Why We're Gendered Beings...
Theological Reflections on Sexual Identity

By Rev. Gary W. Deddo, Ph.D.

Over the past thirty years or so unrest and discussion on the nature of sexuality has boiled over into outright confrontation and polarization. The moral dimension of the sexual revolution has not been resolved even if in practice the movement away from traditional patterns has slowed. This is especially evident in the conflict over the moral status of homosexuality.

My own inclination over the years has been to serve as a reconciler, to attempt to demonstrate compassion and seek for a thoroughly Christian understanding of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular which would minister the grace of God to all his people while remaining faithful to the Biblical word and witness. I felt compelled to avoid self-righteousness at the expense of humility and to avoid improperly magnifying sin by doing so at the expense of the diminishment of Gods grace. It seemed to me that what was needed was a biblical and Christ-centered approach to sinners as well as a Biblical and Christian definition of sin.

My most recent round of reflection upon the subject of human sexuality has been propelled not by a personal preoccupation with the subject (I would rather avoid controversy) but by the exigencies of pastoral care for persons struggling with these issues, by seemingly unavoidable debate and confrontation on the secular university campuses where I and colleagues minister, and by ministerial membership in the PCUSA and by invitations to study and make presentations about it.

Each of the several phases of concerted reflection traversed throughout my life and ministry has been fruitful. However, during these last seven years my thoughts and convictions have crystallized in a way unanticipated. The insights and conclusions I have most recently come to, while not inconsistent with my former thoughts, are much more incisive. While illuminating a clear path for true compassion, they require an acute response which raises the potential for increased conflict. The strongest case for the benefit of the person who identifies him/herself as homosexual turns out to constitute a potent case against regarding homosexual behavior as morally right and homosexual orientation as leading toward life and light.

Let me outline the key elements which lead to these conclusions.

It seems to me that what had been lacking in my own reflection and in the literature in general were two things: a comprehensive context within which to frame the question and the proper formulation of the question.

The discernment of the right use of sexual relations only becomes clear when formed within the context of a comprehensive understanding of Gods purposes for our being gendered persons. Interpreting the commands of God outside of a grasp of Gods purposes constitutes interpreting them out of context. Unfortunately, most discussions have focused on those particular texts which give commandment regarding sexual behavior. Such a restricted focus has hindered comprehension of those very commandments and has failed to provide clarity in the debate. Consequently, much of my time and research has concentrated on the attempt to grasp the reason, the divinely given purpose, for our being gendered beings in the first place.

Secondly, the proper question to ask within this debate is whether or not homosexual relations are to be regarded as moral and spiritual equivalents to heterosexual marriage. The claim that they are morally and spiritually equivalent constitutes the deepest challenge to the traditional biblical understanding. An approach which calls for comparison will bring out the true nature and meaning of each. The question of moral equivalence cannot be answered except in terms of the more comprehensive question of the purpose for our being gendered beings at all.

Why are We Gendered Beings?

The answer to the question as to why we are gendered beings must be gathered up from the whole biblical testimony. We must begin in Genesis, but we cannot end there, for the meaning of our being gendered beings is a deep mystery not easily discerned. The whole counsel of Scripture is required to begin to grasp the spiritual meaning of our being gendered beings.

"According to the Image of God". We will gather together several clues beginning with the Genesis accounts found in chapters one and two. First of all, the creation of a two gendered humanity is directly associated with being created "according to [the] image" of God.[1] Many have concluded that the text indicates that masculinity and femininity are essential conditions for the purpose of reflecting or bearing witness to God. That aside, we must certainly conclude that it is very good that we are gendered beings since all of creation was good and the creation of humanity is said to be very good. In Genesis 2, the differentiation of humanity into male and female is a matter of great rejoicing. Furthermore, it is the deliberate act of God in light of God's own judgment that humanity alone, singular, is "not good." It requires no stretch of the theological imagination to say that humanity must have been created gendered for the glory of God. One cannot conclude, even on the basis of Genesis accounts alone, that we are gendered beings for no good reason at all. The question is how does our being gendered contribute to the glory of God? And surely, if this is the right question, there can be no basis for concluding that gender has nothing to do with being created according to the image of God since being a true image would certainly bring glory to God. So we can formulate the proper question from two angles: How can our being gendered beings contribute to the glory of God? And/or, how can our being gendered beings be a reflection of the image of God?

"Not good to be alone." Light on the goodness of being gendered is shed most brightly in Genesis 2. There we see the creation of gender in connection with God's own recognition of the problem of aloneness. After the numerous refrains of "it was good," we are surprisingly told "It is not good for man to be alone." The fact that there were other animals, plants and the physical surroundings near and far were no answer to Adams solitude. Adam lived in the presence of these things and even God was with him. However, their difference from him still left Adam alone in a very significant way. It was of such a concern that God taught Adam to recognize this deficiency and prepared him for Gods own resolution. Woman with man was the answer to human aloneness. Fellowship, of the good kind God intends, takes its highest form in the bi-polarity of man and woman. True human togetherness requires persons who are the same "human, yet who are decidedly different, other, distinct, not the same" gendered. If woman were other but not human, man would remain alone as he was with the animals. The otherness would be too great. If she was not the opposite gender, but human, then she (it?) would not be a true other. She would have been too identical. Gender, then, is the good differentiation within humanity which provides the basis for a true fellowship: a unity and togetherness of those who are differentiated and other.

In Genesis 2, gendered fellowship and communion, the product of God's own intentions, is declared good, and so must somehow glorify God, that is, reflect God's own goodness. Given the clarity of Genesis 2, there can be no theological objection to seeing a close connection between the gendered nature of humanity and our being created according to the image of God in Genesis 1.

We can conclude, then, in a preliminary fashion that being gendered is good because it provides a basis for humanity as men and women to reflect our being created according to the image of God and so a basis for glorifying God. The conclusion raises other questions. In what way does gender serve as a basis for imaging/glorifying? Can the connection be discerned as well as affirmed?

The Life Partner. The Genesis account not only shows the origin of the gendered nature of humanity but also the outworking of that fellowship between them. They are partners working together. Woman is a companion [2], 'meet' or 'fit' or 'right,' for man. They are complements one to another. Being gendered provides a basis for their being complementary. Each brings to the relationship what the other does not have. If the other were identical, there would be no need for the other, no need and no possibility for complement, for a true partnership.

On the basis of this good complementary fellowship, they are given tasks to accomplish together. It seems that they have one calling in two forms. First they are to care for the earth, the plant life and the animal life. They are to do so in such a way as to see to it that life leads to greater life, that it is multiplied and so fills the earth.

Also, they are to be a channel of life themselves, by means of procreation. Their life together is to give rise to yet other lives (offspring) which in turn may also be fruitful and join them in overseeing the life of the earth. The otherness of their gender yet their unity in humanity provide the basis for their being channels of life itself by way of procreation.

In this twofold way, the genderedness of their being provides an essential basis for them to accomplish the purposes of God for there to be abundant life-giving life. Humanity glorifies God and images God in that God's gives, preserves, and perfects life and God has provided humanity a basis for its very own participation in that good purpose. Being gendered is essential to that basis because it is essential to the partnership in caring for the earth and for procreation.

The Covenant of Marriage. There is yet another dimension of fellowship and communion which has its ground in the genderedness of humanity. Their relationship is to be a permanent one of covenant, of leaving all others and cleaving one to another. Their lives are to be joined permanently in covenant love. The gendered nature of human being allows for there to be a human reflection of God's own faithfulness and love for humanity. Covenant love of man and woman is a reflection of God's own love and so is also a medium for the glorification of God. In the Genesis account, being gendered is essential to this goodness as well.

In summary we can say, the goodness of gender which images and glorifies God, as depicted in Genesis, is essential to human communion, which overcomes aloneness, is central to partnership in care-taking of the earth, is vital for procreation, and grounds the human reflection of God's own covenant love in marriage.

Although we have made some progress, there is more to be said about why we're gendered beings on the basis of the rest of the testimony of Scripture. That story seems to fill out and deepen those insights that gender is good and essential to humanity's creation in the image of God and for the purpose of glorifying God.

God's Covenant with his People. Let's continue by considering how the covenant love of man and woman reflects the very nature of Gods covenant relationship with His people. God has entered into an irrevocable covenant relationship with his people. What role does the gendered nature of humanity play in depicting this? Human marriage may reflect or image a faithful, irrevocable togetherness in covenant love. But it also embodies a differentiation, a non-interchangeability, and a true interdependence. It embodies the same truth of God's covenant love for humanity. God is not humanity, humanity is not God. Humanity cannot give God what God can give humanity. They are utterly different, completely non-interchangeable, yet there is a unity and communion between God and his people. The bi-polarity of man and woman glorifies the transcendent difference yet immanent (and incarnate) togetherness of God with his people. The difference images the fact that we are not God and never will be. The covenant love images that the difference in no way threatens the togetherness of God and humanity. Humanity is destined for communion with God.

In this light, we can see why throughout the Biblical witness the goodness and glory of the marriage of man and woman is emphasized and celebrated exclusively. This is most notably demonstrated in the Song of Songs, in the book of Hosea and in the Epistle to the Ephesians. On the one hand, the biblical authors liken the marriage of man and woman to God's own relationship with humanity. On the other, they compare human adultery and prostitution to the unfaithfulness of people towards God. This comparison constitutes a major theme especially in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and in St. Johns Revelation. Clearly, the relations between men and women are intended uniquely to bear witness to the love of God for his people. Being gendered plays an essential part in reflecting the goodness and glory of the difference yet togetherness of God with his people in faithful covenant love.

What role in glorifying God does gender play in the less personal and more functional aspects of the partnership of man and woman? The tasks they were given called for them to work as companions, complementing one another.[3] This too reflects in a different dimension Gods relation with his people and world. God created and gave life but humanity was to tend that creation in such a way that life led to greater life. There is a complementary partnership between humanity and God. Humanity cannot create life out of nothing, yet we can participate and be a channel of blessing and care for life. God and humanity are in no way identical or interchangeable, yet they are true partners together, each contributing to the task at hand of making life abundant. The gendered nature of their partnership in caring for creation reflects the partnership of God with humanity in giving created life.

But there is yet a deeper partnership between God and humanity which leads to the deepest source of life. Israel was to be the covenant partner of God bringing salvation to all the nations. Israel was not the origin of that salvation, needing the grace and forgiveness of God itself. Yet she was chosen for a specific task of being the channel of blessing. Each partner, God and Israel, brings what it has. But they are not interchangeable. The gendered nature of humanity and partnership reflects the inextinguishable differentiation of God and humanity in salvation, and yet their partnership in bringing that salvation to all peoples.

Christ and the Church. The same is true for the Church. In partnership with Christ, we are the ambassadors of reconciliation. We are members of the Body of Christ, yet we are decidedly not the Head. Thus the gendered complementary nature of humanity is also reflected in the non-marital cooperation of the different members of the Body who are not interchangeable yet who are needful of each other." The eye cannot say to the foot, 'I have no need of you.'"

Procreation. Finally, by means of procreation humanity has the possibility of reflecting in its life the true nature of the covenant of God with his people. We cannot originate human life nor redeemed life in Christ, yet humans can participate in Gods gift of giving birth to new biological life through procreation. God alone creates but we procreate. Human procreation requires two genders because only in this way can it fulfill the purpose of reflecting the true partnership of God with humanity in giving biological life. God only is the ultimate source of life. Humanity remains utterly impotent in this regard, yet God involves humanity nevertheless, in its own way, in the giving of biological life.

In Jesus Christ. The relation of man and woman bears witness to the glory of God even more ultimately as it is expressed in Jesus Christ. It is in his own person where we have embodied the covenant relationship between God and humanity, in the meeting of the divine and human natures in his one Person without confusion, without separation. In Jesus, the divinity of the Son is not exchanged for the humanity, neither is the humanity swallowed up, nor do they become mixed so as to be neither. In Jesus, we are united to God so that all that is ours has also become his and all that is his is shared with us in power of the Holy Spirit. This is why the Apostle Paul indicates that the glory and mystery of marriage bears witness to Christ and his Church.[4] Thus, in the Revelation of John, we see the preparation for the marriage of the Lamb of God to his Bride, the people of God. The difference and unity of God and humanity in Christ are glorified and reflected in the marriage of man and woman. The differentiation is essential in each relationship.

We also read in the New Testament that Christ is the image of God according to which we are being renewed.[5] We, then, were created out of the pattern of the pre-incarnate Word of God. As humanity we were created to image (by means of our being male and female) the Image, that is, the Word or Son of God. We were created to be images of the Image, Jesus Christ. What we have said above demonstrates how that might be. We were created to mirror in our relationships the relationship which God has with us in Christ. In Christ, we have the oneness and otherness of God and man in covenant partnership for the purpose of giving redemption to all of life, humanity and creation. This can be most simply and profoundly imaged in the marital/covenantal relationship of man and woman. It is here that there is a unity and differentiation, a togetherness and an otherness, which is a covenantal partnership in love which gives life. Jesus sums it up. "As I have loved you, so you ought to love one another." Our love is intended to be a faithful reflection of God's love for all of us. The gift of marriage is a calling which has a purpose of bearing a unique witness to God's love. Being gendered is essential to this unique witness.

In the Triune Life. For those who can follow, there is yet a deeper mystery of our being gendered beings that we can trace out in Jesus Christ. The love which Christ has for us is a reflection of the Heavenly Fathers love for him. "As the Father has loved me so I have loved you." Jesus indicates that these two relations are comparable, are analogous. We in our relations are to embody a glorious witness to the triune relations in God. In Jesus, not only do we have revealed the covenantal relationship of holy love between God and his people, but also the revelation of love between the Father and the Son. In Jesus conception, birth, obedience, sacrifice, resurrection, ascension, and eternal reign with the Father, we see the eternal love of the Father and Son lived out before us, in perfect unity of being, will, and act. What is equally clear is the maintenance of their unconfused and differentiated personhood. The Father and Son are eternally one, yet eternally distinguished in a holy and eternal love bonded in the Holy Spirit. They can neither be fused nor separated, confused or interchanged.

So, the original unity and difference, togetherness and otherness, out of which we were created was that of the Triune relations. Humanity was created as man and woman ultimately to reflect the glory of the divine Triunity of Father and Son in the Spirit. Being created according to the image of God means being created in such a way that we in our relations might image the Son's relation to the Father in the Spirit. The gendered nature of humanity is designed expressly for glorifying God's own triune nature. This is ultimately why, then, "God said, 'Let us make humankind according to our image and after our likeness' So God created mankind according to his own image, after the image of God he created them, male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26,27).

Why were we created gendered beings? We were given gender as a gift to be used to glorify God in the relationship between men and women by reflecting the unity and difference, the togetherness and otherness, the complementary covenant partnership between the Heavenly Father and Son, and reflecting the covenantal redemptive relationship of God with his people in Christ. We are gendered beings in order to glorify the Triune Savior God through our right covenantal relationships one with the other. This is the spiritual meaning and significance of gender.

Seen in this light, the various insights, given throughout Scripture and finally revealed in Christ, coalesce. Within this context of the divine purpose for being gendered beings, it is perfectly coherent as to why, first of all, so many of the Biblical commands have to do with sexual behavior. The relationship between the sexes is a sacred trust with a good and glorious God-given purpose. It is to bear witness to Gods own internal and external love. The content of those commands (mostly in the negative, "thou shall not...") are designed to preserve that purpose, to prevent the denigration of that relationship to the point that it could no longer be used to glorify God. It is no wonder then that when sexual involvement is used as an illustration, the heterosexual marital relationship is the sole image used to speak of Gods relation with his people throughout Scripture. This image provides the positive vision of how we may glorify God by means of our gender.[6]

Are homosexual and heterosexual covenantal relationships morally and spiritually equivalent?

Now, within this comprehensive context we may properly raise our question regarding homosexual unions. Can sexual relations within a homosexual union be regarded as being equally capable of fulfilling the divine purpose for our being created gendered beings as the marital union?[7] Can it image and glorify God equally?

In the God and creature relationship? Clearly, a homosexual union cannot glorify God in the same way that a marital union does. Relations between persons of the same gender cannot image in their sexual attraction or in any sexual behavior [8] the differentiation essential to the marital relations of a man and woman. The differentiation of God and humanity and the differentiation of the Heavenly Father and Son, cannot be represented in homosexual sexual relations as it is in heterosexual marital sexual relations. Homosexual relations, rather, bear witness to the sameness of the partners or at least the irrelevance of the difference of the partners and so cannot give proper glory to God at all in and through their gender.

In fact, it bears false witness to the fellowship and communion we have with God and to the nature of the Triune love. If we pose the question, Just what purpose does gender play in homosexual relations? the answer is none. Gender is irrelevant for homosexual relationship. Gender serves no spiritual purpose at all. It is reduced to physiological fact with no personal meaning. Strictly speaking the relationship is actually de-sexualized. Genderedness plays no part. The sex act is strictly reduced to a pleasure act. Since no moral, spiritual meaning is assigned to gender itself in the act, the behavior between two of the same gender, although involving the sex organs, carries within it no sexual meaning. Indeed it cannot, because gender can be meaningful only in relation to its polar opposite.

The Moral-Spiritual Meaning of Gender. Furthermore, if gender has a personal moral/spiritual meaning, then to disregard the spiritual meaning of the gender of the other is to depersonalize the other. It is to reduce a spiritually significant aspect of their personhood to an accident of their physiology. Homosexuality then de-sexualizes and depersonalizes the partner by regarding their gender as morally and spiritual irrelevant.[9] The sexual dimension of the relationship is rendered a spiritually meaningless act.[10] The act is referred to as sexual only because the organs used are called sex organs. The act itself, however, is at best a-sexual.

Of course, if the gender of another is morally/spiritually irrelevant, this means that moral considerations don't apply to that dimension of the relationship. In homosexual sexual relations, the sexual dimension of the relationship then has no moral value, it is at best a-moral. Thus a moral, spiritual, and personal dimension of the relationship has been demoralized and depersonalized.

This same discrepancy can be seen when a comparison is made between homosexual and heterosexual marriage on the basis of other dimensions of relationship brought out in the Genesis account.

The Complementary Aspect. In terms of partnership and covenant love, homosexual union cannot represent the identical complementarity. In a homosexual union, the gender/sexuality of each one has nothing different to offer to each other in covenant love nor to their joint tasks. In terms of gender, they need nothing that they do not have themselves and they bring nothing to their calling that the other cannot provide. This relation cannot be considered an equal substitute for a relation with someone of the opposite gender. Whatever otherness they offer, and there inevitably will be some, that otherness cannot be one of gender. The complementary nature of gender will play no part in their covenant love nor in their covenant service.

Indeed, if humanity is a co-humanity, constituted as male and female, a key to masculinity can be found only in right relationship with femininity, and vice versa. The meaning of gender can only be known in light of its opposite. Men and women to be truly who they are, must be in right relationship one with another. This bears witness to the fact that humanity as a whole cannot find its true identity except in right reconciled relationship with God, a relationship which only God can provide. Humanity cannot be itself by itself. It requires communion with Another.

Thus, it would follow, as we find in the Genesis account, that when one remains with ones own kind, the problem of aloneness remains. Adams aloneness could only be dealt with fully through covenant communion with woman. Loneliness is resolved only when one is with one who is truly other. Unity is at heart, community. The homosexual relation if regarded as an equivalent, however, indicates that aloneness can just as well be resolved with ones own kind. Thus, men and women can then be regarded as interchangeable. Thus, it indicates that there is no real need of one gender for the other. A homosexual union bears [false] witness that each gender is sufficient unto itself.

Such an orientation, then, cannot bear witness to the fact that humanity cannot fulfill itself by itself, but must have communion with its polar opposite, God. Homosexual relation, because it gives no spiritual value to the other gender in its sexual dimension betrays the God-given purpose for being gendered beings. They cannot bear witness either to the dependence of humanity upon God nor to the interdependence of man and woman.[11] It certainly cannot bear witness to the reconciling purposes of God for men with women which the Apostle Paul announced.[12] It suggests that such reconciliation is unnecessary and perhaps might be impossible to achieve.

How exactly the interdependence of men and women affect their working together in creation cannot be explored in depth here and ongoing research on this area could provide some insight. We can assume that even in such seemingly gender neutral areas of common work, men and women each have something unique to offer in and through their right relationship. This should rule out any strict competition between the sexes. Their service is to be a cooperative one. However, where the masculine or feminine are regarded as self-sufficient, the relations between the sexes can only devolve to competition rather than contribute to a complementary partnership. Such relations will be characterized by wrestling for power, envy, jealously and gender-pride even if directed towards service.

Such relationships cannot bear witness to the true partnership of men and women in relationship as did Adam and Eve in their original state. They cannot bear witness to mankinds partnership with God in the care of the creation. Rather it indicates either an autonomy of God and humanity so that a given responsibility is entirely one or the other's or that there is essentially a competition between God and mankind for control of the creation. An asymmetrical complementary partnership is ruled out from the start.

Fruitfulness. Finally, homosexual unions cannot bear witness to the fruitfulness that can only come from the relation of man and woman. The same-sex union is sterile in terms of procreation. It cannot bear witness to Gods overabundant and creative relationship to creation. It cannot represent the outgoing and life-giving love of God reaching out to that which is utterly different from himself. It can only represent a fruitless love which cannot itself give life to another. The sexual dimension of such relationships represents futility and sterility not creativity and fruitfulness. Such a relationship cannot fulfill the God-given purposes to image the God of Creation and Life, biological and spiritual. [13]

Thus, on numerous essential counts homosexual union cannot be regarded as the spiritual and moral equivalent of marital union between a man and a woman. They cannot fulfill Gods purposes for us to use our gender to bear witness to the unity and difference, the covenant partnership, the true nature of fellowship in service, or the life-giving fruitfulness of right relationship. It cannot bear faithful witness to the relationship between God and humanity in Christ or between the heavenly Father and Son. If fact, the homosexual union constitutes a betrayal of that purpose, bearing witness to its opposite: signaling rather that there is no need for a bi-polar opposite either in the realm of human relations or in relationship of humankind with God or within the Godhead.

This is a stark and even perhaps shocking conclusion regarding the true nature of homosexual unions. I think so myself. But it is a conclusion which is consonant with the whole testimony of Gods purposes for our being gendered beings and the commandments which reinforce that divinely given purpose.

Where do we go from here? It seems to me that, given the spiritual/moral purpose for our being gendered beings, much is at stake for all parties concerned if we fail to use our sexuality properly. Not only will there be confusion on the human plane, but a false witness will be presented which distorts the true testimony to the character of God, Gods relationship with humanity and the Triune relations themselves. It constitutes a denial of Jesus Christ because it is a repudiation of the purpose for us to bear witness with our gender to who Jesus Christ is, that is, to his true relationship with us and his relationship with the Heavenly Father in the Spirit. It is a distortion of our humanity and of Christ's divinity.

This means that rather than being regarded as just another minor disagreement in the Church, discernment of the truth in this issue is crucial. What is at stake is the loss of the essential purpose for our being gendered beings. The result of this loss will be a de-personalization, a dehumanization, and demoralization of life. Homosexual unions obscure and deny that purpose. Thus, the promotion of such relations as an equivalent substitute for heterosexual marriage should not be easily assented to for the sake of the witness of the church and for the sake of those individuals who may be deceived and harmed by it. But an even more ultimate concern is that such relations obscure the glory of God in Christ.

These conclusions do not mean that we may violate biblical commands regarding our compassionate approach to sinners. We must offer the word of compassion and comfort, forgiveness and grace to all with the patience required of Job, or even Jonah, and embodied in the life of Jesus. Yet, we must speak the truth in love for the sake of rightly representing Jesus Christ himself and his relationship to us and our relationship to others in Him. All confrontations with the truth must be done with the grace and patience of Jesus Christ, who nevertheless, always had a clear word. "Go in peace and sin no more."

We trust that these theological reflections contribute to an increase of compassion for the lost, and for those who need healing, whether homosexual or heterosexual, and that we all might use our sexuality as a means for glorifying God in our relationships and repent to receive forgiveness and renewal when we fail.

Let us press on to the high calling of Jesus Christ to bear witness to him in and through the gift of our being gendered beings.

Notes

1. Some have restricted the meaning of the image of God to the gendered nature of humanity. Others have said there is no association with gender here, but rather it is connected with dominion and care-taking. It seems to me that they are not mutually exclusive interpretations. In fact, being created according to the image necessarily involves both dimensions, for they are intrinsically interrelated. For humanity to be fruitful, to multiply and to care for the earth and its fruitfulness requires them to be gendered beings, that is, to be involved in procreation.

2. The Hebrew is best rendered "a complement who stands face to face over against him."

3. This foreshadows the nature of the Church being constituted by differing members of Christ's Body in Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and I Cor. 12.

4. .Ephesians 5.

5. Colossians 1:15 and 3:10.

6. It should be noted, in passing, that all Biblical concern for improper mixing: of gender in homosexual activity, in bestiality or in cross-dressing, and all the laws which reinforce the differentiation of the sexes, are meant to maintain the proper independence and yet togetherness of the sexes. This might even be what is behind such prohibitions such as mixing flax and wool. The differentiations which God has built into creation are good and have been created for the purpose of giving God glory. The confusion of the distinction can only signal a confusion of man with God, creation with Creator, and Heavenly Father with Son. This means ultimately the misrepresentation of love itself.

7. What is in question here is whether, in a relationship between persons of the same gender, the element of sexual/erotic attraction and any genital/sexual behavior which might aim to fulfill or arouse such desires, can be regarded as fulfilling or violating the God-given purpose of being sexual/gendered beings. Relations between persons of the same gender which are not established or maintained in any part for the purpose of arousing or fulfilling sexual attraction or engaging in sexual/genital behavior (even if some of those feelings might be occasionally present but are neither acted upon nor are justified) are not in question. Non-erotic feelings and expression of affection between persons of the same gender are not being questioned here, even though there is a possibility that they to might possibly be occasion for the arousal and expression of erotic feelings and behavior.

8. This is not to deny that there could be other dimensions of that homosexual relationship which might be a faithful reflection of God's own loving or that other non-sexual dimensions of non-marital relations between persons of the same or different sexes could not be truly loving. They may be equivalent in all these other ways. But this is not what is in question, either Biblically or in the debates. What is being questioned is the sexual behavior within the relationship, not the total relationship. The question is whether or not the sexual dimension is being used faithfully, whether or not the gift of gender is itself being used in a way which glorifies God. The rightness of other dimensions of the relationship does not cancel the wrong of another dimension.

This line of argument does not mean that gender is entirely irrelevant to other non-sexual dimensions of a relationship. The complementary nature of gender seems to affect all dimensions of human relationship to some extent. However we are not concerned here about what is faithful or not in those non-sexual dimensions of complementarity.

9. It could be argued that such a relationship is at least better than auto-eroticism. I would have to agree. Homosexual relations at least involve another person, and giving another intimate physical pleasure. However, this observation does not render homosexual relations any more faithful than we have suggested. It just demonstrates that one could fall even further away from Gods ultimate purposes for our being gendered beings into auto-eroticism.

10. It could be argued that care, concern, warmth, support, understanding, closeness and love characterize many homosexual relations. I would concede that, of course, such characteristics could also be involved in such a relationship. The point is that although these may also be present, they are operative despite the sexual dimension of the relationship, and dont in the least alter the moral/spiritual meaninglessness of any behavior involving the sex organs or the erotic feelings which desire such involvement. Any true meaningful love between persons of the same sex should not and need not involve sexual feelings or behavior. Any true love would be entirely independent of erotic feelings or sexual involvement. The presence of true love does not justify all forms of interaction, especially that which has no moral or spiritual meaning and involves a significant aspect of that persons personhood.

11. Thus homosexuality should not be regarded as an ally for moderate feminists or for those concerned about racism. Homosexuality represents the claim that one only needs ones own kind. Men only need men, women only need women. Thus any call for reconciliation, cooperation or call to change ones attitudes about the other are terminally undermined. Homosexuality stands for the idolization of ones own gender. To apply this analogously to race, it means that each race is fully self sufficient in itself. This is tantamount to idolizing race and can provide no foundation for a call to reconciliation or cooperation. Homosexuality certainly cannot bear witness to the reconciliation of men and women (or by analogy of the various races) in Jesus Christ but only announce the irrelevance and non-necessity and impossibility of any true reconciliation. In deed homosexual unions may be justly regarded as a betrayal of the opposite gender and a defection to ones own gender. It is thus a denial of the Gospel of Reconciliation.

12. Galatians 3:28.

13. It could be argued that Gays and Lesbians want to share their love, and thats why many want to adopt children, and should be allowed to. Again, it is better for their hope not to be self-centered and to desire to share life with others. However, such adoptions cannot justify the fruitlessness and purposelessness of their sexual involvement. Adoption amounts to a cover-up and a delusion. It attempts to say that those of the same gender can foster new life. But this can be true only ex post facto, after the fact. No human being has come into life through the relationship of two of the same gender. An adopted child would be living in the midst of a lie. It would appear that two of the same gender were sufficient for being parents. However, this is not the truth. Thus homosexual parenting obscures the truth rather than bears witness to the truth. It takes a man and a woman to give new life, even if that life is subsequently parented by others.

Top of Page  Topical Resources by Gary Deddo >>