The Challenge of Homosexuality for gender roles.
Author: Evan Lenow
Lenow, Evan. “The Challenge of Homosexuality for Gender Roles.” Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, vol. 17, no. 2, Fall 2012, pp. 28–35. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=90599238&site=ehost-live.
On July 13, 2011, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a requirement that gay his- tory be taught in the social studies curriculum of California’s public schools. Proponents of the new bill argued that the goal was not to teach sex education in the social studies classroom, but instead they wanted to see sexual identity recognized. Will Grant, a California teacher and proponent of the new law, stated in an interview, “Sex is something that you cover in health class. Sexual identity is this idea of who does your sexuality make you into, and how does that affect a person’s—and a group of peoples’—social position and the way society looks at them, and the way they look at society. at’s what we cover.” 1 Opponents of the law believe that teaching gay history will be a distraction to the learning environment and will promote the agenda of the LGBT community over that of the rest of society. One of the biggest effects of the new law relates to the writing and purchasing of textbooks. National Public Radio reports, “The new law means California will begin buying new textbooks that include gay and lesbian history once the state budget improves. California is one of the biggest buyers of teaching materials in the U.S. at means these textbooks will most likely be ordered to other states as well.” 2
For those hoping to push the discussion of homosexuality back into the closet, the California law is a reality check. No longer can this discussion be reserved for political and social debates among adults. Children in California and across the country will address the issue of homosexuality in social studies classrooms from elementary school onward.
While much of the current debate has centered on gay rights and same-sex marriage, it is imperative to understand how the issue of homosexuality impacts a biblical understanding of gender roles. By its very nature of describing a relationship between two members of the same sex, homosexuality seems to make the question of gender roles irrelevant. us, there are vast challenges that homosexuality creates for a biblical discussion of gender roles. If believers are going to address these challenges both within the church and in the culture, they must first understand the impact that homosexuality has on a complementarian view of the sexes. Homosexuality denies the God-ordained nature of gender roles as revealed in Scripture by rejecting the complementary nature of sex, by subverting the complementary nature of marriage, and by distorting the complementary nature of the Christ-church relationship.
Definitions
Before embarking on the task of exposing how homosexuality denies God-ordained gender roles, it will be helpful to consider some definitions. Discussions about homosexuality often risk miscommunication because of differing definitions of the term homosexuality. Depending on context, the term can be used to refer to orientation, behavior, or both.
Homosexual orientation is perhaps the more difficult of these aspects to define. Simon Rosser states, “Sexual orientation refers to adult stable sexual attractions, desires, fantasies, and expressions toward other adult men and women.” 3 Rosser’s definition applies to sexual orientation in general and can be described as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Therefore, homosexual orientation refers to the sexual attractions, desires, fantasies, and expressions of one person to someone of the same sex. Sexual orientation is a complex concept that encompasses more than just behavior. Rosser goes on to explain, “As de ned scientifically, sexual orientation concerns far more than the genitals of one’s sexual partner(s) or one’s sexual behavior. As a complex construct, it can include, but is not limited to, the gender(s) of those we nd erotic, the gender(s) of the focus of our sexual thoughts, fantasies, and desires, and the gender of persons with whom we bond emotionally and fall in love.” 4 Sexual orientation is often used synonymously with the concept of sexual identity, but orientation is merely one aspect of several that compose sexual identity.5 us, homosexual orientation is the attraction of one adult to another adult of the same sex. Orientation does not necessarily equate to behavior because someone with a particular sexual orientation may not actually act on it.
Homosexual behavior is the act of participating in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. John and Paul Feinberg suggest that sexual behavior can include “celibacy, monogamy, promiscuity, etc., and homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals can engage in any and all of those behaviors.” 6 While sexual behavior is linked to sexual orientation, it is possible for someone to act outside the norm of their supposed orientation. For example, a heterosexually-oriented male may engage in homosexual behavior, and a female with a homosexual orientation may engage in heterosexual behavior.
While these definitions may seem unnecessary to some, they help to clarify exactly what parties to the debate are discussing. One of the most important considerations in any discussion is to make sure all parties are discussing the same concept. However, when it comes to the discussion of homosexuality, some people may use the term in relation to behavior, while others use it in reference to orientation. If the meaning of the term is not identified at the outset, the discussion may prove fruitless. For the purpose of this article, the term homosexuality will be used to encompass both ori- entation and behavior at the same time because it will be shown that both aspects deny God-ordained gender roles. When further clari cation is needed, orientation and behavior will be speci ed.
Homosexuality Rejects the Complementary Nature of Sex
A complementarian view of gender roles impacts how one views the nature of sex. In essence, complementarians believe that men and women are ontologically equal, yet functionally distinct—with men primarily characterized by ser- vant leadership and women primarily character- ized by gracious submission. is complementarian position extends beyond the roles exhibited within the marriage to a biblical understanding of sexual intercourse as well. Daniel Heimbach describes the complementary nature of sex as follows:
Sex unites beings made for each other. Men and women are human and neither is more or less human than the other. But our equal humanity does not mean we are perfectly identical. As sexual crea- tures, men and women are di erent in ways that complement each other, and the value of complementary relationship in sex is so positive that any denial or attempt to erase it is immoral.7
As Heimbach notes, sexual intercourse is designed to take place between two individuals who are fully human, yet they exhibit di erent, complementary characteristics that allow them to be united in a physical relationship.
By contrast, homosexuality rejects the complementary nature of sex through the union of two identical partners. We can see this more clearly by considering three biblical purposes of sex—procreation, unity, and sexual purity—and how they relate to the complementary relationship between a man and a woman.8 Homosexuality, both in orientation and behavior, violates these three purposes as will be shown below.
The first purpose of sex we find revealed in Scripture is procreation. Immediately after creating the first humans, God commands them to “be fruitful and multiply, and all the earth, and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). What is not said in Gen 1:28, but is clearly implied in the command, is that God instructed the first man and woman to engage in a sexual relationship so as to produce o spring and ll the earth. e Creator intended for his created beings to reproduce themselves on the earth through the mechanism that he created—sexual intercourse. We can all recognize that there are biological differences between men and women as it relates to their reproductive organs. ese differences were designed by God so as to complement each other in the sexual relationship and facilitate reproduction is the same command is repeated again to Noah and his family following the good (Gen 9:7). God instructs Noah’s family to “popu- late the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” How was this to be accomplished? Noah’s sons and their wives were to begin the process of repopulating the earth through the complementary nature of sex.
God takes the complementary nature of the sexual act so seriously that he calls any deviation from his designed plan an abomination. In the Holiness Code of Leviticus 18–20, God addresses several distortions of his intention for human sexu- ality. In Lev 18:6–23, God forbids incest, adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. ose sins are labeledtō’ēbāh (“abomination”) in the text. Although some proponents of homosexuality propose that the label of “abomination” refers to ritual uncleanness rather than a condemnation of the homosexual act,9 the contextual evidence of the passage suggests other- wise. Köstenberger and Jones surmise:
Indeed, sometimes tō’ēbāh refers to activ- ities that are morally o ensive to God, such as homosexuality. In the context of this passage of the Holiness Code, it is interesting to note that activities other than homosexuality are also labeled astō’ēbāh (cf. Lev. 18:26), including incest (Lev. 18:6–18), adultery (Lev. 18:20), and bestiality (Lev. 18:23). If we were to apply a consistent hermeneutic throughout this passage, we would be forced to conclude that these other activities are likewise only prohibited within the context of idol worship. Of course, such an interpretation would be irresponsible in light of the fact that these other activities are consistently condemned throughout Scripture, as is homosexuality.10
The similar prohibition in Lev 20:13 adds to the abomination language and requires the death pen- alty for all parties involved in the homosexual act. is speaks to the serious nature of the o ense before God, and similar punishment is prescribed for the sins of adultery (Lev 20:10), incest (Lev 20:12), and bestiality (Lev 20:15).
One reason that these perversions of God’s design for sex receive such strong condemnation is that they inherently violate the command to procreate. While not all heterosexual sex is procreative in nature, the biological possibility for procreation among heterosexual couples of child-bearing age is not prevented by the act of intercourse. Sexual relationships within a homosexual context violate this first purpose of sex because it is impossible for them to procreate. Biological sameness prevents every homosexual couple from being able to reproduce their own biological offspring. Instead, homosexual couples are forced to use artificial reproductive technologies in order to procreate, and then any subsequent child can only be the bio- logical o spring of one of them.
The second purpose of sex that we see revealed in Scripture is unity. At the institution of the first marriage in Genesis 2, Scripture declares, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). One of the key aspects of this verse is the unique one- esh union that is both physical and metaphysical. The unity of sexual intercourse reveals the physical component as two bodies are joined together in the complementary fashion to which their unique biological features testify. e metaphysical side of unity comes from the perspective that sexual intercourse is a coordinating sign of the covenant of marriage—depicting the intimate union between a man and a woman. Dennis Hollinger describes this union as follows:
Every sexual act after the initial consummation is an ongoing a rmation of the husband and wife’s unique union. It is not only a sign of their oneness but an ongoing deepening of that oneness, whereby two distinct individuals (i.e., male and female, two distinct personalities) merge their deepest longings and commitments into a shared reality. is oneness has profound signi cance for everything the couple is and does. It does not eradicate the unique personhood and individual characteristics. But it does mean that personhood and those characteristics no longer belong just to oneself.11
Thus, unity in sex depicts the unity of marriage. However, homosexuality is incapable of expressing this type of unity, and extending marriage rights to homosexual couples does not address the issue.12Homosexual sex does not bring together the com- plementary biological parts that were created by God to give expression of the intimacy and union of marriage. Homosexual marriage further distorts the God-designed complementarity of marriage and condones immoral sexual activity between the two individuals.
The third purpose of sex in Scripture is sexual purity. In 1 Cor 7:8–9, Paul instructs his readers, “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” While the other two purposes of sex can be accomplished outside the con nes of marriage, this purpose is uniquely ful lled only inside marriage. e same idea is also expressed by the author of Hebrews as he writes, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be unde led; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb 13:4). As a husband and wife engage in a sexual relationship, they satisfy their individual sexual desires within the covenant of their marriage. This outlet of sexual fulfillment then serves as a mechanism for purity. Homosexuals, however, have a twofold problem as it relates to maintaining this aspect of the complementary nature of sex. First, homosexual behavior violates the idea of purity because Scripture labels such activity as “degrading passions,” “unnatural,” and “indecent acts” (Rom 1:26–27). If sexual purity is a God-given purpose of sex, then the sex- ual activity itself must be free from sin. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 that homosexual behavior is sinful activity and is subject to judgment. Second, homosexual marriages are by de ni- tion non-monogamous—if monogamy is defined as the exclusive uniton of one man and one woman. In spite of the attempts to legalize same-sex mar- riage13, such relationships cannot exhibit the sexual purity required in Scripture. According to the Gay Couples Study from San Francisco State University, same-sex “marriages” have high rates of promiscuity. Around 50 percent of gay couples openly and knowingly participate in sexual activity outside of marriage.14 In God’s economy, a husband has authority over his wife’s body, and a wife has authority over her husband’s body, and they fulfill each other’s sexual desires (1 Cor 7:3–4). Even if a homosexual couple maintained an exclusive commitment to one another, they cannot fulfill the purpose of sexual purity because their sexual behavior is by de nition sinful.
The result of the homosexual distortion of God’s design for sex is that same-sex couples reject the complementary nature of sex. From a biological standpoint, they are unable to procreate. From a spiritual standpoint, homosexual sex does not provide the physical and metaphysical union that God intended for sex in marriage. From a purity standpoint, homosexual couples exhibit higher rates of promiscuity as they participate in sexual acts that are condemned in scripture. Robert Gagnon summarizes the problem succinctly, “Yet the story [Gen 1–3] remains authoritative for conveying that the obvious com- plementarity (and concordant sexual attraction) of male and female witnesses to God’s intent for human sexuality. Male and female are ‘perfect ts’ from the standpoint of divine design and blessing. Male and male, or female and female, are not.” 15
Homosexuality Subverts the Complementary Nature of Marriage
Not only does homosexuality reject the complementary nature of sex, but it also subverts the complementary nature of marriage. Roles in marriage are intrinsically connected to biological sex. As complementarians, we believe that hus- bands have particular roles in marriage, and wives have particular roles in marriage. We believe that men and women are ontologically equal—being, personhood, value, etc.—but that God has estab- lished different roles for them to exhibit based upon their biological gender. Within the context of marriage, we understand that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church—sacrificing, sanctifying, cleansing, cherishing, nourishing (Eph 5:25–29). This vows out of the fact that a man is joined to his wife as one flesh in marriage (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31–32). Wives, on their part, submit themselves to the leadership of their husbands just as the church submits to Christ. She respects her husband and seeks his counsel on spiritual matters (Eph 5:22–24, 33; 1 Cor 11:3; 14:35). As complementarians, we believe these gender roles were instituted at creation (Gen 2:18, 20) and are reaffirmed after the fall (Gen 3:16–19).
Homosexual relationships, by contrast, create a real challenge for gender roles in a committed, marriage relationship. If God designed the marriage relationship to exhibit these complementary roles de ned by biological gender, then homosexual relationships subvert this ideal. Sometimes homosexual couples act out a distorted version of traditional gender roles when individuals within these same-sex relationships exhibit roles contrary to their biological gender. As Köstenberger and Jones note, “Although same-sex couples cannot participate in God’s complementary design for gender roles in marriage, one partner almost always adopts the leadership role (assigned by God to the husband), while the other adopts that of helper assigned by God to the wife.” 16 The clearest biblical evidence of such behavior is found in the vice lists of 1 Cor 6:9–11 and 1 Tim 1:8–10. In these passages, two words are introduced by Paul (both in 1 Corinthians 6, and one in 1 Timothy 1) that depict the distinct roles displayed within homo- sexual relationships. In 1 Cor 6:9, Paul denotes two types of individuals who will not inherit the kingdom of God—the e eminate and the homosexual. The term translated “e eminate” in the New American Standard is the Greek word malakoi,. While some have argued that the term merely ref- erences male call-boys who are part of ritual cult prostitution,17 it seems that the best understanding is of one who takes the passive, or female, role in a male homosexual relationship. David E. Malick suggests,
Malako,j is thus not a technical term to describe being e eminate. It often had a more general sense of ‘soft’ or ‘mild.’ When it is employed in reference to sex- ual relationships of men with men, how- ever, it is also not a technical term for male call-boys in a pederastic setting. e term may mean e eminate with respect to boys or men who take the role of a woman in homosexual relationships.18
The second term introduced by Paul isavrsenokoi/tai. is term, coined by Paul, appears to be based on the LXX reading of Lev 20:13. James B. DeYoung surmises, “It is a reasonable position that Paul coined the term based on the juxtaposition of the two words arsenos and koitēnin the LXX of Lev 20:13 (cf. 18:22), though abso- lute proof of this is impossible. It may be sug- gested that the criteria of style, practice, familiarity with the LXX, and context make this a highly plausible conclusion, however.” 19 If this observa- tion is correct, then the proper understanding ofavrsenokoi/tai is the same idea expressed in Leviti- cus 18 and 20: a male lying with another male for sexual intercourse. us, the avrsenokoi/tai are the dominant partners of a male homosexual relation- ship while the malakoi, represent the passive part- ners. Used together they denote the various roles exhibited by homosexuals in their relationships, and both are condemned in Paul’s vice lists.20
In this way, homosexuality subverts the God- ordained complementary nature of marriage.21
Homosexuality Distorts the Complementary Nature of the Christ-Church Relationship
The final step in the denial of God-ordainedgender roles by proponents of homosexuality is the undermining of the nature of the Christ-church relationship. e key passage drawing the con- nection between marriage and the Christ-church relationship is Eph 5:22–33. In this passage, Paul denotes the clear connection between the way that Christ relates to his bride, the church, and how a husband relates to his wife, and vice versa.
Paul begins by instructing the wife to submit to her husband “as to the Lord.” e motivation for submission by the wife in a biblical marriage is love, reverence, and submission to Christ. Paul further states that a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. Although some would argue that headship merely means “source”22or “preeminence,”23 it seems evident from the description immediately following that authority is in view. In describing how a wife submits to her husband, Paul draws the analogy that the church submits to Christ. George W. Knight III explains,
Su ce it to say here that Paul indicates the signi cance of “head” (kephalē) by saying that “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” (verse 23). It is evident that Christ is the head of the church as the authority over it because the following verse speaks of the church as submitting to Christ. The two concepts mutually explain one another: the church submits to Christ’s authority because He is the head or authority over it.24
us, the wife submits to her husband as one under authority.
Paul then describes the role of the husband as one who loves his wife just as Christ loves the church. is is a sacri cial love that brings sanc- ti cation and nourishment in the same vein that Christ’s sacrifice of his own life for the world brings sanctification and nourishment to those who are part of the church. Knight describes this Christ-like love in two parts—giving of oneself and bene ting the wife. He states, “Christ’s giving of himself was for the bene t of His bride—He gave Himself up ‘for her.’ Just so, the husband’s self-
gender roles by proponents of homosexuality is the undermining of the nature of the Christ-church relationship. e key passage drawing the con- nection between marriage and the Christ-church relationship is Eph 5:22–33. In this passage, Paul denotes the clear connection between the way that Christ relates to his bride, the church, and how a husband relates to his wife, and vice versa.
Paul begins by instructing the wife to submit to her husband “as to the Lord.” e motivation for submission by the wife in a biblical marriage is love, reverence, and submission to Christ. Paul further states that a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. Although some would argue that headship merely means “source”22or “preeminence,”23 it seems evident from the description immediately following that authority is in view. In describing how a wife submits to her husband, Paul draws the analogy that the church submits to Christ. George W. Knight III explains, Su ce it to say here that Paul indicates the signi cance of “head” (kephalē) by saying that “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” (verse 23). It is evident that Christ is the head of the church as the authority over it because the following verse speaks of the church as submitting to Christ. The two concepts mutually explain one another: the church submits to Christ’s authority because He is the head or authority over it.24
us, the wife submits to her husband as one under authority.
Paul then describes the role of the husband as one who loves his wife just as Christ loves the church. is is a sacri cial love that brings sanc- ti cation and nourishment in the same vein that Christ’s sacrifice of his own life for the world brings sanctification and nourishment to those who are part of the church. Knight describes this Christ-like love in two parts—giving of oneself and bene ting the wife. He states, “Christ’s giving of himself was for the bene t of His bride—He gave Himself up ‘for her.’ Just so, the husband’s self-
giving should be for his wife’s bene t. In short, we may speak of this love as a giving of oneself for the bene t of the other.” 25 In so doing, the husband depicts the relationship between Christ and the church in his love for his wife.
So how does this relate to homosexuality? It is in the very nature of the Christ-church and husband-wife analogy that homosexuality presents a fundamental distortion. e homosexual couple is incapable of loving as Christ and submitting as the church because they are identical without dis- tinction. e members of a same-sex couple cannot stand in sel ess headship nor respectful submis- sion as Christ and the church. John Frame adeptly describes this problem:
In Ephesians 5:22–33, the difference between man and woman is crucial to the meaning of marriage. e man (so very inadequately) represents Christ, and the woman represents the church. e church must never be confused with Christ. But in homosexuality, there is no such distinction between the part- ners. Although one partner may be more passive than the other, there is no clear distinction between husband and wife, between bridegroom and bride. Ulti- mately, the roles are interchangeable. But symbolically, this suggests that God and man are interchangeable. And that notion is not only wrong, but the root of all sin—the primal heresy.26
Any attempted biblical defense of homosexuality (particularly as it relates to the justification of homosexual marriage) must address the problem created by Eph 5:22–33. How can a homosexual couple exhibit the characteristics of the Christ- church relationship without cheapening the authority and status of Christ?
As Frame noted, making God and man inter- changeable is a supreme act of hubris. While it is most likely not the direct intent of proponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage to under- mine the Christ-church relationship, it is nonethe- less the result of their argumentation. Two men or two women attempting to live as a married couple cannot express the distinct roles intended by God in the marriage relationship. In addition, it was God who instituted the analogy between husband- wife and Christ-church. Since God established that analogy through his inspired Word, then we must be careful to protect that analogy. Anything that undermines the intent of that analogy must be rejected as sub-Christian
Concluding oughts
As demonstrated above, homosexuality creates real challenges for a complementarian understand- ing of gender roles. By rejecting the complementary nature of sex, subverting the complementary nature of marriage, and distorting the complementary nature of the Christ-church relationship, homo- sexuality stands in direct opposition to God’s cre- ated order for gender. Nowhere is the attack more dangerous than within the walls of the church. e acceptance of homosexuality within the church will destroy the signi cance of marriage and corrupt the message of how God relates to his people.
So where do we go from here? e church should declare with Paul that homosexuality can be overcome through the redemptive power of Christ and restoration to God-ordained complementarian gender roles can be achieved. In 1 Cor 6:9–11, Paul provides a list of vices that describe individuals who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Among those vices is homosexuality. However, in verse 11, Paul declares, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sancti ed, but you were justi- ed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” May we work toward seeing those trapped in this lifestyle come to Christ and be restored to God’s design for gender and sexuality.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
General Document Comments 0
