Cards on the Table

Over at Stand to Reason, Alan Shlemon has hammered out yet another post to help Christians work through a thorny question that may arise when a member of the family or a friend is one half of a homosexual couple. Twelve of Alan’s last twenty posts have dealt with some aspect of the LGBT thing, which just seems a tad disproportionate given that Alan has other talents. On one hand, I’ll commend him for highlighting an issue that I’m not seeing dealt with in such detail anywhere else. On the other, well, that’s a lot of posts.

I will say I read them all, which is something.

Perhaps the issue is a more pressing source of discussion and concern for other believers. Like many other Christians, I have a couple of homosexual family members, but we’re not close enough for any of the potential sources of conflict Alan has been dealing with to arise. This particular post inquires “Can Same-Sex Couples Stay the Night?” I’m unlikely to have to answer that any time soon, but I’m curious what Alan will say given that I have a good friend for whom this becomes a matter of conscience every Christmas when his family gathers at a sibling’s house and a homosexual nephew and partner occupy a bedroom together. It’s not his house, so it’s not his call, but there’s still … something there that makes one ask, “Might there be a better way to handle this?”

The Consistency Principle

There might. Alan doesn’t derive a hard-and-fast rule from scripture, but he does make an appeal for consistency of approach:

“Here’s the principle: Treat a homosexual the same way you would treat a heterosexual in a morally comparable situation. In other words, ask yourself, how would you respond in a similar moral situation if the person were heterosexual? Whatever your answer is in the situation with a heterosexual should probably be your answer with a homosexual.”

Alan doesn’t appeal to any scripture to argue this — or for anything else in the post — but it would be hard to object to consistency as a biblical principle. It’s a significant characteristic of God himself. He hates what he hates and he loves what he loves, and time never changes that. Consistency. The Pharisees had many objections to things Jesus did, but he kept right on doing them despite increasing opposition. Break the Sabbath once, break it seven times. Consistency. Paul taught all the same things in all the churches. Consistency. Why would the apostles and elders gather in Jerusalem to discuss the issue of circumcising Gentiles? They were concerned about consistency across the churches.

I have no objection to consistency as a principle in just about any area of life, except maybe when you have a favorite hockey team that consistently loses. So that’s fine.

Apples and Oranges

On the surface this is all great. But consistency as your metric only works when you treat two comparable things the same way. A father raising two sons may apply the same principles to both consistently provided they are similar people. However, the same father may have to make tactical adjustments if he has one child who is a natural rebel and another who is content to go along to get along. In both cases, he’s concerned to teach godliness, but in one instance, he may do so through a gentle appeal because the nature of the child makes harsher treatment unnecessary. In the other case, he may have to bring discipline to bear in order to get the desired result.

Alan too is concerned that he not compare apples and oranges, so he applies his principle of consistency by trying to think of a morally comparable situation that involves heterosexuals. He asks, “Would I allow a boyfriend and girlfriend to stay the night in a bedroom in my home? No, because I don’t want to condone the sexual sin of fornication.” Fair enough. At least he’s trying.

But are fornication and homosexuality really so comparable? Yes, they are both sins. Yes, they both involve sex. But homosexuality has a dimension fornication does not, in that the sin of fornication is a matter of timing. The wickedness is not inherent in the act itself, but in some factor external to it. The same two people could be having sex in your spare bedroom a week later under the blessing of God if they marry in the interval. You can approve of the relationship, if not its premature consummation.

Two Against Nature

The same is not true of homosexual sex. The act itself is sinful. The Bible teaches homosexual congress is literally against nature. A secular judge can bless it by declaring it “marriage”, but it will never be marriage in the eyes of God. The only way to stop homosexual sex from alienating you from God and putting your soul at risk for eternity is to stop engaging in it entirely. As a Christian host, you must disprove of both the act and the relationship. In order to relate to one another in a godly way, the sexual dimension of the relationship must go away entirely, and in order to avoid the temptation to lust, it may even be necessary to terminate the friendship.

Let me be clear: I still would not want the young couple in my spare bedroom on the first occasion as boyfriend and girlfriend, and I’m not saying that fornication is any less a sin than homosexual sex. Apart from repentance and faith in Christ, both will come under the eternal judgment of God. That said, the sex acts potentially occurring in your spare bedroom are qualitatively different. One relationship is reparable under the right circumstances, the other simply cannot continue if either party wants to have a relationship with God.

Does that distinction matter? I really think it does.

Ruthlessly and Affectionately Honest

Think about it. Instead of comparing apples and oranges, let’s try to be ruthlessly but affectionately honest with our two pairs of would-be houseguests, shall we?

To the young couple we must say, “I’m so happy you’ve found each other, but the Bible teaches sex is a sin outside of marriage, and we don’t promote sin in this home. You’re welcome to stay overnight in separate rooms if you are willing to respect our house rules. Moreover, you’re welcome to share my spare bed the moment you commit to one another before the Lord for life.” You’re still being hospitable, and you’re offering them an alternative way of managing their relationship that points toward holiness and restoration. It’s an answer with hope, even if it means they are not sharing a bed tonight, and it may mean your young couple start thinking seriously about what they are doing. Are we moving toward marriage or not?

We cannot offer the same hope to the gay couple. We just can’t. There is no honest way to word our refusal to offer them hospitality in a shared bed that will not be terminally offensive. The problem is not just the sex, it’s their whole choice of partner. The entire thing needs to be rejected and set aside in order for either party to get right with the Lord. You are attacking their preferences and choices in a way they will surely take very personally. They will probably insist they were made this way and cannot be anything other, and will turn your attempt at loving correction into bigotry and hate.

But the longer we bury the lede in order to be a “good testimony”, the greater the shock, anger and sense of betrayal that will come when we present the Lord’s view of what they are doing without the marbles in our mouths.

Put this way, Alan’s “consistency” formulation seems like some kind of evasion. I think I would rather put my cards on the table. I’m not sure I could have a good conscience about it if I didn’t.