Can Someone Be a “Christian Homosexual”?
1
ON SOCIAL-MORAL ISSUES
Do We Live in a Postmodern Society?
In your 2008 Christianity Today cover article you said:
However all this may be, some might think that the resurgence of natural theology in our time is merely so much labor lost. For don’t we live in a postmodern culture in which appeals to such apologetic arguments are no longer effective? Rational arguments for the truth of theism are no longer supposed to work. Some Christians, therefore, advise that we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.
This sort of thinking is guilty of a disastrous misdiagnosis of contemporary culture. The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that’s not postmodernism; that’s modernism! That’s just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can’t prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist.1
I asked a friend to comment and he said:
I think we need to both accept and reject part of Craig’s hypothesis here. We certainly live in a culture in which relativism is accepted and absolutes are being seriously questioned, but just because we are living a more modernist than literally postmodernist culture does not mean the postmodernism is not present in our culture as it is defined today.
What Craig makes clear here is that even though people claim a postmodern mindset, we only operate in that way within certain spheres of our lives. I agree with Craig that while the majority of postmodern influence is on the more relativistic (real or perceived) areas of culture (religion, art, music, ethics, movies, etc.), we do live in a world that is marked by a tendency to see no big story line in history (a meta-narrative) in which there is logical and realistic cohesion from beginning to end. Instead this, too, has been relativised and so many of the rational arguments which are still valid are cast aside because they imply (rightly so) a true meta-narrative which exists for life.
I think he got it right. Do you agree?
John
Dr. Craig’s Response
No, I don’t, John. I’m convinced that Western culture, as the stepchild of the Enlightenment, remains at heart deeply modernist and so must be addressed as such. This is not to say, of course, that there aren’t powerful currents of postmodernism flowing in our culture. Postmodernism is entrenched in the university subculture in departments of literature, women’s studies, and, significantly, religious studies. But with respect to our culture at large these radicals are relatively isolated—indeed, even within the university as a whole they are a minority. I’m proud that my field, philosophy, has stoutly resisted the encroachment of postmodernism.
INSIGHT
Notice the distinction Dr. Craig is drawing between our culture at large (society) and powerful currents in our culture. The distinction is subtle yet meaningful. Perhaps we might say that we live in a late modern society, which is to say that there are real attempts to move beyond the Enlightenment project. If postmodernism is as Dr. Craig has characterized it, then yes, he is right to discern the “unlivability” factor.
Most people don’t for a minute think that there are no objective standards of truth, rationality, and logic. As I said in the article, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison. (If you’ve got a headache, you better believe that texts have objective meaning!) The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is, I fear, a myth perpetuated in our churches by misguided youth ministers.
Your friend seems to think that while people live their lives as modernists in most spheres, still we see the postmodern influence “on the more relativistic (real or perceived) areas of culture (religion, art, music, ethics, movies, etc.).” But what I am contending is that the relativism in those areas of culture is precisely an expression of modernism. The first half of the twentieth century was dominated by a philosophy of meaning called verificationism. On this view anything that cannot, in principle, be verified through the five senses, that is, through science, is meaningless. Since religious and ethical statements cannot be so verified, it follows that they have no factual content whatsoever. They are merely expressions of personal taste and emotions.
The influential book Language, Truth, and Logic by the British philosopher A. J. Ayer served as a sort of manifesto for this movement. Ayer was very explicit about the theological implications of his verificationism. If by the word “God” you mean a transcendent being, says Ayer, then the word “God” is a metaphysical term, and so “it cannot be even probable that a god exists.” He explains, “To say that ‘God exists’ is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.”
I hope you grasp the significance of this view. On this perspective, statements about God do not even have the dignity of being false. They’re just meaningless words or sounds uttered in the air. If you say to someone, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” you’ve said nothing more meaningful than if you had proclaimed, “‘Twas brillig; and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.”
It wasn’t just theological statements that Ayer regarded as meaningless. Ethical statements—statements about right and wrong, good and evil—were also declared to be meaningless. Such statements are simply emotional expressions of the user’s feelings. Ayer says, “If I say ‘Stealing money is wrong,’ I produce a statement which has no factual meaning…. It is as if I had written, ‘Stealing money!!’ … It is clear that there is nothing said here which can be true or false.” So he concludes that value judgments “have no objective validity whatsoever.” The same goes for aesthetic statements concerning beauty and ugliness. According to Ayer, “Such aesthetic words as ‘beautiful’ and ‘hideous’ are employed … not to make statements of fact, but simply to express certain feelings …”
Now, can you appreciate the impact such a philosophy would have upon religion, art, and ethics? It would produce the relativistic and anarchic chaos that besets Western culture today. Crucifixes in urine become objects of art and sexual libertinism is unleashed. Given that religious statements are not statements of fact, it’s perfectly appropriate for the unbeliever to respond to the gospel by saying, “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” Such a response would be crazy with regard to the engineering technology that goes into building a bridge or even a hairdryer, but it makes perfect sense with respect to expressions of personal taste. Christians (or Muslims) who claim that their religious view is the objective truth and that those who disagree with them are wrong will be perceived as closed-minded and dogmatic bigots, on a par with someone who says, “Vanilla tastes better than chocolate, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.” As a subjective expression of personal taste, such a judgment has no objective truth, and the person who thinks that it does is misguided.
So my point is that it is precisely modernism that has spawned the relativism and pluralism in those areas of culture mentioned by your friend.
But what about his point that “we do live in a world that is marked by a tendency to see no big story line in history (a meta-narrative) in which there is logical and realistic cohesion from beginning to end”? Is that a product of postmodernism? Not at all. It is again the direct fruit of a modernist perspective that sees man and the universe as the accidental by-products of blind forces of chance and necessity. Look at the poignant words of Bertrand Russell penned in 1903:
… even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.2
It was scientific naturalism that destroyed modern man’s hope of meaning and significance. The despair of Western culture flows out of the scientific naturalism that shapes its view of the way the world really is.
All of this is important because an effective response to our culture requires an accurate diagnosis of that culture. In the minds of some Christians, since we live in a postmodern culture, we should abandon any attempt to commend our faith rationally as the truth about reality. Instead we just share our narrative and invite people to join in it. If I am right, however, this is a suicidal course of action. It will destroy any sense of the church’s claim to have the truth about the way the world is—that will be given by scientific naturalism—and Christianity will be seen as mere mythology.
INSIGHT
Notice the important implications of thinking and acting as if the diagnosis is one thing but it turns out to be another; practices often develop based on a mistaken diagnosis.
My colleague J. P. Moreland has warned of the danger that lies before us:
[Such] a church … will become … impotent to stand against the powerful forces of secularism that threaten to bury Christian ideas under a veneer of soulless pluralism and misguided scientism. In such a context, the church will be tempted to measure her success largely in terms of numbers—numbers achieved by cultural accommodation to empty selves. In this way … the church will become her own grave digger; her means of short-term “success” will turn out to be the very thing that marginalizes her in the long run.3
“This calls for a mind that has wisdom” (Rev. 17:9).
How Might We Think about a Christian Marrying a Non-Christian?
Dr. Craig,
In your article on failure,4 which I otherwise find excellent, you state that marrying a non-Christian is a sin:
By failure in the Christian life, I mean a failure in a believer’s relationship and walk with God. For example, a Christian might experience disappointment and failure due to a refusal to heed God’s calling, or by succumbing to temptation, or through marrying a non-Christian. Failure of this type is due to sin. It is essentially a spiritual problem, a matter of moral and spiritual failure.
I would like to know how you can be so certain that marriage to non-believers is sinful. Certainly I can think of no instance of Christ saying any such thing. Paul’s command to “be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” obviously refers to “infidels” (idol worshipers, for example) rather than an agnostic struggling for faith.
I personally believe that the telling word here is “unequally”—certainly a Christian should never submit his or her belief to that of the non-believer. And if Paul were speaking strictly of marriage in 2 Corinthians, then he has clearly contradicted the statement in 1 Corinthians:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.
Comments?
Judith
Dr. Craig’s Response
As you rightly surmised, Judith, I’m thinking of Paul’s directives in 2 Cor. 6:14ff. I think we’d agree that to consciously do something contrary to a scriptural command is sinful. As James says, “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 3:17). So the only question is whether Paul does command Christians not to marry non-believers.
Look, then, at what Paul says: “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers” (v. 14). What could be clearer? The word here for unbeliever is apistos, someone who is without faith. To be sure, most unbelievers would at that time also have been involved in the worship of pagan deities (1 Cor. 10:27). But apistos doesn’t mean “idolater.” The word for idolater is eidololatres (1 Cor. 6:9). An unbeliever is anyone who lacks saving faith, including but not limited to idol worshipers.
Take a look at how Paul uses the word “unbeliever” elsewhere in his letters. Notice how in 1 Cor. 14:22–25 he uses “unbeliever” as synonymous with “outsider,” someone who stands outside the Christian community. In 1 Cor. 6:6, in prohibiting lawsuits between Christians, Paul is scandalized that disputes should be taken before unbelievers rather than before Christian brethren. In 1 Cor. 7:12–13 he addresses the situation of someone who has a spouse who is, as you note, an “unbeliever,” that is, who is not saved (v. 16). I think it’s evident that an unbeliever is someone who lacks saving faith and so is not part of the body of Christ.
Is there, then, a contradiction with Paul’s commands in 1 Cor. 7:12–16? Not at all! Paul is speaking there to couples who were both unbelievers but one of whom has since become a Christian and so finds himself or herself with an unbelieving spouse. That this is the situation is evident in Paul’s overriding principle, also applied to slaves and uncircumcised, “Let everyone lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him and in which God has called him” (v. 17). “Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called” (v. 20). So if you were married when you were called, Paul tells you not to leave your non-believing partner. Stay married, just as you were when called to follow Christ, unless the unbelieving partner desires to separate.
But Paul prohibits Christian believers to marry unbelievers. Why? In 1 Cor. 6:15 he says: “Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” One might be tempted to answer Paul’s question, “Well, we’re both really into sports and the outdoors,” or “We both love finance and business.” But Paul would have regarded such an answer as betraying an utter lack of understanding of the marriage union. For Paul, common faith in Christ was central to the marriage relationship. Take that away and you’ve taken the heart out of the marriage. That so few of our marriages between Christians today exhibit the centrality of Christ is shameful testimony to the extent to which we have become assimilated to the world’s view of marriage. Is it little wonder, then, that divorce rates among Christian couples is as high as among non-Christians?
It’s been my privilege to be married for over thirty years to a woman whose first and foremost love is to know and serve the Lord Jesus Christ. Our common desire to know and serve Him has bound us tightly together. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be married to someone who didn’t share that common first love. It has seen us through the ups and downs of life.
I don’t know your personal situation, Judith, but if you’re contemplating marrying a nonbeliever, I’d urge you not to do so, no matter how much you love him. Obey God, give Him time to work in your boyfriend’s heart, and in the meantime strive to become the woman that Christ wants you to be, as His character is formed in you.
On the other hand, if you’ve already married a nonbeliever, then you should confess your sin, claim the Lord’s forgiveness, and then obey scriptural commands on how a believing wife married to a non-Christian should deport herself (1 Pet. 3:1–6).
Can Someone Be a “Christian Homosexual”?
In our Young Adult Sunday school class my husband and I have been utilizing your book Hard Questions, Real Answers to address many of the difficult issues the church faces today, and in particular, college students begin to struggle with. Our class has had some lively discussions and, ultimately, is beginning the process of reasonably understanding their faith to more accurately and adequately defend the truth in today’s unbiblical culture.
We have come across some strong differences of opinion and a great deal of confusion regarding the topic of homosexuality; specifically, the concept that the Bible condemns homosexual acts or behavior, but not having a homosexual orientation (secondary to orientation being a modern concept). The phrase in your book, “It is perfectly possible to be a homosexual, and a spirit-filled Christian” has also caused some confusion, as many believe that God would not “create” a person to be a homosexual.
The main questions that came from this are:
1. Is defining yourself as homosexual in itself sinful? If so, how can the above statement be valid?
2. Does this refer to someone who considers himself or herself homosexual, but does not engage in homosexual acts? If the initial concept is of the acts/behavior being sinful and not the orientation, this could make sense.
3. Is calling someone a homosexual feeding into an unbiblical cultural norm that is permeating society?
There was an example given of a friend of one our Sunday school students who does not consider himself heterosexual, but also says that he is not homosexual. He is from a Christian home, and knows that homosexuality is wrong, but is not attracted to women, and doesn’t believe that will change.
The other thought that came up, which relates to the thoughts above, was that it was unbiblical to say that anybody was born as a homosexual, and that we are all created as heterosexuals. This, then, gets into the idea of whether homosexuality is a choice. Now, in your book, you do mention that regardless of genetics or choice, it does not matter; the behavior is a sin. This may be a matter of semantics, however, it is an area that must be addressed.
Additionally, if homosexuality is something that is inherited and not a choice, is it reasonable to say that this was a “choice” made in the garden of Eden? Does it come down to inheriting a sin nature? In Romans 1, it says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because what is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them … Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts … Therefore God gave them to degrading passions … And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind …
Therefore, is it a choice only for those who know God and not a choice for those who don’t, as their mind is closed to His evidence?
Also, when reaching out to “homosexual Christians” who are attempting to live a pure life and struggle with this sin, how does one lovingly assist them if one believes that by saying they are homosexual that that in itself is a sin? I liken it to the recovering alcoholic who every day sometimes every hour has to pray that the desire to drink be taken from them. This then addresses the issue of unanswered prayers as well. If one believes themselves to be homosexual and prays consistently, fervently, and with the leading of the Holy Spirit that God takes this from them, and He chooses not to make them heterosexual at this time/or ever, how can we address this?
I know this is lengthy. We have taken the matter to our church pastors so that this is a matter that can be addressed with the whole church and not just hidden under the rug. My husband and I very much hope that there will be time to have these questions examined by you and your staff.
Thank you so much. God Bless.
Krista
Dr. Craig’s Response
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to minister to college students! This is a crucial time in their lives, and it sounds as if your students are fortunate to have you and your husband guiding them through tough issues.
Before I address your three questions, let me clarify what I meant in saying, “It is perfectly possible to be a homosexual and a Spirit-filled Christian.” I’m taking homosexuality to be an orientation or inclination of one’s sexual desires. Someone who is heterosexual is attracted sexually to members of the opposite sex; someone who is homosexual is attracted sexually to members of the same sex. So my sentence meant that it’s possible to be sexually attracted to members of one’s own sex and yet be a Spirit-filled Christian.
So understood, that fact seems to me rather obvious. Whether the result of nurture or nature, one’s sexual inclination is not typically something one chooses but just finds himself with. So one may find himself with such an orientation but in the power of the Holy Spirit refuse to act out on it, knowing that to do so would be sinful. That does not mean staying in the closet. One can be open about one’s situation, just as someone struggling with, say, voyeurism might be open about his problem and refuse to act out on the desires he has.
To say this obviously doesn’t imply that such persons were “created” by God to have these desires; what I said is consistent with such desires’ being the product of one’s upbringing. In any case, if homosexuality should prove to have a biological basis, I think it would be naïve to say that God wouldn’t “create” someone with such a predisposition. God creates people with genetic defects all the time (I myself have such a genetically based syndrome). This is just a part of the broader question which philosophers call the problem of evil, specifically, natural evil.
So in answer to your questions:
1. Is defining yourself as homosexual in itself sinful? No, although I wouldn’t use the word “defining.” Part of the agenda of proponents of the homosexual lifestyle is to portray sexual orientation as a defining characteristic of who you are, part of your very identity. We shouldn’t fall into that trap. Rather, I would speak of “describing” oneself in a certain way. Descriptions can change (for instance, we grow older and fatter) and so need not define who we are.
2. Does this refer to someone who considers himself homosexual but does not engage in homosexual acts? Right. I’m talking about someone who is like the person who stands up in an AA meeting and says, “I am an alcoholic, but I’ve been dry for 15 years, thank God!”
3. Is calling someone a homosexual feeding into an unbiblical cultural norm that is permeating society? Maybe so. It might be better not to buy into such labels, since that could encourage the idea that one’s homosexual desires are constitutive of one’s identity. Maybe it would be better just to say, “I’m struggling with homosexual desires,” or “I feel attracted to members of my same sex.”
As to your comments, I agree that no one is born as a homosexual, as I defined the term, but by the same token no one is born as a heterosexual either, so defined. Remember, I defined those words in terms of one’s sexual attractions. Babies and little children don’t feel sexually attracted to other persons. Those desires are awakened later. So be careful not to think of homosexuality and heterosexuality like genders. Most all of us are born with a clearly manifest gender as male or female, but what our sexual preference will be won’t manifest itself until much later. That’s obviously true even if it has a biological basis. But whether our orientation is the result of biology or upbringing, what we have a choice about is whether we act out on our desires. God commands us to live chastely and to reserve sexual activity for heterosexual marriage. The nature or nurture debate isn’t just semantics; it’s an interesting scientific question about two very different views. But my point is that our choices about how to live remain the same regardless.
If homosexuality has a biological basis, I don’t think we need attribute it to the fall in any direct sense. It would just be like a birth defect or a genetically based disease. It’s interesting that in Paul’s day most of the people involved in homosexual acts were probably people who were heterosexual in orientation, as such acts were condoned by prominent ancient philosophers. Whether a person knows God or not, sin involves a choice for which that person is responsible.
As to your last question, I don’t think it is a sin for Christians who feel attracted to members of the same sex to say that they are homosexuals. But I do take your point that such a label may be unhelpful and may encourage them to think that this disorientation is part of their identity.
As for unanswered prayer, every young, heterosexual, Christian male will tell you that he has prayed again and again that God would help him conquer lust, and those prayers go repeatedly unanswered! Sanctification is not an instantaneous affair. It takes time and discipline, guarding one’s eyes and thought life, staying away from certain places, minding even what sort of clothing you wear and music you listen to.
This brings to mind a spiritual discipline almost never talked about today in the church: mortification of the flesh. Paul tells us as Christians to put to death the evil desires in us and not to feed the desires of the flesh (Col. 3:5). This may conjure up images of asceticism and self-flagellation, but that’s not the idea. Rather it means that as Christians we should intentionally do things to keep our sexual passions in check, for example, being careful about what movies we see or magazines we read or TV shows we watch, actively taking precautions to prevent us from sinning in this area, such as getting a filter on our Internet access. Over time we can become more holy, and many will testify that with counseling and discipline even one’s homosexual orientation can be largely corrected and normal heterosexual relations in marriage enjoyed.
1. William Lane Craig, “God Is Not Dead Yet,” Christianity Today, July 1, 2008, 22–27. This can also be accessed at ChristianityToday.com (http://bit.ly/WLC-CT).
2. Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967), 106–7.
3. J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, rev. ed. (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2012), 108.
4. This can be accessed for free at ReasonableFaith.org (http://bit.ly/ChristianFailure).