Series - Cone LGBTQ

A Biblical Teleological Argument for Identity, Sex, and Sexuality, Part 4

Read the series.

Inherent Design View (Design Theology)

When we read culture through the lens of the Bible, rather than the Bible through the lens of culture, we often find clarity. Genesis 19 (when coupled with Jude 7) and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are all strongly negative toward same-sex activity. With forcefulness the Mosaic Law prohibits homosexual activity, however, in a literal grammatical-historical handling of Scriptures pertaining to the Mosaic Law, we must conclude that this was a conditional covenant exclusively for Israel, and that it was completely fulfilled in Christ, and now it serves the purpose as a tutor leading people to Christ.41 The Christian is not under the Mosaic Law in any way—not for justification, and not for sanctification. Further, the Mosaic Law is not ethically applicable to the church beyond the purpose spelled out expressly in Scripture.

687 reads

A Biblical Teleological Argument for Identity, Sex, and Sexuality, Part 3

Read the series.

Moral Prohibitive View (Legality Theology)

For the Roman Catholic thinker, the Moral Prohibitive View is a good fit. Historical tradition is clear about the moral illegality of homosexual activity:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents acts of homosexuality as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law…19

Commendably, the Catechism calls those who might consider themselves homosexuals to chastity.20 As the appeal to historical theology implies, there is a longstanding prohibition, about which, there has been little debate until more recently, as the RCC seeks to maintain cultural relevance. For the Reformed/Covenant thinker, the Moral Prohibitive View is the most natural fit, consistent with the theological hermeneutic that governs Reformed/Covenant understanding of the applicability of the Mosaic Law for the church today. In this view, because God legislates from His character, His legislation cannot change (as His character is immutable). Consequently, the Law must remain in effect.

746 reads

A Biblical Teleological Argument for Identity, Sex, and Sexuality, Part 2

Read Part 1.

Moral Permissive View (Cultural Distance Theology)

Built on the essential yet unstated premise that God cannot or will not hold a person morally accountable for what they do not choose, Matthew Vines asserts that “Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex. It is not something they choose, and it’s not something they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with.”9 Vines adds an emotional appeal, emphasizing the hurt caused by viewing homosexuality as wrong:

Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin. And for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things. The Song of Songs tells us that King Solomon’s wedding day was “the day his heart rejoiced.” To deny to a small minority of people, not just a wedding day, but a lifetime of love and commitment and family is to inflict on them a devastating level of hurt and anguish.10

844 reads

A Biblical Teleological Argument for Identity, Sex, and Sexuality, Part 1

Abstract

Matthew Vines and others supporting the LGBTQ perspective have argued for a Moral Permissive View on sexual orientation. The argument has been two-tiered: (1) that the more traditional Moral Prohibitive View is based on six Scriptures that are ultimately not relevant to the present discussion, and (2) that in the absence of Biblical data for or against healthy homosexual relationships, Christians should choose the more inclusive, affirming approach rather than condemn such relationships.

In order to advance the discussion beyond the stalemate of these two models, and in order to apply a solidly Biblical hermeneutic, this paper proposes a third approach: The Inherent Design Model. This third model considers God’s particular design for identity, sex, and sexuality in Genesis 1 and 2, Jesus’ affirmation of that model in Matthew 19, Paul’s recognition in 1 Corinthians 7 that the design offers only one inherent alternative (celibacy), and his explanation in Romans 1 of other alternatives as violating God’s design. The Inherent Design Model concludes that LGBTQ applications violate God’s design, and the model contextualizes the ethical implications so that believers can respond in a way that honors all people (including LGBTQ), and can demonstrate the love of Christ while not compromising Biblical truth.

879 reads