The topic of intersexuals (see this article) is probably the strongest place so-called “gay Christians” could go for support, in my opinion. It definitely does complicate the issue.
What do we Christians always say in response to the claim that gender is by choice or fluid? We say, “You’re born as either one or the other.” The doctor looks at you after birth, or the ultrasound even earlier, and recognizes your gender based on what organs you have.
But, what if someone is born with both? Or it is unclear at the time of birth? What then? Well, the typical “conservative” response goes out the window.
Admittedly, I had to think a bit on how to respond to this support of homosexuality not being sin. But only a bit.
We have to think, as with all objections and challenges to Christianity (which is what this is), what has God spoken? We also must detect what is being assumed by the challenger.
What Is, Ought
I noticed something about this challenge. Perhaps it will become apparent.
Think about the argument itself. We have this actual, real-life case. The gender is confused. There are other cases, where sadly it is not clear what is going on down there, at birth. These are the facts. The situation. But then, a conclusion is drawn from them. “Therefore, homosexuality and gender fluidity is okay.” See what happened there? They took the situation, what is, and drew a moral, ethical conclusion, an ought. Because this happens, because this is the case, because this is, therefore it ought to be, therefore gender fluidity ought to be accepted, therefore homosexuality ought to be okay. And for those “gay Christian” proponents, all this should not be considered sin.
So, a huge assumption underneath this argument is “what is, ought.” And this is a standard for a godless worldview (which piles on the irony for any professing “gay Christians”). Athiests, materialists, naturalists, secularists, all use this. The more consistent ones, at least. The less consistent appeal to some “higher” ethic. But, there is nothing higher. Without God, without a transcendent law-giver, where would ethics come from? Well, without the Creator, what else is there? The creation. There’s nothing else to look to but what is.
So, perhaps it is evident how this argument in support of gender fluidity and homosexuality not being sin employs this presupposition. Because this is the state of affairs, therefore we should accept it. These poor individuals born this way had no choice. It is what it is.
But that’s not all that’s going on under the hood.
The World is Normal
Perhaps a greater assumption that drives this argument is that the current state of affairs is normal. Everything is how it should be. And that is why they take the current situation, the facts before them, and work upward to ethics. They see these cases of gender (apparent) confusion, and draw ethically binding conclusions.
“It cannot be sin or wrong, because it has happened.” It’s a rhetorically powerful argument. How could we possibly condemn something that is just there, right before our eyes. Shouldn’t we consider them a victim of circumstance? I mean, what choice did they have? It seems that mindless, undirected nature (or their god) has produced this. Since it is happening, it must not be wrong. So this is in fact normal. Not normal in the sense of being the majority or the rule as opposed to the exception, but normal as in it happened on it’s own. No one intervened and switched up the chromosomes.
This goes hand in hand with “what is, ought.” Drawing ethics (ought) from the world and nature (is) is dependent on the world we know today being normal. If creation as we experience it right now is normal, if it has always been this way, and is untampered with, then we may indeed draw ethics from it. Then, gender fluidity could not be wrong, because it was seemingly produced naturally. Chromosomes, organs, hormones, and everything else. That confusions, or ambiguity, happened on it’s own. We can’t call it wrong if creation, if the current state of the world, is normal and all we have to look to.
What God has Said
Now that we have seen the assumptions behind the argument, whether the proponents themselves were conscious of them or not, we now look at the issue from the biblical standpoint. One outcome of this will be to expose what is really the authority for those who claim to be “gay Christians” and who claim believe the Bible.
What God Says, Ought
Obviously, the “what is, ought” view is out. There is more than just “is.” There’s creation, but there’s also the Creator. And he has given us revelation. Indeed, even the creation is revelation of himself. Yet, because of inability to interpret general revelation correctly (due to sin), God in his mercy has given us special revelation, the Scriptures. And the two forms of revelation do not conflict. And when we have union with Christ by faith, the Holy Spirit illumines our minds and we begin to see general revelation through the lenses of Scripture. And it is from revelation that we get our ethics. God himself, his character, is the source of ethics.
God has revealed things about himself. We know from Scripture that he is eternal. He is all knowing. And he has given us Scripture, all of it, for our instruction. God’s eternality related to his inspiration of Scripture is vital to examining the argument in favor of gender fluidity. If God is eternal, knowing all things, then Scripture is never irrelevant. If God is eternal, knowing all things, then he is not unaware of these sad situations.God is not a man that he is suddenly surprised and caught off guard, saying to himself, “well, since certain people are born a certain way, I guess gender is fluid…” He is as aware of them now as when Scripture was given. And you know what? The authoritative Word of God does not distinguish, or give exceptions, to homosexuality being sin. Neither does God give exceptions or additions to sex and gender. He divinely created two, and only two. He does not give anything beyond the physical. There is no distinction between physical gender and something else. The term “binary” is used a pejorative, condescending term. It’s assumed to be a bad thing. Something that’s narrow. But God created two, while being fully aware of what we are examining now. Evidently, to the One seated in the judge’s seat, the cases of people born with both or underdeveloped organs doesn’t change anything, and does not legitimize gender fluidity or homosexuality as not sinful.
This is devastating for any so-called “gay Christians” who would presume to use these cases to advance their view. Scripture is not so unsophisticated as to not be able to make distinctions if they were valid. And God is not surprised by these cases. He has always been fully aware of them. Yet, (surprise!) his Word stands. And God cannot lie.
The World is Not Normal
The second response is directed at the “world is normal” assumption, the presupposition that these cases are merely part of the natural world as it should be, and there’s nothing wrong with them. However, God has told us different. On the contrary, the world as we experience it now is not normal. At a certain point in history, our covenant representative disobeyed God, and sin entered the world. Not only was man affected, but creation as well. Until this day, creation groans for the revealing of the sons of God. Things are not as they should be.
Put yourself in place of the original recipients of the creation story in Genesis. God has spoken through Moses to reveal himself to you, and that created the earth, and it was very good. What? You were just delivered from 400 years of slavery. Pharaoh mass murdered your children. Even now, you are in a desert. There’s enemies. There’s disease and leprosy. If God created the world very good, describing the lush and beautiful garden of Eden, and tasked Adam with spreading God’s garden, why does that not match your current experience? The answer comes just after the creation story. Sin entered because of Adam’s failure. Creation has yet to be redeemed.
Do you see the connection? We are to understand the world according to Scripture. Therefore, these cases cannot determine our ethics (which would also override Scripture). “But they were born that way.” Yes, and things are not as they should be. This is not a perfect world. Creation is awaiting redemption. We all suffer the affects of the fall of man in some way. These cases call for ministry, not affirmation of a lifestyle or desires that contradict God’s Word. The world is not as it should be. These terrible things happen because of corruption. Does that mean we are condemning the person? I’m positive that many will take this assessment to mean that. If these people continue to believe in gender fluidity and homosexuality, and do not repent, they stand condemned already, by the ultimate Judge. We, as Christ’s ambassadors, are tasked with appealing to them to be reconciled to God. We identify homosexuality as sin, because God identifies it as sin, without qualification. No imaginary exceptions based on intersexuals, pansexuals, chromosomes, hormones, or anything else can usurp God’s authority.
Christians are also obligated to be explicit that Christ offers hope, not of some ethereal disembodied eternal existence, but the redemption of our bodies. Christianity is not Platonic or gnostic, viewing the body as inferior or even evil. Christ is the one who inaugurated his kingdom with miracles of healing, giving a foretaste of what is to come. Christ has guaranteed restoration, where all that is not as it should be will be made right. But he has also guaranteed that he will come back in judgment.
To proclaim this is not unloving. The doctor telling the cancer patient that his cancer is good would be unloving. Love is taking a knife to the cancer.
For gay falsely-called-Christians, there’s a number of tragic ironies. They claim to believe in God. They claim that the Bible supports them. Yet, their ethics are situational. They don’t bring the ethics of the Creator down and apply them to their situation. They take the situation around them, and there own presuppositions, and impose them on God’s Word. This reveals their true authority is not God. Indeed, this is worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. What a clear case example of there being only two choices.
Another sad irony is that they still presume to use the category of sin. Yet, as we have seen by their argument, they in reality neglect the Fall. Functionally, whether they are conscious of it or not, they argue as if the current state of the world is normal, and therefore use it to determine their ethics. They do this in opposition to what God has said on the matter, revealing that they have made themselves the arbiter of truth. That just goes to show that philosophy not according to Christ can’t hold it’s own weight, and collapses.
To conclude, this argument in support of homosexuality and gender fluidity does complicate things, and presents a challenge for those who are used to an automatic evidential response (people are born as male or female). And it’s possible that other seemingly strong arguments will be offered to legitimize homosexuality. However, if we are firmly grounded on Scripture in our apologetics (meaning presuppositional), they won’t be a problem. The final arbiter of truth is the infallible Word.
Let God be true though every one were a liar