HOMOSEXUAL HERMENEUTICS AND ITS DEADLY IMPLICATIONS: A PASTORAL REFLECTION

There is in these essays an implicit-at times, an explicit-criticism of psychiatry, of the excuses that it finds for us, and of the shallowness of the adjustments and accommodations that it invites us to make. Its explanations are our substitutes for the idea of sin, and in nothing is this more obvious than in the mirthlessness with which it encourages us to be interested on our lesser disorders, while it frees us from the dark night of the soul in which we must wrestle with our evil.8

Every person needs to come to know their own dark night of the soul. But today's blame-shifting culture has taken the grotesque face of sin and shaped it into one that might not necessarily be attractive, but at least bearable. There are now excuses for that dark night, and God has been psychologized out of the picture. God, the ultimate standard for morality, has been replaced and now the new point of reference is "me." Millard Erickson sees sin as

placing something else, anything else, in the supreme place which is his. Thus choosing oneself rather than God is not wrong because it is the self that is chosen, but because something other than God is chosen.9

Sin is not in relation to how we deal with others, but how we approach God. We as sinners are marked by the terror of sin and the depravity of humanity that has resulted. John Calvin comments on the apostle Paul's view of sin: "Paul removes all doubt when he teaches that corruption subsists not in one part only, but that none of the soul remains pure or untouched by that moral disease."10 Charles Hodge adds:

Every man in virtue of his being a moral creature and a sinner has in his own consciousness the knowledge of sin. He knows that when he is not what he ought to be, when he does what he ought not to do, or omits what he ought to do, he is chargeable with sin. He knows that sin is not simply limitation of his nature, nor merely a subjective state of his own mind, having no character in the sight of God.11

Sin is not relative to societal changes. The very "consciousness" of the sinner holds him or her culpable. No person can remain absolutely neutral in regard to sin. Being moral creatures compels us to feel the eternal effect of sin, regardless of society's current laws, values, or mores. Sin's fabric is woven throughout human existence. Denying human culpability of sin is denying the nature of sin itself, Such denial then comes to a head against the very nature of God's justice.

III. THE IMAGO DEI (THE IMAGE OF GOD)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-27 NASB)

To understand sin then, one must refer back to the time of Adam and Eve, a time when sin first entered the world. The image of God and its shattered visage in humanity is an important link in the identification of the sin of homosexuality. This image is what truly separates mankind from the animal kingdom. Externally, our bodies can closely resemble certain animals. Whether it is the ability to communicate, or the containing of similar generic code, it can be noted that the human body is similar to other animals, like many primate species. But there is something that does separate humanity from other animals, including primates, and it is the uniqueness of being image-bearers of God himself. Charles Hodge comments: