There has been interest in the news recently regarding the President’s attempt to de-politicize the Smithsonian. I don’t have much to say about that specifically, but one thing did catch my eye regarding the Smithsonian’s curation of items that “have LGBTQ+ connections.”
A page on the Smithsonian website describes an effort by the institution to add to and mine existing resources for items that relate to LGBTQ+ history in America. As the curators have done this, what have they learned?
“Identities, terms, and definitions related to sexual orientation and gender identity have been in flux as long as there have been humans.”
This quote appeals to an argument we’re hearing more and more, which goes something like this: “Our culture’s casting off of sexual norms is actually nothing new. In fact, what we consider ‘norms’ aren’t norms at all. Definitions of sexual orientation and identity have constantly changed over history. What some modern religious conservatives think of as perversions were not only tolerated, but embraced by past cultures. In the grand scheme of history, the modern West is just now catching up to where it should be in terms of sexual understanding.”
Perhaps you have heard something similar to this in your interactions with neighbors, family members, co-workers, etc. “These things have always been around…that is, they are not abnormal.” There could be any number of ways to respond to such an argument. Which one should we choose?
We might argue historically. That is, we could argue that the norms of sexual orientation and identity have not been in flux throughout history. We might want to argue that the concept of gender fluidity in particular is a new social construct unique to our modern, godless era. However, this is likely not true. While we may have some uniquely modern manifestations, there is evidence of sexual perversion and gender-bending throughout the centuries.
We might argue sociologically. Camille Paglia, a renowned art historian, has noted that art history shows a record of cultures blurring the lines of gender in their depictions of man and woman. One can detect a shift in a culture’s view of masculinity/feminity as its artwork becomes progressively androgynous. Paglia argues that this shift in artwork has historically been a pre-cursor to cultural collapse. For this reason, she is not at all enthusiastic about what she calls “transgender mania.”
Interestingly, Paglia is an atheist, a feminist, and a lesbian. While she certainly would agree with the Smithsonian’s claim regarding shifting sexual mores throughout history, she does not see that as a positive sign for our culture. However, one could argue from the other side, perhaps the collapse of our culture is precisely what we need. In fact, some do argue that.
We might argue logically. That sexual perversion is a longstanding feature of human culture does not make it acceptable. Murder, rape, and human sacrifice are also longstanding features of human culture. Yet, we wouldn’t want to normalize these things. While logical arguments may be attractive, there is a better.
As believers, we should argue biblically. To that end, what follows are a few ways to address the topic from a biblical perspective.
Longevity and cultural acceptance does not justify sin. A host of sexual aberrations—including incest, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and cross-dressing—were practiced by the Canaanites prior to Israel’s entering the land (Lev 18; Deut 18:12; 22:5). Paul as well seems to imply some such sexual practices have been a part of human culture from long ago (Rom 1:18-27).
However, each of the passages in the above parentheses indicate not the normativity of such practices, but that God hates them. What cultures at various times celebrated the Bible classifies as abominations to God.
These practices are contrary to His design. The Smithsonian website has suggested that “the definitions related to sexual orientation and gender identity have been in flux for as long as there have been human beings.” The very concepts of orientation and identity assume that heterosexuality is not normative and gender is something like a social construct. However, in creating man as male and female and giving them in marriage to one another so as to fill the earth, God has left no room for ambiquity (Gen 1:26-28; 2:21-25). Maleness and femaleness are distinct categories bound to biological reality. Human sexuality is a gift from God to be enjoyed in the context of a marriage between one man and one woman. Subsequent prohibitions of alternate behaviors and desires underscore this as God’s singular good design (Lev 18: Deut 18:12; 22:5).
Such practices are not only acts of rebellion, but also the results of man’s rejection of God. This is an inescapable conclusion of Paul’s line of reasoning in Romans 1:18-32. “For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened… For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions…” (Rom 1:21-26a). Sinful man’s commitment to his aberrant desires is not an indication of its normativity or acceptability, but of his rejection of God and God’s subsequent judgment of man.
Such practices are contrary to nature. That is, they are contrary to the life God designed for man to live. This is clear message of Romans 1:26-27: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. That is, these things are not natural, not normal. They are against nature, abnormal, as defined by our Creator.
Such practices are among the lifestyles from which the gospel of Jesus Christ rescues a person. 1 Corinthians 6:9–11: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Among a host of others, those embracing a sexually sinful lifestyle will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. BUT, faith in Christ’s atoning death brings forgiveness from the penalty of that sin and freedom from the power of that sin. Both of these realities indicate that such lifestyles/practices are not to be normalized. Rather, one should flee from them to salvation in Christ.
As we see our cultural institutions—including taxpayer-funded museums—attempting to normalize what God forbids, we should be careful how we think about and respond to these things. There are numerous possible lines of argument. The tightest and most faithful will be that argument that clings to the Bible. May we be convictional, bold, winsome, and biblical in our thoughts and speech.
Comments