Guest Column: Has God Changed His Mind on Homosexuality?

When politicians change their position on some policy matter, it’s called a “flip-flop.” A new book on sexual ethics describes God this way, as a kind of “flip-flopping” politician who said one thing for thousands of years but has, in recent years, altered His moral demands. Oddly enough, His new perspective makes Him more progressive, tolerant, and enlightened. You know, like us. 

Thirty-years ago, Richard Hays, professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity, produced the classic work of biblical ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. In that book, he offered a definitive biblical argument against same-sex relationships. “The New Testament,” Hays wrote, “offers no loopholes or exception clauses that might allow for the acceptance of homosexual practices under some circumstances.”  

In a new book co-authored with his son, Fuller Seminary Old Testament professor Christopher Hays, he has now reversed this position on same-sex relationships. In The Widening of God’s Mercythe authors assert: 

The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as “strangers and aliens” but as fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. 

This idea of a moral “trajectory” in the Bible that eventually points beyond itself is nothing new. In other words, same-sex relationships used to be wrong, but now they’re ok. As Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler explained, the authors are suggesting that God has changed His mind on homosexuality and that the Church should “move beyond the Bible” on this issue. 

Reversals like this, even when scholars and pastors claim otherwise, are rarely motivated by arguments or theology. The elder Hays acknowledges that his “experience being in a congregation with openly gay and lesbian members” helped change his mind. And, it’s likely the younger Hays played a role as well. As author Christopher Yuan remarked, “I have seen young adult children turn their previously biblical parents toward heresy…including a president of a Bible college.” 

Still, the arguments offered in this book are neither good nor new. For example, Hays repeats the claim that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. It’s a silly claim. As Rebecca McLaughlin countered in an article at The Gospel Coalition, Jesus condemned “sexual immorality,” (the Greek word “porneia”) alongside murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and slander.  

Porneia (from which we get the word “pornography”) is, as Hays himself admits, “a nonspecific umbrella term for any kind of sexual immorality—presumably including all forms of illicit sexual relations elaborated in Leviticus 18.” That would, of course, include homosexual activity. So, by Hays’ own reasoning, Jesus did speak about same-sex relationships in the Gospels. 

Moreover, when asked about divorce, Jesus responded by reasserting God’s original design for marriage described in Genesis. “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh…” Also, his “trajectory” was not to relax rules on sexual immorality. Jesus said that anyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery in his heart. That doesn’t sound like God changing His mind about morality.  

The ultimate problem with the argument the Hayses make is that it all amounts to God “learning on the job,” as they unbelievably phrase it. As theology writer Derek Rishmawy responded, a “God” who changed his design for human sexuality would not be a God worth worshiping. Such a change would imply that there is a moral standard higher than God to which He failed to conform in the past. The moral purposes of such a “God” could not be trusted, nor could his supposedly “widening” mercy, since what he calls sin today may tomorrow be something he welcomes and encourages.   

Thankfully, the “God” of this book is not the God of Christianity. James 1:17 says that “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” Human sexuality, designed for union and procreation within man-woman marriage, is such a gift. Though it has been distorted by our fall into sin, God’s purposes for sexuality, and the prohibitions that flow out of those purposes, have not changed.  

This is far better news for sinners, including those who’ve sinned sexually, than a “God” who has changed His mind. His mercy doesn’t need “widening.” It is already vast enough to rescue sinners from futile behaviors and false identities.  

Those hoping to widen God’s mercy make His mercy unnecessary and His character untrustworthy. They should know better. In fact, considering the Bible’s warnings to those who call evil good and good evil, and who cause others to sin, they should repent. 

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

How Abortion Corrupted the Democratic Party: Guest Column

From “safe, legal, and rare” to openly celebrating evil.

Last week, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Planned Parenthood offered free abortions and vasectomies in an RV parked outside of the convention hall. According to CBS News, this abortion clinic on wheels served between 20 and 30 patients in just the first two days and also distributed abortion pills and emergency contraception. The point of the RV, according to a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, was to fill “healthcare gaps” for people who had traveled to the convention from states that had restricted abortion since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.  

Attendees to the convention were also greeted by a 20-foot-tall inflatable intrauterine device named “Frieda Womb.” It was placed in the entrance hall of the convention center by the group Americans for Contraception, in order to “bring awareness to the threat to contraception and abortion access in the country following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade…” 

In a cartoonish-yet-ghoulish display, the Democratic Party of 2024 has proclaimed an absolute fealty to abortion. While Republicans are guilty of gutting their party’s platform on issues of life and marriage this year, there’s no question which party is committed, with a religious zeal, to the most extreme, liberal positions on these issues. After all, the party’s presidential candidate is the most stridently pro-abortion politician ever to run on a major party ticket. 

It wasn’t always like this. Commenting on the DNC abortion RV, Bishop Robert Barron noted the “remarkable evolution” of leading Democrats on abortion in recent decades. According to Bishop Barron, “When I was a young man, Democrats as prominent as Sen. Edward Kennedy, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and yes, Joe Biden were enthusiastic pro-life advocates.”   

Even those not old enough to remember when those men changed their views might remember Bill Clinton’s admonition, somewhere in the 90’s, that abortion ought to be “safe, legal, and rare.” However, when his wife ran for president in 2016, she supported state-funded abortion up to the moment of birth. Former New York governor Mario Cuomo reportedly claimed to have “wrestled mightily with his Catholic conscience” over abortion, but his son Andrew lit up skyscrapers in New York City to celebrate so-called “reproductive rights.” We’ve come a long way baby. 

And where are we, exactly? Last year, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law to remove the longstanding requirement that doctors offer life-saving treatment to babies born alive after botched abortions. In other words, he legalized infanticide. Walz is now, of course, the Democratic candidate for vice president of the United States.    

According to Bishop Barron, this year’s Democratic National Convention represents the “appalling declension” of a party that once admitted that abortion was tragic or at least regrettable. No more. Abortion is to be celebrated, even given away like candy at a parade.  

This decline has been awful to watch, but the journey to that awful should be noted. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul described how human beings “suppress the truth” through unrighteousness. As a result, they become “futile in their thinking.” Their foolish hearts are darkened, which leads to more unrighteousness. The moral descent continues with humans practicing even more unspeakable things and, in the end, giving “approval to those who practice them.” Put differently, they not only commit evil, they celebrate it.  

This is the story of the Democratic Party on sexuality and abortion. Practicing abortion led to accepting it, not as a regrettable choice but as a celebration of absolute bodily autonomy. Once politicized, the idea that human beings are detached, self-determining individuals without natural duties or dependence on others corrupted sex, turning it into a zero-sum power struggle between men and women, and between women and children. Bloodshed was always inevitable in this way of thinking.  

However, human beings aren’t detached bundles of rights in an eternal power struggle with each other. We are interdependent, never more so than in the radically asymmetrical bond between a mother and her preborn child. Babies, in and out of the womb, remind us of this truth about who we are, but the only way to maintain absolute autonomy is to suppress that truth. In the end, the prevention and disposal of babies becomes a kind of political sacrament, celebrated to a cartoonish degree.  

Clearly, a corner has been turned on abortion in this nation. Of course, there is much good news to report of good work being done in so many places to protect and preserve innocent life. Praise God for that. But we should not so quickly turn away from the ghoulish display in Chicago last week. Not only is it a reminder of all that is at stake in this issue, but it also reveals what happens to people and to parties and to nations that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. 

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Pete Buttigieg Says It Out Loud : Guest Column

With less than three months remaining until the election, Vice President and Democratic Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris is working hard to garner the support of white voters. In the past month, Harris’s campaign has hosted Celebrity-studded virtual rallies aimed at this demographic. In her “White Women for Harris” rally on Zoom, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and actress Connie Britton called on all “Karens for Kamala” to use their “privilege” to help everyone. Shannon Watts, who helped organize the call, said that the rally was vital because white women “in recent presidential elections have voted in a way that upholds White supremacy … [and] upholds the patriarchy.”

Also worried that progressives have been “ceding white men to the MAGA right for far too long,” organizers of the “White Dudes for Harris” online rally encouraged participants to steer the country away from President Trump’s “dangerous, dark path” for the country. Star Wars actor Mark Hamill made an appearance, saying, “I’m Luke Skywalker. I’m here to rescue you.” 

However, the Harris campaign’s unprecedented commitment to advance abortion undermines the rhetoric employed in these rallies about advancing women’s rights, using one’s privilege to help others, and working to end the “patriarchy.” For example, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg explained to the “White Dudes for Harris” rally participants that they should vote for Harris because “men are also more free in a country where we have a president who stands up for things like access to abortion.” Intentional or not, Buttigieg’s comment echoed concerns expressed decades ago by first-wave feminists who opposed abortion.  

Abortion, to borrow progressive terminology, is a “tool of the patriarchy.” Far from advancing women’s rights, abortion enables self-centered men to pursue what they want without consequence. Though sold as a necessary “choice” for women, many report choosing abortion because they were pressured to do so. Thus, abortion harms women and ends the lives of countless preborn humans.  

Whether chemical or surgical, abortion severs the natural link between intercourse and procreation. Legalizing abortion allowed men to “freely” engage in intercourse without the obligation to and responsibility for any children that result. The more abortion is normalized, the more that men are “freed” from any expectation to care for the women they get pregnant or the children they beget.  

Buttigieg simply said out loud what has long been assumed within the ideologies of the sexual revolution and third-wave feminism. Sexual liberation is, in fact, not liberation at all, at least not for women and the unborn. Though sold as an aspect of women’s health and a means to ensure women’s rights and freedom, the reality is far different. As theologian Frederica Mathewes-Green said in a segment from Focus on the Family’s Family Project, “Women were promised autonomy, and what they got was abandonment.”  

The early feminists issued this warning about abortion. Scholar and author Erika Bachiochi has noted that “first-wave” feminists understood how “the burdens and privileges of reproduction and early caregiving [fall] disproportionately on women.” Men, therefore, needed to embrace their roles as husbands and fathers. Because of the unique differences between men and women, especially in childbearing, the state needed to uphold these responsibilities and obligations. Because abortion undermines these responsibilities and obligations, most feminists of the “first-wave” opposed it. 

Buttigieg is right that abortion makes men “free,” but not in a good or life-giving way. This is freedom from obligation, consequence, and responsibility, a freedom that enables the worst vices of “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity.” The “freedom” afforded by abortion is a license that empowers men to live for themselves without regard for others, and therefore is a license that leads to pain, abandonment, and death. 

True freedom is freedom for, not freedom from. Freedom for recognizes the inherent, God-given place of sex within a marriage oriented for the good of others, especially the children that may result. This is true freedom for all parties involved. 

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Hayden. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. And check out this What Would You Say? video on how to make a pro-choice argument in 60 seconds.

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.