HIV/AIDS: God's Judgment on Homosexuality?

Photo Credit: Ali K..

[There is an] obvious link between AIDS and God's judgment on sodomy....When God allows the act of sin itself to carry with it the penalty of death, the man who denies any link to divine judgment is simply a fool.
-AIDS as Divine Judgment: A personal note, Out of Our Minds Too, May 10, 2006

The sins of the Sodomites are of the vilest nature. God's hatred of their abominations is revealed in their incurable disease that strikes with near 100% mortality--AIDS!
-The Doom of the Sodomites

Is it ever our place as humans to assign motive to God's working in nature?A common theme that runs through debates between pro-gay and anti-gay groups--particularly in the religious realm--is whether or not HIV/AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuality. It is perhaps one of the most emotion-laden facets of the entire debate, and understandably so, for HIV/AIDS is a horrible disease that has ravaged both homosexual and heterosexual people alike. But, because of the highly-emotional nature of the topic, it is one of the major areas in which “cluttered thinking” rears its head, and thus, it is the first area of clutter we will address.

• Does the Bible indicate that HIV/AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuality?
• Is there a Scripture passage that states this to be the case specifically or exclusively?
• Has God revealed to us today WHY in the 1960's or 70's He allowed this disease to rise up?
  

Many Bible believers say that this is just common sense, a logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence available.

But is it ever our place as humans to assign motive to God's working in nature? Can I say a tsunami in Malaysia is God's judgment on Islam? If I believe Islam to be evil, that could make logical sense, but who am I to make that determination? Who am I to claim to know the mind of God?

This post is an appeal for balance and precision in our discussions. In regard to HIV/AIDS, there are some things I assume to be obvious.

First, God certainly can and does use disease as a judgment upon sin. From Miriam’s leprosy (Numbers 12:1-15) to Elymas’ blindness (Acts 13:6-12), Scripture gives many examples of explicit judgment upon specific sins by means of disease. We also see disease as judgment for general unbelief and sinfulness, as in the boils on the people of Egypt (Exodus 9:8-12). And there is no reason to think that God does not use disease today as a judgment against sins. However, we do not have Spirit-inspired Scripture to tell us today which specific disease is judgment against which specific sin.

Consider the following:

The Appeal to Romans 1:27
The first quote at the start of this post alludes to Romans 1:27 which states,

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (NIV).

This verse is undoubtedly the most-referenced Scripture passage in support of this idea. However, if one appeals to Romans 1:27 for the claim that he knows with certainty that HIV/AIDS is God’s specific, special judgment upon homosexuality specifically or exclusively, and that this verse is proof, then what was the meaning of that verse before 1980? Paul’s statement was not future tense.

So what was the penalty that Paul was speaking about? I believe it must be something other than a disease that would not show up for over 1,900 years. Personally, I believe that, regardless of what else is determined about the rest of Romans 1, Paul speaks here of something deeper and more damaging than a mere illness.

1 Corinthians 6:12-20 give us a sense of this when Paul speaks of sexual sin as being against one’s own body. The context of that passage speaks of the union of the physical bodies of husband and wife as representative of Christ’s union with His church. To say that Paul’s concern is just potential illness would be totally removed from the emphasis of the passage. Rather, I believe he spoke of that damage that one causes when he gives himself physically to that which is unholy (whether Romans 1:27 is speaking of homosexuality universally or promiscuous homosexual acts in certain contexts is a discussion for another post and irrelevant to this particular point).

Sexual sin is a sin against the person himself, against that picture that God has intended here on earth to represent the future completion in Heaven. Anytime someone participates in Biblically-prohibited sexual activity, he tears a piece of himself and leaves it behind. He sins against his own body, and even if he is spared from physical disease, he will carry within himself for the rest of his life the penalty for his error. This seems to be a much more true and consistent interpretation of Romans 1:27.

Consistency in Logic Unlikely
If we insist that HIV/AIDS is direct judgment against homosexuality, consistency in our logic would require us to say that diabetes is God’s direct judgment against intemperance in eating, that skin cancer is God’s direct judgment against sunbathing, and that athlete’s foot is God’s direct judgment against poor personal hygiene. I don’t say this to be silly, but the mere fact of a disease frequently being present among a particular group of people is not sufficient for us to claim to know God’s mind as to the purpose of that disease.

Disease Does Not Always Indicate Judgment
We have seen it is unwise to claim that we know God’s motives, that a particular disease is His judgment upon a particular sin, when God has not told us that that specific disease was designed for that specific purpose. However, to go a step further, it is unwise also for us to insist that the appearance of a particular disease is intended by God as judgment at all.

God does not use disease only for the purpose of judgment. Think of the man in John 9 that Jesus healed who was born blind. The disciples asked Jesus whose sin the blindness was judgment upon. But Jesus said the disease was not judgment at all; rather, it was intended to bring glory to God. There we specifically have Christ saying not only that disease was not direct judgment; it was in fact not even indirect judgment against sin.

Another example, though perhaps not quite as explicit, would be Paul’s blindness on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-17). In the midst of one of the most beautiful demonstrations of God’s mercy in all of Scripture, as God transformed the heart of one of His most ardent opponents, did He blind Paul with the intent of judging him for some sin, directly or indirectly? I think not. Instead, God just used the blindness to bring Paul together with Ananias and those who would disciple him in the early days following his conversion.

It is not homosexuality that spreads HIV/AIDS.
It is promiscuous sexual activity, regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. It is an inarguable fact that two homosexual men in a committed monogamous relationship will not develop nor transmit HIV due to their sexual activities. The reason HIV is associated with homosexuality is not because of the act of same-sex intimacy itself; it is because many homosexual men live promiscuous lifestyles, sleeping with multiple partners over their lifetimes. If homosexual men were each to be intimate with only one other man for life, HIV would disappear from the gay world altogether, even though homosexual activity did not stop.

The Appeal to Galatians 6:7-8
This is another passage often appealed to by those claiming HIV/AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuality. These verses state,

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

However, this passage does not support the argument either. Paul is contrasting opposite choices ("sowing to please his sinful nature" vs. "sowing to please the Spirit") with opposite consequences ("reaping destruction" vs. "reaping eternal life"). But, the opposite of “eternal life” is not physical disease; rather, it is spiritual death. In fact, the Greek word phthora that is translated as “destruction” speaks of moral decay and, ultimately, eternal separation from God.

Now, having said all that, I think I need to reiterate that, in this post, I am not arguing to justify homosexual intimacy (because I haven’t figured that out yet anyway). Nor am I saying that God cannot or does not use HIV/AIDS as judgment against homosexual activity (again, exactly what homosexual activities would or would not be included is irrelevant to this post). Rather, the purpose of this post is to clear out some cluttered thinking and to appeal for caution in assuming that we have knowledge of God’s specific motives in a particular situation (simply because it seems to us to be an “obvious link”) when He has not given us explicit information to tell us that our conclusion is truly His motive.

I left a comment for the author of the opening quote a while back, to which he posted a response on his blog, stating (concerning me),

[He] doesn’t argue that [the post author] is wrong. Instead he assumes that [he] is wrong, assuming also that those reading his comments will be as offended as he is that such a thing is even uttered in this late day.

Unfortunately, he missed my point entirely. I do not assume that the concept of HIV/AIDS as divine judgment against homosexuality is offensive. If those who view homosexuality as universally sinful are correct, HIV/AIDS could possibly be such judgment. What I do find offensive is the arrogance to assume that we mortals have the authority to make determination of Divine motivation when God has not revealed to us what His motives are (an arrogance which I sadly admit tries to creep up in my own life far too often).

So, once again, I ask, let us be certain to approach these topics with the humility to admit that we do not know the mind of God in each of His specific outworkings of His will in the world today, and just because something seems logical does not give us the right to state it dogmatically.