I recently read a story about a Baptist Church in Texas that is celebrating its 125th anniversary with a good old fashioned church split.  Nothing unique about that.  But when you realize what the church is fighting about, you simply shake your head and wonder, "How far can a church drift from the safe moorings of Scripture and still call itself a church?"

The controversy surrounds Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. For the church’s 125th birthday, they planned to distribute a new pictorial church directory. But, since three gay couples asked to have their pictures included, Broadway Baptist has been involved in an increasingly divisive struggle over whether allowing the portraits to appear would be an endorsement of homosexuality by the congregation.

As you read articles on the church's own website concerning the controversy, it becomes quickly apparent that the issue for the church is not whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Instead, they have openly allowed gay members for years. In fact, Brett Younger, the church’s pastor recently said: “that the church has had gay members for decades but that no couple had ever been pictured in the directory. He said to change directions would understandably be “troubling to many.” In other words, the issue is a baptist “we’ve never done it that way before” problem more than it is over homosexuality. The pastor essentially condoned homosexuality from the pulpit as it is, they just don’t want to change the way they’ve always done their directories.

The only reference to the possibility that homosexuality might be viewed as sin comes when the article notes that the BGCT does consider homosexuality to be sin, but “it is up to the local church to decide what it wants to do” and that “the convention adopted a policy in the late 1990s that encourages churches to minister to gays.” In other words, the BGCT says out of one side of its mouth that homosexuality is sin, out of the other it says that such “sinners” are more than welcome in church and that it’s up to local member churches to decide how they want to deal with sin.

Scripture teaches, both in clarity and by implication that homosexuality is sin. For example, in the very creation account itself, particularly Genesis 2:18-25 presents heterosexual union as normative. Upon noting that it was not good for man to be alone, God brought from him and brought to him a woman. The two were made for one another; that is their union and interdependence is part of God’s design for nature itself. This creation ordinance with its natural differentiation of role between male and female is continually reaffirmed by the writers of the New Testament (Mark 10:6-8; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31). Thus Paul maintains that heterosexuality is the natural God-given orientation (Romans 1:26-27). Scripture clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary, both to the order of creation and re-creation (redemption) and is a perverted consequence of man’s fall.

We find clear demonstrations of these truths, but in narrative and didactic passages. For example, the tale of the destruction of Sodom found in Genesis 19. The men of the city demand to “know” (yadha in the Hebrew) Lot’s guests, with the result of the men of the city first being struck with blindness and then the entire city being destroyed with fire and brimstone. So what was the sin that deserved such punishment? Some argue that it was a lack of hospitality (this is an understatement to say the least) while others argue that the intent of the men of the city was murder rather than homosexual relations. But these views simply do not stand up under scrutiny as Lot’s unscrupulous offer of his daughters demonstrates. God’s response was the total destruction of the city.

Other passages clearly expound on this idea. For example, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 teach that both homosexual and lesbian relations are an “abomination” to the Lord. Yet some try to even work around such clear statements by arguing that since these admonitions are connected to other ceremonial laws such as the prohibition of eating certain meats, that these were cultural rather than normative and do not apply to us. However, this ignores the distinction between ceremonial and moral laws. While the ceremonial laws have passed, the moral have not. We know, for example that these prohibitions are part of the moral law because, as we have seen, heterosexual relations are part of the created order itself. Therefore, we stand on firm ground arguing that these prohibitions do in fact stand, even the ceremonial law has faded under the new and better covenant.

Much more could be said as to why we ought to understand these as moral injunctions rather than ceremonial, but time and space prohibit further study here, but one of the strongest arguments is that Paul himself picks up on these ideas in Romans 1:20-32. In Romans 1, Paul develops the idea that all are without excuse. Nature itself points us to God’s presence (much less existence) and all are without excuse. Rather than acknowledging God and worshiping Him as we ought, people worshiped everything other than God. We’re told in Romans 1:124-25: "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

In case there’s any question as to the sins that Paul has in mind here that God has given people up for, Paul continues in 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."

Clearly Paul views homosexuality as sin and the tolerance of it as a result of God removing at least a bit of His restraining grace. Some have tried to argue here that Paul is simply arguing that homosexuality is “against nature” in the sense that it is not the norm. For example, if I were to get up to preach next Sunday wearing a bright red clown wig, many in the congregation would (I hope!) say, “Well, that’s unnatural for Pastor.” But Paul clearly means more than that. For example, he clearly identifies them as “dishonorable” passions” and “shameless acts.” Clearly, neither God nor Paul look upon homosexuality as simply a “lifestyle alternative.” In addition, as we’ve seen, God has established heterosexuality as the norm for nature. Though there are certainly other places to turn, and much more to say, it is worth noting that elsewhere, Paul notes that the law was given, at least in part, to condemn homosexuality, among other sins (1 Timothy 1:8-11) and that “men who practice homosexuality” will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

My point is not to isolate homosexuality as some “worse” sin while turning a blind eye to others. Nor is my point to particularly condemn those caught in the sin of homosexuality, for apart from God’s redeeming hand, none of us is righteous, none of us does good, none of us seeks God (Romans 3:9-18). We have all sinned (Romans 3:23) and we all need a Savior (1 Timothy 1:15).

Rather, my point is that Scripture clearly teaches that homosexuality is as sin and as long as a gathered group of people calls themselves a “church,” we are not bound to our standards but God’s. In the face of this truth, the fact that Broadway Baptist Church pretends that the real issue is about the photo directory simply breaks my heart and speaks volumes as to how far removed from God’s Word our culture has actually become. It seems that they have forgotten that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6, Galatians 5:9, etc.) and that we are to “Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Proclaiming sin as such is not an easy thing. Standing by those convictions is even more difficult, but we have not been called to what is easy. The church of the living God is to be a “pillar and buttress of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and yet, in so many instances, we see people abandoning the bulwark of salvation (Isaiah 26:1-3). We must express care and concern. History’s pages are certainly filled with people who have spoken the truth in anything but love. Homosexuality is a sin and we must proclaim such but we must not overlook other sins in the process. We must lovingly but boldly, with broken hearts and strong consciences, stand against our society as it moves to “normalize” sin.

We will not be judged by our pictorial directories. We will be judged by how we have kept the commandments of God (John 14:21, 1 John 3:24, etc.). Broadway Baptist church of Fort Worth and others in similar situations serve as a reminder of just how easy it is find ourselves so far removed from the Word and the Truth. May we indeed serve as a “pillar and buttress of the truth” rather than those who want to please those with itching ears (2 Timothy 4:3).