Lately the topic of homosexuality has been in the news. The ELCA in convention has approved same sex relationships and homosexual pastors. This has led a number of congregational members to ask questions about what the Bible teaches regarding homosexuality. Below is a brief catechism which should answer most of your questions about homosexuality.

  1. Is homosexual behavior a sin?
    • According to the Bible, yes. In Romans 1:26-27 God considered homosexuality a sign of human depravity and says that He is angry with those who practice homosexuality. Also read Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Genesis 19:4-9.

  2. Some have suggested that homosexual behavior is only wrong when people practice it against their natural inclinations. It’s suggested that if a person’s natural sexual inclination is toward the same sex than homosexuality is OK.
    • Actually, God calls all homosexual behavior unnatural and perverted. In Romans 1:27 He says “Man abandoned their natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”

  3. Is homosexual behavior any worse than fornication or adultery?
    • Any sin which we try to justify and which we allow to dominate our lives will lead to God’s condemnation. Jesus died to forgive all sinners and all sin including homosexual behavior.
    • However, there is no context in which homosexual behavior can be pleasing to God. God has instituted marriage so that heterosexual behavior can be enjoyed in a God-pleasing relationship. So, unlike heterosexual behavior, homosexual behavior is always wrong and is considered unnatural by God.

  4. But couldn’t homosexuals get married?
    • The state may pass laws giving homosexuals or lesbian couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. God, however, instituted marriage only for heterosexual couples. Both a male and a female are required for marriage in God’s eyes. Genesis 2:18-24

  5. What if a person has homosexual urges but out of obedience to God doesn’t engage in homosexual acts. Is the homosexual urge a sin?
    • Jesus said, “Any man who looks at a woman to lust after has committed adultery in his heart.” The same would be true of a man who lusted after another man. We ask God to forgive sins of thought, word and deed. Obviously to act on a sinful urge is not what Christians do. But since all people including Christians have a sinful nature we will all have sinful urges. We should daily repent of them.

  6. So homosexuality is a sin and not just homosexual acts?
    • Yes.

  7. Does this mean that all homosexuals go to hell?
    • No. Homosexuals are forgiven by God if, like all Christians, if they repent of their sinful acts and their sinful nature and trust in Christ to forgive them.

  8. Many researchers have concluded that people are born homosexuals. Can this be true? If it is true how can it be wrong?
    • Many homosexuals claim not to have made any conscious choice to be homosexual. They insist that their sexual orientation was homosexual as long as they can remember. This has lead many scientists to conclude that homosexuality is either learned very early in life or is genetic. Much recent behavioral and sociological studies have concluded that homosexuality is not learned. Some research strongly suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused but is caused in part by a malfunction in the brain’s development while in the mother’s womb. All these scientific theories, while perhaps helpful, don’t address the question of repentance and forgiveness.

      It is not Biblical to conclude that something is sinful and wrong only when a person consciously chooses to do it. Some churches erroneously hold that faith is a choice and so is sin. The Bible teaches that faith is a gift and sin is a condition. This sinful condition shows itself both in our consciously wrong choices and in those things we think, say and do of which we are unaware. Even if it could be shown beyond any doubt that homosexuality was not a conscious choice this wouldn’t relieve homosexuals of the burden of their sinful nature. So homosexuality is sinful whether it is genetically caused, hormonally caused in the womb, learned subconsciously or a conscious choice.

      Much valuable research has suggested that alcoholism, drug addiction, violent aggression and even sexual promiscuity are genetically caused or at least caused in the mother’s womb. We can deeply sympathize with those who are plagued by those burdens. We know that God forgives and strengthens those who trust in His Son. But society, the church and God all expect people to seek the help necessary to end their urges. Nothing is gained by saying, “They can’t help themselves.” So with homosexuals, God and the church expect homosexuals to seek help necessary to curb their urges.

  9. But aren’t homosexuals condemned to a life without sexual expression?
    • Possibly. A homosexual may have to forgo sexual pleasure much as an alcoholic must forgo the pleasure of a glass of wine. Mature Christians have learned that the abundant life doesn’t depend on sexual expression or pleasure.

  10. Recently some churches, even Lutheran churches, have encouraged homosexuals to “come out of the closet” and have encouraged their members to be accepting of homosexuality. Is this appropriate for a Lutheran church?
    • Obviously the church should accept all who trust in Christ for reconciliation. We should also distinguish weak sinners from strong sinners. Those homosexuals who sin in weakness, are ashamed of their sin, but may lapse need to repent of their condition and struggle against it. These people need to be helped, encouraged and accepted. Those homosexuals who insist out of strength that their condition or lifestyle must be accepted by the church should be challenged, resisted and ultimately condemned. No true Lutheran church would encourage homosexual behavior or would allow itself to be a vehicle for the advocacy of homosexuality.

  11. Is it really all that harmful to homosexuals if they are in committed relationships?
    • Yes, most certainly it is harmful of their relationship with God if anyone continues in behavior which is clearly contrary to the word of God. (Galatians 5:119-21) The Bible says that those who persist in sin will have no part in the kingdom of God. So those who continue in homosexual behavior are persisting in sin and are jeopardizing their eternal lives. The great tragedy of the recent actions of the ELCA is that the church is actually encouraging people to continue in precisely the type of behavior and attitude which result in the loss of eternal life.

  12. Doesn’t “reconciled in Christ” mean that we accept all people regardless of their sin?
    • No. “Reconciled in Christ” means that we accept all Christians as equally forgiven and equally saved.

  13. Should homosexuals be pastors?
    • When the Bible says that pastors should be blameless this means that they should have no public scandal connected to them. If a known homosexual, even one who repented and controlled his urges, were to apply for the ministry the church should not call him. Obviously a recovering homosexual could serve God in many productive ways, but not as pastor.

  14. Is AIDS God’s punishment for sin?
    • The vast majority of AIDS cases in our country were caused directly by homosexual behavior. So there is a cause and effect relationship. In other countries AIDS is more common among heterosexuals. We’re all aware of innocent children with AIDS and of infants with AIDS. God works in hidden ways. Often we are wise not to draw conclusions about why God does things. Unless the Bible gives clear indication, Christians should be reluctant to conclude that God is punishing or rewarding in a given way. “Let he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” Read also Luke 13:1-5.

  15. Do you think it would be proper to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace or the armed services?
    • Certainly, justice, fairness and equal opportunity should be afforded to all people regardless of their sin or their faith, provided their sin does not involve criminal behavior. On the other hand, when public or civic institutions develop policies which implicitly accept homosexuality as a viable, natural lifestyle this has the effect of blurring society’s eyes regarding what is normal behavior. More tragically, homosexuals are not helped when their lifestyle is benignly ignored. The question our society faces is not “should homosexuals be allowed in the military?” or “should homosexuals be allowed an equal place with heterosexuals in our society?” Rather it is “how can we give civil rights to people while also deploring their lifestyle as unnatural?” It would be nice to do both. Whether it is possible is another question. Obviously the state is not bound by the Bible in its dealings with homosexuals. The state is, however, bound not to encourage sexual deviancy. Neither should Christians twist and turn the Bible because of changing cultural values.

  16. Why do you think homosexuality is so rampant these days?
    • I’m not sure it is all as extensive as we sometimes think. Public acceptance has made homosexuality more open but not necessarily more rampant. If homosexuality is more common these days, I believe one significant cause is society’s separation of sex and marriage. So much sexual activity takes place outside of marriage these days that society is reluctant to condemn any type of extra-marital sexual behavior. The way to decrease homosexuality is to deplore all extramarital sex, including premarital affairs, living together before marriage, pornography, unfaithfulness and society’s casual and careless attitude towards sex. When we view our bodies as God’s temple purchased, owned and controlled by our Lord, then heterosexual marital commitment and sexual activity will be the bedfellows God intended.

About Pastor Tim Rossow

Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow is the Director of Development for Lutherans in Africa. He served Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL as the Sr. Pastor for 22 years (1994-2016) and was Sr. Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran in Dearborn, MI prior to that. He is the founder of Brothers of John the Steadfast but handed off the Sr. Editor position to Rev. Joshua Scheer in 2015. He currently resides in Ocean Shores WA with his wife Phyllis. He regularly teaches in Africa. He also paints watercolors, reads philosophy and golfs. He is currently represented in two art galleries in the Pacific Northwest. His M Div is from Concordia, St. Louis and he has an MA in philosophy from St. Louis University and a D Min from Concordia, Fort Wayne.


CATECHISM ON HOMOSEXUALITY, by Klemet Preus — 35 Comments

  1. Pr. Preus,

    Would you please post this over at the Wittenberg Trail in the blogs section?

    Blessings! Craig

  2. Excellent teaching. Thank you. I have a follow-up question to this statement:

    •When the Bible says that pastors should be blameless this means that they should have no public scandal connected to them. If a known homosexual, even one who repented and controlled his urges, were to apply for the ministry the church should not call him.

    Me: Does this apply to Pastors guilty of heterosexual sin? For example, a man who was an adulterer/fornicator before marriage. Perhaps even publicly lived w/ a woman outside of marriage—repented, and then some years later decided to go to seminary. Shouldn’t he be excluded as well?

  3. I have problems with #13. You say that a recovering homosexual can serve God, but not as pastor. Under such a line of reasoning, should Paul have been called to serve the Lord as an apostle after having violently persecuted the church? And what if this person’s act of homosexuality happened when he or she was younger? Men who serve as pastors do not grow up perfect, nor are they perfect after the fact as well.

  4. #4 jon makes an excellent point. what paul did was a scandal and it was a very very public scandal. should he have become an apostle in line with your reasoning?

  5. #13 is a sticky wicket, as I knew pastors who did lead promiscuous lives before they repented, converted and enter the seminary. Like you mentioned, deplore all extramarital sex. If you must be consistent, propose a ban for all prior “loose” people of both persuasions from the ministry. Maybe you can run sexual history checks for all men. What’s good for the gay man is just as good for the straight guy.

  6. In the eyes of God a man who even looks to a woman with a lustful heart commits the same sin as a man who has a physical relationship with a woman other than his wife, even a man. It is all detestable in the eyes of God. If you think that a known homosexual who repents and controls his urges should not receive a call to serve as a pastor, how much more should we prevent a man who looks to a woman with a lustful heart from being a pastor? Of course, you probably would not have many pastors then since even active pastors have wandering eyes from time to time. We all sin–prior to being a pastor and even as an active pastor. But the important thing is that we come to the Lord each day with a repentant heart and He forgives us. Now, if a person is unwilling to repent of his lapse in judgment and strive to clean up his act, then that would most certainly be an issue.

  7. Pastor Preus –

    Great resource! Would you consider applying a “Creative Commons” ( or some other permissive copyright license to it so that others could modify or at least distribute it? I think it would make good church newsletter material or a good basis for a Bible Study.


  8. Jon,

    You may be missing the point. The point is about the public nature of the sin. Pastor Preus may have needed to be a little more clear on this but this is the point. It is not about the sin or the nature of the sin. When the sin is public it gives the congregation something to talk about. It detracts from the proclamation of the Gospel. That is the point. When people know about the past sin, they dwell on it instead of the message being preached. This of course is not right but it happens with us weak sinners. The pastor is to be above reproach.


  9. The congregation does not have to call a man to serve as pastor who has had a questionable past. However, I personally would be careful of not giving the impression of assigning a “thus saith the Lord to it.” That is all I am meaning to say.

  10. It is certainly not cut and dried. In the LCMS I think it varies from district to district depending on how the DP handles it.


  11. “When the Bible says that pastors should be blameless this means that they should have no public scandal connected to them. If a known homosexual, even one who repented and controlled his urges, were to apply for the ministry the church should not call him. Obviously a recovering homosexual could serve God in many productive ways, but not as pastor.”

    I, too, find this questionable. Certainly one should not be a pastor while promoting homosexuality (or any other kind of sin), but how can you make the above statement and not also be able to replace “known homosexual” with “known fornicator”, or “known alcoholic”, or “known “?

    I’m having a hard time not reading this as “pastors should be those who can claim they have never sinned without being readily contradicted”. Obviously, that statement is ridiculous. As Jon said, if you can make the statement #13, especially the first part “they should have no public scandal connected to them”, I don’t see how you can possibly not condemn Paul on that very basis, since there can be no doubt that his earlier persecution of Christians qualifies as a “public scandal”.

  12. Paul did not know any better before he was converted. You cannot be blameless when you do not know the law of God. But if you want to use Paul as an example, even he had to wait years before he preached on a continuous basis and even then many people did not listen to him at first.


  13. Okay, I re-read some of the previous comments. If I understand, the point is not that pastors must have had perfect youths, but that a checkered past is a hurdle to overcome, though, from the example of Paul, apparently not an insurmountable one. As worded, #13 makes it sound insurmountable, which causes one to wonder how anyone can be a pastor.

    Anyone have a better wording to suggest?

  14. I honestly think that we are putting words into the author’s mouth. The author should interpret his own statements. However, the literal words on #13 would seem to make the point definite…rather than a hurdle to overcome. Just my take.

  15. I must take exception with two things in this brief “catechism.” First, the abstract concepts of “homosexuality” and “homosexual urges” need to be clarified. The term “homosexual” first appears in German in 1869 and in English in 1895. There is no such abstract term in the biblical Greek or Hebrew. There is a tendency in the modern discussion to commit an anachronism by retrojecting this term back into the 1st century context. The Bible knows of no category of human being as “homosexual.” The Scriptures condemn specific sexual acts, and by extension, the desire for those specific acts. They do not condemn a class of human beings.

    What we are specifically speaking of here is the desire to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex. This is one component, but not the exclusive component, of a “homosexual relationship.” There are also elements of loyalty, intimacy, friendship, philos and agape that cannot be disregarded and are common to any closely-bonded human relationship. Yes, Sin uses sex to distort these relationships, as it does in all our relations with one another. The desire of a man for a woman not his wife is really no different here.

    Sufficient commentary has been made on #13. I would simply add that we must be careful not to make homosexual sin a special class of sin over and against all other sins, especially heterosexual. We are willing to ordain and maintain in office divorced pastors who have remarried (I am numbered among them). We overlook many sexual sins of our youth with a nod and wink now that they are safely covered up by marriage. We all live under the grace of God and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and no one holds the Office of the Ministry on the basis of his own merit or worthiness.

    My fear is that the LCMS, in its zeal to distinguish itself from the ELCA, will become known as the “anti-gay Synod” which would be very sad for the cause of the Gospel. Yes, sexual sin of all sorts needs to be recognized and repented of. It is uniquely destructive to body and soul (1 Cor 6:18). We need to think very clearly about what shape such repentance takes for the “homosexual” in our midst. And let me assure you, there is at least one in your midst whom you do not know about.

  16. You may find this of interest! The St. Louis seminary’s iTunes U site now has a bunch of material on homosexuality and the scriptural response to it.

  17. Pastor Cwirla,
    I don’t understand what your saying above. Isn’t the most frightening aspect in the ELCA decision, TO ALLOW ACTIVELY GLBT CLERGY & THE COMPLETE ABANDONMENT OF THE WORD OF GOD? Why would the LCMS be afraid of being “anti gay” ordination for gay,bi, or transgender men? Didn’t WELS, LC-C, and the ELDoNA condemn this as well? Do they seem to be afraid of being against openly gay clergy? This doesn’t seem to be the same thing as divorce, there are two Biblical allowances for that, there is no Biblical allowance given for allowing one, to lust after or engage in that which belongs is marriage, with one’s own gender is there? Does the Word or Luther speak of allowing us, any of us, to live in proud & open rebellion (& unrepentance) against Christ and unrepentant in ANY sin, is there?

  18. Alfred,
    For those of us how don’t have an Ipod (archiac I know), can you post or give the jist of what you posted says?

    Pastor Preus,
    Forgive me for not thanking you for the article. I printed this, as you have LOVING ADDRESSED EVERYTHING PEOPLE ARE ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN AT THE MOMENT!!!! My family has GLBT friend/s, and there is a huge difference in embracing sin and lovingly rebuking & encouraging repentance!
    Thanks bunches & God Bless!

  19. I was taught that a pastor was to be the husband of one wife and that sexual relations constituted marriage in the Bible.

  20. Paste the code into your address bar on your browser. If you have iTunes installed, it will open up. You can watch for free if you click on the presentations.

  21. Alfred,
    Thanks bunches, but I have no idea what you are talking about! LOL I can navigate the net, answer emails, and post, that is the extent of my knowledge. Can you boil this down to compute illiterate terms please?
    Thanks bunches!

  22. “Does the Word or Luther speak of allowing us, any of us, to live in proud & open rebellion (& unrepentance) against Christ and unrepentant in ANY sin…?”

    The answer, of course, is no. And when we handle greed and drunkenness with the same zeal, I’ll be convinced we believe that. (1 Cor 6:9-10).

  23. Pastor Cwirla,
    Are you speaking and envoking 1st Corinthians (as a chapter, not per verse or two) as a holder of the Divine Office or a Redeemed child of Christ?

  24. 1Cor 6:18-20 (Referenced w/ Ro 6:12, Heb 13:4, Rev 5:9, taking the whole chapter into account)

    “18/Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19/ Do you not know that your body is a temple of the HOLY SPIRIT, who is in you, whom you have received from GOD? You are not your own: 20/ you were bought at a PRICE. Therefore honor GOD with your body.”

    As I stated, 1 Corinthians 6, must be read, as a whole, as a chapter, not used by verse, in order to make the understanding of It, richtig, oder echt. As this chapter, make VERY PLAIN, sexual sin, ANY SEXUAL SIN, is different. The entire Old & New Testaments speak plainly regarding this subject.
    God hates sin, and it cannot be allowed in His Presence, the MODUS OPERANDI, very much does have a difference in this case, why? BECAUSE THE WORD SAYS SO. The world can debate Luther, but it must WHOLLY ACCEPT THE ALL OR REJECT THE ALL. Every syllable, punctuation, verb, noun, pronoun, term and word. Word for word, not idea per idea, as “who can know the mind of God?”

  25. wcwirla,

    You make a good point. We should not over-react.

    But, you are also missing a point. If the ELCA would declare greed and drunkeness as guilt free, as they have done with homosexuality, there would be just as big of a fuss. It is not the sin that is the issue here but declaring the sin to be not sin that is the issue.


  26. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
    You hate all who do iniquity. Psalm 5:5
    The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked,
    And the one who loves violence His soul hates. Psalm 11:5

    We Christians are of course counted among the righteous because of what Jesus has done for us in His living and dying. He has declared us righteous and God loves us on account of the person and work of Christ.

    Let us not separate ourselves from the love of God by separating ourselves from His Word. We separate ourselves from God when we are unrepentant, when we do not accept His Law and Gospel, and when we stay away from the means of grace.

    When we reject God’s Word and live without repentance and forgiveness we are separating ourselves from Jesus and risk losing the faith so that we would no longer be declared righteous by Christ. The same goes for rejecting our baptism and Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper.

    All sin is very dangerous and equally as deadly, whether we are guilty of sinful pride, or of the sins of greed, sexual perversion, drunkenness or whatever the sin. We must all live lives of repentance and forgiveness. Does God love those guilty of pride, sexual sin, drunkenness? Only if we are connected with and declared righteous by Christ.

    The ELCA is rejecting God’s Word and the LCMS is beginning to as well. These synods teach things contrary to the Word of God. The ELCA is more heterodox, but the LCMS may not be far behind. When we teach anything contrary to God’s Word we are rejecting that Word, Christ. May we all repent of our sin, receive the forgiveness given by our Lord and Savior, and believe in Him.

  27. One of the arguments gay/lesbians will give you is that Christians don’t really take the Bible seriously because they would not allow re marriage after divorce if they did. I heard this from ***a ‘clergy’ in San Francisco about 15 years ago. (They were under a ban for having partners at the time, but it wasn’t enforced.) I asked one list writer for Scriptural support for the gay lifestyle. Her reply quoted a psychiatrist.

    A generation ago we tolerated divorce (barely) but not a divorced and remarried pastor. We have also “made adjustments” to our thinking.

  28. Just to be clear, as comment streams rarely run clear:

    1. I am NOT saying that homosexual sex or the desire to have it is not sinful. It is, as any sexual act or the desire to have it is sinful outside of marriage, marriage being defined as the lifelong covenantal union of a man and woman.

    2. I think the ELCA decision is a disaster that compounds disaster, and has done great harm to the proper distinction and application of the Law and the Gospel in the area of sexual sin.

    2. Sex does NOT constitute marriage, but it establishes a one-flesh union. See 1 Cor. 6:15-16. (Yes, I read whole chapters!) There, sexual union with a prostitute constitutes “one-flesh,” though marriage is not in the picture. Marriage, properly speaking, is the legal-juridical institution that surrounds and protects the one-flesh union created by the sexual union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24).

    3. My point in criticism was that we should be careful to distinguish homosexual sex acts and the desire to have them from modern notion of “homosexuality” as an “orientation” or “lifestyle.” The Bible is very concrete on these matters, as it is very concrete in matters of marriage. Our modern tendency is toward abstraction and category.

    4. My motive is pastoral. The person who has sexual desires for the same sex must hear the Law AND the Gospel applied in the same way as all who are born concupiscent and desire to sin in all sorts of ways must hear the same. Likewise, the church must deal with all sexual sin in a consistent way, whether heterosexual or homosexual. This includes our shackups, hookups, adulteries, etc.

    5. This is a plea for a measured response that is shaped by speaking the truth in love. Like it or not, believe it or not, there are people in our pews, baptized believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who daily must deal with their sexual attraction for their own sex, and who look to Christ and Him crucified for their strength and identity. I believe them when they tell me that given a choice, they wish they were “straight.” My plea is that we not snuff the dimly burning wick of ones for whom Christ died.

  29. Rev. Cwirla,

    Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the biblical meaning of marriage. I appreciate your pastoral instruction.

    I agree with your “plea for a measured response that is shaped by speaking the truth in love.” How difficult it is to go the way of the cross.

  30. Pastor Cwirla,
    It is bc of what you say: “We overlook many sexual sins of our youth with a nod and wink now that they are safely covered up by marriage,” that we will be known as the anti-gay synod.”

    If, we took all sexual sin seriously (yes, in our youth group, among our singles, even w/ pornography), I believe we would be known as the synod that took the 7th commandment seriously.

  31. #26 pastor russow

    “But, you are also missing a point. If the ELCA would declare greed and drunkeness as guilt free, as they have done with homosexuality, there would be just as big of a fuss. It is not the sin that is the issue here but declaring the sin to be not sin that is the issue. ”

    I agree that ALL sex/sex urges outside of marriage is always sinful. This would then logically have to include sex between persons of the same gender always right? We also agree that lust is also always wrong and is always unnatural, even if it is the lust of a man for his wife. Lust does not have a home in Christ/bride metaphor.

    So you and I agree on the substance of the issue (unless you are suggesting that the bible addresses some other “homosexual behavior, possibly you are saying that romans 1:28-32 are all included as the biblical definition of the “homosexual lifestyle/agenda” which you must do since the “they” in romans chapter 1-chapter 2:1 is the same “they” throughout isn´t it?

    Could you entertain the idea that SOME people who say “homosexuality is not a sin” are saying this only because they disagree on terminology only?

    They are employing the word homosexual in a different way than you are perhaps?

    You would have to agree that if this is the case, then this does not mean that those people are dishonoring scriptural inerrancy, or traditional exegesis or are engaging in revisionism or antinomianism or any such thing are they? Nor are they secretly plotting to undermine scriptural doctrine by playing fast and loose with words since the word homosexual is very very modern. It did not exist prior to around the start of the 19th century.

    I agree with Cwirla that to use a 20th century medical term from a clinical diagnostic manual to label a set of behaviors in the bible, or worse actually translate a greek word with “homosexual” is anachronistic and worse in fact has the medical profession deciding what God´s Word means.

    now in the case of the ELCA, I think they definately crossed the line if they are saying that sex outside of marrige is ok in any way or in any situation, including of course between two men or two women. At the same time it would be good to pick your battles!

    PLEASE do not miss that I said this. and that I truly mean it.

    the writer of this catechism is not employing the word “homosexual” the way most of the world now does. THAT part of things is not a biblical battle, and the real biblical issues (sex outside of marriage) I would suggest is clouded and not enhanced by not adapting your terminology to what today is the most widely accepted understanding of a term , or maybe even better: avoid using clinical/medical terms in a biblical context?

  32. #26 pastor russow:

    so am I STILL missing your point along with the others? or is there some point that I could invite you to consider that you and pastor preus maybe missed in this catechism?

  33. fws,

    Call it whatever you want. Call it “fuzzbah” or any other term, it is sinful for a man to have sex with a man and woman to have sex with a woman. The ELCA says that this is OK. They have called what God calls a sin not a sin.

    Am I still mising something here?


  34. my post:

    “in the case of the ELCA, I think they definately crossed the line if they are saying that sex outside of marrige is ok in any way or in any situation, including of course between two men or two women. At the same time it would be good to pick your battles!

    PLEASE do not miss that I said this. and that I truly mean it. ”

    your post:

    “Am I still mising something here? ”

    You are making a point I took pains to make in my post and apparently, yes, you missed something: my point.

    What is described in the following is not what a majority of people would say the word “homosexual” or “homosexuality” describes.

    If we christians take a medical term,and redefine it according to our own “roll your own” definition, do you think this will advance a meaningful witness and condemnation of a specific sin? I am pretty sure that: “gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” do not appear in any medical manuual or journal as clinical diagnostics of the condition known as “homosexuality”. So….

    clear witness requires clear communication requires a clear use and definition of terms.

    Do you really think that most people imagine the following when they hear the word “homosexuality”? (keep in mind that I DO AGREE that what is described is sinful and dispicable and wrong!!!! THAT is NOT my point pastor Russow!):

    The sodom and gomorrah story: tangentally about violent group rape. Biblical take home: don´t practice or condone violent group rape that looks like violent gang prison rape. (I say tangentally because Ezekiel says what sins sodom and gomorrah were condemned for).

    leviticus 18 referenced by 1 corinthians: about violence/rape or ritualistic pagan religious sex where one man forcibly humiliates another by reducing him to a female sexually. Biblical take home: don´t practice or condone violent sex that looks like prison rape. This practice also should be a capital crime.

    romans 1: heterosexual men, because they are practicing coarse idolatry, leave their women and the natural “use” of their women and burn with lust for one other. . This consequence of idolatry in turn results in even worse sins described in verses 1:29-32:

    29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Biblical take home: Don´t practice coarse idolatry and then leave your wives and girlfriends, then consume your lives in lust for other dudes and then fall into WORSE sins such as being slanderous, faithless, ruthless, etc etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.