dishonored bodies (v.24), an abandonment of the truth (v.25), a worship of self (v.25), vile passions (v.26), a desire to pervert nature (v.26-27), shameful conduct (v.27), a forgetfulness of God (v.28), debased minds (v.28), a love of doing those things which aren’t fitting (v.28), a nature geared towards being ungodly in many other ways (v.29-31), a knowledge of the judgment of God (v.32), a worthiness of death (v.32), and an approval of others who commit the same sins (v.32). Actually, the argument that homosexuality is “natural” is correct in one sense. The sin is just as natural to sin-fallen mankind as rebelling against God and worshipping false gods.

7. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: The category “homosexuals” (N.K.J.V.) or “effiminate” (K.J.V.) refers to homosexuals as does the category “sodomites” (N.K.J.V.) or “abusers of themselves with mankind” (K.J.V.). It is noteworthy that this passage teaches that the homosexual doesn’t have to continue in the sin. Verse 11 says “And such were some of you.” The homosexuals cry, “God made us this way.” They think this allows them to equate their movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But the crippling flaw in this line of thought is this: Whereas there are many former homosexuals, there are no former African-Americans. By the way, this passage also teaches that homosexuality has no more place in the life of the Christian than fornication (all other forms of sexual sin), idolatry, adultery (the specific sexual sin of cheating on a spouse), theft, covetousness, drunkenness, reviling, or extortion. But we don’t see any big push to bring these sins into our churches, do we?       

8. 1 Timothy 1:8-10: The category “sodomites” (N.K.J.V.) or “them that defile themselves with mankind” (K.J.V.) refers to homosexuals. These verses place the homosexual on the same level as: the lawless, the insubordinate, the ungodly, the sinful, the unholy, the profane, the murderer of a father or a mother, the manslayer, the fornicator, the kidnapper, the perjurer, and anyone else who is contrary to sound doctrine.

Okay, if you are still reading, and your mind is open to the truth, you should now be in agreement with me that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin. It really is an open and shut case. There is, however, an argument that homosexuals use in their efforts to get out from under obvious Biblical teaching. They say, “If God condemns homosexuality so much, why didn’t Jesus specifically preach against it?” This question is easily answered in three ways.

Answer #1: Jesus didn’t specifically preach against rape, spousal abuse, child abuse, pedophilia, or genocide either. It’s safe to say, though, that He was against such acts.

Answer #2: Jesus did say, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). In three passages (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17), the Old Testament law condemned homosexuality. As for the Old Testament prophets, Isaiah negatively called the sinful people of Israel ”rulers of Sodom” and “people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10), and Ezekiel spoke of the “abomination” and “lewdness” of Sodom (Ezekiel 16:44-59).   

Answer #3: Jesus confirmed and reiterated the Adam and Eve standard of marriage between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). To say that He didn’t speak against homosexuality is the same as saying that a judge who consults the law to render all his decisions, but never specifically condemns the breaking of that law, must be in favor of lawlessness. The argument simply makes no sense.

Oh, before I forget, let me mention another route the homosexuals take in their useless efforts to align their sin with the Bible: They quote Christ’s words, “Judge not that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). This is supposed to be some kind of trump card that muzzles Bible-believers from speaking against homosexuality. Really, though, it is just another argument that doesn’t make honest sense.

I say this because it is obvious to anyone who studies the verses that follow Matthew 7:1 that Jesus isn’t forbidding all judging. (In Luke 12:57 and John 7:24, He even advocates righteous judging). What He is forbidding in Matthew 7:1 is hypocritical judging. He illustrates His point by saying, “If you have a plank (a large piece of wood) in your eye, you have no business criticizing someone else for having a speck (a small piece of wood) in his eye.” Then He says, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). 

To apply this teaching to my own life, if I am a homosexual who unashamedly engages in homosexual sex every night, it is wrong for me to stand in my pulpit and preach against someone I know to be a closet homosexual. It is only when I have removed the plank from my own eye (repented of my prolific homosexuality) that I can help that closet homosexual remove the speck from his eye (repent of his lesser homosexuality). Please notice, though, that Jesus taught that the goal in each situation is the repentance of the sin, the removal of the plank or speck.

Someone says, “But Russell, why are you singling out homosexuals for a blog post? You’ve already admitted that there are other sexual sins.” Well, as far as I know, those who engage in premarital sex, adultery, incest, or bestiality haven’t banded together to force people to accept their sinful lifestyles. When that happens, I’ll post blogs concerning them.

And I use that word “force” legitimately. Homosexual activists such as Perez Hilton are arrogant, pushy people who are proud of their sin. They demand that we accept, in the name of tolerance, that which is ungodly and immoral. The irony is that they aren’t even tolerant themselves. If you think they are, try crossing one sometime!

Someone else says, “But why do Bible-believing Christians have to fight this fight? Can’t we just agree to disagree? Can’t we all just get along?” We must fight this fight because we don’t want to be lumped in with those who “delight in the perversity of the wicked” (Proverbs 3:14). Instead, we want to learn from David’s experience. He used Psalm 39:1-3 to describe his attempt at remaining ”mute with silence” even as the wicked were before him. He said, “I held my peace even from good, and my sorrow was stirred up.” Finally, after his heart had grown so hot within him, he had to speak out against the wicked.

In closing, please hear me when I say that God loves homosexuals. He loves them so much that Jesus (God the Son) died on a Roman cross as the potential payment for their sins, including the sin of homosexuality. But God loves homosexuals too much to leave them in that state. He calls their sin what it is and demands that they repent of it. This isn’t the message they want to hear, but it is the only one that accords with the Bible.

April 22, 2009 - Posted by russellmckinney | Homosexuality, Scripture, Sin, The Bible

8 Comments »

  1. “In closing, please hear me when I say that God loves homosexuals.”

    From the Friendly Atheist blog: (He responds so much nicer than I would.)

    I say this to the religious people who oppose marriage equality:

    You think we’re redefining marriage?

    How can you accuse us of that when you’ve done something far worse?

    You redefined love.

    “Love the sinner, hate the sin”? Please…

    For you, “love” means making sure gay people cannot adopt a child who needs a home.

    For you, “love” means stripping away the marital status of gay couples who were legally married in California before Proposition 8 took effect.

    For you, “love” means accepting someone only if they never act on their sexuality.

    For you, “love” means putting our country at risk if gay people in our military dare mention they are in a same-sex relationship.

    For you, “love” means allowing doctors to refuse patients who need their help because the patients are gay.

    For you, “love” means preventing homosexuals from serving in leadership positions for organizations like the Boy Scouts because you oppose their sexual orientation.

    For you, “love” means telling someone else what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their bedroom.

    For you, “love” means removing your children from school for a day so they can’t witness other students taking a stand for LGBT rights.

    Comment by morsec0de | April 22, 2009 | Reply

    • In response to morsec0de:

      Since it’s obvious that we are at opposite poles on this issue, I really don’t want to drag things out needlessly. I spoke my mind and you spoke yours. Now we know where we stand. Just two quick things. One, it is possible to love a person without loving their sin. Parents do it with disobedient children every day. Two, I take any debate that I get into back to the Bible. That’s why my points in the post involved Bible passages, not my personal opinions. If you don’t accept the Bible as the authoritative, written word of God, then there’s not much use in debating me. I’m a one-trick pony. I wrote the post as a way of showing my readers what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. That goal has been achieved. How they respond to the Bible and its teaching is out of my hands.

      Comment by Russell Mckinney | April 23, 2009 | Reply

  2. Good debate, perhaps if there were more dialog and less monolog there would be far more understanding. I applaud the ‘straight talk’ from both sides. I am sure there is a far greater trail of comments too harsh to post as responses to Pastor McKinney’s presentation of the bible and what it says about this topic. In no uncertain terms, from my viewpoint, the crux of the debate is held in the belief system. If the Bible is your authoritative guide to this topic then certainly the argument against Pastor McKinney’s stance is fallible given his extensive research and citings. If your beliefs are based upon the platform of folks like Morsec0de, then you can fashion your argument around those beliefs founded on that platform, which is either scientific, reason related or post modernism. If Morsec0de is beholden to the atheistic viewpoint, as it appears so in quoting a blogger of that allegiance, then certainly nothing matters, live how you wish, do what you wish, your beliefs depend on your personal opinions. Love is a personal opinion. Pain is a personal opinion. Truth is a personal opinion (if it even exists – for truths in the post modern idiom are relative and therefore by definition null and void. Well, essentially everything is null and void) therefore rendering all things ill-defined, including the belief that someone is redefining “love”. What is love? That would be the greater question and far greater answer. Perhaps we could debate that topic. The clever part is that there is no argument against the stance of Morsec0de since you are right if you believe that way. Matter of fact, by their own belief structure they must agree that Pastor McKinney is right, since it is what he believes; albeit pure rubbish to them. Any other opinion would be a slight to their own belief system. To me, far more difficult to understand are those who claim Christianity, but point to the Bible as not authoritive. I can’t even begin to understand the argument. From a personal authority you decide what is truth or not in a document which your adherence to being a Christian is founded. I can’t cotton to that. That would allow me to fashion a belief system based on my personal interpretation. I could pick what I wanted and discard the rest, which discarding usually means doing away with anything that makes my existence more uncomfortable. This middle ground is an illusion. The Bible is either what it purports to be or not. In a world offended by any absolutes, I agree this is an affront to their belief system. Exactly, consequently, purging all middle ground.

    Comment by Malcolm Woody | April 23, 2009 | Reply

  3. Great discussion. To me, this “culture war” is fast approaching, even at the doors. Rest assured, the issue will not go away. It will be interesting to see how people, from both sides of this issue, respond in the coming days.

    II Timothy 3:1-5
    Revelation 11:8
    Revelation 3:20

    Comment by Charles Garrett | April 25, 2009 | Reply

  4. I would be interested in your opinion on this post…

    http://correctmyreligion.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/mma-ufc-gay-porn/

    Comment by correctmyreligion | April 28, 2009 | Reply

    • Let me begin by apologizing for taking so long to approve your comment and respond to it. The past couple of days have been incredibly busy and hectic for me. This is the first chance I’ve had to sit down and reply.

      The post you linked to basically asks two reasonable questions:

      #1. Why does our society glorify the violence of sports and lift up violent, arrogant athletes as heroes?
      #2. Isn’t any love, including love between two homosexuals, better than violence and arrogance?

      The answer to the first question can be found in peoples’ fallen nature. When Adam sinned he took his entire race down to an ugly level. The theological word for this condition is depravity. The Bible’s classic passage on the subject is Romans 3:10-20, but there are plenty of other passages that paint a graphic portrait of the human condition. We are born as sinners who are alienated from the life of God and prone to: unrighteousness, ungodliness, bloodthirstiness, war, competition, destruction, conquest, pride, ego, and irreverence. When Adam and Eve’s firstborn son, Cain, killed their secondborn son, Abel, it was mankind’s fallen nature on early display.

      For the record, making sports a false god the way America has done sits no better with God than making homosexuality acceptable. So, why then, do preachers such as myself single homosexuality out from a laundry list of America’s sins? Well, first of all, we don’t. I try to preach against whatever the Bible labels as sin. That includes the false god of sports. If you don’t believe that read my blog post “Church or YBOA Basketball?” Second, there is no organized group who are saying, “We worship the god of sports and it’s about time every American believed like us.” That is one of the main factors that sets homosexuality apart from other sins.

      The answer to the second question can be found in the boundaries that God has set up for love. Let me use another form of sexual sin, adultery, as an example here. Let’s say that a man and a woman work in the same office and, even though they don’t want to, fall in love. But the problem is, each of them is already married. What should they do? They should resist the heartfelt urge to commit the adultery and remain true to their spouses. Why? If they are in love, doesn’t that supersede everything else in life? Isn’t such love what are our movies and songs are constantly telling us to find? Isn’t it the key to a fairy tale “happily ever after” ending? Well, the problem is that adultery, even if it involves what we would call “love,” breaks out of the safety boundaries that God has set up for marriage. And anytime those boundaries are ignored, people are going to get hurt. The betrayed spouses will get hurt. Any kids or grandkids will get hurt. If the man’s parents and the woman’s parents are still alive, they will get hurt.

      You see, mankind, in our depraved arrogance, always thinks that we know best what will make us happy. But God knows that, in the end, we only hurt ourselves and others when we break from his appointed boundaries. When He says, “You shalt not commit adultery,” He is saying, “Don’t hurt yourself and don’t hurt others.” When He says, “Homosexuality is an aberrant form of sex,” He is saying, “I’m telling you this so that you will avoid the pain that you will bring upon yourself and others.”

      Frankly, I find hypocricy in the homosexuals who demand their sexual freedom based upon their “right” to be happy but then stand against child molestors. Can’t the child molestor say with just as much legitimacy, “I demand the right to practice this form of sex because it makes me happy when I engage in it.” One of the sicker ones might even say, “But I LOVE this child.” Do you see what I mean? When you throw out God’s boundaries for love anything and everything is open to individual opinion. The adulterer says, “My adultery makes me happy. I’m in love. Adultery must be good.” The homosexual says, “My homosexuality makes me happy. I’m in love. Homosexuality must be good.” The child molestor says, “My child molestation makes me happy. I’m in love. Child molestation must be good.” Once God’s boundaries are ignored, there is no absolute truth or right and wrong.

      And where do we find God’s boundaries? They are recorded in the pages of His written word, the Bible. How we ought to thank God that He hasn’t left us to try to figure out for ourselves what His boundaries are. He has made them crystal clear. His fences are in place and they are there to protect us. But if we, in our sin-tainted self-confidence and rebellion, jump the fences, we expose ourselves to all sorts of harm. This is why even the love that might be found between two homosexuals cannot be labeled as acceptable.

      Comment by Russell Mckinney | April 29, 2009 | Reply

  5. Well thought out answer. I do have a few comments. You claimed that a child molesters “love” for a child could be justified just as eisily as a homosexuals. The key difference in that case would be that homosexuality is between to consenting adults who are able choose that mutual love, while a child is either forced physically, or mentaly, or emotionaly.

    I have always struggled with what God intends for people with gender issues? any insight?

    Comment by correctmyreligion | April 29, 2009 | Reply

  6. I understand and agree with what you are saying about child molestation not being between two consenting adults. I used that extreme example merely as a way to emphatically show that if we ignore God’s boundaries, boundaries that are plainly spelled out in the Bible, chaos will reign everywhere. Morality (as if there could be such a thing under those conditions) will reside on a sliding scale that shifts from one viewpoint to the next. Billy Graham can say, “Premarital sex is wrong.” Hugh Hefner can say, “Premarital sex is good.” And both will be “right” because there will be no definitive, fixed, timeless standard.

    As for what God intends for people with gender issues, let me offer the following thoughts:

    1. I don’t have a doubt that some men and women are born with a predisposition towards homosexuality and lesbianism. But be careful to understand me here. I am NOT saying that I agree with the idea of a “gay gene.” What I’m saying is that just as some people are born with an inner bent towards alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, lust, violence, or greed, some are born with a bent towards homosexuality and lesbianism. Isaiah 53:6 says: “All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned every one, TO HIS OWN WAY.” For some people, their own way is the way of homosexuality or lesbianism. My father has struggled with alcoholism for most of his life. I, on the other hand, can be locked in a beer store all night and not be tempted to drink one beer. What’s the difference? Dad was born with a predisposition towards alcoholism and I wasn’t. I was born with a predisposition towards other sins, but not that sin. (No, I won’t say which ones.) lol

    2. Each and every inborn predisposition toward sin is a side-effect of mankind’s fallen status. It really does go all the way back to the garden of Eden. As Adam’s sin nature was inherently passed down to his offspring, various kinds of sins started showing up in his race. Cain had a bent toward murder (Genesis 4:1-8). Lamech had a bent toward bigamy (Genesis 4:19) and arrogance (Genesis 4:24). On and on it carried, right down the line of human history, all the way up until today.

    3. Even as God understands a person’s inclination toward a certain sin, He demands that the person resist the urge to commit the sin. We simply cannot get around the fact that God is holy. The Bible gives us passage after passage that reminds us of this. Because of His holiness, God can’t just wink at sin (any sin) and say, “Oh, that’s alright. I understand that’s just you being you.” So many people want to make God’s love cancel out His holiness. But that can’t happen.

    4. God desires that through one’s belief in Christ, which produces a spiritual rebirth inside the person (John 3:3-16), the person will become a “new creation” wherein old things will pass away and all things will become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). The agent for this change will be God the Holy Spirit as He comes to take up permanent residence inside the body of the believer (Romans 8:9). As a “new creation,” the believer will be able to come at life from a completely different perspective than before. The Bible calls this living as “the new man” (Ephesians 4:17-24).

    5. Even though the Christian is a “new” person, he or she must still deal with the inborn Adamic nature. The born-again experience actually creates a war within the Christian. On the one side is the indwelling Holy Spirit and the “new” that He wires into the Christian. On the other side is the Adamic nature that must be dealt with as long as the Christian is in this mortal body. In Romans 7: 15-25, the man whom many would consider to be the greatest Christian who ever lived, Paul, described his own struggles with this inner war. You see, getting “saved” (being “born again,” becoming a Christian) doesn’t obliterate the person’s sinful bent. What it does is give the person the inner arsenal to resist the natural urge to act upon the bent. The “Adam” of the person wants to go the old way, but the indwelling Holy Spirit says, “No, let’s go God’s way.”

    6. By consistently choosing to let the indwelling Holy Spirit have the control, the Christian can actually ween himself or herself off the “pet sin.” Think about a fire. If you throw gasoline onto a fire, the fire explodes and expands. But if you throw water onto it, it diminishes. If you keep on throwing water onto it, it will die down to nothing. The embers will still smolder, but the fire won’t rage. When the Christian purposefully chooses to forego his or her “pet sin” and do things God’s way, that amounts to water being thrown onto the fire of that sin. Just as the embers might smolder for a long time, the urge to commit the sin might stay with the Christian for years, perhaps even for life. But that urge won’t be a raging inferno that destroys everything in its path, including the Christian.

    7. Lasting contentment and fulfillment can only be found in walking with God, according to His word (Psalm 1:1-3; Matthew 7:24-27. Admittedly, sin has its temporary, fleeting pleasures(Hebrews 11:25). The drug addict enjoys the “high” for a while. The alcoholic enjoys the “drunk” for a while. The gambler enjoys the “rush” for a while. The homosexual enjoys the “freedom” for a while. But, in the end, a contented, fulfilled life simply can’t be built upon such things. Building upon them is like building upon sinking sand.

    Comment by Russell Mckinney | April 30, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »