Out and about I come across different types of Christians. I don’t mean in terms of the official denominations, but rather, different as regards their understanding of what being a Christian is all about. These different views cut across all the official denominations and seem to have as their basis, the degree to which Christianity involves a relationship. There are a great many folks who call themselves Christians on the basis that they believe, give intellectual assent to, the facts known about Jesus from the Gospel stories in the Bible. Throughout the New Testament is found verses that say one simply has to believe in order to be saved - for example, the well-known oft-quoted John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Taking that verse on it’s own, a belief in Jesus as God’s Son, the Saviour, the Messiah, leads to one’s salvation. But is that all there is to it? If that is all, then it is a pretty simple matter to give a nod to the notion and then get on with one’s life as before. What is there to lose? It would seem the sensible thing to do, just on the offchance that all this Christianity stuff is for real and hell is indeed the eternal destination for those who don’t nod their heads at some point before they die. Elsewhere in the Gospels we read Jesus saying a little more to folk than that they must just believe. He actually says “follow me” and invites people to forgo their former way of doing things. Then as though that isn’t enough, He tells folk that they need to repent of the wrong things that they do as well. The crunch really comes when one realizes just exactly who Jesus actually is. Conviction of wrongdoing, of missing the mark, requires nothing less than humbling oneself before God and asking for His forgiveness. The proud who cannot do this will turn away, and as Jesus said Himself, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9: 12, 13) As I see it, being a Christian means being a follower of Christ. It means in particular, having a personal, living and loving, dynamic relationship with Christ. It involves at some point making a conscious decision, accepting the invitation to follow. Those who stop at an intellectual acknowledgement and nothing more, who are Christians only by virtue of their culture, are missing out on this full relationship. The relationship is one of mutual love, of being drawn closer to Him and wanting to do what He wants of us. As Jesus said, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching“. (John 14: 23, 24) John 14: 15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” Believing is an act of faith, of exercising trust in God, a trust that deepens and strengthens as the relationship grows, and although God’s purposes are not always fully known, there is the assurance of His love and faithfulness towards us no matter whatever happens in this world. With this assurance comes a peace that is not of the world at all. Much of this is hard to understand by those whose relationship with Him has not yet begun, or is very new or tentative, or is stuck somehow - and by those who see the whole Christianity thing as just one big silly nonsense.

When it comes to types of Christians (as I wrote when I began this post) I am unwilling to categorize anyone, or provide labels to be slapped on foreheads. Folks may do this for themselves as they wish, but I find some of the words used to describe Christians are very limiting and false. They involve assumptions and generalizations, “fixing” one in much the same way that a dead butterfly is fixed in the collection box of the lepidopterist. For myself I am simply a follower of Christ, someone growing spiritually within a trusting relationship with Him. I may accept the adjectives “conservative/traditional” to describe my use of Scriptural exegesis for reading and understanding the Bible, and to separate myself from the heresy of liberal theologies. But other terms are not for me - I cannot guarrantee to match them with what I say or do. A relationship is a living growing thing, and from such comes my Christian faith.

“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”
(Proverbs 3: 5-6)

Postscript: Relevant to this post is a rebuttal of Pascal’s Wager to be found here.

So Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, has been “terminated” and “eliminated”. This Muslim so devoted to his cause committed the most evil deeds during his short life time, and was responsible for the torture and murders of thousands of people. He will be missed alright, and gratefully so by a great many more thousands and thousands who want the wings of Islam severely clipped and their criminals receiving the justice they deserve. My own reaction was a sense of great relief, but tinged with a surprising sadness as well. I heard the cheers of those delighted by the success of the raid, but I could feel no joy in the deed. Yes, it is certainly “good riddance” and the world will be much better off without him. Unfortunately, there are still more of the same to take his place, so the situation continues although this may cripple their cause for a while. I heard how this man will now be enjoying his 72 virgins and houris in Paradise, or else finding out that he really did “back the wrong horse” having been successfully duped through his mind-numbing brain-washing beliefs. And that is the source of my twinges of sadness - that he was someone who backed the wrong horse, followed the wrong leader, worshipped a false god, and was severely deceived. Now he is paying the price, and the price is eternal.

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, in the first chapter of his book titled Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, looks at how we can know that Christianity is true. In discussing faith and reason, he considers the rational and evidential arguments of reason, then regarding faith turns his attention to the work of God through the Holy Spirit. For the believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the inner witness of God’s Spirit provides the assurance of the truths to which are testified. The believer knows the truth by God’s Spirit. Those who do not believe do not have such an experience, and it will not become theirs until such a time that they do (if they choose to) believe. But the work of God’s Spirit is different when it comes to the unbeliever. Jesus describes this work of the Holy Spirit in John 16:7-11.

7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Would someone like al-Zarqawi ever have been subjected to any promptings of God’s Spirit? Would he ever have been convicted of his own sin, of God’s righteousness, and of his own condemnation before God? Did this happen and he chose to ignore it? Is this true of any Muslim at all? After all, they do make claim to know God (whom they call Allah) and to an understanding of what Allah wants them to do, and they lay claim to a sharing of Jesus as a prophet although not the Messiah.

The problem is that very little of what is written in the Qur’an actually gives a view of God as known to Christians, and their prophet ‘Isa (whom they claim to be Jesus) is nothing like the Jesus of the New Testament, the historical Jesus whose life, death, resurrection and teachings are recorded in the Gospels. Their Allah does not have a Holy Spirit - he is not our triune God. Would a man’s conscience alone be enough to tell him that certain things - scheming to murder, torture, beheadings, etc - are the wrong way to act? The Qur’an says it is the right way to treat the infidel and bring about our dhimmitude and eventual submission to Allah, or else death. I wonder if al-Zarqawi, in his prayers to Allah or thoughts about his Islamic faith ever received a niggle of conscience, a thought that something was wrong, that so much death and destruction could ever be right? I don’t know the answer to that.

All I can hope for is God’s justice on his soul. Many are ready to condemn him to rot in hell for all his evil deeds. How vindictive we can all be when someone like him is destroyed. This man was deceived, badly deceived, and he bought into the deception with one huge commitment to his Islamic faith, maybe tempered by whatever worldly rewards were offered as well. That has been devastating for many, and gives us just cause to fight against such evil. Our fight must go on but it is not merely between populations on this planet, but even more importantly, it is a spiritual one also.

I wonder… is it expecting too much of us, or not? After all, we are only human.

When was the last time that someone let you down, not just a little let down, but really badly so that you were left hurting, upset, angry, frustrated and stressed out by what happened? Such a thing has probably happened to all of us at some time or another. So what happens next?

A common thing that others may do for you is suggest all the horrible things you might imagine doing in retaliation. Lots of “deliciously horrible” ideas come to the fore, all those wicked things one might consider doing to give back those “just deserts” that should by rights be coming to the offender. The imagination can run wild and create all kinds of nasty little surprises as payback. There is some satisfaction, and even quite a few laughs at the more creative of the punishments, and then one begins to feel a little better - or is supposed to. And it is a harmless thing to do in order to feel better, isn’t it, because they are only imagined - not something that one would really do? But is it really that harmless?

Something of this nature happened to someone I know of recently, and sympathetic folks contributed a wealth of wicked suggestions. But my own experience is that these imaginings do not really help me that much. The satisfaction is short-lived, if it really ever existed at all. What this victim-perpetrator duel does do is to prolong the misery by continuing to engage with it. In a sense, one has handed over the puppet strings of one’s psyche to the person who dealt out the disservice and in allowing the strings to be pulled thus, accepted a form of diminished responsibility for oneself. Hitting back does not heal the hurt but keeps the wound open instead. One friend suddenly recognized this and apologized for her part in perpetuating the misery by this means, a loving act to counteract the earlier one.

But if you are that badly hurt and upset, it really is hard to put it aside and forgive. It is more human not to forgive sometimes, to hang on to hurts and suffer the misery of them instead. There can be a perverse satisfaction in being the injured party. It draws sympathy from others, especially those who are kind-hearted, but even more so from those who may take the opportunity to vicariously vent their own unforgiven hurts. Then a wise voice is heard saying “Let it go!” Letting it go is sensible damage control. “Take the moral high ground,” says another voice. And the wisest voice of all warned that what we do in thought is as dangerous as the deeds themselves. He said even more than that, perhaps the hardest thing of all and yet also the healthiest thing of all.

Jesus said…

Luke 6: 27 But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Luke 6: 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that.

CLOTHES MAKE THE MAN — “Appearances count for a lot. A similar expression was current among the ancient Greeks: ‘The garment makes the man.’ In the form ‘apparel makes the man’ the idea turned up in England as early as the 16th century. A century later it was sometimes put as ‘the taylor makes the man.”
~ from “The Dictionary of Cliches” by James Rogers (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985).

Two little items of news appeared in this morning’s newspaper (among others) and while in separate columns they rather coincidentally turned out to be along side each other.

The first concerned something going on in Britain at the moment - Butlers in the Buff, a business success story where male waiters wear only a bow tie, collar, cuffs and a bottom-revealing apron. This was marketed as a tasteful alternative to strippers and pole dancers and the like, all strictly “no touch” and most definitely to be “cheeky but clean”. To be considered for such a job one had to be male, nice, charming, a gentlemanly type - rather James Bond-ish, obviously young and in suitably good shape.

Well, I need not apply. I don’t have all the right chromosomes for a start - and no comment regarding the rest. But concerning just the chromosomes, I do for the next little story.

Father Felice, an Italian priest, has put up a sign at the entrance to the church in Cinisello Balsamo, Milan. The sign reads: “God knew what your navel looked like before you were born, so there is no need to expose it in church.” Father Felice is reported to have said that he put up the sign because his parish cannot afford to hire guards to keep out low-cut jeans and high-cut tops. It would seem that young ladies with bare midriffs are not very welcome.

Humans do have a tendency to get rather hung up on the human body. Some like to look at it, and obviously some don’t. Having seen the unclothed version in various shapes, sizes and conditions a vast and countless number of times in the course of a professional (hospital) career, for me personally I can probably “take it or leave it” without getting overwrought in any way. I guess there is that factor of cultural normality that one would usually take into account - the expectation of what you might see depending on where you happen to look. There are plenty of barely clad bodies down at the beach on a hot summer’s day, but when I go out to dine my expectation is not usually the rear cheeky smile of someone’s naked behind. Of course, if I do not fancy bare bottoms with my buffet, I need not visit there again.

But those low-cut jeans and high-cut tops are a youth fashion thing and it is quite customary to see them wherever one finds young ladies who like to be fashionable. They wouldn’t suit me despite my son’s recommendation that I should “get with it” and risk the kidney chill. No, not really for me. But for many, it is. Clothes - all the why, what, when and where about them - are largely cultural matters.

Now Father Felice has adopted something less than a water-tight argument for his ban on belly buttons. So God has probably seen your one even before it came about, but while that might be a reason for not needing to expose it, that might equally be a reason for not needing to hide it. The problem with keeping out low-cut jeans and high-cut tops is that you also keep out the person inside them. Is that what he wants?

On Sundays my mother used to dress me up in my best clothes - best frock, best shoes, and even a little hat to match. I hated the hat but that didn’t come into it. I was admonished not to get dirty, and most definately not to swing upsidedown on the bikestands on my way to visit God. That certainly wasn’t much fun for a kid who liked swinging upsidedown on bikestands. The odd thing was that my mother remembered hating having to take an umbrella with her when she was a kid being sent off to visit God, and she used to hide it under a hedge in order to reclaim it on the way back. But if I had expected some leniency on account of that, then I was right out of luck. My mother had since become a grownup and that put paid to any leniency of that kind. Sitting in church with elastic under one’s chin is quite irksome. I did sometimes wonder if God would mind very much if I just took it off provided I didn’t forget and leave it behind.

Does God really mind about things like that? If God can see one’s navel, and surely He can since He can also see into our hearts and minds, and that is where we are told that He looks - into hearts and minds, I mean, rather than at navels - then maybe other things matter more to Him than those cultural outside appearances.

Just imagine this…

You arrive at the airport and line up to check in your baggage and collect your boarding pass, and after the usual frustrating delays in the queue and with time moving on, it is finally your turn to present at the next available counter space for some service. The Airline staff member has some bad news for you: “Sorry Sir, that flight has been over-booked and we will have to wait-list you for the next available flight instead.” But that is the flight that you absolutely must get yourself on. You have another connection with another airline, and you already knew that all their other flights were booked out, and as well as that, you are due to speak at the conference you are attending as the organization’s featured guest speaker. All this has been arranged weeks in advance, and, and.. “Sorry Sir, that flight has been over-booked and there are no available seats…” repeats the cloned parrot in Airline uniform.

After the awful hassle getting yourself to the airport in the driving rain with traffic jams and the realization you had left behind the extra package you had put in a safe place then forgotten to pack, you have just about had it up to… no, just right over the top… well, nevermind. The uniformed parrot asks you to stand to the side so she can attend to the next poor hopeful and points to the man at another counter (yes, you will have to queue up again) to see about being wait-listed. You are dismissed.

Well, all that pent up frustration has to go somewhere, and you are pretty concerned about how the conference is going to manage… “Yes sir, we can put you on the flight that leaves in 8 hours time” says the man. “What!” comes the explosion - an amazingly polite explosion at that! In exasperation your foo-foo valve lifts and in a jet of steam you sound off about the hopeless Airline that you wish you had never bothered booking on and how someone will hear about this and it is not good enough and what are you, that man, going to do about it. Phew! That told him! Now what?

The man says “Sorry Sir” and tries to explain. You think that if you hear another “sorry sir” again it won’t just be a foo-foo valve lifting… but what was that? “The Airline…” Yes, the Airline. No, not the man. The Airline. The man is not the Airline. He is only the man at the counter whose unfortunate job is to wear the full facial vent from everyone’s foo-foo valves BUT he did not over-book the aircraft and nor did he personally aid and abet your misery or anything else about your most unpleasant day. He is only the man at the counter.

It is often rather like that when Christians point to something that is written in the Bible. That something might come over as rather distasteful. Yes, I can think of such a thing… “Wives, submit to your husbands.” What! In this day and age, that is totally outrageous! What intelligent woman in her right mind would want to throw away her autonomy and do a dumb thing like that? And what about husbands who would like nothing better than a wifely slave to run themselves ragged doing their bidding? Well, not a truly loving husband… but how many of the truly loving types are there around these days? That is a tough call indeed. OK, that’s just one side of the story - there is much more to it than that, and husbands don’t get let off lightly at all. But on the face of it, hearing something like that is enough to make one want to eat the poor soul who dared to point out that contentious verse. But is it right to eat the poor soul? He or she didn’t write that verse. It really is there, right there, in the Bible - Ephesians 5:22, Ephesians 5:24, Colossians 3:18. Oh dear.

The Bible also says many other very unpopular things - the famous Ten Commandments for starters, and much more besides. God defines sin, and we are told that we are to turn from sin. Jesus says things about leaving behind everything to follow Him, about going the extra mile, loving one’s enemies and doing good to those who hate you. There are lots of toughies in there. As a Christian, I sometimes find myself with the task of pointing out those things to someone else by the way of information. They don’t always like it, and when it is one of those moral imperatives, I may also get Matthew 7:1 thrown back at me. Who am I to judge another? Only God can judge another.

Two Kinds of Judging is a brief essay that addresses this subject.

God judges in the temporal arena, and the eternal. In this life God will judge a person’s actions, but always (except when the person has irrevocably rejected Him) holds out the chance for turning back and repenting. Only on the Last Day, at the great white throne judgment will God pronounce eternal judgment on a person, forever determining his or her destinies. From this judgment, there is no appeal or second chance.

The Christian, on the other hand, is never given the right or the responsibility of eternally judging anyone (unless they have clearly rejected Christ permanently). Christians cannot correctly weigh action, motives, opportunities, nor know all things about any individual: God alone is capable to do so.

However, Christians are to make decisions (appraisals, discernments, and even take corrective actions). But even judging in this aspect is intended to be remedial, and leaves the door open to the person for repentance and reconciliation. Any judging on the part of a Christian which does not, is a false aspect of Christian judgment. We are called upon to ”judge righteous judgment” John 7:24 and failure to do so is to be negligent in a crucial aspect of our Christian calling.

Repeating myself from elsewhere (regarding homosexuality) because this reaction I receive frustrates me ever so much:

It is God who defines what is sin - not me. I am not proffering punishment. Punishment, if and when it is forthcoming, is the sole perogative of God - not me. I also leave these things up to God, and to God alone. Yes, He is our judge - and in this (sexual immorality) and many other matters, He has already made His judgement known through His word. He calls these acts immoral - sinful. But when it comes to the moment of accountablilty before God, He will judge each one of us with His perfect judgement that takes into account of all things. Life is indeed not black-and-white, but God's justice will be perfect in every way for each of us. I am not the judge, and I am not doing the judging either. These are not my judgements - I am not the One making them. They are those of God as can be determined by traditional exegesis of Scripture. I shall be judged by them also. I have said this all along, and have never said anything contrary to this. As I have said before - please don't shoot the messenger! The messenger did not make the judgements, is not doing the judging, and indeed, may not like certain judgements either, but that does not change the fact they are those of God, the only One who ultimately has the right to make them.

For another Christian view on this subject:
Who Are We to Judge?
Did Jesus forbid us from judging others?
~ written by Lewis B. Smedes, professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

“Don’t judge me! The Bible even says ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.”

The world often takes this verse (out of its context) and uses it to accuse Christians of being “judgmental” when they speak of sin. In the context of the verse Jesus is telling His disciples not to judge one another, something the Bible condemns (see John 21:21-23, Romans 14:10, and James 4:11). He speaks of seeing a speck in a brother’s eye. In John 7:24 He said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” If a man steals, lies, commits adultery or murder, etc., the Christian can make a (righteous) moral judgment and say that the actions were morally wrong, and that these sins will have eternal consequences. Chuck Colson said: “True tolerance is not a total lack of judgment. It’s knowing what should be tolerated - and refusing to tolerate that which shouldn’t.”

Source

The traditional definition of tolerance is: “to recognize and respect (others’ beliefs, practices, etc) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing.” (Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary)

That suggests that a person may disagree with the other’s belief or practice. What constitutes tolerance is the attitude of respect in the face of such differences in point of view.

However, in today’s multi-cultural and pluralistic present age, the meaning of tolerance has changed to something vastly different. It is now claimed that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another, and that it would be intolerant to believe otherwise. In these days of rigorous political correctness a person is considered to be especially intolerant if expressing a firm belief and conviction that his or her views are right and those who don’t agree are therefore wrong.

But what if it can be argued, albeit respectfully, to show that there is truth in those views with which another disagrees?

To say that someone is intolerant because you disagree with his or her ideas is actually confused. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what his or her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.

Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, and not how we treat the ideas we think false.

Real tolerance is not incompatible with either firm convictions nor even the desire to persuade others. It does not require that one must hold views in favour of the general consensus opinion based on a politically correct agenda.

Real tolerance involves respect for others and the expression of civility towards them. It separates the person from the idea held, just as Christians are told to separate the sinner from the sin… to love the sinner while not the sin, and with tolerance, to respect the person regardless of the idea.

Real tolerance rejects force and intimidation toward those who think differently. It allows us to have differences with impunity.

Mind you, what we do with our ideas might well be something else for which each will always be held accountable.

In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die. ~ Dorothy L. Sayers

THE NEW TOLERANCE ~ It’s politically correct, but does it hold danger for followers of Christ? Is love the same thing as tolerance?

Christianity and Intolerance: Why are Christians So Intolerant? by Rich Deem of GodandScience.org

The Tolerant Christian, by Justin Moser.

A recent post called Postmodernism - putrefying or purifying drew a number of comments that, although going off-track to a discussion on homosexuality, did highlight the problem within the Church, and between the Church and society, by showing how conservative Christianity was being undermined at its Biblical foundations by more “progressive” liberal thought.

In this post I want to return to the persecution facing Christianity from the onward march of secularization where strong political pressures are asserted by minorities but welcomed under the philosophical umbrella of positively sanctioned pluralism, multiculturalism and political correctness.

Remember those Mohammad cartoons from earlier in the year? A large number of Muslims reacted to the publication of caricatures of their prophet and as enraged mobs, demanded apologies and that laws be passed to stop that from ever happening again. Many non-Muslims reacted in turn by saying that no laws should be passed to limit our hard won freedoms of expression. To do so would be a dangerous turn of events.

Our western civilization has a Judeo-Christian heritage, many of our laws being based on principles of Jewish and Christian morality. These laws have supported democracy, family life, education and the freedoms that have facilitated our creative endeavours in music, art, literature, science and technology and many other fields. When those freedoms have been threatened, wars have been fought and invariably won. They are clearly believed to be important, incredibly important, in fact.

But something insidious is moving in the leaf-fall underfoot, emerging out of the autumn of these days, stealthily sneaking through our Judeo-Christian based society like the slow creeping form that Christians have always known about and growing more menacing by the day. It does not come from Islam, but from Islam’s de facto colleague, our own postmodern ethos. It is appearing in the agenda of political activists, those who often deny an agenda but have one nonetheless. But our freedoms of expression must not be curtailed, and Christians must be allowed to repeat Scripture without having to revise it in any way to suit those for whom God’s Word just happens to be uncomfortable.

Tonight my friend Mark Alexander pointed me to an essay by a different Mark Alexander, and this essay speaks so exactly my concerns that I have decided to publish it here in it’s entirety.

Permission for doing so has been granted with the rider that the source, PatriotPost.US, be acknowledged.

Christians, since the dawn of Christendom, have been confronted by secular challenges to the most basic canons of our foundational guidance, Holy Scripture. These challenges to our foundational guidance are especially apparent today.

The Christian family is currently under assault from many quarters, one of the most menacing being the challenge to traditional sexual morality. In an effort to provide some context for understanding sexual deviancy, this essay will briefly address the familial origins and pathology of such deviance, the social “normalization” agenda of homosexual practitioners, the conflict this agenda has created within the Christian Church, and an appropriate Christian response.

Contents

~ Background: Family Origins
~ The Fractured Exemplarity: Altering Sexual Normalcy
~ Understanding: Gender-Disorientation Pathology
~ The Agenda: Homosexual Normalization
~ The Conflict: Scriptural Authority
~ The Context: Scripture, Tradition and Reason
~ Unity of the Body: Christian Fellowship
~ On these two Commandments: The Christian Response
~ Resources
~ Endnotes

Background: Family Origins

As Christians, we are constantly tempted by sin — particularly the sins of self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement. Consequently, perhaps the greatest affront to the Body of Christ is the most common injury to the family of man — marital infidelity.

Marital separation and divorce — which typically results in the absence of fathers from their headship role within the family — is the single most significant common denominator among all categories of social and cultural entropy. “Maturity does not come with age, but with the accepting of responsibility for one’s actions,” writes Dr. Edwin Cole, the father of the Modern Men’s Ministry. “The lack of effective, functioning fathers is the root cause of America’s social, economic and spiritual crises.”

Currently, only one in three children — and only one in five inner-city children — is in a home with a mother and father. Children who are raised in households without fathers are at much higher risk for psychological and emotional disorders, a plethora of behavioral disorders, chemical abuse, sexual deviance, academic failure, unwed pregnancy, abortion, criminal incarceration, poverty, self-mutilation and suicide. Adult children of divorce often harbor such deep emotional disorders that a very high percentage of their marriages also end in divorce — propagating familial generations of misery.

“The simple truth is that fathers are irreplaceable in shaping the competence and character of their children,” notes family researcher David Blankenhorn. “[The absence of fathers] from family life is surely the most socially consequential family trend of our era.”

This certainly is not to say that all children in fatherless homes are destined to fail, any more than it is to say that children in homes with fathers are destined to succeed. Indeed, in many cases where fathers have abdicated their responsibility for proper love, discipline, support and protection of their children, mothers and extended family members have been able to largely assume those responsibilities. But it is to say that the odds of failure are stacked against children of divorce.

Concerns about divorce and its consequential degradation of social and moral order are not new. As Founding Father John Adams wrote, “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. … How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?”

What is new is the vast number of fatherless children in America, kids who have been largely abandoned by their biological father, and the incalculable burden that places on them, and society.

The Fractured Exemplarity: Altering Sexual Normalcy

One notable outcome associated with some broken and dysfunctional families is the absence of a healthy sexual identity in children from such families — particularly their identity with their same-sex parent. Consequently, the paradigm of sexual morality has shifted — and has become a source of much controversy in our culture and in the Christian Church. Though pre-marital and adulterous heterosexual affairs numerically constitute the most significant departure from the Biblical family model, homosexuality is the more destructive course — and its advocacy is the most vociferous insult to that family model.

Simply put, homosexuality threatens the Church and our culture because it threatens the natural order of the family. Though less than three percent of the population self-identify as homosexual (or “gay” in common parlance), the pernicious advancement of homosexuality is very well funded, coordinated and executed.

The University of Virginia’s Bradford Wilcox notes in a recent Heritage Foundation report that those who would deconstruct the natural order of family see the Christian Church as “a key factor in stalling the gender revolution at home.” For this reason, the church as an institution is high on the list of gender-revolution targets — second only to the assault on the traditional family.

Understanding: Gender-Disorientation Pathology

In order to understand how to respond to the homosexual agenda in the Church and society, it is helpful to understand the underlying pathology.

In 1952, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official catalogue of mental disorders used by mental health professionals, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the revised DSM II reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. But in the midst of the sexual revolution, homosexual protestors began picketing the APA’s annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality not be identified as a pathology. In 1973, under enormous pressure from homosexual activists, the APA remove homosexuality from it’s the DSM III edition to the dismay of about 40 percent of psychiatrists — particularly those who specialized in treating homosexuals.

Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes: “The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.”

But the APA is not likely to reverse their position.

The late Charles Socarides, clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, noted, “We know that obligatory homosexuals are caught up in unconscious adaptations to early childhood abuse and neglect and that, with insight into their earliest beginnings, they can change.” Socarides wrote not just as a clinician, but from personal experience — he divorced his wife, and one of his sons was a homosexual.

Homosexuality is sometimes a promiscuous “lifestyle choice.” More often, however, as understood by many medical and mental health specialists, homosexual behavior is a manifestation of gender-disorientation pathology associated with childhood or adolescent emotional dissociation, and physical trauma or abuse.

Many homosexuals report that as children, they had a dysfunctional relationship with their same-sex parent, such relationships being their primary means of gender identification and affirmation. For some children, particularly those whose parents are separated or divorced, the dissociation from their same-sex parent can cause an unconscious but directive drive for gender identification and affirmation among same-sex peers, which, after puberty, can manifest as sexual behavior.

Some homosexuals report that they over-identified with their opposite sex parent and peers — thus a boy becomes increasingly feminized while a girl becomes more masculine.

In both cases — lack of identity and over identity — there is a common denominator which is emotional deprivation. In their formative years, all children need emotional and physical closeness with their parents — particularly with their same sex parent, and they need to develop a healthy sense of their gender identity as masculine or feminine.

Homosexual modeling and/or predation by an authority figure — often an influential person with access to the child through the family, church, school, neighborhood or media — can also promote gender-disorientation pathology.

Children who are victims of homosexual predation often compensate and cover their pain by manifesting some degree of narcissism, an unmitigated expression of self-love, which is antithetical to the embodiment of the Holy Spirit and the image of God. Ironically, they compulsively indulge in aberrant sexual behavior to avoid reconciling the pain of emotional and/or physical abuse.

Some who reject the notion of homosexual pathology continue to speculate about a “gay gene,” but that theory has been rejected by both the scientific community and national homosexual advocacy organizations.

The genetic link theory has its origin in 1991, with the work of UCLA researcher and homosexual activist Simon LeVay, who claimed that there were some minute physiological differences between the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men. His research was heralded by pop media outlets as proof of a genetic link to sexual orientation, but even LeVay, upon publishing his research, noted, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”

Another researcher, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, believes some homosexuals may have chromosomal similarities. Like LeVay, Hamer’s research was also heralded by media outlets as proof of a genetic link to sexual orientation. Like LeVay, Hamer insisted, “These genes do not cause people to become homosexuals … the biology of personality is much more complicated than that.”

It should be noted, however, that some children may be genetically predisposed to exhibit masculine or feminine characteristics associated with the opposite sex — putting them at greater risk of being targeted by homosexual predators and more susceptible, psychologically, to homosexual modeling.

Given this insight into the pathology of gender disorientation, to abandon homosexuals in their mental illness (and sin) under the aegis of “love and compassion” is tantamount to abandoning a destitute homeless man under the justification that his condition is “righteous in God’s eyes.”

Indeed, there is hope for readjustment of sexual orientation, despite assertions to the contrary by homosexual advocacy groups, whose clear social and political agendas risk being undermined by such hope. Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, writes, “The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal.”

“This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation — not only in his sexual behavior … and to enjoy heterosexuality,” notes Dr. Spitzer. “Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. … Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda.”

Hope notwithstanding, the normalization objectives of the homosexual agenda are plain. “When homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it … becomes the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children,” warns Dr. Socarides. “In a Washington March for Gay Pride, they chanted, ‘We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re coming after your children.’ What more do we need to know?”

The Agenda: Homosexual Normalization

The primary cultural agenda of the nation’s largest homosexual advocacy groups is to promote it as being on par with heterosexuality. They advance this agenda through legal challenges, and two primary methods of childhood indoctrination — education and entertainment. This aggressive confrontation with the timeless Judeo-Christian foundation for the family and society is both well-funded and well-organized.

The legal agenda

The primary legal agenda of homosexual advocacy groups is to give this behavior “civil rights” status, as in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act supported by homosexual Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank and others. Necessary components of this agenda are an insistence on corporate and government benefits for homosexual “partners” and state-by-state recognition of homosexual “marriage” and adoption rights.

In 2004, the Massachusetts legislature became the first (and only, to date) state governing body to institute legal status for same-sex marriage and bar “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation.

“As much as one may wish to live and let live,” Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote during Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage debate, “the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.”

To that end, on 10 March, 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston closed its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with homosexuals, which the Catholic Church considers “gravely immoral.” That prompted one advocacy group, the so-called “Human Rights Campaign” to proclaim “Boston Catholic Charities puts ugly political agenda before child welfare,” which, of course, is a projection of the HRC’s mission.

Consistent with Professor Glendon’s warning, the Catholic Charities case is the tip of the iceberg. Once homosexuals receive national civil rights status, a position paper such as the one you are reading could be classified “hate speech” making it a “hate crime.” It’s author could be censured, as was the case in Canada recently when a Christian pastor spoke out against homosexuality.

Legal challenges not withstanding, there is a much more insidious effort to undermine the Judeo-Christian family model — and it is being implemented with much greater success than legal diktats.

Entertainment indoctrination

Every media form, particularly the “entertainment industry,” now has numerous outlets, which integrate homosexual behavior into the family context as if it were as normal as any other human condition in the family. Entertainment is thus the subtlest and most effective means of ideological indoctrination. It creates a psychological opening through which cultural messages bypass the intellectual filters that arrest most input for critical analysis. Because the context for these messages is “entertainment,” they get a free pass into the mind’s cultural framework, where they compete, at a subconscious level, with established ethical and moral standards. Those at greatest risk for this form of indoctrination are emotive adults and all children.

Academic indoctrination

Caveat Emptor!

Parents beware that there are well-organized and well-funded “gender desensitization” programs and curriculums designed to indoctrinate children, K-12, in both private and government schools. Leading this cultural contravention is the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and other allied homosexual alliances across the nation. The syllabus is similar to that being propagated by the media — that homosexuality is an ethical and moral lifestyle choice, and challenging the merits of that choice is tantamount to social ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Children, as on a normal developmental track, experience sexual curiosity, sometimes including same-sex interest, though most don’t act out those interests. But Chad Thompson and Warren Throckmorton, who research homosexual trends in schools, warn that for children who do act on same-sex impulses, there is a growing network of homosexual organizations on campuses across the nation, pushing young people to self-identify as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered” as a result of nothing more than same-sex curiosity.

Thompson and Throckmorton note: “In 1997 there were approximately 100 gay-straight alliances (GSAs) — clubs for gay and gay-friendly kids — on U.S. high school campuses. Today there are at least 3,000 GSAs — nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one — according to the GLSEN, which registers and advises GSAs. In the 2004-05 academic year, GSAs were established at U.S. schools at the rate of three per day.” They conclude, “GLSEN is setting kids up for a lifetime of perverse misery.”

Author and noted commentator Camille Paglia, a self-identified lesbian, writes: “Today, when a teenager has a [same-sex] affair, all the campus social-welfare machinery pushes her [him] toward declaring herself [himself] gay and accepting and ‘celebrating’ it. This is a serious mistake… It is absurd to say that one, two, or more homosexual liaisons make you ‘gay’ - as if lavender ink ran in your veins. Young women [men] are often attracted to each other during a transitional period when they are breaking away from their parents, expanding their world-views, and developing their personalities.”

Paglia concludes, “To identify these fruitful Sapphic idylls with a permanent condition of homosexuality is madness, and the campus counselors who encourage such premature conclusions should be condemned and banished. They are preying, for their own ideological purposes, on young people at their most vulnerable.”

And a footnote on academic agendas: It is no small irony that the most outspoken academic advocates for homosexual normalization at the collegiate level are often equally dogmatic about universal environmental preservation — preservation of the natural order. Surely, even the most humanist of these academicians must acknowledge the obvious — that homosexuality is a clear and undeniable violation of the laws of nature.

The Conflict: Scriptural Authority

Homosexuality is unanimously condemned by the foundational teachings of all world religions, and those teachings are the basis for societal norms worldwide. Thus, breaking through religious barriers is high on the homosexual normalization agenda.

The issue within the Christian Church is not one of Church unity, traditions or politics. Homosexual advocacy in the Church has become a primary catalyst for challenging Scriptural authority — the relevance of God’s word as received through Holy Scripture, the historic foundation of the Christian Church and Western society.

Homosexual advocates make the principal argument that Scripture is ambiguous about sexual immorality. However, both the Old and New Testaments are abundantly clear on their condemnation of homosexual behavior.

In every authentic translation of the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures, homosexual acts are, indeed, explicitly condemned. However, as some have dubiously suggested that our U.S. Constitution is an elastic “living document,” likewise they suggest that Scripture is malleable and thus subject to the same practice of revisionist interpretation.

Homosexual advocates argue that citing Scripture’s condemnation of sin is eisegetical (proof-texting) rather than exegetical. However, this essay does not turn to God’s word with the objective of finding verse that comports to a certain theological, social or political agenda, it returns to Scripture as the exegetical context for the Christian faith.

So convoluted has the debate become in some Western Christian denominations that a few have already approved the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Some have also come perilously close to recognizing homosexual “marriage,” resulting in intra-denominational schisms.

The Context: Scripture, Tradition and Reason

“The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.” –C.S. Lewis

To discuss the issue of homosexual normalization meaningfully, we must move beyond the “pro-this/anti-that” labels. We must dispel a false dichotomy, which has infiltrated our dialogue on the role of homosexuals in the Church and the role of the Church in regard to homosexuals.

Homosexual advocacy groups often rebut dissenters by claiming they are pharisaical, intolerant and judgmental — “homophobic” in current parlance — accusations which serve only to preclude discussing this issue consequentially. Those who apply such labels do so only as a means of arresting discourse.

Disagreement with homosexual advocates’ social and legal agendas has no correlation with one’s capacity to love or have compassion for others. Nor is such dissent necessarily related to judgment, which is God’s alone. Rather, it is about discerning between right and wrong and obedience to objective truth, rather than conforming to a code of subjective relativism popularly justified under the contemporary aegis of “tolerance, diversity and inclusion.”

It should be noted that objective truth does not constitute law without grace. In fact, law in the absence of grace is meaningless — little more than oppression. However, grace in the absence of law is, likewise, meaningless — little more than licentiousness. Law and grace are thus different sides of the same coin.

To discern right from wrong, Christians turn to Scripture as the first resource of our faith, and the foundation on which the tenets of reason and tradition reside.(1)

Opponents of Biblical authority must address themselves to an essential question: If Scripture is not the received Word of God, what then is our source of knowledge, of truth, as Christians? Epistemological certainty must begin and end with a reference point, an objective source, outside of the subjective self. If this presupposition regarding the nature of Scripture and the God of Scripture is denied, no common Christian foundation for truth or knowledge remains.

If the Word of God is subordinate to “situational ethics” and “cultural relativity,” if one is content to “interpret” Scripture such that it comports with a post-modern social agenda rather than receive God’s word as objective truth, then there is no further common ground for discussion of homosexuality (or any other issue) in the context of the Christian Church. Such subordination leads to a denial of objective truth, the advancement of subjectivist doctrines and, ultimately, the denial of any Scriptural authority.

In Luke 12, Jesus speaks about denial of objective truth: “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Endeavoring to divine objective truth, some Christians suggest that the Church’s founding tenets of Scripture, reason and tradition, have equal standing. But there is nothing in the history of the Church to support this errant assertion. Reason and tradition rest on the foundation of Scripture, and are not to be equated with God’s Word. Thus, if we are to be faithful, we turn to Scripture for Divine guidance in the Christian Church.

Some Christians correlate Scriptural truth with reason in the Scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas. God’s universal plan and its inherent truths are thoroughly explicated in both the revealed and natural law, including the study of the natural order. Within that order, we are entrusted with the land and all living things, a trust frequently violated in selfishness and submission to evil. We are also entrusted with the sexual design and relationship between “male and female, man and woman.” This design is as clear in nature and reason as in Scripture, and should not be violated.(2)

Some Christian traditionalists differentiate between Scriptural truths, which transcend time and culture, and teachings, which are a reflection of historic culture. In Leviticus, for example, one may conclude that the legal stipulation for unrepentant homosexuals — death — is associated with an ancient culture. But, to conclude that all of Leviticus or the entire Bible for that matter is relative to whatever measure we choose, defies truth. The transcendent truth in Leviticus is its condemnation of homosexual behavior as “an abomination.”

Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law of the Old Testament through His atoning death on the cross — the ultimate and final sacrifice — instituting the new Covenant of Grace. Law and Grace are, essentially, different sides of the same coin, which is to say each is to balance, or to be understood through, the other. That is not to say the New Testament does not clearly condemn fornication and homosexual practices. In Romans 1:24-32, the Apostle Paul says, “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who would practice them.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul adds, “Do not be deceived, neither the immoral…nor sexual perverts…will inherit the Kingdom of God.” Paul uses the Greek word “arsenokoitai” in these texts, which means “sodomites.”

Some homosexual advocates argue that Jesus is “silent” on this issue in the Gospels. Of course, Jesus does not directly speak about pedophilia or bestiality either. Is He really silent, or is His affirmation of marriage between “man and woman” sufficient rebuke for the homosexual agenda in the Christian Church?

In Matthew 19, Jesus speaks to us about marriage and sexuality: “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, man and woman, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’. “(3)

Note that Jesus concludes in this passage: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Clearly, the homosexual agenda is wholly antithetical to all of these teachings. Yet some denominations continue to raise up unrepentant homosexuals to positions of Church leadership.

Unity of the Body: Christian Fellowship

Of Church leaders and elders, Paul writes in Titus 1:7-9: “Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work … he must hold firmly to the trustworthy Message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” Holding firmly to the Message has always required much faith and courage. Paul also writes in 1 Timothy 3:2, “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife …” and notes, “If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s Church?”

It follows, then, that the church should not give official standing to homosexuals, ostensibly as an expression of “unconditional love.”

Though the legal status of “homosexual behavior” and “same-sex marriage” is being debated within the context of government legislatures and courts, the objective truth concerning such behavior was established by Scripture many centuries ago. Therefore, no institutional body of Christians should seek to normalize homosexuality or any other sexual aberration. Doing so projects the message that such aberrations are acceptable in God’s eyes and consistent with His creation. This projection is not only iconoclastic but deceitful in that it suggests overt sinful behavior is to be upheld and honored.(4)

Homosexual normalization in some denominations and para-church ministries has caused such confusion that laity are left to ponder, “How do sheep find their way when the shepherd is lost?” Of course, such confusion is resolved by the simple question, “Who is your shepherd?” Jesus is not lost. But there is great peril in putting faith in men. In Matthew 7, Jesus warned: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Again Jesus warns in Matthew 24: “Watch out that no one deceives you.”

If we are faithful, then we abide by Scripture and uphold its revealed transcendent Truth. In John 8, Jesus speaks to us about this truth: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” But, if Christians refuse to discern the transcendent truth in Christ’s words, what are the implications for Christendom?

On these two Commandments: The Christian Response

So how do we respond to homosexual practitioners in the Church and society?

In Matthew 22, Jesus declares: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Indeed, we are called to love all people.

As for how to show God’s love to sinners, Romans 12:21 teaches, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” We are thus commanded to reach out unconditionally in love, and seek to heal. Fortunately, because we are all sinners, the expression of unconditional love by other Christians is often the gateway to healing our own souls.

While discerning right from wrong in society, as Christians we are called to love sinners, and not predicate our love for homosexuals, in this case, on condition of their obedience to moral truth as set forth in Scripture. But “unconditional love” is not analogous with “subjective relativism,” and we should not uphold sinful behavior as righteous, which is a violation of God’s word and design. Failing to make this distinction constitutes grace in the absence of law, which, as noted previously, results in licentiousness.

As for unrepentant homosexuals (those who have been offered love and healing) and their standing among Christ’s people, 1 Corinthians 5:11 confirms: “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral…. With such a man do not even eat.” As noted, this does not mean we are not to reach out to sinners and seek to foster repentance and healing in them. But it does mean we must not raise them up in their sin and provide them good standing in our fellowship.

Unfortunately, it is much easier to uphold sin than it is to confront sin and love the sinner enough to guide him toward healing. This accounts for why most homosexuals are abandoned to their misery.

It is sometimes difficult to stand in defense of God’s Word and plan for His people. Christians, however, must remain defiant in the face of errant teaching, and we must know that we have been called to do so in His name. “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.” (Psalm 1:1)

The Christian calling to defend objective truth in this matter may indeed attract much ridicule. But in the words of our Savior from Matthew 5: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”

Stand firm in the Truth and Light.

Resources

NARTH — The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality — Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors?into harmony with their values… Link to — http://www.narth.com/
Exodus International is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of “Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” Link to — http://www.exodus-international.org/
LIFE Ministries International is a Christ-centered support group ministry focused on encouraging, empowering and equipping God’s people to live everyday in sexual integrity. Link to — http://www.freedomeveryday.org
Courage is a national network of support for Roman Catholics who struggle with homosexuality. Link to — http://www.couragerc.net
PATH — Positive Alternatives To Homosexuality is a non-profit coalition of organizations that help people with unwanted same-sex attractions to realize their personal goals for change. Link to — http://pathinfo.ihostsites.net/

Endnotes

“If there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God’s Word; and if we be uncertain of God’s Word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new Church, a new god, yea himself to be a god. If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he were in the true Church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan.” — Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury (1533)
Taking even the most humanist position in complete disregard of Scripture, homosexuality is still a clear and undeniable violation of the laws of nature.
The passage in Matthew refers back to Genesis. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) Later in Matthew 19:10, Christ also says: “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth…” (In the Greek text, one finds the word “eunouxoi” meaning one with a congenital defect or castrated, and without the ability to consummate marriage. The reference is distinctly different from the Greek word for homosexuals or sodomites as referenced by Paul. Homosexual advocates sometimes incorrectly invoke this passage as justification.)
Our great nation’s first president, George Washington, a devout Anglican, advised: “The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institution may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest purposes.”

(Portions of this essay were originally published in the essay “Homosexual Advocacy in the Church — Perspective from a Fifth-Generation Episcopalian” published by Mr. Alexander in 2003)

(Permission to reprint or forward this article with appropriate citation (PatriotPost.US) is herein granted. You can e-mail the author at ECUSA1@PatriotPost.US .)

My thanks to both Mark Alexanders for this excellent essay, the American one for writing it, and the British one for pointing it out to me.