The evangelical view of homosexuality
Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:04:49 EST

I have had some of this conversation privately with Burgy, so am not sure what
may have gone to the list. But I will affirm again my inherent mistrust of
large books dealing with biblical issues and on subjects about which the Bible
says very little. Burgy talks about how complex the issue of homosexuality is
in the light of the very big books he has read and carefully reviewed. Frankly
any book that tries to explain away the sinfulness of homosexual behavior has
to be complex, and a book that tries to refute the same book has to be complex.
Scripture is simple and clear. I a recent article in Moody magazine, D. James
Kennedy commented, "If the Bible is not explicitly clear on the sinfulness of
homosexual behavior, than nothing is clearly sinful." (not an exact quote).

Also, let me post again the statement from the Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology by Elwell (Baker Books):

While it is certainly not universally accepted that there is a
constitutional "homosexual condition," the following conclusion
from the "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Baker, Grand
Rapids), is probably a fair statement of the evangelical
Christian position. It also clearly refutes the claims of some liberal Christian
s that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior -- just homosexual behavior
that’s “not nice”:

"But the homosexual condition, until indulged, is innocent,
and should be cleared of the guilt feeling that may drive
[some] into deeper introversion. Like all congenital
deviations from the normal, established homosexuality has
to be accepted and lived with. The resulting problem is
acute, but no more so than for heterosexuals, the
widow/widower, the impotent, the single who long to marry
and cannot, or (through inherited insanity) should not. For
all such, prostitution or promiscuity may offer constant
temptation, but one to be resisted by the help of God. For
neither heterosexual nor homosexual is the situation
culpable; but actions to which the situation may incline them
remain sinful, as unnatural, degrading, contrary to Christian
concern for the total welfare of others, inimical to religious
devotion and spiritual progress, and no solution to their
problem. . . . A mature society will recognize prevalent
homosexual activity not as "liberation" but as a symptom of
moral malaise; an alert church will not ostracize but befriend
those whose constitution and circumstances make Christian
living harder for them than most."

As to the scenario of the two women desiring a lifetime companionship, I can
speak with some concrete experience. From my childhood I knew and grew to
love my wife's Aunt Teddy and Aunt Ginny (my wife and I have know each other
since toddlerhood ["known]). Teddy was her true aunt. Ginny was "adopted."
We have known few people more godly than Teddy and Ginny. Teddy was a curricu-
lum writer for the Regular Baptist Press for probably 30 years or more. Ginny
was her lifelong companion. They were both unmarried. Though they both are
now with their Savior (both having died of cancer a few years apart), they
impacted the lives of hundreds of people as Sunday School teachers and Bible
lecturers. They were genuine in their love for the Lord, for others, and for
one another. And they were celebate. To me they stand as the epitome of how
God uses thousands of His single saints to do his work.

Dean Ohlman