What is same-sex orientation? According to the APA’s definition (The American Psychological Association), same-sex orientation is defined as the following:
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.
The APA goes on to indicate that said orientation “ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction of the same sex.” The APA is clear: sexual orientation is constitutive of both same-sex sexual attractions/desires including patterns of emotional and/or romantic attractions/desires, on the one hand, and same-sex sexual identification with said attractions/desires, on the other hand! One of the questions for the modern church–as we struggle to understand sexual orientation– is this: is sexual orientation as an “enduring pattern of attraction” morally neutral or sinful? Biblically speaking, sexual desires are never morally neutral. This is why the seventh commandment governs all issues related to sex. In the seventh commandment God is explicit that the issue of sex is always a moral issue, never neutral. This is patently true for the Christian faith.
However, the issue set before the church is this: is homosexual orientation “as an enduring pattern of attraction” a sin or not? Related to this, is heterosexual desire also a sin or not? Too often in the church we have assumed heterosexuality to be a moral good, while homosexuality to be a moral evil, that God’s design is heteronormativity, while homosexuality is a deviation from God’s norm. In fact Secular Reparative Therapy’s goal for a person struggling with a homosexual desire is to replace it with heterosexual desire. Joseph Nicolosi, a leading therapist in Reparative Therapy, makes the case that “As shame is slowly diminished in therapy and the same-sex attracted man grows in self-awareness and self-assertion, he should gradually begin to find within himself a natural heterosexual response.”
The question is this: is heterosexuality a normative desire, and conversely, is homosexuality also an equally normative desire? Many Christians will affirm the former, while rejecting the latter. But, biblically speaking this is not the case. Both heterosexual desires (outside the context of marriage between one man and one woman) and homosexual desires are sinful. In fact, Scripture calls such desires, lust.
What do I mean? In Matthew 5:27-28 Jesus says, “You have heard it said ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ but I say to you, that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust for her has committed adultery.” Jesus is connecting the seventh commandment (which explicitly covers behavior, and implicitly covers desires) with the tenth commandment (which explicitly covers desires). In other words, the sinfulness of sin is not a matter of just behavior, but is also a matter of desire and will, whether intentional or not. The tenth commandment condemns both intentional and unintentional sinful desires. Whether a person chooses a desire is irrelevant because the Mosaic law required sacrifices to atone for sins that were also unchosen and unintentional. In short, Jesus is talking about the pre-behavioral sin of sexual desire, the sin of longing for a woman who is not one’s wife. Jesus is very clear that, in this context, heterosexual desire and attraction is lust.
But what is the difference between a morally normative desire and a morally deviant desire, i.e., lust? Some incorrectly contend that the difference between a normative and deviant desire is the intensity of the desire. For instance, on the one hand, a slight and passing sexual desire and attraction for another man’s wife is normative; while on the other hand, an intense and longing sexual desire and attraction for another man’s wife is deviant. Nothing could be further from the truth; Jesus no more condones a slight and passing desire than he condones an intense and longing desire. Others also incorrectly contend that the difference between a normative and deviant desire is the intentionality and/or chosenness of the desire. But Scripture is clear that intentionality or chosenness is irrelevant according to Leviticus 4:1-5:13, as well as contrary to the Standards according to WSC Q&A 14.
So, what exactly denotes a normative desire and attraction from a deviant desire and attraction? The verb used in Matthew 5:28 is ἐπιθυμέω which means to either desire or lust. According to BDAG the noun ἐπιθυμία refers to either a normative desire for a good thing or a deviant desire for a bad thing. Case in point, in the LXX, Proverbs 10:24 says that the “desires of the righteous will be granted.” In this text the noun ἐπιθυμία is a normative desire. In the case of Matthew 5:28 ἐπιθυμία is a deviant desire. What this demonstrates is that using a lexiconic definition of ἐπιθυμία is insufficient to distinguish a normative desire from a deviant desire; both verb and noun are multivalent, ranging, in part, from a normative desire to a deviant desire.
Ethically speaking, what denotes a normative from a deviant sexual desire is simply the object of said attraction. The objective component of the domain of ethics defines, in part, the nature of desires. BDAG confirms this in its discussion of ἐπιθυμία. For example Mark 4:19; Luke 22:15; Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17; Rev. 18:14–these are all translated as desire, longing, cravings because the objects of said desires are normative or neutral or positive. In contradistinction, Rom. 7:7; Col. 3:5; James 1:14; 2 Peter 1:4 are all translated as craving or lust–all because the objects of said desires are morally deviant. The sinfulness of our desires is not defined by the intensity and/or the chosenness of desire but the object of our desires. In short, an illicit desire is defined by its concomitant forbidden object (e.g., Ex. 20:17). This applies to both homosexual and heterosexual desires. Regarding homosexual orientation/ identity/desire, it is always illicit because the object of desire is always forbidden. Regarding heterosexual orientation/ identity/desires, it is only lawful in the context of marriage between one man and one woman because the object of desire is permissible because it’s countenanced by God in His moral law. The object(s) of all other heterosexual orientation/identity/ desires are always forbidden, denominated in Scripture as adultery, fornication, etc. In short, outside the context of marriage, all heterosexual and homosexual orientations/identities/desires are lust. The so-called sexual attraction of “heteronormativity” is no more normative than the sexual attraction of homonormativity being pushed by the LGBTQ sexual militants in our culture. Both heterosexual and homosexual lusts are morally deviant according to Scripture.
This takes us to the subjective component of the domain of ethics. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was tempted, “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” This does not mean that Jesus faced each and every trial, in each and every way, that each and everyone of us has ever faced temptation. What this means is that Jesus experienced suffering up to and including the cross. The Greek verb πειράζω means to tempt or test. In Hebrews the context is clear that God the Father was not tempting Jesus in the context of Christ’s passive obedience, but was testing Jesus in the context of His passive obedience. When the author of Hebrews argues that Christ Jesus’ temptation or testing was without sin, he means that no aspect of Jesus’ testing involved sin: i.e., no desire to sin. Jesus had no subjective orientation or proclivity or disposition to sin. Jesus experienced the external pressure and strain of sin, not an internal stress and/or tension to sin. This is the difference between our temptations and Jesus’ temptation. Jesus was tempted by sin. Man is tempted to sin! The former is normative because this was the God-ordained nature of man’s testing before the fall. The latter is deviant because this is the nature of man’s temptation after the fall. Jesus’ experience of temptation was prelapsarian as the Second Adam! Jesus had no original sin. Our subjective experience of temptation is postlapsarian in Adam. Man is totally and radically corrupt!
James 1:13-15 describes the subjective etiology of sinful temptations. When James argues that God never tempts man to sin, he’s talking about the subjective domain, not objective domain, i.e., the temptation to sin, not the temptation/testing by sin. God tests man with the external pressure and strain of sin, but James is clear that God does not tempt man with the internal stress and tension and dissonance to sin. This noetic dissonance is a subjective longing of one’s own evil desires for what is objectivity forbidden by God. External temptation has an internal outpost in the very depths and heart of the nature of man that radically corrupts the whole man, i.e., body and soul, which is traditionally called concupiscence. Jesus’ temptations were external. Man’s temptations are both external (sinful objects) and internal; these concupiscent enticements and enchantments to sin come from our own sinful desire. The only reason why we desire forbidden objects in general is because our desires are concupiscent. In this sense, temptation itself is sinful!
So, is same-sex attraction sinful? If Satan were to set before a Christian man who struggles with same-sex sexual attraction to tempt him to sin, then as long as that man only apprehends that man as being handsome then it’s not a sin. (This is no different than a heterosexual man noticing that another man is handsome; there is no sin involved because there is no sexual attraction involved.) The same goes if Satan were to set before a Christian man who struggles with opposite-sex sexual attraction to tempt him to sin, then as long as this man only apprehends that woman as being beautiful then it’s not a sin. In both cases as long as there is no emotional and/or romantic and/or sexual attraction involved, then there is no sin. However, in both cases, if that external apprehension turns into an internally commensurate and sinful pattern of emotional and/or romantic and/or sexual attractions/desires, then both men, homosexual and heterosexual, have both sinned; the former being an unnatural sin (a sin against nature i.e., contra naturam according to Romans 1:23), with the latter being a natural sin according to Romans 1:23. This is why heterosexuality is not inherently a sin, but a natural orientation. In contrast, homosexuality is inherently a sin because it’s an unnatural orientation. This is why homosexual sexual desires are more heinous sin, while heterosexual lust is a less heinous sin according to Scripture and the Westminster Standards. Some of the problems with this discussion—discussions revolving around terms and phrases like homosexual orientation and same-sex sexual attraction and identity—is definition. How do we define these cultural terms and phrases? The way we define these cultural terms and phrases that are extra-biblical is by pointing to how the culture defines these extra-biblical terms in their extra-biblical sources. As shared at the beginning, the APA has defined these terms for us. As noted, the APA is clear: sexual orientation is constitutive of both same-sex sexual attractions/desires including patterns of emotional and/or romantic attractions/desires, on the one hand, and same-sex sexual identification with said attractions/desires, on the other hand! This means that sexual orientation is sinful because it involves same-sex sexual attractions and desires, including emotional and romantic attractions. This also includes same-sex sexual identification. As Christians our primary and ultimate identification is being Christian, i.e., the covenant formula of grace which states “I will be your God, and you shall be my people.” Our adoption into the family of God, our union and communion with Christ is our primary and ultimate identification. Along that line, we also have penultimate identifications: e.g., within the sphere sovereignty (a la Kuyper) of the family one is a father or mother or son or daughter, etc. Within the sphere of sovereignty of the state one is a citizen, a judge, a mayor, etc. mutatis mutandis for the church and/or political communities, etc. However, the nomenclature “LGBTQ” is not an appropriate identification marker; it’s a sinful identification marker. “Gay Christian” is an oxymoron, a contradiction to a Christian’s identity. In short, the pre-behavioral sin of same-sex sexual orientation/attraction/desire/identity is at the root of the sin of same-sex sexual behavior/practice which is the fruit. The root and the fruit of homosexual orientation are both sins.
In conclusion, how should the church minister to believers and unbelievers alike who struggle with such a besetting sin? We are to minister with both love and compassion, truth and integrity! Next time I will share how Scripture guides us in this matter.
Pastor Carl
Reverend G Carl Moore 