The Sin of Opposing Homosexuality

This was written in 2013.  My thinking has changed on one issue: I believe homosexual urges can, through the power of the Holy Spirit, be ended.  This essay suggests otherwise.

Gary Hall, the Dean of the National Cathedral in Washington claims it is sin to oppose homosexuality.  He offers up the socially acceptable notion that “sexual orientation is a gift, and the religious question should be about how to responsibly use that gift.”  He cites no Scripture for this proposition because he cannot.  As is typical with so many ideas in church history, the remedy is often worse than the illness.

The problem Mr. Hall and other homosexual advocates are confronting is real.  There has been too much stereotyping, too much anger, and too much finger pointing from many heterosexual Christians and not enough concern for the individual, not enough love, and not enough gracious understanding.  I am in full agreement with Mr. Hall that Christians have not done a good job of handling the question of homosexuality.  However, he cannot provide any clear biblical authority for his position, making it tenuous at best, heretical at worst. 

While society is certainly fully prepared to accept homosexuality, apparently without reservation, that does not make it right.  The last line of the book of Judges is instructive: “In those days, there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”  We live in such an age.  Jesus is not king in the United States, and the bible has no real force.  Frankly, one of the reasons Christians have badly botched their handling of homosexuality is the utter lack of biblical literacy among the last several generations of Christians.  It’s odd that there are now more bibles available than ever, in more formats than ever, in better translations than ever, yet we read it less and less than ever.  However, someone like Mr. Hall can get away with saying what he has said and many who claim some form of Christianity will agree with him, mostly because they have not carefully read the bible, or have not really read it at all.

A casual reading of the bible makes clear that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and that we are saved “through grace by faith” and “not because of works, lest any man should boast.”  Ephesians 2:8 – 9.  No Christian has any reason to act as if he or she is superior in any way to any other sinner – all the heavy lifting is done by God – the Christian simply gets to enjoy the benefits of what God has done for him through Jesus Christ’s atoning work as a result of his death, burial, and resurrection.  Where Mr. Hall is partly right is that no Christian has any business taking a holier-than-thou attitude towards other sinners.  Where Mr. Hall is utterly wrong is his non-biblical belief that homosexuality is somehow a gift from God.

This then points to the primary problem in this discussion.  Those who accept Scripture as authoritative look at the multiple passages which seem to fairly clearly demonstrate homosexual behavior is sinful and conclude it is wrong.  Where those in this camp have failed is they have simply pointed to homosexual behavior and said “bad” and have made no effort to engage with homosexual sinners.  Christians have embraced alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, drug dealers, and a host of other sinners, often with significant results.  Interestingly, however, Christians have long now accepted the idea of “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.”  In other words, the sinner may stop the sin, but the urge never fully goes away in our fallen world.  Had Christians handled homosexual behavior the same way early on, the current situation might not be in such bad shape.  In other words, understand that while same sex attraction may be something that a homosexual can curb, the underlying desire never really fully leaves.          Unfortunately, while Christians are forgiven of their past, present, and future sins, the fallen world in which we live beckons.  Our underlying desires for our pet sins, whatever they might be (gluttony? greed? covetousness?), remain.  The same is true for the alcoholic or the homosexual.  Our response should be the response we would wish for others to have toward our pet sins.  We have not reacted this way toward homosexual behavior.

That said, the non-biblical arguments which Mr. Hall makes have no value, either, in moving the conversation in a positive direction.  In fact, it is arguable that his rhetoric ironically smacks of the very kind of holier-than-thou finger pointing of which homosexuals have long and rightly accused so many Christians.  The underlying reason for the kind of argument Mr. Hall makes stems from an unwillingness to accept Scripture as authoritative.  This takes two forms: (1) exegesis which attempts to read the Bible in light of a so-called modern understanding of homosexual behavior which is, allegedly different than the biblical understanding; or (2) the view that the Bible simply isn’t authoritative whenever it says something that doesn’t jive with modern sensibilities.  In other words, sin really isn’t sin, it’s something else, depending.  So if you are really good with Hebrew and Greek (the two languages in which the Bible was written) you can make all kinds of arguments about things not being sinful.  What about the many passages that decry drunkenness?  Since I am neither a Hebrew nor Greek scholar, I don’t know how one manages these, but I can just about guarantee that some crafty thinker can rationalize away the otherwise clear proscriptions against drunkenness.

This leaves the parties in a stalemate in some sense, because we’re not really even talking about the same thing.  I am talking about a Bible that I believe transmits the word of God, written by writers inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God intended in a way that didn’t overwhelm each writer’s individuality.  Mr. Hall isn’t really talking about the what the Bible says at all.  How do we bridge that gap?

 We cannot.  The Holy Spirit can.  Christians must stay the course, regardless of the personal cost and say what we know is true without reservation and without fear.  Our job never has been to bridge the gap, our job has been to simply state the gospel message in clear, unequivocal ways and let the Holy Spirit do his work.  Mr. Hall is simply wrong – not because I say so but because he has gone onto a heretical, non-biblical limb that he will find doesn’t support the weight of his arguments.  I cannot fix him, persuade him, or browbeat him into changing his view.  I’ll await the Holy Spirit to do such a work and continue simply saying what I must say.

Four Reasons Christians Don't Need Critical Theory

First, Critical Theory explains reality based on group identities.  Being part of the oppressed, marginalized group is what matters most.  More importantly, Critical Theory appears to contend that such groups, because of their lack of power, are definitionally incapable of sin.  For instance, there are many who have argued blacks in America cannot be prejudiced merely because of their status based on skin color, regardless of their actual statements or beliefs or actions.  The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, not just some (See Romans 3:9-23, for instance).  Moreover, Ephesians 2:1 – 10 discusses salvation through a lens of individual realities, not group realities.  Critical theory offers a counter to the biblical reality that individuals, not groups, answer to God for their sins.  Since it starts from a flawed premise about reality, this, alone, is a sufficient reason not to trust Critical Theory.

Secondly, Critical Theory, because of its insistence on the group over the individual denies one of the basic premises upon which all Scripture stands – namely that human beings are made in the image of God.  Genesis 1:26 – 27.  Psalm 139:13 – 16.  Every individual is an image bearer, not by virtue of being a member of an oppressed or marginalized group, but by virtue of being a human being rather than an elephant or dog or snake or bacteria.  Critical Theory blatantly rejects the clear biblical teaching that individual people, not identity groups, are image bearers.

Third, Critical Theory defies the reality that salvation is an individual, not a group matter.  In 2 Corinthians 5:16-21 Paul says we are a new creation in Christ.  Those two words, new creation, are in the singular in Greek.  In other words, each individual person is a new creation.  I could, but won’t list the multiple instances when Jesus referred to an individual coming to faith.  I will offer this one specific instance, though: the thief on the cross from Luke 23.  The thief admits his guilt and acknowledges who and what Jesus is and asks for him to save him.  Jesus doesn’t say “hey, you know, you’re part of the identity group known as thieves, so in you I will now save all thieves.”  No, the other thief remains on the cross and gets his reward for ignoring Christ.  The thief who asked for forgiveness is saved at that moment and will see Jesus in paradise that very day.  The one thief.  Salvation occurs when a person calls on the name of Jesus in sincerity and in truth and acknowledges his or her sinfulness before the almighty God of the universe and asks for forgiveness, recognizing that by living a perfect life, dying on the cross, and rising from the dead, Jesus did what no one else could do – pay for the sins of every, single person who he has come to save.  Jesus didn’t come to save groups, he came to save human beings: individual human beings. 

Take this practical example that almost any pastor worth a toot will have said to his congregation along the way: you don’t get saved because your mama and daddy are members of this church.  You don’t get saved because you are a member of an oppressed group.  There is zero biblical substantiation for such a claim.

Additionally, when you read Galatians 3:28, you can come to only one logical conclusion: your group identity is irrelevant to God.  The reason there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ is because those identities do not determine salvation.  One of the reasons Paul wrote to the Galatians was because of a Judaizing sect that claimed Christians had to become Jews first.  Paul denied this.  One need not become a member of any group in order to become a Christian.  Critical Theory relies on group identity as its most meaningful component since it separates the oppressed from oppressor and privileges the oppressed over the oppressor.  In fact, God privileges no one but does offer every individual the right to become a child of his through Christ.

Finally, the fourth problem with Critical Theory is less a problem with the theory itself than the explanation for why it’s okay for Christians to accept it.  The phrase you’ll hear used is “all truth is God’s truth.”  The logic, since this statement is rational, reasonable, and logical, is that, therefore if Critical Theory contains truth, it is acceptable to use Critical Theory as a tool for understanding human nature.  There is a flawed premise here.  Let me give an example.  Undoubtedly during his reign of terror, Hitler made truthful observations about reality.  Maybe he said to one of his aides that the moon orbits the earth, or that one plus one equals two, or that Russian winters are bitterly cold.  No doubt Hitler frequently made statements that we would all accept as truthful.  Yet, no one uses Hitler in order to argue that these truths are, in fact true.  Why not?  Because it is unnecessary and meaningless.  Truth about any subject is true regardless of the proprietor of the truth or it isn’t truth.  In other words, when we say the word truth, we are indicating a standard of belief that goes beyond our subjective understanding of reality (although this is, I suppose, up for debate these days in light of some of the lunacy that passes for truth). 

Thus, while those who use Critical Theory as a means for examining human nature may from time to time make true observations about reality, this doesn’t justify its use for Christians.  In fact, Jesus made clear that HE is the truth (John 14:6).  Truth isn’t merely a proposition, but is a person – Jesus, the Christ.  He encapsulates fully and completely what truth is and what truth looks like.  We don’t need Critical Theory to help us along when we have not only the words of Jesus but the Spirit of Truth in the Holy Spirit.

Critical Theory is an insufficient means for Christians to seek to understand reality.  It has significant, irreconcilable differences with Christianity.  While it may, on occasion, make a statement of truth, this doesn’t justify its use when that truth can be obtained through other means, in particular by reading Scripture.  Overall, it is a poor substitute for simply following what Christ taught and opens up the Christian to thinking in ways that oppose Christianity by seeing salvation in group terms.

You don’t need to Critical Theory to see that some people are oppressed.  You don’t need Critical Theory to reach out with the gospel message to those who are oppressed.  You don’t need Critical Theory to explain the gospel message to those who are oppressed.  Please, then, explain to me why it is needed at all?

US Women's Soccer Team - Celebrate? Yes! Equal pay? Not until the work is equal.

The onslaught of thirteen goals by the US Women’s World Cup soccer team in their game against Thailand opened up discussions on two fronts.  First, as typical in soccer, each goal was followed by an impromptu (or perhaps not so impromptu) celebration.  Some treated this with chagrin.  Second, presidential candidate, Kristian Gillibrand used it as a chance to lament the so-called pay inequality between women and men and former US women’s player Abby Wambach suggested if the men did it, no one would complain.  Both are playing off the very tiring and very trite men v. women game.  Both comments serve no unifying purpose.  As I will show below, Gillibrand’s comment is economically incorrect and Wambach’s comment is just stupid (yes, stupid).

Before I make any observations here, let me say this:  the American Women’s soccer team is fantastic and the players should be congratulated for their hard work, skill and perseverance.  Moreover, the players should celebrate every World Cup goal because they earned them.  This isn’t rec league soccer and ought not be treated that way.  I watched all their games in this World Cup and enjoyed seeing them prevail.  They deserved the trophy.  Now, on to the arguments.

As to the “too much celebrating” argument – balderdash.  The blunt reality, the inarguable truth, is that soccer at the highest levels is almost inevitably a low scoring affair.  Thus, goals are typically very meaningful and celebrations well-deserved and well-received.  It is expected and anticipated players will celebrate.  The World Cup represents the best of the best from every country and is a chance for players to make an impact on the largest possible stage.  Undoubtedly, there is an excitement about merely playing in a World Cup, let alone going on a massive rampage resulting in 13 goals, so there will be celebrations.  More importantly, which goal is the “crucial” goal after which celebrations should be toned down?  It is pure subjective nonsense to pick the exact number after which celebrations should be toned down or stopped.  As a long time soccer spectator and sometime coach, I can say that at this level it’s incredibly rare to see such a performance.  Let the players celebrate – it’s not being done to denigrate the other side – it’s being done because they’re exuberantly enjoying themselves.  We ought to relish in such enjoyment.

Now for the more serious issues.

The debate about the US Women getting equal pay has been raging for years.  The standard argument is that the US Women have won multiple World Cups and, therefore, provide an even better product than the men, so it’s unfair that they don’t get paid as much.  Again I say balderdash.  Yes, the US Women’s team has won multiple World Cups and I’ve rooted for them since the 1999 win over China (the infamous Brandy Chastain sports bra incident). 

But equal pay should be for equal work.  First, the women’s World Cup has always had fewer teams playing and fewer legitimate contenders since it was started.  Thus, definitionally, it is easier to win than the men’s game.  This is not a knock against the winners, who all played well and deserve the accolades they’ve received.  It’s just a simple mathematical fact and cannot be ignored.

Second, regardless of all the inanity surrounding our bizarre willingness to believe the sexes are somehow equal in every possible way, the truth is that the US Women’s National team would not beat a topflight U18 boys team.  Why?  Because those seventeen and eighteen year old boys will be, on average, several inches taller, 20 to 30 pounds heavier, stronger and faster than the women.  This isn’t an issue of skill, as the women are very skilled.  But head to head, I would bet that such a boys team would win 9 out of 10 matches (and probably all of them) with the women based on sheer size, speed and aggressiveness.  Yes, when a woman corporate executive, or woman accountant, or a woman doctor, or a woman truck driver, or a woman teacher is doing precisely the same job as a man and isn’t paid the same, it matters and it’s wrong.  They’re doing the same work.  Despite their successes, the Women’s National team is not doing the same work as the men because they are not playing against the same level of competition as the men.  It would be like saying a woman who is a paralegal at a law firm should be paid the same as the lawyer who is a man.

Economics matter, too, when determining pay.  Regardless of what people want to argue, men’s soccer (and we’re talking national team soccer here) results in significantly larger revenues than women’s soccer.  As a result, men get paid more because people are more interested in the product.  More people watch the matches on television, resulting in larger advertising revenue.  More people buy the paraphernalia.  Of the top 15 selling soccer jerseys in 2017, none were women.  http://www.soccer365.com/top-15-selling-soccer-jerseys-may-2017/   More people buy tickets for matches.  You can’t ignore this reality (unless of course, you’re a U.S. presidential candidate, then all that matters are sound bites).  It would be like arguing that a coffee shop with 50 locations nationwide should be making the same money as Starbucks because everyone agrees their coffee tastes better and it has won more awards for its coffee than Starbucks – no one who understands even a tiny bit about economics thinks that.

For more analysis of this go to World Cup Soccer disparity in pay is justified.  The author of this Forbes article points out that on a percentage basis, women players actually receive more of the revenue generated during a World Cup cycle.  The reason their actual pay is less is because the men’s World Cup generates a gargantuanly higher gross revenue than the women’s (about 50 times more than the women’s).  Let’s put this in a simple example.  The men’s world cup makes $50.  The women’s makes $1.  The players in the men’s world cup split 7% of the revenue, which is $3.50.  The women get a 25% split but it’s only 25 cents because they made so much less money overall.  This disparity simply cannot be ignored.

There are articles all over the internet right now trying to dredge up numbers to justify equal pay.  CNBC, for instance, has an article that shows the women’s team has generated more revenue than the men’s team in the past three years (2016 – 2018).  Women Generate More Revenue than Men.  What CNBC doesn’t say is the women played 61 games versus the men’s 49 during that three year stretch.  Interestingly, the women generated just over $50,000,000 in revenue for those games, or about $820,000 per game.  The men, according to CNBC generated just over $49,000,000 in revenue for those games, or $1,000,000 per game.  Had the men played 61 games, they would have generated around $61,000,000 or about 20% more than the women.  Put another way, in 49 games the women generated just over $41,000,000 – significantly less than the men.  The whole story isn't just the raw revenue numbers.

In another article trying to make points in this debate, CNN noted the women’s final in 2019 (14+ million viewers) was watched by more people in the United States than the 2018 men’s final (11+ million viewers).  Women World Cup Ratings.  Once again this isn’t comparing apples to apples.  The women’s game involved the United States team – of course people were watching because, despite our differences, Americans still rally around their team.  The 2018 Men’s World cup final was between France and Croatia.  It still got almost 80% of the viewership the women’s final got and the US men’s team didn’t even make the tournament. 

There were numerous other articles touting the viewership numbers without providing any context – just like references to the “revenue” argument is made without context.  By the way, worldwide viewership of the entire women’s world cup in 2019 was about 750,000,000.  Contrast that to the 2018 men’s world cup, which garnered over 3.5 billion viewers (or 4.5 times more).  These numbers are per FIFA, which has no reason to downplay the women’s numbers.

These enormous disparities exist for one simple reason: men watch sports more often than women and men prefer to watch men’s sports.  This leads to enormous disparities in revenue which lead to enormous disparities in pay.  The economics simply don’t add up to “equal pay for equal work” because it’s just not equal work in any economic sense.

Let me say once again, I am not arguing that the women don’t practice hard, don’t play hard, and don’t deserve the accolades they are receiving.  Just the opposite – I have no doubt that the women do practice hard, play hard and deserve the accolades.  But we’re not talking about accolades, we’re talking money.  Economic realities play a significant role here and cannot be blithely ignored.

Finally, and most ridiculous, is Abby Wambach’s comment that if the men’s team celebrated like the women did no one would complain.  Setting aside the obvious reality that no men’s team will likely ever win a World Cup group match 13-0, it is equally obvious that sportsmanship matters in the men’s game, too.  Her comment was a back-handed slight about the men’s team which was totally unnecessary.  I’ve never heard any of the men’s national team players criticize the women’s team.  More importantly, the men’s team doesn’t control the drivel that so often rolls out of the mouths of talking heads and sports commentators.  The truth is there would have been plenty of talk about sportsmanship if any men’s team beat another squad like this at any World Cup and it kept celebrating.

Most distressing about Wambach’s comments, though, is that they were gratuitously unnecessary.  They’re a false equivalency and they don’t address the issue at all.  It would be like someone criticizing a company for producing too many cars and a former car company executive suggesting that if the motorcycle company did this no one would complain.  Different industries, different set of rules, different set of circumstances.  The better part of valor would have been for her to simply say “it’s the World Cup and you never know if you’ll be there again – so celebrate.”  But, ironically, it appears she’s not really interested in the better part of valor . . .

That said, equal pay for equal work needs to take into account precisely what we mean by equal work.  Reality is difficult for many to grasp, but the harsh factors here that determine who gets paid are what matter.  If the women’s team really wants to prove it should get the same pay as the men’s team – play the men’s teams and beat them.  That would be the true test of equal work.

But we all know full well how that would work out.