Honoring God’s Word by Teaching – Titus 2:3-5

Similarly, teach the older women to live in a way that honors God. They must not slander others or be heavy drinkers. Instead, they should teach others what is good. These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to work in their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on the word of God. (TLB)

Older Women

Do you wonder why much more instruction is given to women than to men? Everything that applies to the men also applies to women as he says, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior” (Titus 2:3 ESV). That word, likewise, pulls in all the qualities that he addressed for older men and applies them to older women. These instructions parallel verses that list the qualifications for elders and their wives (1 Tim 3:8-13). Perhaps the reason that he spends more time with the women is that he previously (in Timothy) he has already instructedmen. Perhaps it goes back to the references about Cretans and there is something specific in this culture that women have been neglecting. Whatever the Holy Spirit’s reasons for this, it provides some good reminders for families and is applicable to both men and women.

Teachers and Trainers

Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. (1 Peter 3:1-2 RSV)

Where the NASU says that the women should encourage younger women, many versions and the NASU footnote use the word train. There are several implications of this instruction. The first is that older women have a duty to help younger women become godly wives. The second implication is that younger women need to be trained to love their husbands and children. We often think this comes naturally. Yet, the Lord used the idea that a woman could forget about her child in contrast to himself to emphasize that He doesn’t forget us (Is 49:15). Since it is possible for women not to love their husbands and children, they need to be taught how. By the way, men, I see ads on TV that tell us we need to train our boys to respect women. We shouldn’t need TV to tell us to do what is right.

The emphasis on women being submissive (Eph 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:1) perhaps overshadows the reality that there needs to be love as well as respect. If we go back to Genesis 3:16, we find a punishment inflicted on Eve for her disobedience to God and it is passed down through the ages, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (NIV). While there is a lot of controversy over what this means, many believe that this means women have a sinful desire to rule over their husbands but God’s order is to have a hierarchy in the family with the husband as the head. If this true, it means that Christian women have a temptation that must be resisted. Paul’s solution to this is for older women who have found how to live in harmony with their husbands to teach younger women how to love their husbands. Peter says they do this by their godly behavior. I’ve also found out that what’s good for women is also is good for men. A godly husband with his behavior is able to resolve marital problems if he is patient and not overbearing demanding submission and subservience. Maybe Paul should have told older men to teach the younger ones as well, but the truth is that the instruction to the women is just as applicable to men as it is to women.

Submissive to Whom?

Submissive to their own husbands. (Titus 2:5 ESV)

Most translations correctly put the word “own” in this verse. While we may think it redundant to add “own” to “their,” the Greek distinguishes between simply saying it is their husbands and it is their own husbands. The word used for their own is idios,[1]which is used to differentiate between what belongs to one rather than belonging to another. Their (autos[2]) is used in other verses where there is no distinction between the ownership. An example is when the three kings opened their treasures (Matt 2:11). The implication is that their treasures were shared. With all that said, the implication is clear that there is no requirement for the women to be submissive to other women’s husbands. The point of this is the mistaken idea that women must be submissive to all men. It is very likely that the first century culture thought that women should be submissive to all men but Paul repeats what he said to the Ephesians (Eph 5:22) and what Peter said (1 Peter 3:1) applying submission only to the woman’s own husband. It also means that some of the appalling sexual communes are not biblical in any sense. Finally, it would mean that the normal marriage relationship would be only one man and one woman.

Shame on God’s Word

 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24 NIV)

This is the key to why Titus is supposed to establish elders who have great integrity and why everyone should behave in a manner worthy of the name of Jesus. Whether it is older men or women or the ones they are instructing, younger believers and their children, the point is that bad behavior blasphemes the name of Christ. You would think that people who are “foolish … disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending … life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another” (Titus 3:3 NASU) – and that is what we once were - would not care how Christians behave if we were no different from them. Surprise! They know better and when they see Christians doing these things, it casts derision on the name of our holy God.

In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. (1 Peter 4:4 NKJV)

Unfortunately, even when we do live godly lives, unbelievers will still find fault. Living a Christian life is a “Catch 22.” If we fail at a point, we are condemned as hypocrites. If we live godly live, we are condemned as being judgmental, self righteous, or intolerant, trying to force other to live up to our standards. Sometimes these things are true and we should avoid them. Other times, it is simply the world doing what the world does, trying to suppress righteousness and the truth (Rom 1:18).

When people's lives please the Lord, even their enemies are at peace with them. (Prov 16:7 NLT)

How should we react to all of this? We have to get our eyes off the world and people who will condemn us one way or another. Generally, and proverbs speak in generalities, when we are God-pleasers instead of people-pleasers, then we will not have many enemies. But we also know that at times in our lives, walking with Jesus and living to please him will bring persecution of one sort or another (2 Tim 3:12). Our goal is, “If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18 RSV). We know that we will have opposition, but we do not want that opposition to come because we claim to be Christians and are living ungodly lives bring shame on the Word of God.

---

[1]Thayer's Greek Lexicon, s.v. “NT:2398,”, (Biblesoft: 2006), Electronic Database.

[2]Ibid., “NT:846.”

Sound Doctrine and Older Men – Titus 2:1-2

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. (NASB)

Effects of Sound Doctrine

Paul wants Titus to be a contrast to the empty talkers who preach doctrines that lead families astray. The contrast is going to show the effects of sound doctrine on families and relationships of slaves to owners. While Paul doesn’t list which doctrines of the Christian faith result in these snippets of advice, I wouldn’t be surprised if we can find other references in the Bible that will support them.

Our Purpose

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10 ESV)

Since Paul is emphasizing outward behavior, it would be easy to think that people who have been taught to get their act together are the ones that are saved. However, aspects of the doctrine of salvation make it clear that this is a result of salvation not the means of salvation. Where Ephesians 2:8-9 emphasize that God’s grace saves by a gift of faith from Him and has nothing to do with our actions, Ephesians 2:10 emphasizes the result of that salvation.

His workmanship – notice the possessive pronoun in the first phrase. We are the work of God. Salvation didn’t come to us because we cleaned up our act, but it came because God worked in us. He was working long before we made a decision to follow Jesus. It was His decision to save us even before He created the world (Eph 1:4).

Created in Christ Jesus – it is through Jesus that He has been working. While God made the decision to save us long before the earth, that work was only completed when he re-created us in Jesus. Before our salvation, we were different beings than we are now. Before, we were slaves to sin (Rom 6:19-20) and the master of sin, the devil (Eph 2:1-3). But in Jesus, we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). We are something totally different from what we were before. It is the fulfillment of the promise God gave to Ezekiel that He would give Israel a new heart and His Spirit so that they would want to obey (Ezek 36:26-27).

For good works – With a new heart and the Holy Spirit living in us, we are now able to do the good that we should have been doing all along. While salvation is not a result of good works, Jesus made it clear that good works can only come from a heart that has been cleansed of evil (Matt 15:19, Matt 7:15-17). This is the effect of salvation and it is this doctrine that Paul wanted Titus to teach.

Older Men

Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained by a righteous life. (Prov 16:31) NIV

Paul starts with older men because they are the ones that should be demonstrating a righteous life. They are the ones who have gained wisdom through a long life. If they are Christ followers, then that wisdom should be godly and reflect exactly what James described, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy” (James 3:17 NASU).

However, since Paul had to address these issues with the Cretans, it means that either the older ones were young in their faith or they had not applied good doctrine to their lives. The first are understandable and hopefully teachable. But the latter have no excuse. They have been living the way they wanted and their only option is to repent or face the Lord’s discipline.

Another interesting thing is that the qualities that Titus is to teach older men parallels the qualities of elders. Temperance is also translated as sober. This particular word is also used in 1 Timothy 3:2. It is most often used in relation to restraint in drinking wine. It is not referring to sober-minded as in 1 Peter 4:7 or 5:8. Just as it is not fitting for a church elder to be addicted to wine, neither is it fitting for an older person to be a drunkard. It is often the case that we think that an older person in not capable of changing or that it is too late to help them get sober. “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” is the common response to those who don’t want to change their life-long bad habit.

My dad was past 70 when he stopped smoking. He supposedly started when he was seven. Of course, he had incentive to stop when cancer caught up with him. And that is just the point. Being sober or temperate or being taught to overcome past bad habits is really a matter of incentive. The incentive for a Christian to get sober is to honor God. If they are not willing to renounce their behavior, then there has to be a question of how dedicated they are to their Savior.

Not Childish or Child-like

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cor 13:11 NKJV)

Teaching a man to be dignified and sensible is often seen as stifling fun, creativity, and the joy of living. But, that is not Paul’s point. There is no prohibition of having a fun-filled life, however we must not think and reason as a child does. Children do not have the capacity to understand and it is only when they get older they can process things as an adult. They are very self absorbed and decisions will almost always be what they perceive to be best for them. Their goals are short term and don’t put others first. They have to be taught to renounce selfish ambition and look out for others (Phil 2:3-4). They have to be taught that there is more to this life and not live for instant gratification (2 Cor 4:18).

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it. (Luke 18:17 NLT)

Some may point to Jesus’ words and insist that even as adults, there is virtue in being child-like. If they do, then they are misrepresenting the meaning. The context is in coming to Jesus, not living daily life. Child-like is carefree with regard to responsibilities as they are too young to support families hold down jobs or make decisions that affect not only their lives, but the lives of others. It doesn’t mean that our faith must not hold up to good reason just because a child can’t understand all the truths of Jesus’ atonement, virgin birth, or other doctrines. Child-like in coming to Jesus is being totally dependent on Jesus alone for salvation as a child has total dependence on his or her parents. It means trusting the authority of the Bible just as a child trusts his parents’ authority for his own good.

You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.(Ps 4:7 ESV)

So there is a big difference between being child-like, childish, and putting away childish things. It means that adult believers must accept the responsibilities of being a Christian and living an exemplary life. It doesn’t mean they can’t laugh, play, and enjoy life. It means that their laughter must be pure, not from crudeness (Eph 5:4) or the expense of other. Our joy should be centered on Jesus not in the abundance of the world or the cravings and desires of the world (1 John 2:15-17). That is the joy that can come only from knowing the Father through Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit indwells us. 

Gay-marriage: The Church’s Response to Married Gay Christians

 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Gay-marriage: The Church’s Response to Married Gay Christians

Submitted to Dr. Christopher Moody, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the completion of the course

THEO 530 B01

Systematic Theology II

by

Ray Ruppert

October 9, 2015

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Defining Marriage .......................................................................................................................... 2

Christian Definition .............................................................................................................. 2

Gay Definition ...................................................................................................................... 3

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 4

Moral Status of Homosexuality ...................................................................................................... 5

Conservative Christian Stance .............................................................................................. 6

Gay Stance ............................................................................................................................ 8

Justification for Welcoming Homosexuals into the Church ........................................................ 9

Concerns ............................................................................................................................... 9

Redefining the Sin ................................................................................................................ 10

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 12

Church Discipline ........................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 16

Introduction

     The issue of same-sex marriage is a big concern for the church. Christian parents are discovering that their children are gay.[1]Young people have gay friends and they do not view the church as a safe place.[2]There is division among individual Christians, denominations, and within denominations over the acceptance of homosexuals into the church.[3]Recent high court decisions in the United States and other countries, which enforce the right for homosexuals to marry, underscore the need for the church to determine if it should accept legally married people of the same sex. This paper cannot adequately discuss all of the various arguments for or against homosexuality and gay-marriages. However, it will provide biblical and gay definitions of marriage with a brief evaluation as well as the biblical and gay positions regarding homosexuality. Some justify accepting married Christian homosexuals into the church in the same way the church accepted Gentiles[4]or remarried divorced couples[5]by redefining homosexuality as sinless, and contending sexual fulfillment is a basic human need. This paper will argue that a gay-marriage is a proclamation of a continued intentional sinful lifestyle and churches should exercise church discipline with any professing Christian gay-married couples in the church for their own eternal good.

     This paper will use the terms gay and homosexual interchangeably to refer to homosexuals (male) and lesbians (females) and their sexual activity regardless of transgender modifications. Gay marriage and same-sex marriage are interchangeable, meaning the legal union of two people of the same sex.

Defining Marriage

     A clear definition of marriage from both Christian and homosexual viewpoints is required to understand their differences as well as similarities. Christians usually approach the subject from a biblical viewpoint and add other societal concerns to the argument. Proponents of same-sex-marriage often reverse the two emphasizing societal and even biological concerns first. These definitions will only examine the biblical arguments.

Christian Definition

     The Bible is the authoritative source of the Christian definition of marriage. The Christian definition starts with Genesis 1:27–28, 2:18, and 23–24, showing that God inaugurated human sexual relationships between a man and a woman.[6]Second, God created them in his image and instructed them to procreate. Before the fall, God’s image was undefiled in them implying that this is the normal sexual relationship for humanity.[7]God started the human race with two people of opposite sex. He did not make provision for sexual relationships of the same sex as this would not enable filling the earth (Gen 1:28). Third, Genesis 2:23-24 adds the concept that marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman; a relationship that Jesus endorsed and clarified in Matthew 19:4-6.[8]The fourth aspect of marriage addresses companionship using Genesis 2:22-25[9]and the fifth is that marriage provides for purity in sexual relationships (1 Cor 7:8-9 and Heb 13:4).[10]Sixth is that the enjoyment of sex (1 Cor 7:3-5: Heb 13:4) is approved by God only within marriage.[11]

     In summary, there are five points defining marriage for Christians. (1) It is between one man and one woman. (2) Marriage is God’s design for procreation. (3) Marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God. (4) Marriage fulfills the human need for companionship. (5) Sex within marriage is pure. (6) Marriage is God’s provision for sexual enjoyment.

Gay Definition

     The gay community does not define marriage in the same sense that Christians do. Rather than propose a definition with clearly defined points they simply claim that same-sex marriage does not change the definition of marriage. However, the Freedom to Marry website offers a very brief definition, “What defines a marriage is love and commitment, and the ability to protect your family.”[12]In arguing for the rights to marry, fairness is a common issue. Usually, the argument has a legal basis supporting the claim that homosexuals have the same inalienable rights as straights and that should include marriage.[13]Liberal biblical scholars often focus on the issues of justice and love when they argue for accepting same-sex marriage.[14]The details of these arguments for gay-marriage must include an argument affirming that homosexuality is not sinful, as discussed below. If the contention that same-sex marriage is the same as marriage defined by Christians, then their definition must include the same points as a Christian marriage.

Evaluation

     The very first point of marriage is that it is between people of the opposite sex. Notwithstanding the various polygamous relations in the Bible, the Old and New Testaments affirm one man and one woman as the standard for marriage.[15]Same-sex marriage fails on the first point.

     Same-sex marriage fails on the second point as well. Other than human cloning, there is no biological way that a same-sex marriage can procreate. While same-sex marriages may have children by artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or adoption, the reality is that, a third person of the opposite sex must be included in the equation. Robert Myrant succinctly states, “The introduction of a third person, even though he is ‘represented’ only by his sperm, breaks the one bond between a husband and his wife.”[16]Arguments claiming procreation is not a valid point because some heterosexual couples either choose not to have children or are incapable is a straw man argument. The point is that no same-sex couple can ever procreate.

     Same-sex marriage may certainly be a covenant between two people. However, the part that is missing is God’s blessing of the covenant. If God established marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 1:28, 2:24; Matt 19:6) only with a man and woman, then believing that God blesses a same-sex marriage is a huge error in interpretation.[17]Again, same-sex marriage fails to be the same as Christian marriage.

     The fourth point of marriage, fulfilling the need for human companionship is a huge issue for granting same-sex marriage. The argument is that homosexuals seek the same levels of love and trust as heterosexuals.[18]This is the only point that does not differ from heterosexual marriage.

     To define same-sex marriage the same as Christian marriage it must also agree that sex within marriage is pure and it is where God intended sexual enjoyment to occur. So far, these discussions have not addressed the issue of whether or not God made provision for homosexual sex. The discussion regarding the sinfulness of and God’s disapproval of homosexuality is the focus of the next section, which will show that same-sex marriage cannot be called pure or God’s provision for sexual enjoyment because their homosexual activity is by definition sinful.[19]

     Out of six points in the Christian definition of marriage, only one is applicable to same-sex marriage. To accommodate the same-sex marriage definition requires a marginalization of the concept of marriage[20]and becomes only a civil covenant based on providing companionship and legal rights to the participants.

Moral Status of Homosexuality

     The status of homosexuality, legally and morally, is a major factor when deciding whether same-sex marriage is acceptable. History shows that long before same-sex marriage became an issue, homosexual supporters sought to decriminalize and then normalize homosexuality. Homosexuality is not any different than it was fifty years ago but public perception of it is different.[21]Christians need to reexamine the biblical basis against homosexuality before they can make an informed decision about accepting gay-marriages within their congregations. Both homosexuals and Christians argue that Scripture supports their position but gay supporters use some inventive arguments; Christians must evaluate them from the Bible and stand on their conviction.[22]This section will cover several passages used by both Christians and homosexual supporters in different ways.

Conservative Christian Stance

     Genesis 19:1-11 describes the attempted gang rape of two angels who visited Lot in Sodom. A clear exegesis of the passage reveals that the citizens, young and old, who wanted to know the visitors, intended to know them in a sexual way. Otherwise, Lot would not have called their intention wicked (Gen 19:7). He would not have offered his daughters instead (Gen 19:8).[23]The Lord came to see if Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was indeed grave (Gen 18:20). The attempted action against the angels demonstrates that homosexuality was at least one of their grave sins.

     Leviticus 18:22 is a clear command not to lie with a male in the same way as with a woman. There should be no confusion about this verse. God calls it an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 repeats the command. The context of both verses is among many other verses regulating sexuality. While the pagan nations may have included some of them in idolatry, it is doubtful all of them were. The overriding issue is that God condemned them all.[24]John MacArthur makes it clear; rather than associating the verses with pagan idolatry, they demonstrate that homosexuality is “morally equal to sins such as adultery, incest, and bestiality.”[25]These verses make no inference that condemnation applies only as a part of cult worship. The conclusion should be that these sexual sins apply universally, whether in cult worship or not.  

     Romans 1:18-28 is a clear statement that God views homosexuality as dishonorable and contrary to nature as he created it. These unnatural desires are actually God’s judgment on people who are in rebellion against him.[26]It is unfathomable that God would pronounce homosexuality as a judgment against people who are rebelling against him and on the other hand, pronouncement it as a blessing for those who want to honor God yet believe their homosexuality is natural. Romans 1:18-23 clearly show that any attempt to suppress the truth results in sin. In addition, verse 20 says they are without excuse because nature convicts them of God’s nature, which includes his holiness. The previous Old Testament verses clearly state that homosexuality is an abomination to God and this means that people who think otherwise are rebelling against him and make idols of their own thinking. In the case of homosexuality, they have made it an idol replacing God’s clear instructions.

     1 Corinthians 6:9-10 clearly relates unrighteous people with those who practice three very specific sins involving sexual immorality. They include homosexuality with other sins that Christians often see as lesser. However, the outcome of all these sinful lives is the same, exclusion from the kingdom of God.[27]

Gay Stance

     Gays argue that in Genesis 19:1-11, the Sodomites did not want sexual relations with the two angels but they wanted to become acquainted with the visitors. They support this from other uses of the same Hebrew word for know.[28]This implies that homosexuality was not the reason for the destruction of Sodom. This understanding requires one to ignore the context of the verses.

     Gays completely dismiss Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which prohibits laying with a male the same as a woman, because they believe the verses relate to cult prostitution. The reason that it is an abomination to God is not that it is inherently wrong but because of its connection to idol worship. They say that scholars on both sides of the debate agree with this interpretation.[29]

     Gays redefine the word, natural, in Romans 1:24-28 to achieve their biblical approval of homosexuality. Verses 26 and 27 describe God giving up men and women to dishonorable passions and thereby having unnatural relations. Since gays and lesbians believe their passions for the same sex are natural because of their unchangeable sexual orientation, these verses do not apply to them. However if they perverted their natural orientation toward homosexual relations and instead have heterosexual relations then their action would fall under the condemnation of these verses.[30]

     Homosexual supporters also argue that Paul was not describing Christians who are homosexuals. Paul clearly states that those given over to these degrading passions are those who have rejected God. Rather, since these Christian homosexuals love God, he would never give them over to unnatural lusts. Therefore, these verses only apply to non-Christians.[31]They do not explain why it would be a sin for one group but not another.

     In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, gays interpret the word for homosexual as self indulgent and believe that homosexuals (NASU) refers to homosexual prostitution.[32]In addition, Paul encourages Timothy to moderately use wine (1 Tim 5:23). Paul’s encouragement to eat and drink to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31) is not license for over indulgence. Since gluttony and drunkenness are condemned but allowed in moderation, the same should apply to their definition of homosexuality. Therefore, gay supporters argue that Corinthians should not be a proof text against homosexuality.[33]

     The next section will evaluate the gay understanding of these verses along with other justifications for allowing homosexuals into the church.

Justification for Welcoming Homosexuals into the Church

Concerns

     In addition to the concerns for people finding the need to deal with friends and relatives that are gay, Jenell Paris claims that labeling homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right “puts same-sex-attracted believers in an impossible situation.”[34]They face a choice between leaving the church to live out their choice, attempt to become heterosexual, or be celibate and perceived as second-class citizens.[35]The concept that sexual fulfillment is a God initiated need in the same sense as a need for food is one foundation for accepting gay-marriages. While the Bible establishes sexual relationships as natural, it is always in the relationship of marriage. It does not establish sex as a need; otherwise, it would not specify singleness and abstinence in a positive light (1 Cor 7:8) or prohibit premarital sex.[36] 

     Another concern is whether the church should single out homosexuality as the worst sin. If the church does not treat adultery and co-habitation with the same seriousness, then it is possible that the church’s response to homosexuality is a sinful response. This hypocrisy is visible and may turn some away from God’s grace.[37]James Beck challenges the church, “The Church needs now more than ever a balanced approach, one that expresses the compassion of Christ for sinners as well as one that speaks the truth about homosexual behavior.”[38]What one person calls balanced another may call vindictive. As has already been seen, some deny that homosexuality is a sin. The church must have a biblical response.

Redefining the Sin

     Sylvia Keesmaat provides one justification of welcoming homosexuals into the church. She evaluated the way the early church welcomed Gentiles into the church and applied it as a model for excusing homosexuality among professing Christians. Keesmaat believes, “We need to discern what such faithful living looks like here and now, in new cultural situations, and in the light of new workings of the Spirit.”[39]

     Keesmaat brings several principles to bear on understanding the authority of the Bible as whole. She refers to Exodus 32 – 34 and Hosea 11 as example of forgiveness rather than judgment or destruction.[40]The implication of this is that rather than punishing homosexuals, the church should find ways to forgive and take care of the hurts inflicted on them within the church.

     In Acts 15, the Jewish leaders in the church were concerned that the immoral and profane reputation of Gentiles would harm the church. They believed that the only way to guarantee leaving their idolatry behind was circumcision and committing to the Torah (Acts 15:5).[41]After listening to Peter’s defense, James pronounced the final answer and Keesmaat states, “The citation: ‘The words of the prophets agree with this’ [Acts 15:15], not ‘this agrees with the prophets.’ Scripture is seen to agree with the contemporary working of the Spirit, not the other way around.”[42]The premise of welcoming homosexuals into the church is simply that the church must look at the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christian homosexuals and read Scripture to accept homosexuality instead of prohibiting it.[43]

     While Keesmaat offers insight into an overall view of God’s judgment and forgiveness, she does what is unthinkable from a biblical viewpoint. She alters the meaning of Scripture to fit the circumstances. She declares right wrong (Isa 5:20) based on human observation of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) in the lives of homosexuals.[44]However, she ignores the fruit of self-control and the description of works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19 that includes sexual immorality. She therefore also sides with others who claim that the sexual immorality prohibited by the Jerusalem council only applied to sex in conjunction with idolatry.[45]

     Keesmaat is not alone in this view. Lewis Smedes’ conclusion comes from a different angle. In the 1940s, His denomination, Christian Reformed, considered people who married a new spouse after divorce as adulterers based on Mark 10:11. The church excluded them unless they broke up their illegitimate marriage. He asks, “Could Jesus have actually meant the church to cast away people who were committed to him, on grounds that they were committed to each other too?” In the 1950s, the denomination reversed its stand and accepted these people in the church. He applies the same principles to welcoming committed homosexual couples.[46]

     Smedes bases his theology on two points. The first is that God established humans with a need for a marriage-like relationship with another person. He believes homosexuals can only have this fulfillment in a homosexual marriage because it is the only way available for them.[47]

     His second point is that Romans 1:18-27 is not about committed Christian homosexuals in a marriage-like relationship. Rather, it only applies to people who have rejected God. He believes Christian homosexuals have not given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts because they have never been heterosexual. In addition, Smedes argues that homosexuality in a marriage-like relationship is true to their nature so it is unfair to require a person with homosexual persuasions to be celibate.[48]

Evaluation

     It is impossible to interpret the Scriptures cited by homosexuals to condone their activity without appealing to questionable hermeneutics and logic. The clear understanding of the contested verses demonstrates the sinfulness of homosexuality. Applying the fuzzy logic condoning homosexuality from 1 Cor 6:9-10 would mean that moderate adultery, stealing, and swindling should also be acceptable in the church. However, this does not nullify the fact that many homosexuals claim to know and love Jesus strongly claiming as does Mel White, “We can be gay and Christian.”[49]They believe that God would not turn Christians over to unnatural lusts, which has implications regarding how the church must deal with Christians who are practicing homosexuals and wish to be married in the church. It is apparent that the way conservative Christians define marriage prohibits classification of a union between two homosexuals as a marriage. Even if most arguments against same-sex marriage were a failure, the issue is that a same-sex marriage involves homosexuality, which is an abomination to God. The concerns of well-meaning Christians for the spiritual welfare of homosexuals are not biblical reasons to let the church redefine homosexuality and gay-marriage as sinless. What then, should the church do with professing Christians who are avowed homosexuals and want to marry?

Church Discipline

     So far, it has been demonstrated that homosexuality is a sin (Gen 18:20, 19:7), an abomination to God (Lev 18:22, 20:13), not natural (Rom 1:26-27), and reason for exclusion from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). When two homosexuals unite in what they call marriage, all they accomplish is an agreement establishing monogamous companionship between them. It has none of the other characteristics of a Christian marriage. More than anything else, it is a declaration to the world that they will engage in homosexuality and even those supporting gay-marriage understand the church’s position as stated by Piers Benn, “If gay sex per se is bad enough, a solemnly declared intention to carry on with it in a particular relationship is, in an important way, worse.”[50]

     Church discipline is the only consistent way to deal with the issue of practicing homosexual Christians in or out of a marriage relationship. Having declared their intention to continue in sin requires a response from the church. Several points need clarification regarding church discipline in order to avoid the implications of gay bashing or singling out homosexuality as a sin worse than other sins. These points also demonstrate that church discipline is a better response than redefining homosexuality as natural and not sinful.  

     1. Church discipline is only for Christians who do not repent of their sin. 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 applies to a person who was among the believers. Paul clarified that this did not apply to those outside the church (1 Cor 5:12).[51]Dealing with those outside the church is another subject.

     2. Church discipline provides instruction (2 Tim 3:16-4:2). Since God inspired the Bible, those who would desire to redefine sin cannot alter it.[52]Church discipline reinforces this truth to the entire congregation.[53]It is an opportunity to teach that homosexuality is wrong.

     3. Church discipline reinforces accountability to live godly lives as obedient members of the church (Rom 16:17-20).[54]Christians who live immoral lives weaken the church. If the church does not discipline those who want homosexual relations even in what they call marriage, it condones their actions and encourages others to continue in the same sin. In Deuteronomy, multiple passages command purging the evil from Israel and Deuteronomy 17:13 provides the added reason as a deterrent to sin.

     4. Church discipline also provides for reconciliation and restoration to the church as described in Matthew 18:15-20 and 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. It is not to be done out of hatred but genuine concern for the spiritual wellbeing of the transgressor (Lev 19:17).[55]

     Genuine concern and love for a person caught in sin, whether it is homosexuality or other sins, must realize that allowing people to continue in unrepentant sin has worse eternal consequences than relieving their temporal perceived needs. If they call themselves Christians and do not recognize their sin, they may not have eternal life (2 Cor 13:5). If they are truly Christians and do not repent, they may be forfeiting eternal rewards (2 Cor 5:10). It is much better to discipline them and pray for their repentance than to allow them to believe they are in right standing with God. [56]

Conclusion

     It is abundantly clear that the definition of marriage for Christians and homosexuals is vastly different. While they both recognize the element of companionship, gay-marriage cannot fulfill other points of the definition, between one man and one woman, designed for procreation, a covenant ordained by God, purity of sex, and God’s provision for sexual enjoyment. While both supporters and opponents of gay-marriage use Scripture to maintain their positions, gay supporters must rely on inventive methods of hermeneutics to conclude that homosexuality is not a sin. In addition they must take an unbiblical position that sexual fulfillment is necessary for a person to live a normal Christian life. This last issue is a foundational point in insisting on allowing gays to marry. Same-sex marriage is therefore a blatant declaration of two people’s intent on having a sinful lifestyle. The church has the responsibility to tell the truth and discipline those within the church who practice homosexuality whether in a marriage or not. Disciplining provides opportunity to teach the congregation as well as provide restoration for the unrepentant. Not disciplining members hurts the church and does not show genuine love because it does not seek the best for the sinners, their eternal good.

Bibliography

Beck, James R. “Evangelicals, Homosexuality, and Social Science.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 83-97. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jets40-1-07.

Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. N.p.: Archon Books, 1955. Accessed September 30, 2015. https://books.google.com/books?id=YjqGAAAAIAAJ. Google Books.

Benn, Piers. “The Gay Marriage Debate - Afterthoughts.” Think 13, no. 36 (Spring 2014): 23-31. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1468687394?accountid=12085.

Blair, Ralph. An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality. Chicago: Moody, 1963. Quoted in Gary R. Gromacki, “Why Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 9, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 63-95. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat09-2-03.

Burk, Denny. “How Do We Speak About Homosexuality?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 31-36. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw17-1-06.

Emadi, Samuel. “A Review of Justin Lee, ‘Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from Gays-vs.-Christians Debate.’” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 18, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 38-39. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw18-2-11.

Freedom to Marry. “Marriage 101 | Freedom to Marry.” Accessed September 28, 2015. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101.

Gromacki, Gary R. “Why Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 9, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 63-95. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat09-2-03.

Keesmaat, Sylvia C. “Welcoming in the Gentiles A Biblical Model for Decision Making.” In Living Together in the Church: Including Our Differences. Edited by Greig Dunn and Chris Ambidge. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 2004. Accessed September 4, 2015. http://ir.icscanada.edu/icsir/handle/10756/296292.

Kitchens, Ted G. “Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 490 (April 1991): 201-13. Accessed September 24, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/bsac148-590-05.

Lee, Justin. Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate. Reprint ed. New York: Jericho Books, 2012.

Lenow, Evan. “The Challenge of Homosexuality for Gender Roles.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 2 (Fall 2012): 28-34. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw17-2-05.

MacArthur, John. “God’s Word On Homosexuality: The Truth About Sin and the Reality of Forgiveness.” The Master's Seminary Journal 19, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 153-74. Accessed September 30, 2015. http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj19f.pdf.

McGinniss, Mark. “The Church’s Response to the Homosexual.” Journal of Ministry and Theology14, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 129-63. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat14-2-05.

Myrant, Robert. “Biblical Ethics, Biotechnology, and Human Cloning.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 3, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 50-61. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat03-2-04.

Paris, Jenell Williams. The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011.

Payne, Tony. “Gay Spin City.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 1,18-19. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw05-2-02.

Peppler, Christopher L. “Same-Sex Marriage: A Current South African Christian Perspective.”Conspectus 2, no. 1 (September 2006): 40-56. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/conspectus02-1-03.

Peterson, Roger L. “Discipline in the Local Church.” Central Bible Quarterly 2, no. 3 (Fall 1959): 1-28. Accessed September 24, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/cenq02-3-01.

Sider, Ron. “Bearing Better Witness.” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life no. 208 (December 2010): 47-50. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/811348623?accountid=12085.

Smedes, Lewis B. “Like the Wideness of the Sea? - Perspectives Journal.” Perspectives A Journal of Reformed Thought. May 1999, Repost September 1, 2014. Accessed September 4, 2015. http://perspectivesjournal.org/blog/2014/10/01/like-the-wideness-of-the-sea.

Stewart, Jenise T. “The Biblical Theology Regarding Homosexuality.” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 14-21. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/fm20-3-02.

White, Mel. Stranger at the Gate: to Be Gay and Christian in America. New York: Plume, 1995.

---

[1] Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate, Reprint ed. (New York: Jericho Books, 2012), 5.

[2] Ibid., 7.

[3] Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are, (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2011), 85-86.

[4] Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Welcoming in the Gentiles A Biblical Model for Decision Making,” in Living Together in the Church: Including Our Differences, ed. Greig Dunn and Chris Ambidge,  (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 2004), 31-48, accessed September 4, 2015, http://ir.icscanada.edu/icsir/handle/10756/296292.

[5] Lewis B. Smedes, “Like the Wideness of the Sea? - Perspectives Journal,” Perspectives A Journal of Reformed Thought, May 1999, repost September 1, 2014, accessed September 4, 2015, http://perspectivesjournal.org/blog/2014/10/01/like-the-wideness-of-the-sea.

[6] Jenise T. Stewart, “The Biblical Theology Regarding Homosexuality,” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 14-21, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/fm20-3-02, 19-20.

[7] Denny Burk, “How Do We Speak About Homosexuality?,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 31-36, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw17-1-06, 34.

[8] Christopher L. Peppler, “Same-Sex Marriage: A Current South African Christian Perspective,” Conspectus 2, no. 1 (September 2006): 45, accessed August 28, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/conspectus02-1-03, 43--44.

[9] Gary R. Gromacki, “Why Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 9, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 84-85, accessed August 25, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat09-2-03, 76.

[10] Evan Lenow, “The Challenge of Homosexuality for Gender Roles,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 2 (Fall 2012): 33, accessed August 25, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw17-2-05, 31.

[11] Robert Myrant, “Biblical Ethics, Biotechnology, and Human Cloning,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 3, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 50-61, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat03-2-04, 60.

[12] “Marriage 101 | Freedom to Marry,” Freedom to Marry, accessed September 28, 2015, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101#faq2.

[13] Ron Sider, “Bearing Better Witness,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life no. 208 (December 2010): 47-50, accessed August 25, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/docview/811348623?accountid=12085, 50.

[14] Peppler, 45.

[15] Stewart, 20.

[16] Myrant, 55.

[17] Samuel Emadi, “A Review of Justin Lee, ‘Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from Gays-vs.-Christians Debate,’” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 18, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 38-39, accessed September 2, 2015,http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw18-2-11, 39.

[18] Smedes.

[19] Lenow, 31.

[20] Peppler, 52.

[21] Tony Payne, “Gay Spin City,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 1,18-19, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jbmw05-2-02, n.p.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Gromacki, 79.

[24] Stewart, 22.

[25] John MacArthur, “God’s Word On Homosexuality: The Truth About Sin and the Reality of Forgiveness,” The Master's Seminary Journal 19, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 153-74, accessed September 30, 2015, http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj19f.pdf, 165.

[26] Burk, 34.

[27] Stewart, 18.

[28] Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (n.p.: Archon Books, 1955), accessed September 30, 2015, https://books.google.com/books?id=YjqGAAAAIAAJ. Google Books, 4.

[29] Lee, 177-178.

[30] Gromacki, 84-85.

[31] Smedes.

[32] Gromacki, 86.

[33] Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Chicago: Moody, 1963), 6, quoted in Gromacki, 87.

[34] Paris, 95.

[35] Paris, 95-96.

[36] Pepple, 49.

[37] Mark McGinniss, “The Church’s Response to the Homosexual,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 14, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 129-63, accessed August 28, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jmat14-2-05, 137, 140, 147.

[38] James R. Beck, “Evangelicals, Homosexuality, and Social Science,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 83-97, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jets40-1-07, 88.

[39] Keesmaat, 30-31.

[40] Keesmaat, 32.

[41] Ibid., 36.

[42] Ibid., 38.

[43] Ibid., 39.

[44] Ibid., 44.

[45] Ibid., 40.

[46] Smedes.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Mel White, Stranger at the Gate: to Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Plume, 1995), 306.

[50] Piers Benn, “The Gay Marriage Debate - Afterthoughts,” Think 13, no. 36 (Spring 2014): 23-31, accessed August 25, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/docview/1468687394?accountid=12085, 27.

[51] Ted G. Kitchens, “Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 490 (April 1991): 201-13, accessed September 24, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/bsac148-590-05, 204.

[52] Roger L. Peterson, “Discipline in the Local Church,” Central Bible Quarterly 2, no. 3 (Fall 1959): 1-28, accessed September 24, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/cenq02-3-01, 8.

[53] MacArthur, 156.

[54] Ibid., 10.

[55] Ibid., 12-13, 17-18.

[56]MacArthur, 155-156.