Icky Theology Doesn’t Hack It

by Dr. Peter Jones on March 4, 2014

Challenges to the homosexual agenda fail for two reasons:

1.No Questions Allowed

We are living through a massive redefinition of human sexuality. Proposed by militant gays and their supporters, it generally refuses calm, intelligent discussion. Its success often depends on intimidation that maligns opponents as “haters,” “homophobes” and “bigots.” Like the proponents of man-made global warming, about which Al Gore says, “the science is settled” (in spite of unsettling “inconvenient truths” to the contrary), so the moral case on homosexuality has been decided in advance—“one should be free to love whomever one wishes.” Sexual diversity is assumed to constitute the glorious future for human liberation—whether in the media or in the halls of education.  Exclusive heterosexuality is dismissed as the imposition of an oppressive past, unworthy of public debate.

The power of this approach is stunning. Without providing any peer-reviewed scientific evidence that therapy for clients with unwanted homosexual feelings is harmful, the UK government recently pressured the Association of Christian Counselors (ACC) into expelling a long-serving Christian counselor for offering therapeutic support to someone with unwanted same-sex attraction.

2.  No Answers Given

Even were the discussion to be opened, many Christians would not know where to begin. Take, for example, the “Confessions of an Ex-Evangelical, Pro-SSM Millennial.” This twenty-four- year- old recounts:

I went to Evangelical churches fifty-two Sundays a year for the better part of 19 years….my evangelical church made exactly one argument about SSM… “Being gay is icky.” The moment a gay person ceases to disgust you, you have nothing left.  It failed to train the young people…providing them no doctrinal depth by keeping them in a bubble of emotion, dependent on their never engaging with the outside world on anything but warlike terms.  Icky

Or consider the cult-like Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS which appears in public, and even at funerals, with signs reading “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for 9/11.” This may be the only place where the accusation of hate speech is truly appropriate, and where, as an argument, their approach is woefully inappropriate.

These cases exhibit the lack of clear, convincing reasoning about sexuality—reasoning that respects the interlocutor as a person made in God’s image, while grounding the discussion in sound biblical theology. Actually, a valid argument is not that complicated, but it must step back to ultimate issues, as does British theologian Colin Gunton (1941–2003):

There are, probably, ultimately only two possible answers to the question of origins: [either] that the universe is the result of creation by a free personal agency, or that in some way it creates itself.

The only two possible answers are faith statements, since none of us were there at the time, defining two mutually exclusive forms of religious commitment, as the apostle Paul wrote long ago:

…they exchanged the truth about God for [the] lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (Rom 1:25).

For simplicity I call these two options Oneism or Twoism.

Oneism: The self-creating world is self-explanatory, and all is made up of the same stuff, whether matter, spirit or a mixture. Thus, all distinctions are in principle eliminated. This is what can be called homocosmology, a worldview based on sameness.

Twoism: There are two kinds of existence—the uncreated Creator, and everything else, which is created. Twoism celebrates both God’s otherness in relation to the world and also explains the distinctions he placed in the creation to celebrate this Twoist reality. This is a heterocosmology, a world based on otherness and difference.

These two understandings of the world give rise to two views of sexuality. (For a deeper discussion, see my book God of Sex.)

As Oneist spirituality invades our once Christian culture, modern sexuality eliminates gender distinctions. Androgyny (male and female in one person) becomes the sexual model, promoting gender confusion and symbolizing, as one spiritual homosexual said, “the primordial cosmic unity…representing the sacrament of monism [or Oneism].” Hence the ideological and sacramental importance of SSM.

Similarly, the Twoist historic biblical faith celebrates the representative ideological importance of heterosexuality. In the beginning, reflecting God’s Trinitarian image of difference in unity, human beings were made male and female (Gen 1:27-8), and that structure mirrored the Twoist “mystery” of Christ’s redeeming love for his bride, the church (Eph 5:32).

 There is no appeal to “icky,” no incitement to hate in this argument. Biblical cosmology brings light to the discussion and, in God’s grace, prepares hearts for conversion and life-changing behavior. As the Apostle Paul said,  

 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  1Corinthians 6:11 

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Dan R Smedra March 4, 2014 at 11:51 am

All Christians must humbly acknowledge that, for the most part, Christendom failed to address the subject of sexuality as a topic worthy of discussion until the “massive redefinition of human sexuality” began in the second half of the 20th century. And even now, our team fumbles the ball a whole lot.

Reply

Nathan Keen March 4, 2014 at 7:03 pm

One wonders why the church left politics? The Bible has much to say about current issues that are extremely relevant to the way we and the community in which we live operate. The gospel should propel us forward to living Jesus’ Twosim way and being a light to the world who is lost in Oneism.

Reply

Joan Davidson March 5, 2014 at 12:57 am

A big problem is that so many (?Christian) Churches have embraced homosexuality and are even ordaining practicing homosexuals. I understand that in many State Schools – even in Primary Schools, students are being taught that homosexuality and all kinds of depravity are ‘normal and to be respected’. Unfortunately, the Biblical perspective is simply sneered at.

Reply

marjorie March 5, 2014 at 3:06 am

I am bisexual, so am I a onesie or a twosie- perhaps a threesie?

Reply

Mark March 5, 2014 at 4:12 am

I would submit that the previous 2000 years (of Christ’s rule) sexuality has been addressed culminating in a powerful Christian influence of society. Of course then the pornographic discussion of human sexuality taking place today was then done in a more subdued (thankfully!) way.
A second consideration that I find disconcerting is that although the article above addresses a distinctly Christ centred approach, yet it does not seem to speak clearly to the civil perspective given by Scripture and that is ultimately the death sentence is required for certain cases of manifested sexual deviants. This is not hatred but justice, not social justice (of oneism) but true justice (of twoism). Without this perspective to the discussion we only speak laterally with respect to adultery and not vertically with respect to idolatry.

Reply

Colin Ware March 5, 2014 at 9:13 pm

Thank you for your stand and simple answers to such a large debate.
There are so many churches who have left us with little to no teaching on sexuality at all, when this is the place to discuss it sensibly.
How do we as Christians begin to defend the word of God in the public arena?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: