Protecting our Heritage
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.
(An essay by Mark Alexander, Executive Editor and Publisher, PatriotPost.US)
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.
This link will gladden your heart, Judah! Bush calls for gay marriage ban.
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 4, 2006 @ 8:30 amBush’s poodle, Tony Blair, has legalized ‘gay marriage’ in all but name.
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 4, 2006 @ 11:08 amThanks for the link, Mark.
There are obviously many issues at stake in the “to ban or not to ban” debate regarding Civil Partnerships (or Civil Unions) and “Gay Marriage”. My concern is that laws are made that have further detrimental effects on others. It is never as simple as just two people wanting to have legal protection for their relationship. It is more like the unplugged leak in the dam which then progresses to the floodgates being burst open with widespread overflow effects, many of them very destructive.
For a concise summary of main points on this and other moral/ethical issues, both sides of the argument, check out the following website: BBC - Religion and Ethics.
Although the overflow effects are serious ones, and dangerous as well, the issue of homosexuality and “gay marriage” actually concerns me less here than that of the more universal distortion or suppression of objective truth due to political agendas. It does serve to provide a good example of a minority group with well organized agenda that is working to change how we are to think and not think, and to what extent we may express our thoughts. For instance, the statement of Dr Ronald Bayer in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, as mentioned in the essay above (he wrote “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.”) is exactly the kind of thing that disturbs me. Likewise, Christian Truth is equally in danger of this same distortion or suppression.
The underlying issue to me is one of the pervading philosophy of our times - one that is resistant to any truth claims (not just Christian ones) by its rejection of any notion of a universal “meta-truth”. Instead of objective universal truth there is only the perspective of the group, whatever that group may be, and all viewpoints, lifestyles, beliefs and behaviours are regarded as equally valid. In the light of this philosophy, tolerance has become so important that no exception is tolerated - thus the applied tyranny of political correctness to stifle any claim to a knowledge or morality greater than any other. On this altar Christian Truth will be sacrificed by the priests of whichever group has strongest grip on the knife at the time.
As written in the essay above:
Comment by Judah — June 4, 2006 @ 3:48 pmHi Judah,
I have my concerns, too. The first thing I’d like to say is this: When talking of a ‘civil partnership’ concerning two people of the same sex, I dislike the use of the word ‘marriage’. Marriage is a word that has been used since time immemorial for the union of two people of the opposite sex. In my opinion, it should not be used for the ‘union’ of two people of the same sex, for to do so, takes away the sanctity of the word. Though of course some people would argue that in this increasingly secularized Western world, the sanctity of marriage has already been taken away. I realize this.
I believe that other words could be used for a gay partnership: garriage (gay ‘marriage’), qarriage (queer ‘marriage’), harriage (homosexual ‘marriage’), or any other name that could be found to satisfy the needs of the gay community. But marriage should be left untouched and unscathed. I agree with that.
The main thing for gays, as far as I can see, is that they should be given equal rights. I realize that you may not agree with this. But then, in times gone by, people used to argue against equal rights for blacks. But who would argue against that today?
In my opinion, two adults, if they find themselves drawn to one another, for whatever reason, should be able to live as a partnership, with equal rights of inheritance, next of kinship, etc. A lot of the vociferous gays are vociferous for one main reason: society has hitherto been unfair to them. They are trying to reverse that situation; and can we really blame them? (Remember this: Historically, all groups have had to put up a hard fight to obtain their rights. Think of the Suffragettes.)
My main concern in debasing the concept of marriage still further is that the number of children being born is woefully small in the Western world as things stand. To debase the concept of marriage even further will surely have a still greater deleterious effect on the statistiics. Moreover, what concerns me also is the fact that so many children are being born outside of wedlock. This is a very worrying trend indeed.
Then there is the troubling notion that gays should be allowed to adopt children. Children need to be raised in a loving home. In many instances, two gays can provide that, I feel sure. But the problem is this: A child needs a balance of the feminine and the masculine to grow up well-adjusted. Neither two lesbians nor two gay men can satisfy this requirement, even with the best will in the world.
But we have to be careful not to demonize the gay lobby, and hang all of societies woes firmly on the gays’ shoulders, for the fact of the matter should be blatantly obvious to all but the blind that Western society took a turn for the worse when, after the ‘liberating’ Sixties and Seventies, marriage became a lifestyle of choice, no more valid than a man and a woman living together. That’s really when the sanctity of marriage was removed, I believe.
What have we got today? We have a situation in which so many young people choose to live together intead of getting married. Moreover, because so many women have chosen careers over childbirth, the birthrate has declined markedly, and divorces have soared. Why? Well, for several reasons, but three important ones amongst them are these: one, women now have money of their own, so they don’t have to stay with their husbands if the going gets tough; two, having two working people in one partnership often puts an intolerable strain on the relationship; and three, children were the bond in many a marriage. In the past, how many women would have walked out on their husbands but for the children? The same applies in reverse.
To return to gay ‘marriage’. Another thing concerns me greatly. Once the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is changed, then it opens up the argument as to why one man may not be able to marry more than one wife, as Muslims are wont to do. The so-called polygamous marriage. How can one argue against it in such circumstances? Now that’s a big problem, because Muslims are inclined to have more children anyway, as you well know. Imagine the ‘baby boom’ that would ensue here in the West in the Muslim communities if polygamous marriages were legalized. Then the West would be in real trouble!
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 4, 2006 @ 8:53 pmYay Mark, I agree that the use of the word “marriage” should not be used in the context of homosexual unions or partnerships - but listen to the way the story is progressing, and you will hear that word used more and more. To be fully “equal” then the pressure is on to use the same words as well. It bothers me too.
I see the whole issue of “rights” as a social construct, a product of society and how it organizes itself to meet the needs of people. Immediately that makes it subject to cultural mechanisms which are relative from one society to another, and dependant on how that society chooses to justify who is deserving of what. In our Western societies which are based on a system of morality derived from Judaism and traditional Christianity, no same-sex marriage “rights” could legitimately be afforded to homosexuals whose liasons have been seen as immoral. Where do “rights” come from and where do they stop? For instance, do people have a “right” to job protection? But what if the business fails and can no longer provide work? To force the business to continue to employ people is nonsensical. Individuals and special groups clamouring for their own rights must inevitably impinge on somebody else’s rights. It becomes a kind of balancing act, each society choosing their own way to adjust the scales.
Yes, very soon we will hear from gay couples insisting on their “right” to adopt children (I believe we have already) or to have their own biological children (of one or other partner) through the use of assisted fertility programmes or surrogacy. What about the “right” of the child to a mother and father - oh, but do they have this “right” at all, anyway? Who says they do? Who says which “right” should be paramount? This is the problem with moral relativism. Once the absolute is dropped, then anything goes.
I am actually being careful not to demonize the gay lobby, and that is the point of my comment just above. Although the gay lobby provides a perfect example of how political pressure groups can affect a radical agenda, they would not be able to do so if it were not for the underlying philosophy that supports moral relativism and deconstructs our Judeo-Christian heritage. I agree with you that a pivotal point in history was in the era of the 1960’s as that saw the advent of the contraceptive pill which meant the procreative and recreative functions of sex could be separated and controlled.
Yep, people who feel they have a “right” to polygamous marriages will be next up. Soon there will be nothing to stop you from marrying your iPod or the nextdoor neighbour’s cat (as a friend of mine has said) should you choose. After all, you may claim a “right”, can’t you?
Mark, our cultural heritage is one that was based on moral absolutes - the word of God as revealed in the Bible. Once we start re-interpreting that according to current social ideas, believing that God didn’t say what He did or meant something else, we really are playing with fire. Well, that is my position and it is the most coherent one to my way of thinking. By the way, there is no mention of “rights” in the Bible.
Comment by Judah — June 4, 2006 @ 10:01 pmI think our approaches to this issue are perhaps not so far apart after all. I think the main difference lies in my approach being more tolerant of the right of two adults, in a mature relationship, gay or just loving, to equality before man-made law. (And that is what Western secular democracies are based on.) God’s law is something else. And if it is sinful in the eyes of God - and I know that you would argue that this is indisputable - then it will be up to God to punish the transgressors in the next life. Your approach is based on a more traditional - dare I say ‘fundamentalist Christian? - approach. An approach I find myself unable to adopt.
But hey, that’s all right. We both agree on the problems, and we are both civilized in our aapproaches, too; so that’s a great start. We are not like the Muslims who call for the death of all homosexuals. Now that is something which I am SURE we can both agree on TOTALLY!
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 4, 2006 @ 11:02 pmJudah:
By the way, when I was in the States last, it was reported on Fox News that an Englishwoman had ‘married’ a dolphin! (She had been visiting the dolphin in a zoo, or some such place, for years!)
Crazy, or what?
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 4, 2006 @ 11:06 pmMark, I believe I remember hearing something about that - a woman “marrying” a dolphin. I wonder how she got “informed consent” or do you think perhaps the dolphin’s “rights” may have been ignored?
Well, just shows how crazy things can get when God gets pushed out of the picture.
Reading the material on the website of the link that Visiblesoul recently provided us, I actually seem to be more the “Evangelical Christian” type rather than “Fundamentalist”. I don’t really like using labels of that kind anyway - I don’t know where they have been defined in any universally acceptable way - and if any labels are appropriate, I would opt for “conservative/traditional” versus “liberal” when it comes to my preferred exegesis of Scripture - the basis of my beliefs.
Oopsy, you have put together in the same phrase “gay or just loving” and regarded them in the same light. Again, we are probably back to definitions here!
To love another is not a sin provided it is the love that God requires of us to have for each other. We are commanded to love each other. As a married woman, I would be equally wrong to love another man or another woman in a way that is exploitative, or manipulative, or possessive, or that inflames sexual desire and entertains it, and does not want only what is good and right for the other. That is not the right kind of love. I am to love other males as a brother or a father, and females as a sister or a mother. Such love can be very deep-seated (we are told to love deeply - 1 Peter 4:8) and caring, compassionate, with warmth and affection. Loving another, same gender or not, is commanded of us; it is NOT a sin.
But to practice (thought or deed) gay sex is something quite else - just as is heterosexual activity (thought or deed) outside monogamous marriage. It is this which God says is immoral - not “just loving” if it is of the love that God has commanded us to have for each other.
Mark, here is a question to consider (but you don’t need to answer it to me):
If you could be sure that God said that homosexual practices are sinful, would you agree with Him - or not?
Whether a society legislates to allow same-sex partners to have the same legal rights as married people is the perogative of that society. As a Christian I can say that would be most regrettable for all the destructive flow-on effects, and again as a Christian, I can say that it is wrong in the eyes of God. However, those two statements are quite different from each other. I am NOT denying that the society is lawfully able to do that, and thereby give homosexuals those so-called “rights” that they claim are theirs. What I AM saying is that God calls homosexual practices immoral and sinful. And that in His eyes, those who indulge in that way will eventually be held accountable to Him. The result of His judgement will not be nice.
Mark, where is my lack of tolerance? Are you saying that you are more tolerant than I?
Comment by Judah — June 5, 2006 @ 12:18 amWe both have identified, and agree upon, some of the destructive flow-on effects from the legalization of same-sex unions. The difference between us is that I am saying homosexual activity is immoral and same-sex unions are regrettable, and you are saying that homosexual activity is not immoral and that same-sex unions should be allowed those with such desires. Is that correct?
So we have different views, but please tell me where I am intolerant. If anything, because of my viewpoint, it could be said that I am exercising MORE tolerance than you!
Please note that I have not condemned anyone for their sin, but only stated that it is indeed a sin because God said so. I am not judging - just pointing out what is God’s judgement (according to what is written in the Bible as understood by traditional exegesis).
Judah:
I shall answer this excellent comment. But not now. Please forgive me, but I really need to feed my physical body. I have spent the day ignoring its needs. But I shall be back. Be sure of that. You have raised so many valid points in this comment. I shall certainly be back. As soon as possible!
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 5, 2006 @ 1:20 amThis is not the answer to your post. However, I came across this article in the interim, and I think you would enjoy reading it. The Great Fundamentalist Hoax
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 5, 2006 @ 4:02 amMark, your link appears missing but a Google search on the title came up with:
The Great Fundamentalist Hoax
I presume it is the article that you mean. Correct me if I am wrong.
If so, then no, I did not enjoy reading it. The writer describes people who are acting very ignorantly and sinfully but calling themselves Christians - and he is calling them Christian Fundamentalists. I certainly hope that is not how you see me if you also call me a Fundamentalist. Oh my!
The writer does point out how these people differ from Jesus and the teachings of Jesus, and it needs to be said that Christians are to be folllowers of Christ, not followers of something else that is some sick parody of Him. But this kind of nonsense if presented as Christianity really saddens me as it caricatures the faith dishonestly, passing off lies as though they are truths when they are not. There are some comments of his that indicate a deficient exegesis of Scripture, and presenting just these people as Christians - Christian Fundamentalists - is one huge bias in itself as not all who would call themselves such are like that by any means.
In response to a thread I started on another forum recently concerning the huge lack of Christian/theological and apologia knowledge among Christians, someone posted a quote from a letter written by the late Dorothy Sayers when she was asked by an agnostic scientist to write a letter to his organization regarding the Christian faith. This is what she wrote back in reply:
I think much the same could be said to anyone who is short-sighted enough to accept a lie for the truth without checking it out.
Comment by Judah — June 5, 2006 @ 12:36 pmNice straw man you have there Mr. Alexander. Unless of course Judah’s link was incorrect.
Comment by visiblesoul — June 5, 2006 @ 11:07 pmJudah:
I certainly hope that is not how you see me if you also call me a Fundamentalist. Oh my!
No, I CERTAINLY DO NOT see you that way. Fear not!
I put that link up there, not because I agree with the sentiments expressed therein, but because I happened to stumble upon it while visiting the Huffington Post yesterday morning. As we had been discussing orthodox, traditional, conservative, fundamentalist and liberal beliefs in the Church today, I thought it would be interesting to see a very different point of view. There was no other meaning to it. I sincerely hope it didn’t annoy you in any way.
By the way, if I put a link up here, that doesn’t mean that I necessary agree with the sentiments epressed in the link. But I would imagine you realize that anyway.
Visible Soul:
Yes, I suppose it is a bit of a straw man, isn’t it? Didn’t you enjoy reading it, either?
Personally, I like to read the opinions of others, even if I disagree with them.
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 5, 2006 @ 11:45 pmNow, Judah, to answer your excellent comment (which I promised you yesterday I would do), I would have the following to say:
I actually seem to be more the “Evangelical Christian” type rather than “Fundamentalist”. I don’t really like using labels of that kind anyway - I don’t know where they have been defined in any universally acceptable way - and if any labels are appropriate, I would opt for “conservative/traditional” versus “liberal” when it comes to my preferred exegesis of Scripture - the basis of my beliefs.
What is the difference between an Evangelical Christian and a Fundamentalist Christian? I would have thought that they’d both be rather similar. I agree with you that it is not always a good thing to put a label on these things, because there will be much diversity in each ‘type’ of Christian. For example, I’m pretty sure not all Evangelical Christians approach the matter in an identical way.
Oopsy, you have put together in the same phrase “gay or just loving” and regarded them in the same light. Again, we are probably back to definitions here!
Yes, I think we are.
Unfortunately, we live in a world which is obsessed with sex. Mention the word ‘love’ and people immediately think that those two people are engaging in sex! This, in my opinion, is regrettable. But most Westerners outside of the Christian faith do not seem to understand the concept of ‘brotherly love’. Would you agree?
To love another is not a sin provided it is the love that God requires of us to have for each other. We are commanded to love each other. As a married woman, I would be equally wrong to love another man or another woman in a way that is exploitative, or manipulative, or possessive, or that inflames sexual desire and entertains it, and does not want only what is good and right for the other. That is not the right kind of love. I am to love other males as a brother or a father, and females as a sister or a mother. Such love can be very deep-seated (we are told to love deeply - 1 Peter 4:8) and caring, compassionate, with warmth and affection. Loving another, same gender or not, is commanded of us; it is NOT a sin.
I have no problem with that.
But to practice (thought or deed) gay sex is something quite else - just as is heterosexual activity (thought or deed) outside monogamous marriage. It is this which God says is immoral - not “just loving” if it is of the love that God has commanded us to have for each other.
It would appear, then, that the problem in today’s world is that it is full of sinners! But do they care? That’s the point. It seems to me tat they do not.
Mark, here is a question to consider (but you don’t need to answer it to me):
If you could be sure that God said that homosexual practices are sinful, would you agree with Him - or not?
I’m quite happy to answer this question. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that it not the correct way to be. So yes, I would agree with Him. Hey! Who am I to argue with God?
Whether a society legislates to allow same-sex partners to have the same legal rights as married people is the perogative of that society. As a Christian I can say that would be most regrettable for all the destructive flow-on effects, and again as a Christian, I can say that it is wrong in the eyes of God. However, those two statements are quite different from each other. I am NOT denying that the society is lawfully able to do that, and thereby give homosexuals those so-called “rights” that they claim are theirs. What I AM saying is that God calls homosexual practices immoral and sinful. And that in His eyes, those who indulge in that way will eventually be held accountable to Him. The result of His judgement will not be nice.
You are stating in no uncertain terms that God calls homosexual practices “immoral and sinful”. If it is as simple as that, then why is the Church twisted up in knots about the whole subject? Why, for example, has the US branch of the Church gone ahead and allowed a bishop to ‘marry’ his partner? It seems to me that the liberal wing of the Church considers it a grey area.
Wouldn’t it have been altogether easier if God had said it in black and white: Homosexuality is a sin? Simply and directly. Then the clerrgy wouldn’t be left debating this issue ad infinitum.
Mark, where is my lack of tolerance? Are you saying that you are more tolerant than I?
I have never said that you lack in tolerance. I don’t think that I have ever implied it either. In fact, I find you rather tolerant to allow these discussions on your weblog. By the way, if I have said it (erroneously) or implied it (unwittingly), then please accept my sincere apologies. But I don’t think I have. At least I cannot remember having done so.
I might, however, have suggested that I am more tolerant than you on the matter of homosexuality. But that is simply because I do not dwell on the concept of ’sin’ as much as you appear to do. But that’s understandable, because I do not consider myself to be an Evangelical Christian. So it would be rather strange if you didn’t.
The difference between us is that I am saying homosexual activity is immoral and same-sex unions are regrettable, and you are saying that homosexual activity is not immoral and that same-sex unions should be allowed those with such desires. Is that correct?
No, it isn’t correct. I think you have not quite understood what I have been trying to drive at.
I am saying that in the secular societies in which we live, homosexual activity is legal. I do not for one minute suggest that they it is the ideal way to lead one’s life. But the difference between you and me is that I am not an Evangelical Christian. My Church, the Church of England, is rather more tolerant of the practice, it seems. Moreover, it doesn’t seem to know what is right or wrong in this regard!
I don’t believe I have EVER said that homosexual activity is not immoral. Where have I said that? What I probably have said is this: I do not see homosexual activity as any more immoral than many other things people do these days, but ’shouldn’t'; for example two heterosexual people engaing in extra-marital sex, and two heterosexual people living together, etc. In my opinion, he who condemns one thing must also condemn the other. I make no distinction between them.
If anything, because of my viewpoint, it could be said that I am exercising MORE tolerance than you!
Please explain how you can draw this conclusion? I am perplexed. I also sense that you are somewhat ‘rattled’; though I do not understand why.
I am not condoning homosexual practices at all. Indeed, I was raised to consider them to be wrong. The difference between us is probably this: My life’s experience of mixing with all kinds of people has taught me that life isn’t quite so black and white as you seem to be painting it. Some of those people have very, very painful lives. And I am not going to be the one to punish them. I leave such things up to God, and to God alone. HE is our judge in all things. I am not the judge, so I am not going to do the judging.
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 6, 2006 @ 12:44 amNo I did not enjoy reading it in the least. Actually articles like that make me very angry. But perhaps not for the reasons you might expect.
The reason that articles like that make me angry is because the essence of the accusations are true in the case of far too many people who call themselves by the name of Christ. I have often thought the same thing as the article’s author who says…
And one does not need to dig very deeply into history to find a long list of atrocities committed by faithful church-goers.
Terms like “fundamentalist”, “evangelical” or “liberal” can be convenient as a kind of shorthand when trying to communicate concisely. But I do not like to be labeled in any way except maybe “follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” or, if I must stoop to labeling myself according to my doctrinal understandings, then maybe I could live with “orthodox” Christian although I would venture to say that the word “orthodox” is as meaningless to most people as the word “Christian”.
My distaste of labels is based on my experience that people generally use labels as a way of dismissing a real complex, valuable human as a one-dimensional stereotype which is almost never a true representation of the individuals actual beliefs. As soon as I say something like “I’m a Baptist” or “I’m a Lutheran” then every horrible, unjust, or hypocritical thing ever committed by someone using the same label instantly becomes the baggage I am saddled with. Now everything that I say is colored by preconceptions or perceptions which really have very little to do with what I am trying to convey in my statements. Any hope of communication is therefore dead.
I think many people who have experienced the real crisis of a born-again conversion experience can probably trace the beginning of their interest in Christ to some Christian who was very different than any other Christian they had met before. Such was my case. I had dismissed Christians as a lot of hypocrites with nothing to say to real world issues until I met a very unusual Christian. And I have ever since attempted to be that abnormal, living specimen of Christianity.
If we understand these terminologies and labels as the kind of partial picture that they are, not really representing the peculiar doctrinal synthesis of the individual, then they can be a nice communication tool. But usually I find that the bedrock of truth is somewhere in the no man’s land between the crossfire of the world’s many extremists.
Comment by visiblesoul — June 6, 2006 @ 1:56 pmQuoting Mark throughout:
What is the difference between an Evangelical Christian and a Fundamentalist Christian? I would have thought that they’d both be rather similar.
Quoted from Religious Tolerance.org:
Given that there are no precise definitions, and that people’s beliefs will inevitably vary over a wide range of issues, and that I don’t think it a good thing to put people into such category boxes anyway, the above attempt to describe differences is just vague at best and not necessarily helpful. For myself, if I absolutely must choose a term (under some duress) then I prefer the term conservative as it separates me from the liberal theologies of which many are heretical. I particularly like Visiblesoul’s response above. I actually dislike the word “fundamentalist” for all the derogatory things attached to it, and “evangelical” brings up images of intrusive people trying inappropriately to force their personals views on to others, and for that matter, “Anglican” is not a term that endears me these days either.
Unfortunately, we live in a world which is obsessed with sex. Mention the word ‘love’ and people immediately think that those two people are engaging in sex! This, in my opinion, is regrettable. But most Westerners outside of the Christian faith do not seem to understand the concept of ‘brotherly love’. Would you agree?
Strictly speaking, that is a generalization and it is not possible to know what “people immediately think”. A number possibly do, yet many may not. A lot of people I know would not jump to such a conclusion. Others - yes. We are a mixed bag, and while I am not naive, I personally prefer to wait for evidence rather than make an assumption and take the risky step of regarding the assumption as true.
It would appear, then, that the problem in today’s world is that it is full of sinners! But do they care? That’s the point. It seems to me tat they do not.
Yep, the world is full of sinners! And because they have come to disregard God (to whom sin is an offense worthy of death) such folks have little appreciation of the seriousness of their situation and will persist, usually trivializing the whole notion of sin. Don’t you get tired of the ugliness of immoral and unloving behaviour? I certainly do. But all of us are sinners - no-one is holy and righteous other than God.
You are stating in no uncertain terms that God calls homosexual practices “immoral and sinful”. If it is as simple as that, then why is the Church twisted up in knots about the whole subject? Why, for example, has the US branch of the Church gone ahead and allowed a bishop to ‘marry’ his partner? It seems to me that the liberal wing of the Church considers it a grey area.
Yes, I am doing that. In my view the Bible very clearly states that is so, and I am repeating what the Bible clearly states. It is as simple as that. I also believe that the liberal theologians have introduced heresy and are trying to argue against what the Church has known for centuries, that sex outside marriage is a sin - both “hetero” and “homo” and all other varieties such as incest, rape, with underage children, with animals, etc, etc, and in either thought that inflames the passions or in deed. The liberals have “progressed” away from what a sound traditional exegesis of Scripture tells us is so. To the extent that you may be “liberal” in your beliefs on this, then of course we will not agree.
Wouldn’t it have been altogether easier if God had said it in black and white: Homosexuality is a sin? Simply and directly. Then the clerrgy wouldn’t be left debating this issue ad infinitum.
The word “homosexuality” is a modern one, and the same too regarding the conceptualization of homosexuality as we understand it today. The terms used in the original texts of the Old and New Testaments may cover sexual immorality in a more general way, but the condemned practices are well described to leave no doubt. So I would say that God did indeed say that such practices are sinful - and quite directly too. Some versions of the New Testament do use the term homosexuality as that modern word best portrays what practices are being referred to in the text. We are also told that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and are to be honoured and cared for appropriately. It will take an impossible amount of convincing to have me believe that homosexual practices honour the body in any way at all. You can probably say the same for many other things as well, including non-sexual sins such as greed and sloth and so on. But it is sexual immorality that we are discussing here and I believe that the Scriptures are perfectly clear about it, and that clergy have better things to do and need to be submitting to God and getting on with their commission. If the state goes ahead and legislates to allow “civil partnerships” then that is the perogative of the state, but it is not the perogative of the Church to bless or otherwise condone what God has called sin.
See, I am a conservative Christian, most definitely not a liberal.
I have never said that you lack in tolerance.
No, you haven’t said that I lack tolerance, but it was implied that you were more tolerant than I on this subject of homosexuality - and so by it’s corollary, that I am therefore less tolerant than you on this subject. I would simply say that we have differing ideas on the subject. Regarding my comment that, because of my viewpoint, I could be said to be exercising more tolerance than you, I am guilty of making an assumption here and am more properly speaking of the effort involved for me in respecting others who will choose to ignore and violate God’s laws with seeming impunity. No, I am not rattled - at least, not by the fact of our discussion itself. However, I can get quite passionate about the reality of the things I believe in, and I do feel quite deeply when I contemplate the ultimate of shame and dishonour that Christ suffered through the Crucifixion, which was the sacrifice that He made to pay for our sin.
I don’t believe I have EVER said that homosexual activity is not immoral. Where have I said that? What I probably have said is this: I do not see homosexual activity as any more immoral than many other things people do these days, but ’shouldn’t’; for example two heterosexual people engaing in extra-marital sex, and two heterosexual people living together, etc. In my opinion, he who condemns one thing must also condemn the other. I make no distinction between them.
So you are agreeing that homosexual activity is immoral? And that means sinful? If so, just out of interest, is that based on God’s Word or on something other than God’s Word? We are in agreement on the rest of your statement and I have not anywhere said anything to the contrary.
I am not condoning homosexual practices at all. Indeed, I was raised to consider them to be wrong. The difference between us is probably this: My life’s experience of mixing with all kinds of people has taught me that life isn’t quite so black and white as you seem to be painting it. Some of those people have very, very painful lives. And I am not going to be the one to punish them. I leave such things up to God, and to God alone. HE is our judge in all things. I am not the judge, so I am not going to do the judging.
Mark, if you are implying (by your words “the difference between us”) that I am judging anyone, please take very careful note of what I have to say next.
All throughout this post and the other related one, I have pointed out God’s judgement concerning sexual immorality. 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 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 has the right to make them.
Comment by Judah — June 6, 2006 @ 3:06 pmQuoting Visiblesoul:
I must admit that it was rather an abnormal, living specimen of Christianity, different from any Christian I had met before, who enticed me out of the wilderness of my previous agnosticism and had me face such a crisis.
Comment by Judah — June 6, 2006 @ 4:28 pmVisible Soul:
My distaste of labels is based on my experience that people generally use labels as a way of dismissing a real complex, valuable human as a one-dimensional stereotype which is almost never a true representation of the individuals actual beliefs.
I understand you very well. A simple label can hide a multitude of real complex issues and opinions. Unfortunately, people generally seem to have a great propensity to use them, probably, at least in part, because they would otherwise have to go into lengthy descriptions to explain their positions. We are living in the age of the soundbite!
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 6, 2006 @ 9:27 pmJudah:
Thank you for describing your understanding of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, and drawing the distinction as you see it.
Strictly speaking, that is a generalization and it is not possible to know what “people immediately think”. (Apropos of people coming to quick conclusions about sexual intimacy once the term ‘love’ is referred to.)
Yes, I realize this. But people today do seem far more ready to refer to sex in many everyday situations, and often to draw the conclusion that where there is ‘love’ between two people, there is also sex. At least, that’s what it seems to me. I remember a time when the subject was taboo. The older generation rarely referred to such matters openly. Today, sex is used to sell even toothpaste! And I think it is hard to deny that people are ready to engage in it far more quickly than in times gone by. At least overtly.
Yes, I am doing that. In my view the Bible very clearly states that is so, and I am repeating what the Bible clearly states.
I think the Archbishop of Canterbury has need of your services!
It will help unclog his woolly thinking! 
So you are agreeing that homosexual activity is immoral? And that means sinful? If so, just out of interest, is that based on God’s Word or on something other than God’s Word?
I am not prepared to make such judgements, not even on God’s behalf. God doesn’t need my help. he is, after all, omnipotent. We have to understand the reasons why people are/become homosexual. And no, I am not going all ‘touchy-feely’ on you; but I am uncomfortable talking about others’ “immorality” and “sin”. God knows, I have enough failings of my own, without passing judgements on the “immorality” and “sins” of others. Chacun à son goûx, that’s what I say; and let each person face his own Day of Judgement.
I am uncomfortable with the word “sin”, as you use it, as I am, for example, uncomfortable with the word ‘Devil’. (But that’s a story for another time.) They all seem a bit ‘mysterious’ to me. For example, to talk of the word ‘Devil’ is like talking about the elf that lives at the top of someone’s garden!
To me, the ‘Devil’ is nothing more than the power of evil: Man’s propensity to think and act in evil ways. Man, as we all know, has two sides: the good side and the bad one. When one prays, one is surely appealing not only to God, but also to the good side of one’s subconscious, the good side of one’s nature, so that the good side of one’s nature will prevail in any given situation.
To talk of “sin” is rather strong in the context of homosexuality, in my humble opinion. I feel comfortable with the use of the word when one talks of murder; but I don’t think that homosexuality comes into that category.
So you are agreeing that homosexual activity is immoral? And that means sinful?
I am not prepared too get into that; and partly for the reasons given. But it is much more complicated than that anyway. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time today to go into a lengthy discussion about it. I have a luncheon date (with a pretty lady), so I have to go and gussy myself up for the meeting. Please forgive me.
Judah, I think you and I - although our minds meet a great deal on many topics and issues - approach this from a very different standpoint. To continue discussing it will lead us nowhere. Neither of us is prepared to bend on the matter. Our minds are made up, it seems. As they would say in German: Wir kommen auf keinen grünen Zweig! This, roughly translated, means that our discussion will never come to anything. There is no meeting of the minds. But that’s alright. We don’t have to agree on everything. It is allowed in this life to have differing opinions. It would be a sad, and boring, world if everyone thought the same.
Comment by Mark Alexander — June 6, 2006 @ 10:01 pm