I read this article by a former SBC pastor and was greatly disturbed by his exegesis and thought process. I like his spirit of grace and humility toward the LGBT community, but this is just insulting to Scripture:
[T]he concept of homosexuality was unknown for centuries after the Bible writers lived. It was not until the 19th century that the word “homosexual” was used for the first time. That being the case, the Bible writers could not have written about homosexual people or anything they did.
Read his full argument here.
Thoughts?
First of all, right out of the box he tips his liberal hand by calling them “Christian GLBT’s”. You cannot be Christian and a practicing homosexual. You cannot be Christian and say “But I have homosexual attractions and therefore it is not a sin”. Period.
Now, can someone be a Christian and struggle with that temptation? Yes, just like someone can be a Christian and struggle with any temptation. But living a homosexual lifestyle or saying that homsexuality is not a sin is not struggling with it. There is no repentance there.
When this former SBC pastor says they should be affirmed, he’s calling for Christians to lie. Christians preach the gospel–the truth–and therefore cannot tell Robert and Luke “Hey, you guys are in love and that’s ok. God honors your commitment to one another and this church will as wel”. Now, a CBF church would at best turn a blind eye to their sin and at worst fully affirm them as accepted in the eyes of God. However, Christians cannot do either.
He certainly did not use the Bible to support his position.
That is true.
Joe Blackmon:
Me and you agree about something. How about that?
Joe, I will agree that open acceptance of homosexuality is contrary to Christian belief and practice, but I disagree when you say that one cannot be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. Sin is sin we should not justify it, but Christians fall prey to every sin and human failing.
I think that the way you word it makes a truth into an error. The practice of homosexuality is inconsistent with Christian teachings, but so is gossip and slander and lust and anger and…well, the list is long. Christians every day (you and me included) do things that are not consistent with our confession.
So, I would agree that Christians should not approve of homosexual behavior, and that anyone who claims Christ and approves of homosexuality (or practices it) has a serious spiritual problem.
But to say “he is not a Christian” is a judgment I don’t think you and I have the right to make. God’s grace is bigger than our failings.
On the other hand, reading that nonsense he wrote infuriates me. He should be glad his salvation depends on God’s grace and not my approval.
Ok, how’s this:
If Bill is living with Mark as husband and husband, Bill hears the gospel and says he wants to trust Christ to save him and repent of his sins but that he will not leave Mark, then his profession of faith is not a true profession of faith because he has not repented of his sins.
If I was a bank robber but then I heard the gospel, wanted to trust Christ but I kept robbing banks you wouldn’t accept me as a member of your church I’m sure. I see it as the same thing. If I was a thief, a murderer, or I just stole office supplies (a pen here or there, maybe a box of staples) and continued to live that kind of life after professing faith in Christ, I shouldn’t act surprised when a Christian calls me to repent of that sin.
Accepting someone as a member of a church does not make them a believer. I know that you are quite aware of that and were not making that point but it leaves your argument open when you included the bank robber example. You did not state that the bank robber wasn’t a believer but that they would not be accepted as a member of a church.
Repentance of a particular sin; lying, stealing, and homosexual behavior has nothing to do with a person’s place in Christ. As a believer right now I’m dealing with some anger because I have a “member” who has sat in my office this morning and droned on and on about inconsequential things in the church – of course all of which he holds the only right position. Now I recognize that my anger holds no place in my life, but the temptation to commit sin by holding this man’s foolishness against him is quite overwhelming. If you have ever watched someone suffer with the temptation of homosexual behavior you can see the same difficulties involved and I feel it ultimately comes down to one thing, selfish pride.
To say that someone cannot live a homosexual lifestyle and not be a believer is ranking sin. I’m quite familiar with that type of teaching and understand it to be completely biblically wrong.
Wow, you sure put me in my place. The arguement is over. Daniel has settled it. (/sarcasm)
Why don’t you go read what Paul told the Corinthians about what to do with the guy who’s step-mom was his girlfriend.?
I wouldn’t mind you showing the correlation between 1 Corinthians 5 and whether or not someone can be a believer and live a homosexual lifestyle. I’m not saying that there isn’t a connection but that I don’t see it.
That wasn’t the correlation.
You said Accepting someone as a member of a church does not make them a believer. Paul’s point in that text is that someone should be put out of the church because by their sinful lifestyle and unrepentance they demonstrate the fact that they’re not a Christian.
I would absolutely agree that one practicing and continuing in this lifestyle should not be a member of a church. I am yet to see where Scripture says that such a one cannot be saved.
I John 3:9 (ESV)
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
To be sure, the standards of Christian epistemology given by John in his first letter tie assurance of salvation with obedience. If we are not obedient then we lose assurance. One may be saved, but one will not have reasonable assurance of it until one repents. As we sin, and we will sin as believers in this world, we must continually repent as our sins are mortified. Otherwise, we have no good reason to think we are truly saved.
He muddies the waters by bringing a meaning to the word “homosexual” that can easily be attacked. Quite possibly, the Bible authors did not know of people who felt that they were born with an orientation toward same-sex attraction. Yet, scriptures are clear regarding sex between members of the same gender. Likewise, scriptures clearly condemn sex other than that between a man and a woman within the context of marriage.
Everyone I have ever met has a sexual orientation that could lead them to sin. A man with a heterosexual orientation is likely tempted sexually regarding women other than his wife. His orientation is not a sin, but to succumb to such temptation would be.
The aforementioned article sums up the discussion at orientation. Christians cannot let this discussion stop there. After all, we are all sinners (orientation) and we all have deceitful hearts (orientation). We must get beyond orientation and discuss sex in a scriptural way. It is true that many Christians have condemned some sinful sexual acts (such as homosexuality) more than others (such as heterosexual fornication and adultery). We must learn to show grace to those who are tempted in ways we are not comfortable with. Yet, we must also hold up scripture as the guide for what is and is not of God.
The author presents and extra-biblical argument for homosexuality using revisionist history and secular psychology. This is the typical tact that folks like this take. Personally, I don’t understand how a thorough reading of Romans chapter 1 can escape such people.
He sets up a straw man argument on the front end with the preacher that he heard of saying that God hates homosexuals and sends them to Hell. God does not “hate” any sinner by this definition of the word. God does not single out one particular group of people to send to Hell more frequently than others. God sends unrepentant sinners who have not been born again into the family of Christ to Hell – whether they are homosexuals or straight.
Homosexuality is a symptom of a sinful nature. Homosexuality is a sin. Any sexual relationship outside the context of a marriage between one man and one woman engaging in consensual intimacy is sin – that is what the Bible explicitly states. Anything else is going to fall under the definition of adulter or fornication.
While the term “homosexuality” may not have existed in the past, saying that precludes if from the definition of sin is ridiculous. Just like voyeuristically watching sexual acts performed in the past was not called “pornography” does not mean that it was not a sin.
As an aside, just do some research on how the homosexual community defines monogamy. Secular research reveals that most homosexual relationships are “open” relationships that even though the partners are committed to each other, they also have other sexual partners. This is the reason AIDS has hit the homosexual community so hard. Such things point to the innate sinfulness of this sexual indulgence.
While I have never struggled with sexual identity, in my life before Christ I did struggle with issues of lust. Telling a homosexual person seeking Christ that he can continue indulging in his sexual behavior would be akin to telling someone struggling with other lust related issues the same thing.
What we must be careful of is that we do not elevate homosexuality to a higher place on a manmade hiearchy of sin. All sin brings equal condemnation on the sinner and must be equally repented of by the sinner and receives equal forgiveness through the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the born again believer.
Just because numerous denominations are embracing homosexuality does not make it right. The majority does not determine morality, God does. We need to reach out to the homosexual the same way we do any other person in the midst of sin.
Randy
One more thing I want to address that we see crop up in these arguments from those that condone homosexual behavior.
The big question is this: are homosexual’s born with a natural sexual orientation towards the same sex, or do they make a choice to be that way.
Let me explain my biggest struggle: anger. Sometimes I struggle with anger every day. I seem to naturally have an explosive temper. Was I born with that anger? Was I conditioned in my upbringing (I was a fat little kid that was the subject of bullies and being picked on throughout my school life) or did I just choose to be an angry person?
I can tell you, if anger was a choice in my life, then I would not choose it. It has caused me all sorts of problems and struggles. I believe that in some way I was born with a natural tendency to make angry choices. This does not seem illogical when we consider such things as Psalm 51:5 – “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (That’s KJV sorry Dave LOL). Sin is encoded in our spiritual DNA since the Fall in the Garden. It makes sense that we have sinful behavior wired into us.
However, even though it is in my nature to be an angry individual, I also make a choice to embrace that nature. I can resist and repent. On my own I will eventually fall into that sin over and over, but through the regenerating power of the blood of the Lord Jesus and the power of his Holy Spirit dwelling in me, I can overcome that anger. I may slip into it every once in awhile, but it should no longer be the defining characteristic of my life.
I belive the same can be said of homosexuality. It could be said that the homosexual individual is born that way. However, it is his choice to succumb to or repent of that sin.
Randy
This was an excellent comment – good enough to stand as a separate post.
Of course, considering he goes to Royal Lane Baptist in Dallas, his unChristian views shouldn’t be that much of a shock.
There was an article at a left-wring Baptist forum praising Royal Lane for having five or six homosexual deacons and the chair of the deacons is a lesbian. Its a whole different world.
Just wondering, does that make William a left-winger? I think the convo you refer to was being had at his casa.
Also, the following issue of Christian Ethics Today (a journal to which I’ve contributed once in the past) featured a lengthy rebuttal to Bruce Lowe’s article by Dr. Howie Batson, pastor of FBC Amarillo (Batson was the chair of Baylor’s Board of Regents recently).
I don’t know if the article is online yet. I read it about a month or two ago.
No, of course William is not left-wing. But there is certainly a decidedly left-wing slant to the discussions, isn’t there?
Yeah, Dave, I saw the same article. For someone to say homosexuality isn’t a sin and that openly homosexual people should be allowed to be members of a church (not to mention leaders in a church) they have to (a) check their brains at the door and (b) completely ignore the clear teaching of scripture.
At 96 years old Lowe makes a fair effort at a very complex subject;however, I’ve seen more statements on this blog on which I could agree than I ever would have expected. For anyone to say another person has to check their brains at the door of a church is righteous and in itself a sin in my opinion. I believe in one man and one wife, what Leviticus says in a couple of places and in at least one speaks of the “act” and not of one having effeminate or homosexual tendencies . Some things are not for me to judge. If one of these types has Clarabelle hair , jumps , kicks and dances along with french kissing someone of the same sex , then I don’t choose to be around them and I can make that choice. If a heterosexual were to do the same thing then I would respond the same way. I had a grandfather in New England who decided to start a business importing wool from England for cruel ( not sure of spelling) and tapestry which is used to create pictures. There might be 100 shades of blue in this wool and if you ordered again in 6 months you would get the same shade exactly. Point I;m making is that there were all kinds of customers and many were very gifted and well known in their circles. Many considered themselves Christians and some funny discussions were had I can tell you. One more story – My sister who was a teacher, married with two children in this town died and she belonged to one of two churches in the town a United Church of Christ – the other was Catholic. My son an ordained SBC minister at the time was not allowed to speak in the church service because he was Southern Baptist and the UCC pastor was afraid of what he might say. The cemetery was across the street from the church and as custom a march was planned to the dig. My son told this idiot he was going to preach a sermon at the cemetery under the sky and was told he couldn’t take a Bible. I’m prejudiced I know but my son can really preach, is good on his feet and delivered a full sermon to which everyone listened including my friends at the Catholic church. No one tells us to check our brains at the front door whether were gifted or not.
Some things are not for me to judge</i
God has already judged. He has said in His inerrant word that all sexual activity outside of a man and his own wife is sin. Sex between people of the same gender is always wrong. If the act is sinful, then the desire to commit the act is a sinful temptation.
And yes, if someone believes that homosexual activity is not sinful then they most certainly have to check their brains at the door to believe such utter nonsense.
Temptation is sinful? If that’s so, then why did God only promise to give us a way to withstand .. to resist .. it?
Of course it did. The term homosexuality enters into discourse in the 19th century as erotic relationships grew somewhat recognized and psychological treatises emerged.
He quotes several sources that were written about the Bible, but seems to avoid reading the Bible. When Lot offered the men of Sodom his virgin daughters, they didn’t want his daughters. Oh wait… maybe they just wanted to humiliate Lot by raping his guests.
Okay, that was sarcasm. In all seriousness I think a careful read of Romans 1 will reveal a homosexual lifestyle even if the word “homosexual” is not used. The word trinity is not used in scripture either. The doctrine is certainly there. Are Christians called to hate because God hates? Absolutely not! That doesn’t mean homosexuality is not a sin just because God loves all people created in his image. The Gospel message is that God loves sinners, but we are still called to repent of our sins.
Right. Just because a word isn’t used doesn’t mean that what it refers to didn’t exist or wasn’t talked about. The Bible uses descriptive phrases to refer to what we call “homosexuality” today.
I think this takes us back to the relationship between names and phenomena. Does a literal correspondance exist? Or do labels change depending on context? I don’t see that adressed above.
This is why gay people hate the Southern Baptist convention. We debate homosexuality too much. It’s sinful. We’re all sinful. We can’t go to heaven unless we repent. But we still sin after we’re saved. Critiquing to the nth degree each other is silly, in my opinion. I read it all, so I guess it makes me silly, too. But I think we have more important things to do than argue about what everyone agrees to. It’s sinful. Okay. Let’s all move on.
Wayne, I’m merely trying to assess the relationship between words and meaning. Is that OK? I’m sure you’re right. It’s a conservative Protestant thing to want to pay attention to sin. I agree. I think we thrive on it. But I want to get to the bottom of how words function in language. Language is symbolic and it’s in flux. I want to get across how we speak: our words take on meaning in relation to other words we use, so that context dictates meaning!
It is so important to understand the original intent of the biblical authors. What were they trying say? How did they say it? This is a field for experts. But we need to hear from them to understand our devotional reading.