I remember sitting with my father at the SBC many years ago, when we were considering the motion to change our governing documents to disfellowship churches that took a soft stand on homosexuality. I will never forget what he said, as some argued that the action violated principles of autonomy and Baptist polity.
They may be right that this is a departure from Baptist polity. But I can tell you that twenty years ago, no one in the Baptist world would have believed that we would be having a meeting to talk about what to do with Baptist churches that said homosexuality was okay.
The world is changing, and it is changing rapidly. There was a time when a judge in the confirmation process or a politician running for office would be forced to resign if he was found out to be homosexual. Today, if a candidate stated that he believed homosexuality to be a sin, it would be treated as a scandal and he would not likely be either confirmed or elected.
It’s a new world.
And Christians are having a hard time trying to figure it out. Some have adopted the “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” (well, figuratively at least) attitude toward homosexuality and homosexuals. There are the extreme versions of this – the disgusting Westboro Baptist folks and the rantings of Charles Worley. But even within the more sane (and Christ-honoring) branches of the church, there are many who lead the discussion with condemnation and disdain, not only for the acts of homosexuality but for homosexuals themselves.
Others have adopted the common but disastrous tradition of the American church and capitulated to culture. Lo and behold, some have found that the clear teachings of the Bible about homosexuality aren’t so clear after all. The Second Commandment forbids us to make our own gods, but some are doing it anyway. They have created a Jesus who is in complete contradistinction to the Christ of Scriptures. This fictional Jesus is all love-all the time and would never think of calling homosexuality a sin! He accepts us all as we are and in great Hallmark fashion says, “Don’t ever change.”
Most of us wander in between these extremes, trying to find a balance between loving homosexuals while still standing against their sin which we believe is contrary both to nature and to the revelation of scripture. It is no easy task.
- Sometimes we meet a person struggling with same-sex attraction and we want to reach out in love.
- Sometimes we see a brazen and obnoxious advocate of the “gay-agenda” who inflames our religious zeal and our political passions.
It is not going to get any easier. It is hard to envision popular opinion conforming again to biblical revelation and as opinion shifts, we who hold to scripture will be viewed as extremists and homophobes and merchants of hate.
It is not going to get any easier, but there are some principles that can guide us. I’d like to share a few. There is little that is stunningly original here, but simply a reminder of biblical principles that can guide us.
1) We are pro-homosexual!
No, put down your stones. We are not for homosexuality, but we must be FOR homosexuals. They are not our enemy, they are our mission field. We do not battle against flesh and blood, Paul told us. Our battle is against the spiritual powers that deceive homosexuals and bind them into a destructive lifestyle!
This must be the bedrock of any biblical approach to the homosexual issue and I’m not sure we always remember it. Homosexuals are broken people who need Christ, not our anger or scorn. I’ve been in the church all my life, and I think it would be hard to argue that the evangelical church has been a welcoming place for homosexuals.
If a flaming, out-of-the-closet homosexual sashayed into your church next Sunday, how would he be received? Or, more to the point, what if one of the men in your church announced he was gay? What would be the response?
We cannot forget that the homosexual is a victim of deceit that can only be corrected by the light of God’s truth; he is enslaved by sin and can only be freed by Christ. He is not our enemy, he is our battleground! We do not battle against him, but we battle against the forces of darkness on his behalf.
2) We must not compromise the Word to earn favor in the world – this is a hill to die on!
There was a time when the world and church at least swam in the same ocean on this issue. Now, those who follow scripture and declare homosexuality to be sinful are disdained and insulted by our culture. But we have been down the road of cultural compromise before (and often) and we cannot do it again.
Christianity was born in a hostile climate and has often thrived under opposition, oppression and even persecution. That may be our future.
But we cannot glorify God or advance his work by compromising his truth for the sake of popularity. If the world hates us for our stands for Christ’s Word, then rejoice. This is a hill on which to die, a moral stand on which we cannot compromise.
Same-sex sex is a sin against God and we cannot bless what God has cursed!
3) The Gospel of Christ is the power of God to transform homosexuals!
The only hope for the salvation and transformation of a homosexual is the gospel of Jesus Christ – the same as for all of us.
I don’t have to change a homosexual. I don’t have to convince him. I don’t have to prosecute him or out-argue him. I have to introduce him (or her) to Christ who is the only one who can change lives.
4) We do not live in a theocracy, nor is that our aim.
This is hard for Americans to understand and accept, since we have become so used, over the years, to a government that is sympathetic to our beliefs and goals. If something is wrong, we assume it ought also be sanctioned by the government.
Christians in the Roman Empire did not expect the Caesar to promote or defend the faith. They just prayed he would stay out of their way while they spread the gospel. Chinese Christians don’t expect the communist government to enact their convictions as law. They just want to do their work with as little public interference as possible.
In Israel, God’s law was the law of the land and it was publicly enforced. Homosexuality carried the harshest of penalties – death. But so did adultery and idolatry and Sabbath-breaking and a host of other sins. It was a theocratic society. America is not a theocracy and it is not our purpose to make it one.
5) We do live in a representative democracy, and we must be the salt and light in our world.
We have a privilege that the Christians in the early church didn’t have – we have a voice in our government. We get to speak out freely and we get to vote our conscience. We would be both foolish and ungodly to squander the opportunity we have to influence our culture in a positive way. We are salt to slow the natural decaying effects of sin and we are light to show the way.
As long as America remains a free and representative democracy, we will walk a tightrope between competing truths. We do not live in a theocracy and it is not our goal to impose one, but we also have to wield the influence that God has given us. Some fall off in one direction and some in the other. More than one church or pastor has conflated the interests of God’s Kingdom with the interests of the US of A. It happens. On the other hand, those who would tell Christians to abandon their place of influence are foolish.
The homosexual issue is a great example of this tightrope. I believe that standing for God’s intent for marriage, opposing homosexual marriage and resisting the more radical agenda of some in the homosexual community is an important role. However, we walk on dangerous ground when we speak of criminalizing homosexuality or denying basic civil rights to homosexuals.
This will always be a difficult balancing act for biblical Christians.
6) Cliches don’t work and should be avoided.
When Charles Worley’s rantings (I refuse to call that preaching) went viral, several of his members defended him in interviews. One of them made me cringe when she said, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
God put Job through deep waters for his own purposes. His three friends showed up and made things worse by throwing a litany of cliches at him. They didn’t help Job and they don’t help in dealing with sexuality issues.
This is a serious issue and needs serious thought, not just pronouncements and cliches. We need to approach this issue with calm, caring, biblically-based rationality, not with epithets, cliches or angry pronouncements. They may make us feel better but they will not accomplish the goal we are here for – to lead homosexuals to Christ!
7) The “nature” argument is vain and silly.
How much effort have Christians devoted to maintaining the concept that homosexual desire is a conscious choice people make? It is a wasted effort. Certainly, homosexual behavior is a choice. I may have a natural tendency to lust when a beautiful woman walks by, but I have a choice whether to act on that. But the idea that homosexual desire or orientation is a conscious choice just does not pass the reality test.
Is homosexuality genetic? Is it rooted in parental relationships? Childhood abuse? Some other unknown factor? At this point, we just don’t know.
But those who struggle with homosexual desire are pretty unanimous that this was not something they freely chose.
Why have we fought the “nature” battle so passionately? Because advocates of homosexuality have claimed that the fact that homosexuality is natural means it is okay. “God made me this way and God doesn’t make mistakes.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nature is fallen and cursed because of human sin. The New Testament uses natural as a designation for the sinful, unredeemed state. Pride comes naturally to me, and greed, and anger, and lust. Nature does not imply goodness, but sin. If homosexual advocates knew the Bible, they would not use the nature argument!
The Christians I have read propose some variation of factors as the genesis of homosexual desire. Could there be a genetic disorder or some other physical cause? Perhaps. There are likely family issues, often a dysfunctional relationship with a same-sex parent. Some have posited that sexual abuse is a common denominator in many homosexuals. I’m not an expert.
The issue is whether homosexuality was part of God’s created order (it was not), not whether it is a part of the fallen world we now live in. And whether homosexuality is a congenital disorder caused by the workings of sin in a fallen world, or whether it is caused by a combination of environmental factors, the vast majority of people with homosexual desires do not choose those desires.
The choice they have is whether they will act on them, or if they will obey God.
8.) We need to argue for real tolerance.
The most intolerant people I encounter are those who proclaim tolerance as the ultimate virtue. Hate merchants like Dan Savage have revealed that in many ways, Christians are more tolerant of gays than gays are of biblical Christians. Many homosexual advocates have become the mirror images of the Westboro bunch – as tolerant of biblical conviction as Westboro is of gays.
We need to define tolerance rightly. Tolerance is respecting the right of people to disagree and live their lives by their convictions. The intolerant tolerance advocated by the left in America demands not that their views be respected, but that we acquiesce to them. They have no tolerance for those of us who want to be loving toward homosexuals but maintain that it is a sin against God.
We need to argue for a tolerant tolerance that contrasts with the rigidly intolerant views of our predominant culture. If we kindly but firmly point out how intolerant the merchants of tolerance have become, it is possible that we can gain some ground at this point.
9) We must live with gracious confidence – Creation is on our side!
As the world moves farther in the homosexuality-is-okay direction, we sometimes get defensive and fearful. But we should walk in confidence as we proclaim truth. There are two things that are true that can help us walk in godly and gracious confidence.
God created us male and female and called his creation very good. What we proclaim is part and parcel of the natural and created order of God. We advocate what God intended.
10) Another reason for gracious confidence: History is on our side!
God is at work to bring an end to sin and to bring all things under obedience to Christ. While this world might be in rebellion today, one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess, and the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our Lord.
It is common to hear the phrase “history is on our side” from those who are promoting homosexuality and homosexual marriage and such things. That is only true if you look at the nations rage in disobedience and assume it will always be like that. It will not.
The power of God is at work to make sinful people like Jesus. Whatever the present holds, the future will be won by the glory of Christ and homosexuality like all other sin will be banished from earth.
Conclusion
Yes, it is never going to be easy. Homosexuality is one of the thorny issues of our time. Biblical truth and cultural belief run in direct opposition on this one.
It is going to be one of those watershed moments for the church. How will we respond? Will we sacrifice our convictions to find popularity? Will we go along to get along? Or, will we respond to sin-broken people with disdain and anger and rejection, or will we love them in Christ and try to help them find freedom in Christ?
This issue isn’t going away any time soon.
We’ve worked this one pretty hard, but I decided to put my thoughts in order.
Feel free to tell me how insightful and unassailably biblical my ideas are!!
Dave,
Naturally, I read a lot of what is written about this subject, as one of my passions is to help the church clarify what we should or should not be doing regarding homosexuality, particularly among our own members. Most who read me here know that it was a struggle for me and that the wounds were enhanced by the reaction of the church. Still . . . I see the church as the last great hope for truth and compassion and the hoped-for change.
That said, I consider what you have written here to be one of the finer pieces I’ve ever read on this subject. You were clear and honest, hopeful and encouraging. It’s a warning and not a brush-off- okay-we’ve-addressed-this message. You are right; this issue is not going away anytime soon. In fact, it will become greater and will be very divisive. Men and women of all ages, a lot of teens and college students, who struggle — as well as their family members and friends who love them and hurt for them — ,are sitting in the pews looking for some guidance and some help. Most of them are not wanting just tea and sympathy and a quick hug, but the truth, so they can move forward, make decisions and seek a way that pleases God. When we are silent or dismissive in the church, we’re shutting them up, shutting them down and, unfortunately, shutting them out. I think it’s a point of shame for many pastors who have done that.
Thank you for your post.
Thank you, Thom. Actually, as I wrote this, I found myself wondering what you might think.
Dave, I think this is a good article. It’s very similar to my position.
I do have one question though. You said, “we walk on dangerous ground when we speak of criminalizing homosexuality or denying basic civil rights to homosexuals.”
I don’t understand why you made this statement. You believe that homosexuality is unnatural, sinful, and immoral. You also believe that Christians have a responsibility to be Christians in the civil realm. Why then are you arguing that Christians “walk on dangerous ground” when they speak of criminalizing homosexuality.
First, I’ve been clear that I believe homosexuality should be illegal, but I’ve never said and I do not believe that Christians “walk on dangerous ground” if they don’t seek to criminalize homosexuality in the civil realm. Why do you feel so strongly about not criminalizing homosexuality that you would tell Christians who believe it should be illegal, that they are “walking on dangerous ground”?
Second, you also said that Christians should not want to deny homosexuals “basic civil rights.” What do you mean by this statement? What basic civil rights are you talking about?
In a society like ours, our efforts should be put to proclaiming truth to the lost, but not to criminalizing certain types of sinful behavior.
Why would you put so much passion into the issue of criminalization?
Dave, I’m not putting passion into it, but if a Christian wants to do that, why would that be, “walking on dangerous ground”?
I agree that “our efforts should be put to proclaiming truth to the lost, but not to criminalizing certain types of sinful behavior.” Does this mean that you think Christians shouldn’t have been involved in ending the slave trade, or shouldn’t be involved in ending abortion today? Of course not. So, why can’t Christians be involved in the civil realm against homosexuality? I understand it’s not your cup of tea, but should you tell other Christians they’re “walking on dangerous” ground if they choose to?
You seem to think that Christians cannot both be actively involved in the civil realm while also preaching the gospel as well. It’s both/and, not either/or. If I love my neighbor as myself, that will translate beyond the walls of my local church and my home. If Christians want to be passionate in the civil realm, they are free in Christ to do so.
Jared,
I would agree with Dave here as well. And I would dare say that the vast majority of younger or Reformed-minded guys in the SBC would as well. I think you are quite far out of the mainstream in your thinking on criminalization.
While I agree with laws against abortion and against slavery, I do think there is a vast difference in regard to criminality between those issues and homosexual behavior. With the former, there is a clear, unwilling party who is subjected to the actions of another party. That unwilling party needs to be kept from harm. But in regard to homosexual behavior, there are two willing participants who engage in a behavior which, while I believe is immoral, I do not believe can be criminalized based on a purely religious viewpoint. Now, I realize that a non-religious case can be made against homosexuality, but I don’t believe it is on par with the sorts of non-religious cases that can be made against abortion or slavery.
D. R., thanks for the comment. I’m not real concerned with what the majority believes about this issue. I’m concerned with the arguments being made. I can be convinced against my position. I haven’t heard many arguments to the contrary though, other than “you’re in the minority” and “we’re not a theocracy.”
Assuming a Christian still understands the church’s mission as primarily a gospel one, and he or she is involved in the civil realm against homosexuality, would you tell him or her that he or she is walking on dangerous ground? That’s what Dave and I are discussing.
“…there are two willing participants who engage in a behavior which, while I believe is immoral, I do not believe can be criminalized based on a purely religious viewpoint.”
That same argument could be made regarding prostitution, yet it is in the public interest that it is illegal. It degrades the participants, destroys families, and spreads disease. One might make the same argument about drug users and their dealers.
Seriously, that is rather a weak argument.
Jared, in these discussions of homosexuality and homosexuals you have (a) invariably advocated the criminalization of the same (while dodging the crucial question of what penalties would be exactied), (b) put homosexuals in justaposition to felons and pedophiles, (c) compared criminalization of homosexuals and homosexuality with ending slavery and abortion, and (d) tossed in for good measure bestiality, followed by, (d) your delcaration of love for your neighbor.
Please tell me that you see at least a little something odd in this mix?
William, I really don’t want to rehash this with you again.
Nevertheless, I’ll try to explain my position again.
a) I believe homosexuality should be illegal. I believe adultery should be illegal. Do I believe all Christians have to believe this? No. This is my opinion. Concerning the penalties that should be enacted, I don’t know? Civilly, it’s penalties should be less than that of pedophilia and bestiality, but I do think it’s a sexual perversion.
b) I’ve argued that homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality are sexual perversions, but I never said the civil penalties should be the same.
c) I didn’t compare the criminalization of slavery and abortion to that of homosexuality. What I did do was take the argument concerning why a Christian is civilly against slavery and abortion to its consistent end. In other words, the same argument for why Christians should be against slavery and abortion in the civil realm is the same argument I use for being against homosexuality. I’m more against abortion and slavery in the civil realm than I am against homosexuality in the civil realm, but the argument is the same.
d) I do love my neighbor. Just because I’m advocating that something which is sexually immoral and unnatural should be illegal, doesn’t mean that I don’t love my neighbor. It’s precisely because I love my neighbor that I’m arguing this. I’m not singling out homosexuality. Once again, I believe adultery should be illegal as well.
Finally, I don’t think you’re trying to represent my position fairly.
William, I also think pornography should be illegal.
Brother Thornton: You mentioned Jared’s juxtaposition of homosexuals and pedophiles, and I would call your attention to the fact that NAMBLA usually has its signs at Gay Parades. I have seen them in news reports and pictures. NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. Whether they still operate under that title or not, the pedophiles generally join in in such activities, claiming that what they do is loving, etc. But as a formerly Licensed Professional Counselor who was moved to get a degree in counseling due to having five cases of incest in three mos and who wrote a paper on the subject, I can tell you that introducing a child to sex is devestating, having all kinds of deleterious effects on their psycho-sexual development. One might say pedophiles ensure a supply of possible candidates for homosexual practices. Now the proposals include the teaching that any form of sexual activity (except rape, I think) is acceptable, approved, and should be engaged in, when the young person feels like it. You might want to take a look at the books being proposed for use in our schools and already to be found in our libraries.
This reply is to Jared’s reply of 2:09.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the historical record when Christians have had civil power and how it was exercised. Your philosophy of using the state is dangerous. Perhaps in time you will learn enough to be weaned from it.
I think the answer is not always as simple as just that we are free to do something. Not everything we are free to do should be done, Christian or not. I’m not sure what the purpose of taking a stand towards criminalization would be, other than to perhaps make it more clear how one stands. It will never be criminalized. We’ve gone too far down the road of acceptance. I think seeking to criminalize would only further close the door for the church to ever be of significant help to people who struggle. I’ve been involved in para-church ministries where Jesus Christ is the center of the lives of men and women who are worshiping there because they fear the church will not accept them even in their repentant state.
Decriminalizing slavery freed men. Laws restricting abortion save lives. Urging to criminalize homosexuality would build barriers and, I think, accomplish little more than pumping up self-righteousness for some.
Certainly some people exaggerate the harm they encountered in the church and exploit that for political purposes and perhaps self-justification, but much of it is true. I think we would do much better to focus on the brokenness of the person rather than the distastefulness of the sin.
Thom, I appreciate your opinion and your experience.
That being said, I don’t think the argument that we’ve gone too far down the road of acceptance is a good argument. I also don’t think the opinion of outsiders or their stereotypes of us is a good barometer for what Christians should and should not be involved in civilly. Furthermore, poor practices in the church should not discourage one from loving one’s neighbor in the civil realm.
Believing that homosexual acts should be illegal may indeed create barriers, but no more than the church’s belief that unrepentant homosexuality will send people to eternal hell. Those who are offended at a Christian American believing homosexual acts should be illegal will be more offended that this same Christian believes unrepentant homosexuality will send these people to hell if they do not run to Jesus.
What I’m saying is that poor civil practices and poorly administered biblical discipline are not reasons for abstaining from the civil realm. The answer to your suggested issues (which are real issues), is not staying out of the civil realm or not administering biblical discipline. The answer is good civil practices and godly biblical discipline.
I do not understand your enthusiasm for criminalizing such a thing, Jared. I think we have bigger fish to fry that advocating incarceration for homosexuals.
Dave, I’m not that enthusiastic about it. No law-makers are asking my opinion. I understand that you disagree with me. The reason why I commented on this article is because I don’t think you and other Christians have enough evidence biblically to say that Christians are on dangerous ground if they seek to make certain immoral behaviors illegal. I agree with you that it’s not the responsibility of the church to do this, but to say that individual Christians shouldn’t do this is biblically unfounded in my opinion. Christians are free to do this. They’re not “on dangerous ground” if they choose to. Now, if they believe it’s the church’s primary responsibility as opposed to gospel proclamation, then they’re in trouble.
I’m against Christians saying, “You MUST believe homosexuality should be illegal,” and I’m against Christians saying, “You MUST NOT believe homosexuality should be illegal.” Scripture says neither.
“It will never be criminalized. We’ve gone too far down the road of acceptance. I think seeking to criminalize would only further close the door for the church to ever be of significant help to people who struggle.”
Not so. Pagan cultures (Greeks, Romans, Celtics, etc.) were widely accepting of homosexual activity. Yet, as Christianity overcame the culture, there were laws passed against this immoral activity.
Jared,
I have to agree with David here as well, though I have perhaps less passion against your position than he has.
I am basically a fighter by nature. I don’t give up easily or back down often. However, I do feel like it is time to realize that homosexuality is here to stay as a part and parcel of American life.
That genie is not going back in the bottle.
The next great challenge to the rising tide of homosexuality in America will come directly from God. That’s how it has always been when a nation embraces homosexuality.
We need to go into the “recon” mode and fight in the trenches for individuals who have been captured by sin. I do believe we should maintain a Christian witness against the homosexual lobby, but recognize they have the upper hand.
For me, it’s the same fight, but a different strategy.
That’s why I cannot support your push for criminalizing homosexuality–at least not in practice, though I do in theory.
Wow! Does that taste bad in my mouth. I’m usually a very black and white kind of guy.
Dave,
You said, “””In a society like ours, our efforts should be put to proclaiming truth to the lost, but not to criminalizing certain types of sinful behavior.”””
Are you against closing down the “Bath Houses” in San Francisco that was helping spread AIDS like wild-fire?”
I wish someone besides myself would at least mention that many here on this post have a view of homosexuality given to them by Hollywood and the Media, and not as it actually exists on the streets.
What is criminal behavior and what is not is a worthy argument, but I don’t know if we are all talking about homosexuality as it is actually practiced and not as it is presented on Will and Grace.
Homosexuality is NOT a wholesome, alternative life-style. Yes, there are exceptions, but we should not formulate our opinions on the exceptions, but we should also consider the rule.
Jared has allowed himself to be driven into a corner and is fighting for what I consider an “exaggerated” position. Yet, as a result, I think the whole issue of homosexuality and the church is getting skewed.
On this point I agree with you. I’ve written often in this blog about the warped picture of the homosexual lifestyle presented by culture, Hollywood, the media and pandering politicians. As a rule, “deathstyle” is a more appropriate description. Unfortunately many in the church fall for the false picture and become numb to people around them who want out.
This is a great post, Dave. Thank you for sharing the truth that requires some thought and not some cliches. Truly, faster than we expected, the world is changing for Christians in the U.S. We need to realize that we are living in a pagan society, more similar to the early Christians than to our grandparents’ generation. I’d add to your list of points that we need to learn how to do apology again, as in the defense of the faith. Not just reasons why God exists, but defense for Christian belief and living.
I think this is one of the divides between young and old. People of my generation and older still expected the USA to be, at least, a Christianized nation that reflected our values and honored our presence.
Young whippersnappers are probably more aware of the fact that this is a post-Christian culture, essentially secular with empty homage given to religion.
That is a shock to us old fogeys, but we have to get used to it. We are living in Rome and Caesar doesn’t like us.
“”””We are living in Rome and Caesar doesn’t like us.”””””
Dave,
I think that is a very good point. I also, if I can chance to speak for you, do not think it is a statement of surrender, but simply dealing with a different reality.
Twenty years ago, I would have (and did) advocate for a “revival of America’s Christian heritage.” I felt that was what God was leading the church to do. David Barton provided what I thought was indisputable evidence in support of that cause.
I don’t think that is a wise direction to take anymore. I think the church must batten down the hatches and prepare to live in a world where paganism and immorality rule.
It’s not giving up the fight, but taking a different strategy in the war.
In order to understand why we are encountering such anomalies as your father noted years ago, David, we need to do a lot of reading and research outside the box, so to speak. Nancy Pearcey, in her work, Total Truth (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004), p.127, has noted that “…, it is imperative for seminaries to broaden the education of pastors to include courses on intellectual history, training future pastors to critique the dominant ideologies of our day.” Like it or not Apologetics are becoming a major concern today. Suggestive is the experience of a family whose son at the age of 20 graduated from UNC-CH this past May 13. He had been taught the Christian Faith, in fact, well-taught in the Bible, but he could not stand against the wiles of the atheistic and agnostic evolutionists and critics that he encountered in the University. Our son got me to meet with him (and we were able to get together several times). Having been an Atheist before my conversion and having some exposure to the critical approaches that are present in today’s academic world (as well as having taught in college), I was able to say some things that moved the young man to say to our son, “Your Dad gave some things to think about.” It was not as much as I had hoped and had prayed for, but perhaps later on the seed sown will bear fruit. The cunning and subtlety of today’s adversaries has been a long time in developing, a development which took place when the Christian believers backed out of the place of leadership of Western Civilization due to the idea of feeling and heart taken predominance over thinking and intellect. I have a friend and fellow student who is reading Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will. When I asked him how it was going, he said, “Very slow.” Nevertheless, when we remember that, due to the rational nature of God and the resulting orderliness of His creation (cf. Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World), produce the milieu which made it possible for the development and formulation of the scientific method, then we must reconsider the retreat Christianity has made from the public arena of thought and the consequent price we and our society as a whole are beginning to pay for such a withdrawal.
I am afraid that one of the reasons for our retreat from the public arena has been the way we argued there. We used cliches and angry pronouncements, far too often.
Dave,
Unfortunately, I have found the opposite to be true many times. I have found Christians to be the most logical voices in the argument and the other side being those who use emotions and cliches. The reality is that the vast majority of American society is absolutely ignorant when it comes to logical argumentation. As one of my friends says, “You simply can’t win an argument using logic these days.” I think he is right. I’ve certainly seen that in Church experiences and definitely even on this very site!
I talk about that in the post, but I do think that the church has been guilty of the “Adam and Steve” kind of approach – lightweight and unconvincing pronouncements and such.
But you are right, that we are often painted unfairly.
A young man in my previous church exited the closet. I talked to him. We had a very cordial conversation in which I told him that we wanted to be there for him and love him, but that we could not condone what he was doing.
Later I saw him on some social network say he was “kicked out of the church” when he came out of the closet. In spite of the kindness that had been shown him, he characterized it that way. It was frustrating, but not unheard of.
Dave,
What I have learned from others who have been kicked out of churches is that it usually is caused by a perceived lack of repentance. It’s a problem of great expectations on both sides. When a struggler seeks help, he is usually feeling great hope and determination that he will not fall again. He expresses that and the church embraces his repentance. When temptation presents itself and he weakens and falls, the church often sees that as unrepentance, as if an instant overcoming was possible, which for most, is not true.
Unfortunately, the church can become a scapegoat for those who fail and they can even use their perception of the church’s response as proof that no one cares, which, as you showed your friend, is not true.
I think bumper-sticker, t-shirt, Twitter-slogan theology/religion has harmed us a great deal in the Church. Too much gets boiled down so that it can quick-digested and we lose much. The “Adam and Steve” thing is one of those–among several others.
It makes a great bumper sticker but does not help anyone, really.
I was born and am, to this day (albeit much less hormone-driven) a heterosexual male. Subject to the normal desires and drives. I have had to subject them, and the actions toward which they push me, to the terms & conditions placed upon them by God’s word. I cannot plead that God made me this way so it’s OK to act on the desire when and where I want. I must obey.
I cannot speak for women & their desires, nor for anyone whose primary desire is for those of the same sex.
That is my position, and the one which I will offer in any discussion, and that I believe all people must bring their actions in line with God’s mandates, and certainly if they are ever to have any hope that God will bring their desires in line with His Word.
I am fortunate that, 20 years ago, He used a formerly-active homosexual man, dying of AIDS, to show me some of my own guilt, and to affirm God’s own love and forgiveness for me. It rocked, but changed, my world.
Sometime in the early nineties, a church in the association where I then served (not the same church) sent a youth group on a Mission trip to Atlanta. There they ran into a fellow dying of aids, who told them to go back and tell their friends that that lifestyle had cost him his life. One could tell that that made a tremendous impression on those young people. The truth is a lot of money and power is behind this effort to legalize sodomy, and it stems from unlikely sources. A certain group has power and they want sexual freedom, an ending of restraints and constraints. I remember hearing back some twenty years ago about one fellow who had picked up the aids infection in another country and who went on a wild period of immoral conduct that resulted in the infection of some 90-100 homosexuals in California. Back then, it was a death sentence.
And, incidentally, what would you, as a pastor, do, were one of your members to admit living in an openly homosexual, and continuing, relationship?
Jared . . . If a church member came to you and confessed he had fallen to the temptation and engaged in homosexuality and he wanted your help, would your first inclination be that you wished you had the power to throw him in prison? I hope not, but it does appear so. I guess we just disagree. I do not think truth us devalued by compassion.
Thom, do you really think that’s a fair representation of what I’ve said here?
It’s the government’s job to “throw people in jail,” not mine. Since homosexuality isn’t against the civil law, the thought of civil justice wouldn’t even cross my mind.
As a Christian, my first inclination would be to pray for this individual, and to do my best to hold him or her accountable to Scripture. A repentant Christian who struggles with homosexuality is welcome to the Lord’s table. An unrepentant Christian who succumbs to homosexuality must be lovingly disciplined. So long as there was evidence of repentance (at least verbally), there would be no need for bringing said individual before the church as the third step (kicking out). A repentant heart is needed, and fleshes itself out; but, I agree with you that repentance, although instantaneous, doesn’t make an individual immune to continued temptation. So long as a person wanted to pursue holiness, I would do my best to lovingly help him or her. Homosexual acts are no worse than any other open unrepentant sin in the church.
Jared, I apologize. Indeed, the answer you have given above shows that you would respond in grace while recognizing the seriousness of the person’s sin. Who could possibly hope for more. I hope you will accept my apology and I thank you for expressing so well how you should and would respond.
Thom, of course I accept your apology brother. This is a sensitive and difficult issue. Our experiences also inform our perception of others and their arguments. It’s easy to misunderstand one another.
Keep on keeping on brother, for God’s glory alone.
Thom,
Normally, you are a well-reasoned, civil person. But to suppose that anything Jared said would mean that someone who comes to him for help would be “thrown in jail” if Jared had that power, is simply not a fair reading of anything Jared has said, in my opinion.
I could ask you, “if a church member came to you and said that they had just murdered your family brutally,” would your first inclination be, “I love you, we will work this out?”
My first inclination would be . . . well, I don’t want to really think what it would be. My point is: the question is not a fair question.
Thom,
As a follow-up, in case you are not aware, those homosexuals advocating that they be recognized as “normal, everyday citizens wanting society to validate their relationship,” are not “coming to preachers for help with their sin.”
Frank, Jared was not talking about same-sex marriage or civil rights. He was talking about criminalizing homosexuality. I don’t think I was unreasonable to ask that question. If his opinions about criminalizing homosexuality are known, however, it is doubtful anyone struggling with homosexual brokenness will seek his help. I would certainly have been afraid to do so. I don’t think I was out-of-line to ask, but I am sorry you were offended.
Thom, just for the record, I wouldn’t ever mention my opinion concerning the civil laws from the pulpit. My responsibility as a pastor and Christian in the local church is not social reform, but gospel proclamation. It might come up in daily conversation, although in over 12 years of ministry, it never has.
JARED,
a little nun-sense from the other side of the Tiber:
““If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”
? Mother Teresa
Christianne,
If you do NOT judge people’s behavior you do NOT love them.”
Mother Teresa was a wonderful social worker and a terrible theologian.
I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
?Jesus (Luke 13:3 ESV)
I haven’t posted much lately. I really liked this article. Thanks for the discussion Dave.
Dave,
We are the first generation of pastors to have to learn how to pastor in an environment where– the government, military, media, liberal churches and preachers, NAACP, politicians, entertainers, athletes, pop-culture, and to a lesser extent the public educational system–are all accepting, friendly to, or supporting– same-sex sex and relationships, including marriage. As we wrestle with and try to get our arms around this thorny issue–your post is extremely helpful toward that end. Thanks for ministering to the body of Christ through this blog.
Dwight
Dwight, you said, “””and to a lesser extent the public educational system”””
I’d simply add that the reason all the other entities are accepting is precisely because of the public educational system. It was designed to bring about the very society we see today.
It is amazing to me that the public education system has been able to bring about the anti-Christian socialism we see rising today at a feverish pace and most people don’t even see it happening.
The founders of American public education read as a “Who’s Who” of socialistic protagonists: Owens, Mann, Dewey, and so many others. We are “reaping what we have sowed.”
Frank: You sure hit the nail on the head, identifying the socialists in American Education. And people wonder how I could possible hold to a conspiracy being a big part of the problem. You put your finger on that conspiracy. Read Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and his The Anglo American Establishment, Tony Brown’s , We The People, R. Buckminster Fuller’s writings, and about 250,000 volumes of other works that make up the conspirators coverage by those who have run into it, identified it, and even investigated it. Even George Washington admitted as much…about a work by a prof. from one of the Scottish Universities who investigated the illuminati. Heavy stuff to get a quote from Washington, and Jefferson must have known something cause he advised against lettin the court get too much power and about letting International Financiers get to involved in our nation’s finances. Seems that some of the folks in the education realm met in New England or was it NYC and planned to get God and the Bible out of education…this was in 1906. And Voila! Today, we see they have largely succeeded.
Thank you, Dwight.
Dwight,
You said “We are the first generation of pastors to have to learn how to pastor in an environment where– the government, military, media, liberal churches and preachers, NAACP, politicians, entertainers, athletes, pop-culture, and to a lesser extent the public educational system–are all accepting, friendly to, or supporting– same-sex sex and relationships, including marriage.”
That is so true. And we are doing it with an older generation that has yet to grasp it! Ministry is not for the faint of heart!
Great read here everyone. Thanks for the insight. I was in a discussion on Facebook with some people who work for the Tony Robbins Company. The health, wealth and prosperity group. The subject was being defriended by someone who does not believe in homosexuality. I engaged, and was attacked by about 20 plus people. Was actually exciting. I simply said homosexuality was a sin, and a sin against the body and the Bible does not support that lifestyle. Man was I thrown into the hornets nest!! People threw scripture at me out of context left and right. I have found when I try and witness to people about Jesus, the lost people come out almost 10 times out of 10 with “judge not lest ye be judged”, or “Jesus loves everyone”. Like clockwork these words come from them. I told the group that homosexuality is a sin, and sin leads to death and eternal damnation in hell. However, I told them in the same sentence, that lying, stealing, coveting, blasphemy also are sins that lead to death and eternal damnation. I told this group that we are all sinners, that we all have broken God’s laws. That God views a lost homosexual in the same way he views a lost thief, liar and murderer. I told them that the GOOD NEWS is that Jesus died for them, and if they repent, turn from their sin, and accept Jesus as their saviour, that they will inherit eternal life. Well, this group of pro-homosexuality, health, wealth and prosperity people did what they always do. They say “hey, it is great to hear someone so committed to their belief, but we have ours and gays are not going to hell”. I continued with scriptures from Sodom and Gommorah, Romans, etc. I continued to tell them, WE all sin. Homosexuals, hetrosexuals, whatever. That Jesus is the only way to get out of those sins. They are worshiping a different Jesus. Two of the twenty accepted my friendship request, the others did not. I was comforted by remembering that Jesus said “when the world hates you, remember, it hated me first”. I pray for gays, they are truly lost. Not any worse than someone else who is lost, but the gay agenda in America supported now by the President of our nation has no pushed them further from Christ. It is sad. Anyway, just my thoughts!! Dave for President!!!!!
Thanks, Mark. I think I’ll just stay “Pastor Dave.”
There may be a strong argument to be made against Jared Moore’s position, but I don’t think it had been made in this thread:
1. “Our efforts should…not [be] to criminalizing certain types of sinful behavior.” And yet, we favor criminalizing murder, bank fraud, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, skipping school, and driving without liability insurance. We favor the legislation of fairness in labor laws and lending laws and a half-dozen other Old Testament prophetic themes. Why all of these sins, but not homosexuality? What’s entirely missing from the discussion is any tenable framework by which homosexuality has been differentiated from these other biblical themes.
2. D. R. mentions that homosexuality is a so-called victimless crime. Certainly, differentiating it from abortion and slavery (which was what he was doing strictly within that context), this is a valid distinction. But it is not a valid distinction from other laws. Who is the victim if I ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Who is the victim if I refuse to mow my lawn? Who is the victim if I marry my adult daughter (with her consent)? What is called for in arguing against Jared is to make a case why homosexuality is different from all other sins against which we support laws. I don’t think the “victim” distinction accomplishes that.
…to be continued…
Bart,
Best analysis yet.
PS–The reason your analysis will not make sense to some people is because many do not realize that there has never been a “sin” with such a strong lobby.
PSS–Though the tobacco lobby and the alcohol lobby do come close.
So, what sins do you criminalize and which do you not?
The same way we do everything: we introduce laws and they pass or fail.
But we don’t try to pass laws to criminalize all sins. We just pick and choose some.
OK. Why do you choose to give homosexuality a pass?
Well Dave, Why did the apostle Paul only name some sins in his list in 1 Corinthians 5 concerning withdrawing fellowship from people who claim to be Christian and live in them? I always get rebuked by people when I mention this but all sins are not equal.
Frank, why do you answer a question with a question?
Ah, Dave…That’s the $1 million question!
Dave:
I think your questions here are much more complex and much more important than they appear at first glance. The difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum (i.e., acts which are intrinsically bad vs. acts which are prohibited merely because we decide to prohibit them), gets very tricky when you toss a Christian worldview into the mix.
When viewing crimes at the extreme ends of the spectrum, (e.g., murder vs. fishing without a license), it’s easy to claim that one crime has an obvious, intrinsically moral component. However, when you start looking at the justification behind each criminal law, it’s hard, (and potentially impossible), to find a law without some moral component. Whether or not those moral components are rooted in scripture only complicates matters worse.
Ultimately, I think that the academic world of Christian ethics is ripe for some more developed scholarship on these subjects.
Zack: “Ultimately, I think that the academic world of Christian ethics is ripe for some more developed scholarship on these subjects.”
I entirely agree.
Dave,
Now that I have a little bit more time (although not unlimited), I’ll answer your question more fully. What sins do you criminalize?
1. You never criminalize “first table of the law” sins. Whether people worship, when people worship, whom people worship, how (within reason) people worship? These are out-of-bounds.
2. Now that we cannot legislate a person’s relationship with God, we’re left to legislate about how people behave with other people. What are our core principles in doing so? Romans 13 tells us that government exists as an agent of the wrath of God to punish evil and reward good. And so, whenever the government rewards evil or punishes good, then that is a bad law.
3. But what about that “deadband” between reward and punishment, where government just doesn’t bother one way or the other? Does homosexuality belong there? What does? And the answer is…
…I don’t know. I’m still working through all of that myself. I’m not prepared to decry as wrong those who advocate for criminalization. I’m not prepared to decry as wrong those who think the civil government ought to be more laissez-faire about matters like this. I hope to come to a more firm conclusion in the future.
Maybe Jared has a firm answer to that question that he’d like to propose. I’d be one who would listen to him and consider it carefully. I jumped into the thread simply because it seemed to me that the arguments offered against Jared’s position were weak and inconsistent.
That is an interesting subject for future rumination. We all agree that murder, pedophilia, rape and other moral sins should be legislated.
We probably all agree that gossip and lying (in a non-legal setting) – clearly sinful against God – should not be legislated.
The line in the middle is tricky.
It would be nice if that line were established in Scripture, and in the OT theocracy, it was. But in our secular representative democracy, things are different.
I hate to even say this, but to a certain extent, we have to let cultural norms be a factor in this. Criminalizing homosexuality today would never pass and would likely cause more damage to the gospel cause than anything it would accomplish.
Dave, I’m glad that you hate to say it, because I really disagree! 😉
Following the whims of the mob is, it seems to me, the worst way to govern. At this point, the comparison to slavery truly IS appropriate.
The question is simply this: If I were suddenly made a king and had to power to make any law and to enforce it, what laws would I make? THAT question will force us all to try to develop a biblical philosophy of government that we can then apply to our individual circumstances.
Before we answer what we can or cannot do, we must first answer what we should or should not do.
Regarding the gospel cause, I don’t think we’re smart enough to perform that calculus. In 1940 in Texas or Iowa, support for racial civil rights was a good way to damage “the gospel cause.” Little did the church members of that day know that connecting with their culture in 1940 would be the primary force DISconnecting their churches from the culture 50 years later.
So, if I genuinely believe that the sexual revolution is disastrous and spells doom for our society, then even though taking a strong stand today is likely to make me very unpopular with this culture, can’t I find comfort in the idea that, when it all comes crashing down later and people see what a train wreck this all was from the beginning, they’ll be able to look back and say, “We should’ve listened to the Southern Baptists! They took the courageous stands. They were right all along.”?
Unless we genuinely suffer from a lack of confidence that this kind of sinfulness will inexorably eventuate a crashing down of it all.
Well put, Mr. Barber, well put. accepting the homosexual success in the public arena might seem like the expedient thing to do now, but, later, it will be fraught with disaster. Just think how Southern Baptists have had to admit that their Northern brethren were right about slavery being truly contrary to the spirit of the Gospel and a terrible evil to be resisted and removed, if at all possible. So with the Sodomite issue today. Our news media ignores the problems acceptance is already presenting. I saw an article sometime ago about the increase in the instances of homosexual rapes, since the ending of DADT. What a firestorm that raised! Some of them folks just don’t know when to take, “No,” for an answer. I remember one from high school whom I had to threaten with violence, if he did not leave me alone. In return, he threatened me with violence, but he left me alone. However, before we graduated from high school he beat an old man to death on the street with his fists and was up on a charge of murder, the last I ever heard of him. But I know little compared to one of my friends, a Clinical Pastoral Care Supervisor with years of experience as a chaplain in the Navy and in other institutions.
My view of the Bible may be different from some of your highly trained views. Much of reference to “those who burn with unnatural lust” (implying homosexual, to me) is how they cause problems between other people. So, the case of the man who claimed falsely you tossed him out of your church is what homosexuals do.
I have a friend back in C.R. whose nephew is gay, and my friend says that man, when he enters a room, looks around to see who he can get to fight with whom. The gays I worked around were like that. As usual, the Bible is correct.
I hope to find this page again tomorrow. I have much more to say on this topic from a practical view point, much less then theological.
Storms here. Power outage. I can’t type long stuff on this phone without violating the qualifications for my office in 1 Tim 3. ;-). Sorry to duck out prematurely.
The mission of the Church is to bring Christ into the world.
That is how Christians will ‘change things’ for the better. And now, many Christians are waking up to this truth, and forsaking ‘short cuts’ that involve worldly and political power, for the power that resides in Christ the Lord . . . the power to transform people.
DAVID was right when he wrote this:
“No, put down your stones.
We are not for homosexuality, but we must be FOR homosexuals.
They are not our enemy,
they are our mission field. ”
It is above all for us to remember that it is Christ Who does the healing.
That is WHY the mission of the Church is to bring Christ into the world.
Dave, one of your best articles. Sharing it now…
It’s morning in America ( 😉 ), and the power is back on in Farmersville. Now I can continue…
3. William Thornton has asserted that Jared’s desire to criminalize homosexuality is incompatible with a claim to love homosexuals. If a desire to see something prosecuted criminally is incompatible with love, then I wonder what William’s position is regarding pedophiles? Our church sent one of those away to prison—we reported him, testified against him, and have lobbied against early release for him. I also believe that it is my duty to love him. William, where am I wrong in this? Would you say that I should not love him, or would you say that I should not prosecute him criminally? Or, as a third way, would you protest that wanting to see criminal behavior prosecuted criminally is not incompatible with loving someone? If you take the third position, haven’t you just eviscerated your argument against Jared?
4. William subsequently argues that Jared’s position is a throwback to the evils of church-state synthesis in earlier periods in history. And yet, Jared is not arguing for the church to be able to wield the civil sword. Jared is a citizen. As a citizen, and with no more rights than any other citizen, Jared simply wishes to have a voice in the governance of our nation over whether a behavioral practice in human-to-human interaction (not human interaction with God) should be criminal. This clearly falls within Roger Williams’s “second table of the law.” While we’re looking at history, perhaps we should note that Joseph Stalin instituted the criminalization of homosexuality in the USSR. Which religion was he following in doing so (if no good non-religious case against homosexuality exists)?
5. Thom and Frank L have argued against Jared along the lines of, “Dude, you think you’re ever going to WIN?” Frankly, this argument works equally well against anyone who is simply trying to teach that homosexual behavior is sinful. Do you think you’re going to win that argument in the culture? If you think it’s going to be easy to win that argument in the church with your current 6-year-olds, then you’re deceiving yourself. Sometimes we declare things to be a hill worthy dying on (see the OP) and we remain firm even if we think we’ll probably lose the popularity contest. If Jared is investing $1 million in a lobbying campaign for criminalization, then he’s perhaps foolish. As far as I can tell, Jared is just expressing his opinion. It doesn’t have to be a strategy; it can just be an opinion.
6. Thom states that support of criminalization will build barriers between churches and homosexuals while (in contrast to laws against abortion or slavery) not really helping anything. I concede entirely the first portion of his argument—every law offends those who violate it. What if the purpose of such a law were to help homosexuals? The parallel would be laws making school attendance compulsory. The objective of the law is to help the one being prosecuted. It seems to me that the latter portion of Thom’s argument must presume that (a) law cannot be a deterrent at all against homosexual behavior, or that (b) one has not helped homosexuals when one has deterred them from behaving homosexually.
I’d bet that most of our culture would oppose criminalization on the basis of (b). They have come to believe that people who desire to engage in homosexual sex get a good thing when they accomplish their desire, and that a law criminalizing homosexuality would in fact be a law imposing a barrier between people and something good. I’m going to presume that all of us in this conversation agree that you’ve done something good for any person if you’ve kept him or her away from homosexual sex.
So, that leaves us with (a). Are laws against homosexuality a successful deterrent? Hardly any law is 100% successful as a deterrent. In my lifetime, we’ve moved from a regime of unenforced sodomy laws to a regime of decriminalized homosexuality. Anecdotally, I’d say that homosexual behavior is on the increase. Do more people behave homosexually when no legal penalties stand in the way? That would be a key question in this discussion, I think.
If a law criminalizing homosexual behavior would, hypothetically, reduce the percentage of the population involved in homosexual acts from, say, 6% to 3%, would that be a good law? Cynthia Nixon (former “Sex and the City” actress) has declared that she is lesbian by her own choice. Wouldn’t laws criminalizing homosexuality at least serve as a deterrent for people in this category (whatever percentage of the overall lesbian population she might represent)?
If the question is, “Where should we Christians be directing our efforts with regard to homosexuality?” and if someone were to answer, “We need to make it our top priority to pass a law against homosexuality,” then I’d probably conclude that any such person overestimates the good that a law can do while underestimating the good that the spiritual ministry of a New Testament church can do. But if the question is not “Where is the best place to invest our efforts?” but is, rather, the abstract question, “Should homosexual behavior be criminalized?” then I know of no good reason why Jared’s answer should be out-of-bounds.
…I’ll be back later. Gotta go vote…
Bart,
I made my point about the likely barrier between homosexuals and the church because of my great desire for people who struggle with homosexuality to see the church as the place to resolve and find freedom. Many fear it already, including the strugglers who are hiding within our churches now under double-identities. Some, of course, because of their faith and hope and because they have witnessed grace extended to other sinners, will come forth to a pastor or brother and seek help. It does happen and the results are often very good. Sometimes the results are disastrous, though perhaps exaggerated. I do think, if churches were to be seen as the primary supporters of criminilization, the barrier would grow stronger out of fear. I am addressing the reaction more of people like myself who struggled with homosexuality within the church, men and women who would fear not only arrest, but potentially the loss of family and brothers and sisters within the church. I’m not talking about the Gay Pride folks who would not likely come to any of our churches because they have already created their own and are clearly worshiping an idol.
Even if homosexuality were criminal, it is likely that most pastors and church members would still be graceful and minister to the church member who is in prison. More likely is that the person we might have been able to minister to will no longer be a church member at all because he will have left our congregation long before his sin was revealed. If I had an addictive sin — which sexual sin is — and I knew that my brothers were suggesting prison for me, I would probably find some other way to connect spiritually with people. That’s why most Christian ministry to people who struggle with homosexuality is already done outside the church. I love the church, despite some past difficulties. I work directly with people who struggle with homosexuality and they are my primary audience for the writing I do. We are surrounded by men and women who do what they do not want to do. Let’s focus on them and help them. That does not mean I am not concerned about the determined homosexual, but the time and energy we spend on them is usually fruitless. This sin is so powerful we cannot talk anyone out of it or scare anyone out of it. Only when the Holy Spirit begins to work in the lives of the individual does he or she seek help sincerely.
I think Jared was fine to ask his question and it’s fair for debate, butI think it would be a significant waste of time for Christians to go down that path and I’d rather see us putting our efforts into actually learning enough about what drives the homosexual struggler so we could be real assistance to those who sincerely want to recover. Truth be told, were we to propose conviction, we would be going after a significant number of the sons and daughters within our churches, some of whom are simply confused and searching.
Thom: “It would be a significant waste of time for Christians to go down that path and I’d rather see us putting our efforts into actually learning enough about what drives the homosexual struggler so we could be real assistance to those who sincerely want to recover.”
Thom, I agree.
Also, regarding pastoral concerns, if homosexual behavior WERE illegal, then I’d probably engage that issue similarly to the way that I engage the issue of illegal immigration (which comes up sometimes when you live in Texas). I do not dispute the validity of immigration laws. I do not think it is wrongful for the state to regulate immigration. He or she who has entered the country illegally has broken the law, and if he or she winds up being apprehended and prosecuted, then no injustice has been done.
And yet, when I encounter an illegal immigrant, I do not call INS. I support the nation-state in its discharge of its responsibility, but I know that its responsibility and mine are different.
Well-stated. My wife is from a small-town south of San Antonio. Her father would often find illegal immigrants crossing through the field behind his home. Faced with the choice of calling authorities or giving them food and water, he chose the latter . . . but he was always not sure he was doing the right thing.
Regarding the whole issue of criminality and homosexuality. If cultural and societal trends are not reversed, it is more likely that speaking out against homosexuality will become a criminal act, and the act of homosexuality will not.
Hey, Thom,
One more thing about my parallel between compulsory school attendance and our hypothetical law criminalizing homosexuality: In general, society does not hate truants. Indeed, taking evidence from films like Ferris Buehler’s Day Off, I’d say there’s a general agreement that compulsory attendance laws are good, and yet people have a strange mix of admiration and “tsk-tsk” in their attitudes toward truancy.
This is proof, I think, that something can be illegal without criminalizing laws necessarily being an expression of derision and hatred from society toward a group of people. Now, it may be that we should NOT criminalize something unless we’re prepared to deride and hate it (viz, a more Libertarian approach that would perhaps do away with compulsory attendance laws and any other “paternalistic” laws that don’t address hard crime), but whatever it is that we SHOULD do, these laws demonstrate that we CAN criminalize something without hating it.
Hi BART BARBER,
you wrote:
‘ “…the abstract question,
“Should homosexual behavior be criminalized?” ‘
and I thought, not so abstract in this world is that possibility:
examine UGANDA and what happened there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08HpzqZAQ_g
Unfortunately, the Ugandans put a ‘death penalty’ clause in their bill, which was NOT the original intention of the American missionaries from the conservative Christian right.
Yes, we can. While we can’t remember prohibition, we all know how that law was derided.
As Christians we do need to look beyond the crime and see the person, regardless of what it is, and seek to walk with him or her when they seek repentance.
I do think gay-militants would welcome any efforts to criminalize their behavior because it would fuel their need to inflame militancy to keep their movement alive.
If this blog is intended only for SBC pastors and certified theologians, please delete my comments and let me know. Last night I came in from a short, but tiring trip and commented because I could. There is no SBC in Mexico, just Baptist.
I have been reading the Bible for not quite my 70 years. In my opinion, many devout Christians seem to miss the point of the Bible. I hear them say, “Well, (it) is true, because the Bible says so.”
In simple terms, they believe something is true BECAUSE the Bible says it is true, and only because the Bible says it is true. What they do not seem to understand is while it is correct that anything the Bible says, is true, a better description is: Nothing is in the Bible unless it is true.
And, after some years of study, one begins to realize that BIBLE = REALITY. That is, the Bible is a real truth, related to everyday real life in the real world, not some strange mystical work, an attempt to gaze into the mind of God.
The next logical step is the realization that the = symbol is bidirectional. That is, it is also true that Reality = Bible. You may disagree, but to me reality and Bible must be the same, or something is very wrong.
So, why is this important? Historically, affluent families did not consider their children educated until they had lived in another culture for at least two years. We are products of our own cultures, and assume every bit of our culture is some universal law. Living in another culture, we learn which parts of our culture are not universal truths, but cultural truths.
There are parts of the Bible which seem to be confusing. Living in Mexico for a while, I learned those parts are confusing because we read them through a “cultural filter”, based on our own cultural beliefs.
Those confusing items tend to involve marriage; divorce; how men and women interact; the role of women in the Church; and sexuality, among other things. Because our culture is rather twisted in those areas. So, when people read the truth, they don’t understand it.
If you are confused about something in the Bible, because your culture gets it twisted, examine reality. The problem as stated is stepping outside your culture, which is very hard to do. I not only learned much about American culture by living in Mexico; I also learned much about “confusing” parts of the Bible. Properly interpreted, the Bible becomes amazingly clear to the reader.
In this case, if you examine reality, you quickly learn homosexuals do (usually successfully) attempt to create strife in families and in their communities, as the Bible says. This, not their sexual practices, (except as they have spread AIDS around the world) are the main problems with them. Look what they have done to our culture.
Do not worry about homosexuals. They will not have the same rights under the civilization which replaces ours. SEX AND CULTURE, by Unwin, 1934, reported that a study of many societies, past and present, showed that the religious and economic parameters of any society are a product of sexual conduct of the women of that society. In any society, the first generation of women to achieve complete sexual liberty will see the end of that society. The USA is at that stage now. There can be no widespread devout religion with totally dissolute women in a society. The collapse of Christianity today is an inevitable result of the breakdown of female morality.
SEX AND CULTURE may be available via Web. I have it. If someone assures me copyright is expired in the US, I can send the PDF version via e-mail. It is a scholarly work, which means your insomnia may be cured by reading this book.
Just to introduce myself, when Dave Miller lived in Cedar Rapids, I was a public activist for divorced fathers. He may not have known it, but I also did free telephone counseling, including suicide counseling. I learned much about the realities of modern marriage.
His seminary thesis on the role of divorced men in the church was excellent. I lost my copy when we moved to Texas in 1997, alas.
Bruce, in you look through the archives here, I have expanded that paper and it is a recent series of posts called “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry” at this site.
And I made that correction you pointed out!
Hi Bruce McGovern,
Please send me a pdf copy of Unwin’s book if the copyright has expired.
My email is truthunites@hotmail.com
I’m suffering from insomnia.
P.S. Your comment at 10:26 am was very insightful, by the way.
I like this article, because it puts my chaotic thoughts into a coherent order. But, I always thought the Bible did address the way in which we are to respond…and as I am not without sin, I am not picking up the first stone. The issue isn’t ours to judge, but we can determine its status and try to look at it with God’s eyes. That it is a distortion of His creation is not simply a ‘sin’ but such a mark of absolute disrespect by the Father of Lies. People who claim homosexuality do not understand that they are simply the tool being manipulated by the FOL to hurt God. He doesn’t care about the individual…they are pawns being used in the battle…of which the result is already determined…such a waste of potential. I don’t mind the pithy statement about Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve. It gets the message across…and with all the consequences of the fallen order…would God have let this one happen? I don’t know. I choose not to want this to be the case. How painful it must be for Him to watch His brilliant creation being smashed, trodden on, ridiculed, and used to divide all of us. How blind some can be. How tragic. But, He promises that His patience has a limit and we’re just going to stretch it as thin as we can. I pray that my life will be honorable to Him and in a small way, a small message to those who need hope.
If Government is appointed by God as a “minister of God for your good” then we ought to want our government to approve what is good and outlaw or disincentivise that which is not good. Consequently, I believe it is untenable for believers who have a stewardship as those who elect our leaders to support the government in incentivising what is not good. The only argument for ambivalence toward our government’s approval of sodomy and the perversion of holy matrimony would be to assume that since God has “given them over” we should not interfere but allow them to endure the full consequence of their sin. Unfortunately, believers will not be untouched by the pain inflicted on American society when judgment comes.
Doc version of Sex and Culture sent. Actually, the pdf is the best version. But, it is over 60MB, too big to send.
Google for:
SexCulture.zip
and look for rapid share. One choice, the center one, is a direct download, it will be nearly 66MB. Unzip it, and you will see several versions. Pdf is essentially an original image.
To be honest, I have never made it all the way through. It is hard reading, and you are like page 150 or more before it actually starts with the interesting data.
I like this posting. I once heard a preacher say that he would rather minister to a group of homosexuals in the pews than a group of “righteous” people. He then used Matthew 9:11-13 as his support.