A Response to Rayianne Maravilla On Sexuality Being Innate

Written by: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano, Chapter Director of Reasonable Faith Philippines — Quezon City Chapter

Last May 27, Rayianne Gabriel Maravilla wrote a response to Isaiah Bedaño’s testimony, which is about him being part of the LGBT community before, and that through Christ he experienced redemption. In this essay, I intend to make a commentary after each quote from Rayianne Gabriel Maravilla’s own words.

For clarity, I put Maravilla’s words in italics. My responses are those marked with the tilde (~) sign.

Sexual Orientation

“No hate. But here’s my take:

Sexuality is innate, NOT acquired. The American Psychological Association (APA) does not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. Sa Filipino, LAHAT ng tao ay ipinanganak na may sexual orientation at kahit anong dasal mo, hindi mababago ang sexual orientation mo:

• Heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex)

• Homosexual (attracted to the same-sex)

• Bisexual (attracted to both same-sex and the opposite sex)”

~It’s true that sexual orientation is described by the APA as something which cannot be changed by choice.¹ For the sake of the readers, let’s define sexual orientation and gender identity to clarify the terms that are used in the discussion. Sexual orientation is defined by WebMD as, “a term used to refer to a person’s pattern of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to people of a particular gender (male or female).”² Planned Parenthood also defines it as “Sexual orientation is about who you’re attracted to and want to have relationships with. Sexual orientations include gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, and asexual.”³ So basically when someone says that a person’s sexual orientation cannot be voluntarily changed, they are saying that we don’t choose to which gender we are attracted to. They distinguish this term from gender identity. Planned Parenthood defines gender identity as, “Gender identity isn’t about who you’re attracted to, but about who you ARE — male, female, genderqueer, etc.

This means that being transgender (feeling like your assigned sex is very different from the gender you identify with) isn’t the same thing as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Sexual orientation is about who you want to be with. Gender identity is about who you are.”⁴

Now, what is our problem with Maravilla’s statement?

First, if sexual orientation is described as something that cannot be changed by choice, then we can say that there should be solid scientific evidence that shows that being gay is natural, like if there’s a gay gene. However, based on the favorite authority of Maravilla, the APA, states that there is no consensus on the cause of one’s sexual orientation. They said in the Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality section on the cause of a person’s particular sexual orientation:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”⁵

Furthermore, Christopher Yuan, in his talk entitled, “Etiology of Homosexuality” discussed the question of whether homosexuality is nature or nurture. He examined different researches there such as Bailey and Pillard (1991), Langstrom, Rahman, Carlstrom, Lichtenstein (2008), Hamer (1993), and also other environmental studies.⁶ He exposed there the faulty methodology of those who did their research regarding homosexuality. For example, regarding the Bailey and Pillard study, which looked at both identical and fraternal twins, the findings were 52% in identical twins where one identical twin was gay then the other is gay, and 22% in fraternal twins where one twin is gay then the other is gay. It may seem high especially the 52%, but the problem is that if homosexuality is genetic then the result should be at least 95% or higher. For this reason, Yuan argues that other factors come into play aside from genetics. He also exposed that the research was advertised strictly in gay magazines which inflates the numbers. If you want to learn more in detail, you can watch the link that I will include in the references about Yuan’s talk. In summary, in his talk, which coheres with the statement of the APA, he says that there is some percentage on nature and some percentage on nurture on the subject of homosexuality, and for this reason, it is still not conclusive whether homosexuality is based on nature or nurture.

Second, another problem is that the gay movement is not only composed of homosexuals who believe that we are “born that way”. Stanford’s Vaden Health Services on Sexual Fluidity states:

“Human sexuality, however, is understood currently as more complex than either of these binary depictions typically show it to be. We now often differentiate sexual, romantic and aesthetic attractions and identities from each other, framing each as a constantly-changing characteristic shaped by past and current experiences, other held identities (whether racial, class, gender, ability, religious and/or others) and an individual’s own agentic desire. An individual may, for example, desire to have sexual relationships typically with women, but find themselves romantically attracted to people of all genders and aesthetically attracted to more androgynous forms of gender expression. Many years later, the same individual may find that their sexual, romantic and/or aesthetic attractions and identities have changed –perhaps as a result of living in a different environment and interacting with different communities, personal and/or spiritual exploration, a significant formative sexual or romantic experience, personal choice, some combination of all of these or for a different reason altogether.”

No matter the cause, sexual fluidity is an experience shared by many people and does not inherently imply any negative emotional or mental health outcomes for individuals who experience it. For many, sexual fluidity is just one of the many unique ways in which people experience their sexuality over a lifetime.”⁷

To add, Brandon Ambrosino, in his article, “‘I am gay — but I wasn’t born this way’”, shares his attraction which is not accounted for by the “born this way” paradigm. He said:

“As a writer, this kind of complicated story is incredibly interesting to me — mostly because it shows that my own personal history resists the kind of easy classifications that have come to dominate discussions of sexuality. Well, you must have been gay the whole time, some might think, and because of some religious shame, you decided to lie to yourself and experiment with a girl. But that was nothing more than a blip in the road. After all, most kids experiment with heterosexuality in college, don’t they?

If so, that ‘blip in the road’ has always been a thorn in my flesh. How do I explain that I was honestly in love with a woman? Some people might argue that I am innately bisexual, with the capacity to love both women and men. But that doesn’t feel like an accurate description of my sexual history, either. I’m only speaking for myself here.

But what feels most accurate to say is that I’m gay — but I wasn’t born this way.”⁸

Now, these two things I mentioned are a problem for people in the LGBT movement, because if Maravilla rejects the narrative that gender is fluid, how does he account for the fact that there is no conclusive study about whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture? And if he affirms that gender is fluid, then how does he reconcile it with his position that sexual orientation is immutable?

Nevertheless, there is no testable study on homosexuality. There is no X-ray, CT Scan, or MRI, even a blood test, that could make us objectively say that someone is a homosexual. We can only know it by someone’s profession.

Also, Maravilla said, “Sa Filipino, LAHAT ng tao ay ipinanganak na may sexual orientation at kahit anong dasal mo, hindi mababago ang sexual orientation mo”.

For the sake of readers, he is saying this in Filipino for people to understand his point with clarity, that all people are born with a specific sexual orientation, and that it will never be changed even if you pray for it hard. Now, this guy claims to be religious. He even professes to be a Protestant Methodist. But I disagree with him in this statement because he has a low view of God’s omnipotence and God’s sovereignty. Even for the sake of argument that we cannot change our sexual orientation, when we pray, we are not the one changing it but God Himself. God is the God who created the universe ex nihilo, by His power Moses was able to divide the Red Sea, Jesus by His power was able to cast out demons, heal those who were blind and those that were paralyzed from birth. He was also able to rise again from the dead. If God was able to create the universe from nothing, then raising dead people from the dead would be child’s play, and God also gives new life to those who are spiritually dead by His power, if that is the case, then changing one’s sexual orientation would be child’s play to God. Nevertheless, this doesn’t necessarily mean that when we pray for something, that we will get what we will want immediately. God does whatever He pleases, and sometimes even if those who follow God do not understand His purposes, it is ultimately for our good and for His glory.

Flat Earth

“When the Bible was being written, the fields of psychology and psychopathology ain’t well-established yet — tandaan natin na no’ng panahon ng mga Biblical writers, they believed that the earth was flat, ngayon, tanga ka na lang kung naniniwala ka pa ring the earth is flat — ibig-sabihin, the writers of the Bible were using the knowledge available to them during that time and during those times nga, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT HETEROSEXUAL IS NOT OF GOD. But modern-day Science affirms that homosexual behaviour is a NORMAL aspect of human sexuality.”

~In this part, he attempts to discredit the Bible by saying that when the Bible was written, the fields of psychology and psychopathology were not yet established. In a sense, he is saying that science now affirms that homosexual behavior is normal, and since the Bible is an archaic book then the writers are no longer in line with modern science. To add insult to the injury, he even mentions that the biblical writers believed that the earth is flat. And he calls people who believe that the earth is flat as stupid, which implies that the biblical writers are stupid.

First, Maravilla commits the fallacy of reification when he said that “Science affirms that homosexual behavior is a NORMAL aspect of human sexuality”. Science in itself is not a personal being that could “affirm”, “deny”, “speak”, “hate”, etc. The data we get in science does not interpret itself, but it is scientists who do the interpretation of the data. Hence, he is speaking here in a question-begging language to make it appear that science is on his side, which clearly is not conclusive on the issue.

Second, what he shared about the biblical writers believing in a flat earth is an assertion and not an argument. He did not substantiate his claim in showing that this is the case and should not be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, to satisfy your intellectual curiosity, let’s talk about the flat earth. This misconception that the church taught a flat earth is traced to 19th Century skeptics, such as John William Draper, and Andrew Dickson White. As Dr. Danny Faulkner has said, “This misconception is easily traced to the writings of two late nineteenth-century skeptics, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who invented the conflict thesis. The conflict thesis holds that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, held back progress. The contention of the conflict thesis was that medieval Europe was gripped with superstition (Christianity) that prevented intellectual advancement, and it was only after man’s reason reasserted itself during the Renaissance that man slowly became unshackled from religious dogma, bringing about the Enlightenment.”⁹

This conflict thesis has already been disproven many times, so if you want to learn more I request that you search about it, but for now, let’s go back to the flat earth misconception.

Dr. Danny Faulkner refutes this by citing the medieval scholar, Geoffrey Burton Russell:

“As the medieval scholar Geoffrey Burton Russell ably demonstrated, contrary to common misconception, the medieval church did not teach that the earth was flat. Thomas Aquinas introduced Aristotelian thought into medieval church teaching. Writing in the fourth century BC, Aristotle clearly taught that the earth was spherical. In the early second century BC, Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the spherical earth. Claudius Ptolemy’s Almagest, from the early second century AD, provided a useful model for calculating the positions of heavenly bodies. While this model was geocentric, it did not promote a flat earth, but instead was based upon a spherical earth. The works of Aristotle, Eratosthenes, and Ptolemy were all widely available and discussed in the late medieval period, and continued to be through the transition to the Renaissance. Given the clear record of history, why is it so commonly believed today that most people, and especially the church, thought that the earth was flat?”¹º

Also, regarding the biblical writers, we have a good reason to think that they did not believe in a flat earth. Let me share one example which is taken from Dr. Henry Morris’ commentary on Isaiah 40:22. Let me quote the verse first, then let me quote Dr. Morris.

Isaiah 40:22: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;”

Dr. Henry Morris: “As far as the Bible is concerned, the word “compassed” in our text is the Hebrew khug, meaning “circle,” or even “sphere.” It is so translated in Isaiah 40:22; “It is [God] that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” Viewed from any point in space, the earth would appear simply as a great circle, with its spherical shape projected on a plane.

The word is translated “circuit” in Job 22:14, where Eliphaz said that “[God] walketh in the circuit of heaven.” The ancients assumed the starry heavens to be a great celestial sphere, rotating daily around the earth (so do modern surveyors and navigators as they use the stars in practical astronomy today). It is obvious that such a “circuit” at least suggests a spherical earth.

In Proverbs 8:27, the divine Wisdom (actually God Himself in the person of His Son) is saying: “When [God] prepared the heavens, I was there: when He set a compass upon the face of the [deep].” Both here and in our text, the “compass” refers to sea level, projecting as a circular horizon, at the same elevation all around the globe. The great circle through the earth’s center marks the boundary between day and night, where “day” and “night” each gives way to the other, again implying a spherical, rotating earth. All of this speaks eloquently of the creating and conserving power of our gracious God and Savior. It also gives witness of the innerancy [sic] and scientific integrity of the Holy Scriptures.”¹¹

Therefore, at least based on the teachings of the medieval church, and also on the commentary of Dr. Morris on Isaiah 40:22, we have good reasons to reject Maravilla’s unsubstantiated assertion that the biblical writers believe in a flat earth.

Still Gay

“It means, si kuyang nasa picture, he’s still gay — nagbago lang siya ng gender expression (from feminine to masculine) pero you CAN NEVER change your sexuality, because as mentioned earlier, SEXUALITY IS INNATE, NOT ACQUIRED.”

~Because we already refuted his assumption on sexuality being innate, then Maravilla does not have a solid reason to insist that Bedaño is still gay. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Maravilla confuses ‘existential’ and ‘ontological’ in terms of determining Bedaño’s identity, for he reduces Bedaño’s identity merely based on his sexual attraction. Let me share a quote from Christopher Yuan, from his video entitled, “Is Being Gay Genetic?”. He said, “In any discussion about sexual orientation, it’s important to remember that sexual attraction is something we experience. It’s an existential reality. Existential refers to things like our behaviors, actions, feelings, desires, and passions. However, conversations about sexuality often move from the existential realm to the ontological realm. In other words the claim, “here’s who I am attracted to”, quickly becomes, “this is who I really am”. Ontology has to do with issues of essence to personhood or existence, but sexual attraction is not essential to our existence. So it should not be talked about in ontological terms. Attraction is something we all experience and it’s often outside of our control. Experiencing same-sex sexual attraction is not a choice, but acting on it is. Experiencing any attraction or any desire doesn’t justify a decision to act on it.”¹²

For this reason, our attractions do not define our identity. We cannot be reduced to our attractions for we are more than that. The Bible says that those who trust in Christ are children of God, and if it’s true that Bedaño trusts in the person and work of Christ, then he is neither gay nor a gay Christian, but he is a child of God, and if he happens to still struggle with same-sex attraction for the sake of argument, then he is still not gay, but a child of God who struggles with same-sex attraction.

Inerrancy

“So this is where one’s interpretation of the Bible enters: for most Born-agains, charismatics, and evangelicals; the Bible is inerrant — meaning it should be taken literally, as is, and per se. Hence, they promote “behaviour modification,” meaning if you are a homosexual, kailangan mo “raw” maging heterosexual to be accepted in God’s Kingdom — something that is impossible at all.”

~To say that the meaning of the Bible being inerrant is that everything in the Bible should be taken literally is a blatant misrepresentation of the doctrine. Maravilla clearly does not understand inerrancy. The theologian, Dr. Wayne Grudem, defines inerrancy as: “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” To add, he also says, “The definition in simple terms just means that the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about.”¹³

This doctrine is what the Bible speaks about itself as well. Let me share a list of some verses that are used as basis for the doctrine of inerrancy:

• Psalm 12:6: “The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.”
• Proverbs 30:5: “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”
• Numbers 23:19: “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”
• Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
• John 17:17: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
• Titus 1:2: “in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began”
• Hebrews 6:18: “so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.”

To add, inerrancy never denies that the Bible is composed of different books that have different literary genres. GotQuestions, for example, enumerates the main literary genres of the Bible: “The main genres found in the Bible are these: law, history, wisdom, poetry, narrative, epistles, prophecy and apocalyptic literature.”¹⁴ For this reason, it’s clear we do not read everything literally. There are things that we could read poetically or symbolically.

Conversion Therapy

“This also explains why Born-again churches worldwide are promoters of conversion therapies. Yes, I know it, I attest to that. I am an ex-Born-again and I was raised in a family of Born-agains. Gladly, many countries today are banning and criminalising conversion therapies.”

~Regarding conversion therapy, it’s important to define it to be sure that we are not equivocating in terms of our accusation against born-again churches. André Schutten, for example, has talked about conversion therapies that are disproven which we also condemn, such as electrocution, pharmacological methods that make the LGBT lose their sexual drive, or shaming rituals.¹⁵ The problem with LGBT activists is that they lump everything together as “conversion therapy” including counseling sessions from pastors or certain parachurch ministries that help counsel people who struggle with unwanted sexual attractions and want biblical guidance. As Joe Dallas had said, “Sometimes the term Conversion Therapy is presented inaccurately; sometimes it’s presented dishonestly.

It’s presented inaccurately by getting applied to anyone counseling or ministering to people who are attracted to the same sex, conflicted over those attractions, and seeking biblical guidance. Thus mental health professionals, ministry leaders, pastoral counselors, and Christian life-coaches nationwide are being labelled Conversion Therapists though none of them identify themselves that way.”¹⁶

He also said, “The ministerial approach, usually taken by pastoral counselors or leaders of parachurch ministries, emphasizes discipleship, and places homosexual struggles in the broader context of the flesh-versus-spirit struggles experienced by all believers. It may or may not include emphasis on resolving early conflicts, and focuses on biblical concepts of managing temptations, walking in holiness, accountability, and sanctification.

Neither approach comports well with the Conversion Therapy label, but the label sticks, imposed on and repeated by parties hostile to any counseling that’s not gay affirming, producing the desired stigma. Like its cousins fundamentalist and religious Right, Conversion Therapy is negative in tone and promiscuously applied, a straw man erected to dismiss and disparage anyone believing homosexuality is a sin that can, like other sins, be overcome.”¹⁷

It’s important to define this properly. I remember André Schutten’s discussion on Bill C-6 in Canada. And the concern there was that conversion therapy was defined too broadly. It makes me think that if this includes the counseling and discipleship activities of the church, then a ban on conversion therapy would affect our religious freedom. But if we define it properly, we can strengthen the bill in making sure that it protects the rights of the LGBT from experiencing what is blatant abuse, and we can also protect the religious freedom of people who want to guide people who desire to seek the Lord.

Nevertheless, I just want to emphasize that the goal of Christianity is not merely to make homosexual people heterosexual. This falls short because there are heterosexual people who are not saved because they do not know the Lord. To add, there are forms of heterosexuality that are considered sinful, which include incest, fornication, and rape. Also, being a heterosexual does not make you any better than a homosexual in terms of dignity and value. The goal of Christianity is to make people know Christ, so that from being spiritually dead in sin, people will become spiritually alive. And instead of living a life of heterosexuality, people who trust in Christ will live a life of holy sexuality. Holy sexuality is a concept that I learned from Christopher Yuan. It consists of two things: chastity and singleness and faithfulness in marriage. In practice, if we’re single, we must flee youthful lusts and be sexually abstinent. If we’re married, then we should also flee lustful desires, and we should be emotionally and sexually faithful to our spouse of the opposite sex.

Biblical Inspiration

“As for my faith, I am a Methodist Protestant, I don’t believe that the Bible should be taken literally and I acknowledge that the Bible was written by humans (inspired by God) and not by God Himself; wherefore, like any other humans, are bound to commit errors. I also believe that there are parts in the Bible that we should take allegorically and poetically, not always literally.”

~Based on our discussion on inerrancy, it’s clear that since there are different literary genres in the Bible, it’s clear that there are passages or books that we should read in a literal way. It’s also clear that there are parts of the Bible that we should not read literally. Now, Maravilla here mentioned the words, “inspired by God”. He also asserted that the Bible was written by humans and not by God. First, let’s talk about the divine-human nature of the Bible. Second, let’s talk about the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.

Regarding the divine-human nature of the Bible, it’s clear that Maravilla does not have a sound doctrine of scripture, for he views that the Bible is only written by men. Richard Philipps in his essay entitled, “Scripture as a Divine and Human Book” has a good summary to help us understand the nature of the Bible:

“The Bible portrays itself as God’s Word, so that Scripture is stamped with divine authority, speaks without error, and presents an organic unity. At the same time, the Bible was produced through human instruments, giving it great variety in terms of the types and styles of writing and fully connecting Scripture to the human experience. Despite the fallibility and varied perspectives of its human writers, the Bible was produced under God’s full control so that Scripture achieves God’s purpose in revealing himself to men and women. Human authors were able to convey God’s Word because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who superintended the process by which the Bible was written, just as God sovereignly created and shaped the human instruments for this purpose. While we acknowledge and profit from the human character of Scripture, the controlling idea remains that Scripture is the Word of God, so that it must be approached reverently and received in obedience.”¹⁸

This summary is clearly taught by the Bible. It’s said in 1 Peter 1:20–21, “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” In the context of this passage, Peter uses the word prophecy to refer to the whole Bible. It’s clear that he denies that the origin of the Bible is human ingenuity. And he affirms that the Holy Spirit works through the authors so that they would be able to write the very words of God, which means that God is the origin. This divine-human nature of the Bible accounts for the human element of the Bible, where we see that it’s written by specific authors, and is written based on their own writing styles, perspectives, and personalities. But it does not necessarily follow that they are in error, because even though we read of the authors of the Bible as fallible people, it’s clear that the Holy Spirit worked through the authors. God is all-powerful and wise, and since truth originates from God, if God decides to work through fallible human beings, then He can work in such a way that the product of human effort will be God’s very Words which does not have any error.

Second, regarding the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, Don Stewart has a good definition for it.¹⁹ I’ll quote them here:

• “Verbal inspiration means that every word of Scripture is God-given. The idea is that every single word in the Bible is there because God wanted it there. There are no exceptions.”
• “Plenary means that “all parts” of the Bible are divinely authoritative. This includes such things as the genealogies of the Old Testament. All parts of the Bible are of divine origin.”
• “The idea behind the word inspiration is that God supernaturally guided the biblical authors to write the exact things that He wanted expressed. The result is Holy Scripture. Therefore, the phrase “verbal plenary inspiration” means that all parts of the Bible, as well as every Word of the Bible, says exactly what God wanted said. He guided the entire process so that the end result would be His Words.”

This is also clearly taught by the Bible. It’s said in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The words here “breathed out by God” mean that God is the ultimate source and author of the whole Bible.

Based on the two points I mentioned, which are the divine-human nature of the Bible and the inspiration of scripture, it’s clear that the Bible bears God’s authority, which means that it should be interpreted carefully and obeyed diligently. I find it ironic that Maravilla identifies as a Methodist. Because the leaders of the movement, such as John and Charles Wesley, and George Whitefield believes in the infallible word of God.

Leviticus

“Lastly, don’t counter-attack me with your homophobic verses from Leviticus because the word “homosexual” was just added by the people who translated the Revised Standard Version (RSV) Bible to propagate homophobia. At kung gagamitin mo ang Leviticus to justify your homophobia, let me remind you that Leviticus also PROHIBITS the consumption of pork, shellfish, shrimps, among others; Leviticus also PROHIBITS the wearing of polyester; Leviticus also prohibits working on Saturday — kayâ sana hindi ka kumakain ng bacon at sarado ang business mo tuwing Sabado ha?”

~First off, if you check the RSV on Leviticus 18:22, it says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The version that has the word “homosexual” is the NLT, which states, ““Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.” Nevertheless, this is not added with the intention of propagating homophobia. If you check all the Bible translations, even the original Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint, you can clearly see that the interpretation is consistent. The passage condemns homosexual intercourse.

Even the scholar Dr. Robert Gagnon says that the application of the passage could not be limited to male cult prostitution. He said:

“However, male cult prostitution was not the only context in which homosexual intercourse manifested itself in the ancient Near East generally. It was merely the most acceptable context for homosexual intercourse to be practiced in Mesopotamia, certainly for those who played the role of the receptive partner. In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of Lev. 18:22 could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the qedeshim [=’the consecrated ones,’ an ironic reference to these cult figures] (as in Deut. 23:17–18), if it had been their intent to limit the law’s application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same-sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality.”²º

Second, it’s clear that Maravilla is not reading the Bible seriously when he says that if we will use Leviticus to justify our homophobia, then we should not eat pork, shellfish, wear polyester, or even work on a Saturday. As a response, Christians who really love the Lord are not homophobes. They love the LGBT that they will risk rejection and ridicule just for the LGBT to know Jesus. Name-calling does not help his argument as well. Also, Maravilla fails to make distinction between the different laws in the Old Testament. There are moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civil laws. The moral laws are God’s unchanging laws and they are not commanded only to Israel but are expected of all nations. In Leviticus 18, in context, it talks about unlawful sexual relations. The passage also lists incest, bestiality, and sacrificing of children to Molech as sins against God. In v. 24–28 it said, “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” It’s clear that this is part of the moral law because other nations are punished as well for doing the same sins.

Now there are other laws as well. The ceremonial law is something that God commands to show that Israel is holy or distinct among the nations. This includes feasts and festivals, and even dietary and clothing restrictions. There are judicial laws as well which are specific things like punishments that must be done in case a certain violation happens. One example is if a murder happens or if an ox kills a human being. The application of the judicial law is limited to the period of the Jewish theocracy. In application, New Testament Christians don’t need to do everything exactly as what the Old Testament Israel did. Let me give you an example. It’s said in Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

““III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;(d) and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.(e) All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.”²¹

Now Christ has fulfilled the whole law, but let’s look for example specifically on the ceremonial law. Since the ceremonial law are now fulfilled in Christ, then we no longer need to obey the Jewish laws about what is clean and unclean. We are now free to wear clothing that has mixed fabric, we can eat pork and shellfish, and we no longer need to offer animal sacrifices. That’s why there is no contradiction if we do these things and we forbid homosexual relations.

Now, regarding the Sabbath, we can read in Colossians 2:26, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” Let me read what Dr. John MacArthur has said related to this in one of his sermons:

“We also suggested to you that when the Mosaic law came along, God ordained a Sabbath day for the people to observe and to obey God, and God put some restraints on them to remind them of their sinfulness. So, every Saturday that comes along kind of has a two-fold role; it causes us to remember God as Creator, and to remember how sinful we really are — and truly we are sinful. But the Sabbath is gone.

Colossians 2:16 and 17: “Don’t let anybody hold you to a Sabbath day.” It’s gone. It is part of Judaism that has been replaced by the new covenant, and the new covenant has a completely different day. Saturday, as I said, reminds us of God as Creator and God as law-giver, and it reminds us of the beauty of God’s creation, the magnificence of His creation, and the sinfulness of our own hearts. But when you come to the new covenant, you have a new kind of observation, not observing God as Creator, not observing God as law-giver, but in the new covenant God is defining Himself as what? Savior.

So, the new covenant has its own day, a day in which we focus on God as our Savior.”²²

In light of these considerations, it’s clear that there’s no contradiction in terms of a committed Christian’s practices when they prohibit homosexuality and use Leviticus as their justification.

God’s Open Door

“As Protestants we say: GOD’S DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN. Come as you are — you’re gay/bi? You are welcome, you don’t need to change anything! You’re a trans/lesbian? You are welcome, you don’t need to change anything. God danced the day you were born! This is the gay that the Lord has made! 🏳️‍🌈”””

~I believe that God’s heart is that sinners would not perish for their sins, but for them to repent. As it is said in 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Also in 1 Timothy 2:1- 4, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” I believe that this is God’s heart for us, and this is why Christians who care pray for their LGBT friends, and for everyone they could think of. In this sense, God’s door is open.

If what Maravilla means by God’s open door is that they don’t need to repent of their sins and just be the same, I do not agree with it, and God Himself does not agree with it. God wants all of us to repent. But rather it’s open in a sense that you can come to God as you are. You don’t need to wait to be “spiritually mature” or “holy” or “righteous” before you come to God. Because we cannot be holy or righteous apart from God and in our own strength. It is impossible. If you think you are struggling with the sin of homosexuality, then you can come as you are to Christ and cry out to Him for salvation. This is because our salvation is by God’s unmerited favor and not by our own works. The works of righteousness by us follows after God changes our hearts as we come to Him in faith.

Let me end this by quoting 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.”

In this passage, I just want to say that it’s not just the homosexuals who are said to not inherit the kingdom of God. It’s clear that even if you’re a heterosexual, but if you are apart from Christ and hence in your sins, it’s clear that you won’t be with God. And the homosexuals here in Greek are arsenokoitai, which refers to people who engage in same-gender sexual activity. So their group, aside from the other groups of sin mentioned, are said to be “washed”, “sanctified”, “justified” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. This shows that there is hope for them in Christ. The sins mentioned here were their past lives, and they experienced lasting change which pleases God, and they all will now be with God. So, sinner, today is the day of salvation! Life is a mist and we don’t know when it will end. Please cry out to God to save you. Please trust in what Christ has done for you on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins.

References:

1. “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” American Psychological Association, 2011. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/sexual-orientation.

2. “Sexual Orientation: 4 Common Questions.” WebMD. Accessed June 06, 2021. https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation.

3. Planned Parenthood. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sexual-orientation/sexual-orientation.

4. Planned Parenthood. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sexual-orientation/sexual-orientation.

5. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation.

6. Yuan, Christopher. “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?,” October 12, 2013. 4:20–6:20, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2g-Tnkd8I

7. Stanford. Vaden Health Services. https://vaden.stanford.edu/health-resources/lgbtqia-health/sexual-fluidity.

8. Ambrosino, Brandon. “‘I am gay — but I wasn’t born this way’.” BBC. Last modified June 28, 2016. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160627-i-am-gay-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way.

9. Faulkner, Danny R. “Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?.” Answers in Genesis. Last modified April 4, 2017. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/.

10. Faulkner, Danny R. “Does the Bible Teach That the Earth Is Flat?.” Answers in Genesis. Last modified April 4, 2017. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/.

11. Morris, Henry M. “The Circle Of The Earth.” Institute of Creation Research. Last modified October 12, 2000. https://www.icr.org/article/circle-earth/.

12. Yuan, Christopher. “Is Being Gay Genetic? ,” September 16, 2020. 4:08–5:10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aagFTlK_XsI

13. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.

14. GotQuestions. https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-genres.html.

15. Apologetics Canada. https://apologeticscanada.com/2020/12/03/conversion-therapy-ban-what-you-need-to-know/#comments.

16. Dallas, Joe. “What’s the Problem with Conversion Therapy.” CRI. Last modified February 17, 2020. https://www.equip.org/article/whats-the-problem-with-conversion-therapy/.

17. Dallas, Joe. “What’s the Problem with Conversion Therapy.” CRI. Last modified February 17, 2020. https://www.equip.org/article/whats-the-problem-with-conversion-therapy/.

18. Phillips, Richard. “Scripture as a Divine and Human Book.” TGC. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/scripture-as-a-divine-and-human-book/.

19. Stewart, Don. “What Is Meant by the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture?.” Blue Letter Bible. https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-authoritative-word/question3-verbal-plenary-inspiration-of-scripture.cfm.

20. Gagnon, Robert. “Does Leviticus Only Condemn Idolatrous Homosexual Practice?.” Patheos. Last modified March 28, 2013. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/03/28/bible-condemn-idolatrous-homosexual-practice-gangnon-lee-torn/?fbclid=IwAR2fKwpB7VzR8_vlH1ikc7DMzB6lWZ-osqw3Fjy_TUzUPc0JuxKinolVcbM.

21. Crown and Covenant. Reformed Presbyterian Church. http://crowncovenantchurch.org/confessions/WestminsterCOF.aspx?QuestionID=19&pageid=0&confession=true&q=Chapter%2019%20-%20Of%20the%20Law%20of%20God.

22. MacArthur, John. “Why Sunday Is the Lord’s Day.” Grace to You. Last modified October 11, 2009. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-380/why-sunday-is-the-lords-day.