There has been a lot of discussion in the not-too-distant past about the recent law passed in Uganda, the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, which makes sodomy a crime punishable by life imprisonment, and makes “aggravated” acts of sodomy, which would include nonconsensual acts and those acts committed against children to be death penalty earning offenses. The response of the political left, and that of the United States government, has been predictable, as the promotion of the sodomy is an official part of United States public policy. President Joe Biden described the passage of the Ugandan act, “a tragic violation of universal human rights,” and called for the “immediate repeal” of the bill. He went on to describe the act as “shameful,” and “democratic backsliding.” But Biden did more than name-call. He attempted to put the squeeze on Uganda by announcing that “my administration will also incorporate the impacts of the law into our review of Uganda’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act,” and that his administration was “considering additional steps, including the application of sanctions and restriction of entry into the United States of anyone involved in serious human rights abuses and corruption.”
But it is not merely those on the political left of the spectrum, who have condemned the Ugandan act. Those on the political right of the spectrum have done so as well. United States Senator Ted Cruz, for example, weighed in to describe the bill as “horrific” and wrong.” He added, “Any law criminalizing homosexuality or imposing the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality is grotesque and an abomination. All civilized nations should join together in condemning this human rights abuse.” And not only have conservative lawmakers denounced the bill, but prominent churchmen have done so as well. Rick Warren, former pastor of Saddleback Church, in California, has repeated his objections of over a decade against Uganda’s anti-sodomy legislation, in the wake of this latest act by their government, which he called “unjust, extreme and un-Christian, toward homosexuals.” He added that “I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality.” And Russel Moore, editor in chief of the left-leaning Christianity Today magazine, wrote a piece entitled “Don’t Pretend the Uganda law is Christian.”
What are we to make of these responses by our national leaders, both left and right, and by our evangelical leaders? Are laws criminalizing sodomy unjust as both our national leaders and evangelical leaders seem to tell us, or are they truly just? The answer to this question is that homosexual acts should be criminalized, and this is a fact communicated to us both by special and natural revelation.
Four Reasons Homosexual Acts Should be Criminalized.
In his sermon and article of the same name, Four Reasons the Magistrates have a duty to criminalize homosexual Acts, Pastor Matt Trewhella gives four reasons why homosexual acts should be criminalized by the civil magistrate. Using Trewhella’s reasons for an outline, we will set forth the reasons why such acts should be made civil crimes once again.
First, the magistrates should criminalize homosexual acts because God criminalized such acts in His law.
That homosexual acts are sinful will not be a point of dispute to conservative evangelicals, for this can be established very plainly from numerous Biblical texts. However, homosexual acts are not merely sinful by the standard of God’s word, they are made a criminal act to be punished by the civil magistrate as well.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
The verse is plain enough, sodomite sex acts are crimes, and those convicted of such crimes in courts of law should be executed by the state. Ancient Israel was clearly charged to criminalize and prosecute the crime of sodomy. The immediate response of evangelicals today against the use of this verse, is that it belongs to the Old Testament law that supposedly has been rendered null and void by the incarnation of Christ and the ushering in of the New Covenant. That some Old Testament legislation has been abrogated is an indisputable theological fact; no Christian believes, for example, that animal sacrifices are still necessary in the New Covenant era. (Indeed, if one did, we would have good reason to doubt his Christian profession).
However, the notion that the law of God in the Old Testament is not relevant to the question of whether sodomy should be penalized by the civil magistrate is both unbiblical and out of touch with the historic testimony of the church. Theologians have traditionally classified the law of God, as Trewhella points out, in three categories: the moral, civil, and ceremonial. The ceremonial category includes such laws as the laws against wearing mixed fibers, the laws requiring animal sacrifices, the dietary laws, etc. The moral category includes the Ten commandments, and the civil category includes the judicial and civil laws given to Israel, such as this law, or the one requiring that murderers are to be executed by the state. There is overlap between these categories; for example, murder is a moral wrong that is also made a crime in God’s law. The standard reformed Protestant view has always been that the ceremonial law has been abrogated with the inauguration of the New Covenant, that the moral law continues to bind Christians just as it did Old Covenant believers, and the civil laws continue on only in their general equity. The phrase general equity refers to principles; it is the moral principles in the judicial laws that are applicable to Christians today, though the commands themselves do not bind Christians as they apply to Israel’s specific culture and way of life. For example, we are not now obligated to have a railing on the roof of our peaked roof houses as the Israelites were; for people do not spend time on roofs today. However, the principle continues to apply, and would require a fence around a swimming pool, for example. In addition, the Confessional statements to this effect can be found in the London Baptist and Westminster Confessions. It is beyond the scope of this blog post to explain in detail the continuing validity of the Old Testament law, for that I would refer the reader to other writings.[1] Furthermore, the use of God’s law as a standard for pollical legislation is one of three lawful uses of the law. Theologians have traditionally ascribed three uses for the law of God, the pedagogic use, in which the law is used to convince sinners of their need for the imputed righteousness of Christ, the didactic use, in which the law is used as a guide to mark the progress of sanctification, and to teach the believer how to live, and the political use, in which the law is used by the civil magistrate as a guide for political legislation. The first use is in general acceptance by all Christians and needs no defense; the second use is held by the reformed, though denied by the dispensational camp. Again, for a refutation of the dispensational view, I would have to refer the reader to other writings, for a refutation of the view that God’s law has no place in the life of a believer is beyond the scope of this blog post. It is with the third use of God’s law that we are concerned. This is the political use of God’s law, the third use of the law, as the Reformers and Reformed Theologians since, have classified it. The political use of God’s use is not merely a theological category dreamed up by theologians, and neither is it merely inferred from Scripture. Rather, Scripture teaches this quite clearly:
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if their be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” (1 Timothy 1:9-10)
Note that kidnapping, patricide, matricide, murder, perjury, and for our purposes, sodomy, are among the acts listed here that the law is made for. If one wishes to say that it is the didactic use of the law that is referred to here in the above passage, and that the political use of God’s law is not taught in the Scripture, they will have to conclude that the civil magistrate is not only obligated not to criminalize sodomy, but not to criminalize kidnapping, perjury and murder either! Yet no evangelical holds that these should be legal, though when it comes to sodomy, they suddenly sing a different tune. Yet evangelicals cannot have it both ways. Either the Bible teaches that it is a lawful use of God’s law to use it politically to suppress sodomy as well as kidnapping, murder, and perjury, or it cannot be used to suppress any of these sins/crimes. Furthermore, Leviticus 20:13’s continuing validity can be demonstrated by pointing out the nature of the law itself. The laws referred to in the 20th chapter of Leviticus are all moral. They are all violations of the 7th commandment. A moral law is one which reflects God’s character, and is hence always true, regardless of the covenant relationship which happens to be in force at that time between God and man. Hence, the eating of shellfish is not inherently sinful; it was lawful prior to the giving of the mosaic law to Moses to Israel, bound only Israel, and then only until the inauguration of the New Covenant.
Likewise, circumcision was not a moral law; it was a ceremonial law. It bound no one but God’s people, and only after Abraham, and then only until the inauguration of the New Covenant. It was a physical temporary sign of spiritual circumcision and was meant to point toward this. Now that the real thing has come, we have no more need for the type and shadow.
But this is not the case with murder, adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc. These are moral sins, just as wrong prior to the Mosaic Covenant as afterwards, and as equally wrong after the inauguration of the New Covenant, as before it. The prohibition of sodomy, therefore, cannot be considered a ceremonial law, but a moral law. And if the act of sodomy is still a sin, it stands to reason that the civil penalty for sodomy revealed in the Old Testament to suppress it, is equally in force.
It might be objected that the church is the New Israel, and therefore, the civil sanctions of the Old Testament were merely types and shadows of the ecclesiastical sanctions of the church. But to hold that the civil sanctions of the Old Testament have been replaced by the ecclesiastical sanctions of the New Testament is to ignore the fact that that there was a distinction between the Old Testament church and state, even in the Hebrew theocracy. (See for example, the distinction between the offices of king and priest, and the usurpations of the ecclesiastical office by Kings Saul and Uzziah, which brought rebuke and divine judgment upon both kings.) Furthermore, this objection fails to take into account 1 Timothy 1:8-10, which states that the law is meant for the unbeliever. As unbelievers are not members of the church (or should not be), the passage there cannot have reference to church sanctions and must refer to civil sanctions. Hence, the New Testament continues the Old Testament separation of church and state. Just as one in the Old Covenant could be excommunicated from the covenant community, or synagogue, the Old Testament equivalent of the New Testament local church, (the meaning of the phrase “cut off from among their people”), and then executed by the civil magistrate for the same crime, so one under the New Covenant may be excommunicated from the church for the crime of murder, and then excommunicated by the state for the commission of the same act.
Finally, the need for civil government and the suppression of crime is still a needed function in our day. Not only is it needed, but it is also a divinely ordained and approved function as Romans 13:1-7 tells us. But the civil magistrate needs direction for wielding his sword against evildoers. And because natural revelation is insufficient, and because conscience is not a reliable guide, the civil magistrate needs special revelation just as much as the family does to guide its affairs. But God has not left to the state to its own devices to make up its own rules and figure out the suppression of evil by itself, he had given it the sword of the word of God, for direction in wielding its physical sword. And the majority of the Biblical prescription for civil rule is found in the Old Testament, meaning we reject its applicability at our peril. In conclusion, therefore, sodomy should be criminalized by the civil magistrate for the simple reason that God says so. This reason should be enough, and indeed for those who fear God, no other reason should be necessary. But just in case one is still unconvinced, there are further arguments to make our case.
Second, the magistrates should criminalize homosexual acts because God himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexual acts.
The Bible teaches that the proliferation of sodomy in a society brings the wrath of God down upon society. God destroys society for rampant sodomy. This is made clear by the example of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 19:4, is said that the men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house, “both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” Trewhella writes: “Look at verses 5-8: Lot concludes that their desire to sodomize the two angels ‘is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”’[2] Sodomy was rampant in the city, and the whole city and male population were given over to it. When sodomy infects whole societies, and the sodomites increase in number and influence, God’s judgment falls upon society, even to the point of its extermination. “Then the Lord rained down upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven…” (Genesis 19:24) That sodomy was the primary sin for which God judged the city can be clearly proven by the fact that is the focus of Genesis 19. In Judges 19, we have a similar incident of a pack of sodomites surrounding a house. The men involved were the “men of the city,” who wanted to “know” the Levite that had come into the house. The Levite gave his concubine to the mob of sexual degenerates who raped her all night. (v.25) God’s judgment fell upon this city of Gibeah too, but in a different way, for it was executed by the warriors of Israel upon not only Gibeah, but upon the entire tribe of Benjamin, when they refused to turn over the men involved for prosecution and execution. It should be noted in regard to this account in Judges 19-21, that God himself authorized the war against the Benjamites, and it had his blessing. Put simply, civil magistrates should criminalize sodomy if they wish their society to survive. Because the examples in Scripture show us that God destroys societies that are given over to such sexual filth. This is made explicit in Leviticus 20:22-23 where God tells Israel, after just giving them a long list of moral crimes with civil penalties attached:
“Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spew you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.” (Leviticus 20:22-23)
Therefore, it is incumbent upon a society to prosecute the moral sins that are made by criminal offenses worthy of punishment by the civil magistrate in God’s word, lest the land in which society dwells not vomit or spew them out, and they be dispossessed, and God give the society to another people which shall keep his laws in regard to sexual morality.
Third, the magistrates should criminalize homosexual acts because the purpose of such laws and the last 15 years demand such a conclusion.
Matt Trewhella points out:
I have taught and preached the word of God at many universities in America. Whenever homosexual acts are brought up by someone and you declare such acts are sinful and should also be criminalized the unbelievers throw out the usual mantra – “Yeah, you Christians just want to put policemen in people’s bedrooms.” This is a total strawmen argument.”[3]
It is a total strawman argument because such a statement fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of sodomy laws. Historically, the purpose of sodomy laws was merely to drive the activity from the public venue. In societies where sodomy is criminalized, sodomite sex acts are committed underground, in secret, and hidden from the public venue. As a result, many acts, indeed, the majority of sodomite acts would go unpunished. In order for a person to be charged with sodomy, “they had to be very flagrant in their behavior.”[4] In practice, then, a conviction of sodomy was a rare occasional act that only occurred to the boldest sodomites who not only committed their sins but flaunted them as well. Their punishment served to convince the others to keep a low profile and avoid bringing their behavioral filth to the attention of others and into the public venue. This was the purpose of not only the laws against sodomy down through history, but even of the biblical prohibition of sodomy in Leviticus 20:13. Capital crimes in the Old Testament could be proved only on the basis of two or more witnesses, which in practice, meant that most acts of sodomy would either be unknown, or if known, unable to prove, since those wishing to indulge in such behavior would not be likely to have witnesses, especially since they would know of the capital sanction against sodomy. Only public acts of sodomy, such as those practiced in pagan public religious ceremonies, for instance, would be effectively prosecuted. Thus, even in Old Testament Israel, the purpose of the capital sanction against sodomy, was effectively to drive it underground and out of the public venue.
But having seen that the purpose of sodomy laws was to drive it from the public venue, we see the pressing need for such sodomy legislation today, for we see the terrible fruits of what occurs when the behavior is allowed to operate in the public square and venue. And what are these terrible fruits? They will be immediately obvious to anyone whose head is not buried in the sand, and whose knowledge of history is not limited to the last 5 minutes. In the first place, sodomy is not about toleration of deviant sexual behavior. Sodomites are not, and have never been content, merely with sodomy merely being tolerated or legal, despite historical statements to the contrary. Sodomites used this line up until 2003 when Lawrence v. Texas struck down an anti-sodomy law. Now sodomites had freedom to indulge in their sexual perversion; sodomy could not be criminalized. But was this enough? No. Now they had to secure the “right” to be married. And so they pushed for this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 with Obergefell v. Hodges that they could. But this is still not enough. Now the sodomite community will not be satisfied until Christians are deprived of the religious liberty to discriminate against sodomites; in other words, sodomites wish to compel Christians by the force of law affirm their behavior. And the perversion has not ended here. Sodomites are now pushing transgenderism down upon Americans and are aggressively pushing their filth to school children across America, as well as seeking to legally force churches and Christian institutions to hire and retain them on the job. Trewhella points out:
This perversion invades and pervades into every avenue of life and every age of life – academic, legislative, judicial, commercial, residential, media-both news and entertainment. It is all -consuming. It is oppressive. It demands not toleration, but affirmation and it uses the force of law to extract such from all in society.[5]
Sodomites want far more than the freedom to have sex in their own bedrooms without the fear that the police will beat down their doors. They want complete social and cultural acceptance of their sexual perversion as normal. And it is to be treated as such in all the institutions of our society at every level, starting with our children. And sodomy has been this way all along. The sodomites in Sodom and Gibeah were not content to merely sleep with one another. They would not rest until they had sodomized any new flesh in the cities. This is the natural course of sodomy, as given to us by God’s word. When sodomites are allowed to flourish and increase in numbers and influence, they will seek to oppress the godly, and force them to affirm and embrace the sodomite lifestyle, even to the point of sodomizing them by means of sodomite grooming and rape. We have the testimony of Scripture to confirm this statement. Not only this, but sodomite mob violence is becoming increasingly common. Steve Halbrook writes:
Apparently this is not an isolated sodomite tactic. Sears and Osten chronicle several occasions of sodomites persecuting Christians. One instance was in 1993 at San Francisco’s Hamiltion Square Baptist Church. Because a popular pro-family advocate came to speak, “Radical homosexual activists stormed the church doors, pounding on them, and screaming, ‘We want your children! Give us your children!”’ Although the activists vandalized the church, the police said it was unable to “stop the rampaging homosexual activists.” As they told the senior pastor, “You have to understand, this is San Francisco.”’ In November of 2008, in San Francisco’s Castro District a group of Christians singing and minding their own business were assaulted by hundreds of angry sodomite activists. It took a squad of police in riot gear to escort the Christians safely from the mob, which threatened to kill the Christians…Another one of the numerous incidents involved “a radical queer convergence…where activists stormed a church in the middle of services…Among other things, the activists hollered at the church members, hurled fliers, flaunted sodomite kisses, and blasphemously called Jesus a homosexual. Militant sodomites are increasingly subverting the social order, with intimidation and violence…militant sodomites are no longer a harmless fringe group, but a group to take seriously…[6]
George Grant, as quoted by Rick Scarborough, records:
They want to reorient America’s whole view of sexuality issues…utilizing the full weight of the federal government, they hope to accomplish at the national level what they have been unable to do at the local level: institutionalize homosexual concerns in the health care and policy-making apparatus…they advocate an emphasis on health care reform…to universalize coverage for behavior related maladies as well as to integrate other other homosexuality-oriented actions into the medical mainstream…they are emphasizing the necessity to mandate sensitivity training in all schools at all levels to homosexual behaviors, lifestyles and concerns…they are pushing for official implementation and prosecution of “hate crimes” as well as unofficial stigmatization of “insensitive beliefs” or “hate groups” such as churches or private schools…they advocate that schools and workplaces and help students or employees “overcome stereotypical fears” by exposing them to “alternative life-styles.”[7]
This quote is from 2000; ponder, reader, to see how much of this is no longer sodomite goals, but sodomite achievements. We have seen therefore, that first, the purpose of sodomy laws is suppression, not elimination of sodomy, and second, that sodomy demands not merely toleration, but domination. Steve Halbrook notes:
And “playing fair” with sodomites in civil matters, does not foster reciprocation. …sodomites do not want a free society for all men. Being self-destructive, they seek society’s destruction. Sodomites are self-destructive because they hate God. (While all non-Christians hate God, sodomites are among the most extreme in their outward rebellion against God.) Since man is made in God’s image, hating God is a hatred of one’s humanity. Therefore, sodomites seek society’s destruction because their self-dehumanization renders them inhumane.[8]
But sodomy laws are also necessary to protect society, not only from the cultural takeover of the sodomites, but also to physically protect society from the medical dangers associated with sodomy, dangers that are not posed only to sodomites themselves, but to the society infested with them.
The general community of sodomites across the nation represents a great reservoir of dangerous transmittable diseases. The number of different communicable diseases and their extremely high incidences among sodomites are staggering. The high U.S. incidence rate of these diseases attributable to sodomites is further highlighted by the fact that the sodomite population is quite small compared to the total population.[9]
These include AIDS, 75% of the cases of which are of sodomites. Sodomite sex acts are the “primary vehicles by which this disease is transmitted.[10] Syphillis is also widespread among sodomites, accounting for 50% of all cases of male syphilis, although sodomites only make up 4% of the U.S. population.[11] So is Hepatitis B. “…in one of the most thorough studies of homosexual diseases to date, involving only 4,000 homosexuals from different cities, 61% of the homosexuals tested positive for Hepatitis B virus. In addition, a group of new diseases has spread through the sodomite community, dubbed “gay bowel syndrome, which include amebiasis, giardiasis, shigellosis, and hepatitis A, the latter of which can be transmitted to others through food handling and water splashing on toilet seats.
In addition to the more common acts of homosexual sodomy shown to be dangerous to the individuals committing these acts, there are several other popular practices of sodomites, too despicable to even describe here, which spread these noxious diseases even further among the sodomite community and, eventually, to the general public. Bisexuals often bridge the gap between the diseases prevalent in the homosexual community and the general public through heterosexual conduct. Furthermore, the common acts of homosexual sodomy merely begin the chain of events that has led to numerous diseases of epidemic proportions in the homosexual community which have broken out into the general public.[12]
Scarborough records:
Bathhouses are the happening place for homosexuals…Homosexuals can obtain a membership for a minimal fee. They then can check their clothes as they enter, drape a towel around their bodies if they please, and mix. The central hall is surrounded with private rooms with either mats or bunks, where orgies, not unlike ancient Rome, are endless. Multiple, anonymous partners are the attraction in the gay bath houses. An explosion of diseases that threatens the entire nation is the result.[13]
The Oak Brook College of Law and Government Journal of Legal Studies notes as well:
Social science studies disclose that almost 60% of homosexual males have had between 250 and 1,000 different (usually anonymous sexual partners, while approximately 30% of such homosexuals have had more than 1,000 such sexual contacts. Medical studies confirm similar figures (more than 1,100 sex partners. Moreover, the most thorough medical survey of homosexuals to date demonstrates that 78% of homosexuals have had at least one sexually transmitted disease, and 60% reported having one of the more serious infections. Unequivocally, these sodomite practices and pestilences threaten the health of the many individuals directly involved. However, most of the above-described diseases and many others can be transmitted both sexually and through other methods to persons beyond the original two participants. Because of this extra transmission potential, these diseases represent public health hazards. The fact that sodomites account for a disproportionately large percentage of the total U.S. incidence of these diseases demonstrates that the public interest in rejecting a special status for acts of sodomy is even more compelling. A description of the other modes of transmission of several diseases would further demonstrate the severity of the sodomite disease epidemic. However, such a discussion of these unspeakable practices would offend the sensibilities of the reader.[14]
Thus, the civil magistrates have a responsibility to protect the population from the epidemic of diseases that the widespread and unsuppressed practice of sodomy brings. Diseases which are God’s judgment upon a society that allows sodomy to go unpunished in its midst, in violation of his perfectly just and wise law. But the civil magistrate also must criminalize sodomy to protect sodomy from the widespread violence and sexual abuse that sodomy brings. In regard to the former:
In spite of the public relations efforts of the militant sodomite community to distance itself from the molestation of minors, the facts reveal this to be a major concern. One study revealed that between 44% and 81% of all homosexual sodomites surveyed admitted to having engaged in sodomy with at least one underage boy, while 68% of the more promiscuous respondents admitted to sodomy with six or more minor boys.[15]
This is no surprise for as Halbrook notes: “Sodomy and child molestation go hand in hand – both are extreme sexual perversions. If one is perverse enough to engage in one of these acts, one is perverse enough to engage in the other.”[16] Civil magistrates must criminalize sodomy to protect minors from the sodomization at the hands of sodomites. But adults are also at risk from sodomites as well. Halbrook explains:
Regarding crime, sodomites are 15 times more likely than non-sodomites to commit murder according to one study, which also notes that, outside of contrary evidence, police assume sodomites are behind gory murders. The report states: “It would appear plausible that those who are missocialized in an area as important as sexuality would also be more likely to be missocialized in their treatment of human life. According to another report, in San Francisco, sodomite-sadomasochistic sex resulted in about 10% of the city’s homicides. And so sodomites level capital punishment against their own kind.[17]
And the Oak Brook College of Law and Government Journal of Legal Studies notes:
There have been numerous and confirmed instances of extreme violence perpetrated against children and others by sodomites, including in the early 1980s Wayne Williams mass murders of 22 black boys in Atlanta. Tendencies toward violence are common among practicing sodomites. Moreover, there exists a significant amount of legislative-fact evidence to support a finding of these dangers from acts of sodomy. For example, one published psychological study involving all the sexually related mass murders reported in the U.S. in the last fifteen years demonstrated that 65% of the mass murder victims died in relation to sodomite activities and proclivities, and 48% of the perpetrators practiced sodomy. The tragic murders of fifteen young men by Jeffrey Dahmer further demonstrates the correlation of sodomy and violence against the public. From the above description of antisocial effects resulting from unrestrained sodomy, it should be obvious that the State’s interests in preventing group sex, molestation of minors, and violence are obvious.[18]
In conclusion, therefore, the civil magistrate should and must criminalize sodomy to protect society from the great profusion of social harm that resulted since sodomy has been legalized, the persecution of Christians and the loss of political and religious liberties, the tyranny of the sodomite rights lobby, the profusion of disease, child molestation, and sexual murder. As Trewhella concludes:
This is another reason why the magistrates must criminalize homosexual acts – we have already seen what happens – in such a short time – when the magistrates don’t suppress such behavior through law.[19]
Fourth, True love – biblical love demands that such acts be criminalized by the magistrates.
This may seem counterintuitive to those that have imbibed the lie of our culture that love means acceptance or toleration of sodomy in our neighbors. Trewhella points out that that:
…you cannot truly love your neighbor unless you love God. The love you demonstrate towards your neighbor is the result of love for God in your heart. Jesus said – “If you love me, keep my commandments.” We are his ambassadors. We make known his Law, Word, and Gospel.[20]
And his commandment to civil magistrates is that they criminalize sodomy. Therefore, in order to truly love God, the civil magistrate is duty bound to criminalize sodomy. However, the criminalization of sodomy is also an act of love to the sodomites themselves. How? How as the IBLP Advanced Seminar textbook put it:
Sodomy is a self-consuming passion which will not satisfy those who engage in it. Instead it will produce enslavement to ever increasing cravings for fulfillment. If no law exists to prohibit sodomy, or worse yet, laws are made to protect it, thousands of unsuspecting citizens will be drawn into it without knowing of its dangers.[21]
The criminalization of sodomy will keep some from falling into the sin, for they will fear the wrath of the civil magistrate should they be caught and will thus refrain from committing the sin. In addition, laws against sodomy suppress the behavior so that sodomites do not occupy the seats of power in our society and use them to entice our sons and daughters into this vile perversion. It helps keep them from being infected with the diseases of the sodomites and from becoming victims of sodomite abuse and violence.
Conclusion
The legalization of sodomy is only part of a much larger agenda of sexual liberation (actually slavery) in our nation. Matthew Trewhella puts it this way: “When it comes to homosexual acts – such filth is part of this nation’s larger canvas of sexual immorality and perversion…The west faces only two options when it comes to the unleashing of homosex behavior in the nations – either the West will destroy itself or the magistrates will suppress the behavior.”[22] The criminalization of sodomy is not an option for Western Civilization. It is an imperative if the nation wishes to stave off the judgment of God upon itself in this regard. Far better to incur the wrath of the sodomites than the wrath of Almighty God. It is he whom we should fear, not perverse and wicked men. That churchmen do not see the imperative nature of this duty on the part of their civil magistrates only stands testament to the pathetic state of the church in our day in the United States. May God purify his bride and equip it to disciple the nations, including teaching the civil magistrates of the earth of their duty to criminalize sodomy. May God be pleased to bring political and ecclesiastical reformation to our land!
[1] See Theonomy in Christian Ethics and The Authority of God’s Law Today by Greg Bahnsen, God’s Law Made Easy by Kenneth Gentry, etc.,
[2] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
[3] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
[4] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
[5] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
[6] Steve Halbrook God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws (Theonomy Resources Media, 2011) p. 247
[7] Rick Scarborough Enough Is Enough: A Call to Christian Involvement (Pearland, Texas: Vision America, 2000) p. 167
[8] Steve Halbrook God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws (Theonomy Resources Media, 2011) p. 247
[9] Journal of Legal Studies: The Legal Implications and Sociological Consequences of Progressive Sodomy Laws (Oak Brook, Illinois: Institute For Basic Life Principles, 1993) p. 15
[10] Ibid p. 16
[11] Ibid p. 17
[12] Ibid p. 20
[13] Rick Scarborough Enough Is Enough: A Call to Christian Involvement (Pearland, Texas: Vision America, 2000) pp. 165-166
[14] Journal of Legal Studies: The Legal Implications and Sociological Consequences of Progressive Sodomy Laws (Oak Brook, Illinois: Institute For Basic Life Principles, 1993) pp. 20-21 See also Steve Halbrook God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws (Theonomy Resources Media, 2011) pp. 251-153 Hallbrook concludes: “And so since we don’t threaten sodomites with execution, the AIDS epidemic is executing much of the innocent. So much for sodomy being a private matter.” (Ibid p. 253)
[15] Journal of Legal Studies: The Legal Implications and Sociological Consequences of Progressive Sodomy Laws (Oak Brook, Illinois: Institute For Basic Life Principles, 1993) p. 24
[16] Steve Halbrook God Is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws (Theonomy Resources Media, 2011) p. 253
[17] Ibid
[18] Journal of Legal Studies: The Legal Implications and Sociological Consequences of Progressive Sodomy Laws (Oak Brook, Illinois: Institute For Basic Life Principles, 1993) pp. 24-25
[19] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
[20] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
[21] Research in Principles of Life Advanced Seminar Textbook (Oak Brook, Illinois: Institute in Basic Life Principles, Inc.) 1986 p. 289
[22] http://mercyseat.net/2018/06/08/four-reasons-the-magistrates-have-a-duty-to-criminalize-homosexual-acts/
