In the ninth of the series on the Bible an Homosexuality: Creation Order. Earlier we discussed some bible passages supposedly explicit about homosexual relations and practice. However, many arguments against homosexuality rest on an implied creation order."God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27, NASV)."
The Genesis creation account is often understood as the description of the original world, paradise. To this description, moral value is attached: the description becomes prescriptive. Since God created male AND female to reflect his image, only male-female relations answer to God's prescription. To put it bluntly and crudely: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
This implied prescriptive order has proven a powerful argument against homosexuality, even when homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned, or even implied. Because it seems heterosexuality is the norm in the beginning, it is considered 'natural', other relationship that would fall outside of this category would therefore be considered 'unnatural'.
Interestingly, the same creation account also tells about God's suffering over man's loneliness. Every creation day God celebrates his work, calling it 'good' and - in the case of his human creation - even 'very good'. However, this celebration is abrubtly ends when God sees that man is alone.
"It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." (Gen. 2:18)
What we see in many of our churches today is that the 'implicit' (the stance against homosexuality) is used as an absolute standard to be held up against people. While the 'explicit' – that [for most people] it is not good to be alone – is taken relative, even non-applicable to our gay brothers and sisters. Homosexuals are told to stay alone, perhaps assist heterosexual couples with kids.
Another question arises with the creation order argument: is that which is not according to God's purpose by definition sin or evil? Personally, I can think of many things that are not meant to be, and yet are not evil. For example, caring for the poor can never be God's original plan, assuming that God is a good God. Extreme deprivation and human suffering is not natural or original in the Biblical creation account. Yet, I still have to come across christians who argue that caring for the poor is sin. A more controversial example is divorce. Personally, I do not believe that divorce is the original intention of God, like all conflict between men. However, I can think of many situations, where divorce is really the best option; especially in case of marital abuse and violence. Divorce is not sin, it is a consequence of sin.
Another question arises with the creation order argument: is that which is not according to God's purpose by definition sin or evil? Personally, I can think of many things that are not meant to be, and yet are not evil. For example, caring for the poor can never be God's original plan, assuming that God is a good God. Extreme deprivation and human suffering is not natural or original in the Biblical creation account. Yet, I still have to come across christians who argue that caring for the poor is sin. A more controversial example is divorce. Personally, I do not believe that divorce is the original intention of God, like all conflict between men. However, I can think of many situations, where divorce is really the best option; especially in case of marital abuse and violence. Divorce is not sin, it is a consequence of sin.
Many christians will hold on the unnaturalness argument, in spite of scientific evidence that homosexuality is really not a choice (although heterosexuals could of course experiment with same sex acts), but sexuality is natural. I think what is really at stake here is not perspectives on sexuality and identity, the heart of the matter is the rejection of science and the false juxtaposition of science and faith. Resulting in further loss of relevance of an otherwise powerful and beautiful christian worldview. The unnaturalness stance is also inconsistent with the Biblical idea that God is as much transcendant as immanent; God is not only above and before creation, he is also in creation and in creation's history. Subsequently, God's creation is good (Gen.1) but God's interventions in creation ever since (e.g. his saving work) is also good, eventhough it is not 'nature'. The idea that the unnatural, or the cultural is wrong or evil is fundamentally flawed.
1 Comments:
Homosexual practice is becoming more “normal” or publicly visible as seen in examples of gay clerics, Ang Lee movies and celebrity tabloids.
But what is “normal” (as- is) may not be “normative” (ought-to-be).
Yes, homosexuals are among us. But it doesn't follow that their behavior is a moral norm.
There is also another sense of the word “normal”, meaning “things are functioning in the way it was meant to be”. When things work “normally”, they are fulfilling what they are designed to do.
In this sense, homosexual practice is simply “abnormal”. Sexual organs were obviously not meant to fit in bodies the way homosexuals use them, resulting in a host of adverse medical consequences.
So we should not confuse the call to accept the existence of homosexuals in a spirit of tolerance with advocacy for homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.
There is a lot of confusion when it comes to making such distinctions.
Our moral objection against homosexuality per se no more fosters violence against homosexuals than our disagreement against adultery fosters violence against people who are unfaithful to their spouses.
I am not asking people to be bigoted gay-bashers, spread hate or boycott Elton John’s music just because there are moral objections against their lifestyles. This kind of thinking would make a drug prevention agency responsible every time a drug addict gets beat up behind Chow Kit Road.
Lastly, I share the hope for a period of social reform in our nation that makes for a more equitable, just and caring society for all citizens regardless of creed, skin color or economic status.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality. With homosexuality we're talking about something different – it is a particular behavior that most Malaysians find odd, unnatural, harmful and deeply unethical.
As yet, there is no confirmed biological cause for homosexuality. Even if a biological factor may contribute to homosexual tendency, it does not determine our choices. Human beings are not programmed robots whose destiny is fixed by nature.
Surely, we don’t approve of hot-blooded heterosexuals who ‘naturally’ feel biological urges to grope female pedestrians to carry out their hormone-induced inclinations just because they are supposedly ‘born that way”. Even they are not entitled with such ‘equal rights’ in society.
Why not? Perhaps not because of blind prejudice, prudery or lack of scientific understanding.
But simply because it’s unethical.
They should still have the freedom to vote, find security and equal employment opportunity as any other citizen in our country.
But no one – heterosexual or homosexual – is entitled to unethical behavior.
Chang Wei Hao, a heterosexual sinner in the process of being rescued by Grace, is also an avid blogger at The Agora.
Post a Comment