With much interest I read the article of the Reverend W. Haverkamp in THE BANNER of April 25, 1980 with regard to the homosexual problem and the stand taken on it by the Reformed Church of the Netherlands. I am referring to this article because it gave renewed impetus to my concern which I have always felt about the position our own Christian Reformed Church has taken in the matter. Let me explain that concern.

A Synod Decision: True but Weak

Our Synod of 1973 adopted as follows: “Homosexuality – as explicit homosexual practice-must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Scripture.” With the truthfulness of this decision one can find no fault. However, some comment can be made.

The records of Scripture make it clear that the homosexual act is a most God-provoking sin, arousing His fury to the limit. When these records tell us that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was exceedingly great God in His mercy anthropomorphically said that He would go down and see if the sin of the cities was as great as the cry of it indicated. And when God came down to Sodom He saw the most revolting scene of homosexual intent at the home of Lot. And the pouring out of the fury of God’s wrath over what He had seen could hardly wait for Lot and his family to find safety.

It goes without saying that other great sins besides homosexualism were committed within “the cities of the Plain” which contributed to the full measure of their guilt. But sin has a way of climaxing itself. It is worthy of note that just now within our nation when there is so much violence, disregard for authority, divorce, extra marital relations or forbidden sex, etc., there is an alarming upsurge of homosexualism. I do not exclude the possibility that within the borders of our nation—or for that matter over the world—sin will climax itself in much the same form as the sinful situation that brought on the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In connection with this outrage of homosexual perversion one cannot pass by the shameful raping of a Levite’s concubine at the home of an elderly man at Gibeah of Benjamin. The above mentioned 1973 Synod. Report 42 passes over this ugly incident without comment; but Scripture goes to great length (Judges 19, 20, 21) describing this sin and its consequences. As in the case of Sodom, God‘s holiness could tolerate no further delay in the execution of His justice. And the seriousness of the sin concerned (which was nothing less than homosexual lust running wild) is indicated by the fact that in the ensuing war it cost the nation of Israel besides the tribe of Benjamin 40,000 able-bodied men; and Benjamin itself was practically exterminated.

From this gruesome picture one cannot escape the implication that throughout Israel generally, spirituality at the time was at a very low ebb. The result was the outrage at Gibeah. Sodom in its extremity of sin has been called a cesspool of immorality. The same may be said of Gilbeah. And Revelation figuratively refers to the world at the end of time as a great city which in its utter sinfulness is called Sodom (11:8). Of this sinfulness one may safely conclude homosexualism, along with other types of sex perversion, will constitute no small part.

These considerations call for stronger language to describe the s in of homosexual practice, so provoking to the justice of God, than the general terminology of being “incompatible with obedience” to God‘s will, true as that may be.

Synod Denying the Sinners Responsibility

But there is another matter which has added much to my concern. It is occasioned by the following decision of Synod: “Homosexuality (male and female) is a condition of disordered sexuality which reflects the brokenness of our sinful world and for which the homosexual may himself bear only a minimal responsibility.” From this quotation and other parts of the report one may definitely conclude that the intended idea is that the homosexual has little or in some cases no moral responsibility for his misdirected sexual condition. In somewhat different words, as I understand the reasoning of the matter, we are being told that the homosexual’s sex drive in its origin is not sin but only then becomes such when complied with in the overt act of sexual satisfaction. That might very well lead one to dispose of the lustful scene at Lot’s home as follows: the sexual desire that drove the Sodomites there may not in itself be looked upon as sinful, but only then became such when a desperate attempt was made to satisfy it.

At this point lies my difficulty. Speaking of males only, how does a man know whether he is homosexual? Simply by desiring sex relations with one of his own sex. (The word covet could be used here for desire.)

Now all coveting is not sin. There is virtuous coveting. But when coveting leads to an act that is forbidden by Divine law, then not only is the act sin, but also the coveting leading to the act. This is a Divinely inspired norm to which the Holy Scriptures know of no exceptions. How then can a homosexual be excused of most or all responsibility for a desire that if complied with leads him into sinful practices than which t he Bible knows no greater?

The Report, as I understand it, explains the matter in somewhat this fashion! Even as a person cannot be held responsible for an unsightly birthmark or for that matter a physical or psychic handicap to which he himself willfully has contributed nothing but which follows from the curse that lies upon nature, so the homosexual cannot be held responsible for his misdirected sexual condition. He himself has willfully contributed little or nothing to bring it about, and therefore bears little or no responsibility for it.

Let us pause here for a moment’s reflection. Does it follow that to the extent that the homosexual has not willfully contributed to his abnormal sex condition he cannot to that extent be held responsible for it? David said in Psalm 51 that he was brought forth in iniquity and that his mother conceived him in sin. The psalmist clearly acknowledges that the underlying cause of his sin with Bathsheba was his inborn depravity. And although he had in nowise willfully contributed to that condition David assumed full responsibility for it. The homosexual has a desire. That desire if complied with leads him into the appalling sin of sexual copulation with another man. Who is prepared to say that that desire is not rooted in total depravity? And if it is, the homosexual, although not having willfully contributed to his misdirected sex drive, is as much responsible for it as David was for the sinful condition that led him into the sin with Bathsheba.

Misdirected Desire is Sin

To me the following is an inescapable conclusion. Jesus says in His sermon on the mount that “anyone who looks upon a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). How can anyone escape applying this to the homosexual? He then should read: “any man who looks upon a person of his own sex lustfully desiring sexual copulation with him (and that by the way is the only way the homosexual becomes aware of his homosexuality) has already committed adultery with that person in his heart.” The Bible knows of no exceptions to the tenth commandment–all coveting that leads to sinful acts is in its essence sinful. How can the homosexual get from under this Divinely instituted injunction?

The Miracle of God’s Grace

Just one brief concluding remark. In the report under consideration one may read the following, and I quote: “To expect the means of grace and prayer to redirect a firmly fixed homosexual is to expect a miracle.” The implication seems to be that to expect such a supernatural act to take place is beyond the limits of sound Christian faith. To me it is a Biblically sound position (and this is not to bypass the means of grace) that the process of sanctification from the beginning to the end is accomplished by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit. What then is there wrong about a homosexual earnestly and prayerfully petitioning God to be healed of a condition that is constantly egging him on to commit the immorality of the exceedingly abominable homosexual act? If this is asking for a miracle then I for one still believe in miracles and believe that the petition is rightfully placed. And God will certainly comply with it all the more because the homosexual lust in itself is sinful.

(Editor‘s Note: We recall that the Apostle Paul informed us that Corinthian Christians had been delivered from exactly these vices. I Cor. 6:9–11, “And such were some of you: But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”)

Ring Star is a retired Christian Reformed pastor living at 704 Village Lane, Jenison, Ml49428.