An excerpt by W.J.A. Pijnacker Hordijk, from ‘A response to the Pro-Homosexual theology by Joe Dallas’. This excerpt is accompanied by a contribution of the Prof. dr. G.A. Lindeboom Institute (Amsterdam: ‘De Oogst’ publications from 2002) 81 pages, which is a condensed version and translation by Hans Frinsel of the book ‘A Strong Delusion: Confronting the Gay Christian Movement’ (Harvest House 1996)
The American Author comes from a homosexual life style and had been an active member of a Pro-Homosexual church for 5 years until he dared to face up truthfully to what God’s Word really has to say about this issue.
Chapter 1: The Pro-Gay Theology in a nutshell
In order to consider homosexuality as a variant created by God, one firstly has to refute the traditional view on homosexuality. The Gay Christian Movement tries to do this in three ways:
- By prejudicial argument [however, the related Bible texts are very clear]
- By a translation/interpretation argument [Have the Bible translators got it 5 times wrong then? That’s very unlikely!]
- By a context argument [the texts on homosexuality in context of sexually immoral behavior]
- By a culture argument [Has the Bible got it 5 times wrong? In different cultures like the Hebrew culture and the Roman culture, homosexuality is rejected.
With regard to the Bible explanation, it is to say: “Every heretic has his own dogmatic”. One can make the Bible ‘ventriloquize’. Should we try to adapt the Bible according to our own desires or should we consider our desires in the light of the Bible? The confrontation with the Pro-Homosexual theology is a confrontation with a deceptive element of this age, which is the inclination to subjugate the objective truth to the subjective experience.
Chapter 2 General religious arguments
When the concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘dogma’ are no longer meaningful for Christians, can there then still be a concept of ‘sin’?
Of course there’s room for any sense of gentleness, but never at the cost of truth.
2.1 Jesus has never said anything about homosexuality.
A thought: If Jesus did not forbid a certain behavior specifically, does it mean that He therefore did not consider it so important?
Answer:
- The gospels have no higher authority than the other books of the Bible. The whole Scripture was inspired by God.
- This argument has the assumption that the gospels are all-encompassing, but they are clearly not. Because Jesus did not say anything e.g. about beating your wife or about incest, we should not conclude that Jesus approves of it. We don’t know everything of what Jesus had said. The gospels are not an exhaustive and complete report of His whole life and work. Homosexuality is mentioned and rejected in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
- As a matter of fact, Jesus did point out specifically what God’s original intention was with sexuality in Mark 10 verse 6-9: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
2.2 ‘I am a born-again believer and a homosexual. How can that be if homosexuality is wrong?’
Antwoord: This argument relies on the unsustainable suggestion that everything a Christian does is good in God’s eyes. Being saved doesn’t mean that we have a license to sin. No matter the extent of faith of such a person is and no matter how much he is loved by God, he can nevertheless unknowingly walk in darkness. The question is not: ‘Can a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle belong to God?’ BUT ‘Is homosexuality permitted or not permitted, according to the Bible?’
2.3 ‘I attend a pro-homosexual church where the gifts of the Spirit and the presence of God are clearly visible. How is that possible if homosexuality is wrong?’
Answer: This answer is deceptive because it suggests that God’s gifts and presence are an evidence of His approval.
Three possible situations: 1. God was not present at all and what she felt was only emotion. 2. What was felt was demonic fraud. and 3. God was there indeed. (So what?) Cf. the situation in the church at Corinth: God was there too, but there were also many serious malpractices.
2.4 ‘My partner and I have a monogamous relationship and we really love each other. That can’t be wrong, can it?!’
Answer: This suggestion that love justifies a relationship is seductive but deceptive. Love in itself doesn’t make a relationship right. One of the most occurring mistakes that are made in the area of Christian ethics is the attempt to make love to be an all-encompassing, spiritual concept that has the power to justify everything that happens in its name. Jesus made it clear to His disciples repeatedly that love can also stand in the way concerning God’s plan with one’s life. He warns us that our love for whom so ever, no matter how legitimate that love may be, become sinful as soon as such love is greater than our love for God. (Matthew 10:37). A married man can be head over heels in love with another woman, but it will never justify the perpetration of adultery. But we desire to be kind at all cost. That is a strange inclination that has penetrated the church.
‘Being kind to one another’ has become more important than the truth. Immorality has been given free reign, even among Christian leaders.
What has been presented is an ‘easy to use God’ who looks down affably smiling at their self- chosen while continuing to live as they see fit.
2.5 ‘’I have looked for a change, but I didn’t succeed. Therefore it must be God’s will that I am ‘the way’ I am.’
Answer: As to whether a gay person can or cannot change is the most controversial. This argument is illogical because it suggests that ‘unchangeable’ is the same as ‘legitimate’. What should matter to a Christian, is: ‘How can I obey?’ instead of ‘How can I change?’
Regardless of the severity of the battle, God’s standard is unchangeable. Homosexuals can change and they do. It is wrong and arrogant to assume that the experience of others is the same as yours or ought to be the same as yours. Religious homosexuals are mistaken when they assume categorically that nobody can change because they themselves do not change. Homosexual behavior is a sin of which a person should repent, not a sexual response that he must change.
‘Unacceptable’ and ‘legitimate’ are two totally different concepts.
‘Unacceptable’ and ‘legitimate’ are two totally different concepts. There is nowhere in the Bible to be found where it’s said that a sin is to be allowed when it appears that a person who commits the sin is unable to control his inclination to that particular sin. ‘Unchangeable’ does not mean ‘acceptable’. Experiences of the majority are often wrong.
Hoofdstuk 3 Biblical arguments
3.1 Creation and the order of creation Gen.1:27, 28 2:18, 23, 24
According to the homosexual theology, Genesis does not forbid homosexuality. These verses cannot be considered to be a model of all couples, for there are childless heterosexual couples and people who do not have a sexual relationship. They are therefore not sinful.
Refutation: However, these verses are the basic model. The husband – wife relationship portrayed in Genesis, is the only sexual behavior model that is consistently assessed positively in both the Old and the New Testament. Although polygamy does occur in the Bible, monogamy is nevertheless considered the ideal standard.
3.2 The destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19: 4-9. According to the Homosexual theology, Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its inhabitants and not because of homosexuality.
Refutation: Then why did Lot say ‘Don’t do this wicked thing’? It was not about hospitality but it was about sex. Therefore Lot offered his daughters to them. It was not Lot’s sin that was punished but the sin of the city. Sodom was destroyed because of the attempt of rape and not because of homosexuality.
Refutation: This argument is partly true. There was indeed mention of rape, but the entire masculine population was involved, which indicates that homosexuality was prevalent widely in Sodom. This has been confirmed from the early literature.
3.3 The real sins of Sodom according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that they lived ‘prideful in luxury, and in carefree rest without supporting the miserable and the poor’. These things got nothing to do with homosexuality though.
Refutation: This argument is also true for a part. Homosexuality was not the only sin of Sodom. Ezekiel also says (in chapter 16:50) that the Sodomites were spoiled and they committed atrocities. These atrocities were sexual by nature, according to 2 Peter 2: 6,7 that reads: ‘the depraved conduct of the lawless’. See also Jude 7 (‘they gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion’), and the apocryphal books: 3 Maccabees 2: 5 (‘lawlessness (vices)’) and Jubilees 16: 6 (‘the uncleanness of the Sodomites’).
3.4 The Levitical law Lev. 18:22, 20:13
According to the Pro-Homosexual Theology, this refers to idolatry and not to homosexuality. The abomination would refer to ritual uncleanness instead of something being essentially perverted.
Refutation: Besides the prohibition of homosexuality, there are other sexually immoral sins mentioned such as adultery and incest. Throughout the whole Bible, it appears that God disapproves of these practices, regardless of whether there is any ritual or any idolatry.
Moreover, the word ‘abomination’ is also used for matters that are not related to idolatry, as in Proverbs 6: 16-19. (These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren).
If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are only judged on the basis of idolatry, then that would imply that they would be allowed without idolatry. But this would imply that incest, adultery, bestiality and child offerings (which are mentioned in the same list) would also be allowed, as long as there is no idolatry. This is unacceptable.
3.5 Paul’s view on ‘natural use’ and ‘contradicted to nature’ Rom.1:26, 27
(26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.)
According to the Pro-Homosexual Theology, the real sin here is going against what a person himself experiences as natural. Paul rejects here the homosexual acts by apparently heterosexual individuals. Homosexuality practiced by homosexuals is not a sin.
Refutation: Absolutely nothing of what Paul says indicates that he knew such a thing as a ‘real’ homosexual versus a ‘fake’ one. He simply says that homosexual behavior is against nature, regardless of by whom it is practiced. In other words, homosexuality is biologically unnatural, not only for heterosexuals, but for everyone.
3.6 Other Pro-Homosexual theologians claim that these verses are about people who have given themselves up to idolatry and not about homosexual Christians who worship the true God.
Refutation: The entire apostasy from God has created the right environment for homosexuals as a specific form of rebellion. If the verses 26 and 27 are about people who engage in homosexual acts that are related to idolatry and that therefore homosexual acts without idolatry are not sinful, then it should also apply to the verses 29 and 30, which are unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, murder, etc..
3.7 Paul’s use of the word ‘arsenokoite’ in 1Cor. 6: 9, 10, 1Tim.1: 9, 10.
Paul has used only this word. There were other words for homosexuality, but he doesn’t use them here. It is therefore likely that he did not mean homosexuality, but that he meant male prostitution.
Refutation: 179 words are used by Paul for the first time. That doesn’t mean that the context of the verses would therefore change completely. He derived this word ‘arsenos’ directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that evidently forbid homosexual behavior.
In addition: ‘arsene’ means ‘male’ and ‘koite’ means ‘bed’. ‘The bed should be undefiled’ (NKJV) (Heb.13:4), ‘the marriage bed should be kept pure’ (NIV) Paul thus combined the two words ‘male’ and ‘bed’ in a sexual sense. There is no indication whatsoever that prostitution is implied in combining these two words into ‘arsenokoite’.
Chapter 4 The necessary confrontation with the Pro-Homosexual Theology
When homosexuals claim that homosexuality is a gift from God and when they introduce this claim into the church, it is our duty to take a stand against it for 3 reasons:
- The claim of the Christian Pro-Gay Movement distort the truth about Gods intentions. In that way they represent a wrong image of Him, and that should not be left unanswered.
- The Christian Pro-Gay Movement is asking its members to confirm their sin, while God’s Word commands us to do the opposite.
- The sin that is being tolerated without remorse amongst Christians is like a disease, which in the end will affect the whole body. 1 Corinthians 5: 5-7: (“5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”)
The same gentle and forgiving Jesus did not condone sin. Revelation 2: 20-22: (“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.”)
We must confront the brother (the sinner) and not the enemy. The whole church (including heterosexuals) is not immune to sexual sins. Therefore, we should present ourselves as sinners who reach out to and approach other sinners. We love every Christian and we say ‘let’s fight together against sin.’
Chapter 5 Scientific arguments in the discussion on homosexuality
5.1 Introduction
What are the biological backgrounds of homosexuality? Is it biologically determined? To what extent is the homosexual tendency changeable?
- We don’t want to ignore data and insights, but neither do we want to automatically accept what scientific research and theorization put forward. Science deals with the part of reality that’s accessible to the scientific method.
- One can distinguish between homosexual behavior (homosexual) and homosexual orientation (gay). In mainly English scientific readings, this distinction is usually not made. In the terminology used here they consider a homosexual to be a person with a homosexual orientation without necessarily going hand-in-hand with a homosexual lifestyle.
5.2 The cause of homosexuality
Conflicting conclusions are drawn from various studies. The relation between genetic factors and the cause of homosexuality:
5.2.1 X chromosome study
There was no indication found that there would be a connection between the occurrence of homosexuality and a certain X chromosome which could have been transmitted by the mother to the son.
5.2.2 Twin study
Genetic factors in any case, do not provide a conclusive explanation for the development of sexual orientation. From studies among male and female twins, it shows that not only genetic factors influence sexual orientation. Also environmental factors play an important role. However, among the women they found a significant influence of genetic factors. In some of them there is a need to find a biological explanation for their homosexual orientation, for that would justify their corresponding behavior.
Others on the contrary, do not want their orientation and lifestyle to be related to a biological tendency, but they want it to be a personal choice, their self-chosen identity and lifestyle. Statistical relations provide some correlation at group level and no explanation at the individual level.
5.2.3 H-Y anti-gene study
The discovery of homosexuality in their brothers seems to have no significant cause for the origin of homosexuality with men. The relation between non-genetic factors and the cause of homosexuality. Some studies have found that, in a relatively high number of cases among adult homosexuals, there was mention of sexual abuse in childhood. The occurrence of family dysfunctions often seem to be related to homosexuality among children. In summary: much appears to be still unclear about the role of any potentially genetic factors in the occurrence of homosexuality. Environmental factors also seem to play a role, but they certainly do not provide a conclusive explanation for the development of the sexual orientation.
5.3 The relation between biological structures (brain structures) and the case of homosexuality.
There is still much ambiguity in this regard. Possible changeability of homosexuality
Changeable? In a study from the year 1962 on homosexuality, they came to the conclusion that a change from homosexuality is possible for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change. In a report from 1990 it was stated that 84% from the homosexuals examined, had changed their sexual orientation at least once, and that 32% had changed twice. All treatment programs that were focused on change from homosexuality to heterosexuality were quite successful.
Normalization of homosexuality The normalization of homosexuality by the influential American Psychiatric Association was driven by political arguments and not by scientific arguments. The definition of homosexuality, which is a disease/disorder in psychological and behavioral conditions, is mostly determined by the prevailing public opinion. From the point of view of homosexual activists, they do not find the change of sexual orientation desirable. Nevertheless, many outreach programs are being offered to homosexuals by psychotherapists and religious groups. The changeability from a homosexual orientation is recognized by some, but not by others. The researchers’ views do have an impact on the results of the studies.
‘Ought to be’ and ‘to be’ What is normal? Innate and normal do not necessarily go together. Innate behavior is not automatically to be morally justified. (E.g.: the justification for alcoholism based on the existence of alcoholism). The simple existence of homosexuality gives in no way an ethical justification for a homosexual lifestyle.
