The culture around us is dying: Supplemental

The previous post is linked: here.

Over the past few years, different states’ highway agencies have, according to apparent federal guidelines, been introducing changes to road signs with the aim of making them easier to read or understand (and with the cost of your tax dollars).  So, are these new road signs absolutely easier to read or understand?  Nope.  For instance, the Clearview font with its combination of majuscule and miniscule letters simply is not easier to read than road signs that use only capital letters; for there is a difference between all-caps in a road sign and all-caps in an indemnity section of a service agreement that you read on a computer screen.  This is yet another example of what the movers and shakers of our society do today: they possess a horrible tendency to make changes that are nothing less than wasteful, counterproductive and foolish.

Tomorrow’s movers and shakers are today’s  high school students.  I understand that teenagers are not as wise, smart, and sophisticated as they think they are; I understand that better than most since I was an introspective, observant semi-contrarian even in junior high.  Still, the actions of the first group of students in the following news item are ridiculous by any standard; hat tip to a certain trucker: Furor at Catholic high school after nun presents Church teaching on homosexuality | LifeSiteNews.com

The silver lining of this cloud is the separation of the tares from the wheat, as it were.

It's Not Bigotry. It's Biology

Race has no impact on your behavior but homosexuality is a behavior, so if he’s gonna say it’s a civil right to get married because of a particular behavior, by that same logic anybody with any behavior could claim they have a right to marry say five people. Then that is the behavior they want to engage in so that would be a civil right. 

This is very sloppy thinking to say that because somebody has a desire to marry somebody that if you deny them the right to marry that person then you are denying them some sort of civil right. I mean, everyone puts limits on marriage. If marriage had no definition, it wouldn't be anything. 

I think even most SSM proponents want to define marriage in such a way so that groups cannot marry and relatives can’t marry. Are those homosexual activists bigots when they advocate that marriage not include groups, relatives, or other parties?

I mean, I don’t think so. They are not violating anyone’s rights. And so, a conservative who wants to advocate that marriage not include same sex relationships are not violating anyone’s right either because they are defining marriage in accordance with the facts of nature…it’s not bigotry, it’s just biology. Frank Turk

Philosophy, Shroud of Turin, and Arizona

Having increasingly become detached from matters of primary importance due to matters of primary importance, so to speak, personally I’ve nothing new to report here.  However, for those who are looking for a quick primer or summary of philosophical matters that are pertinent to apologetics, read here: Triablogue: Parsing perspectivalism.

(Notice that in the section on externalism, knowledge is not defined as mere justified true belief: that classical account of knowledge has since been disproven by Gettier-types of counterexamples, but it serves as a basis for a JTB+ where knowledge is a justified true proposition believed via a reliable process.)

Then again, that the Shroud of Turin is increasingly looking like the real deal--Triablogue: More From Giulio Fanti On Dating The Shroud Of Turin--or that Kirsten Powers (the same one from Fox News?) is a Christian is news to me.  On a parenthetical note, I think that Christians should be very careful, both in word and in deed, regarding the Arizona bill that is currently in the news.  Bear in mind that many of us have jobs and spending habits which already and in effect support evil actions of others, whether it’s management of a chain of drug stores that sell cigarettes, or money sent to cable providers who air MTV and thus help to dumb-down an entire generation of people who already aren’t that bright to begin with, etc.

What is the Best Passage in the Bible on Homosexuality?

How Do You Deal With Name Calling?

Monday Two-fer

Re: AOMIN | Christians: You Must Deny the Lordship of Christ. It is the Price of Citizenship in this Secular Nation.

As a photographer (no, my best work is not posted on this website =) ), I personally would have welcomed the opportunity to be paid to shoot the “wedding” in question after first asking that these women selflessly go elsewhere to find a photographer for the sake of my conscience and sense of moral duty.  Because I can think of one hundred ways to do poorly done photography and I would have had plenty of fun in the process of putting it all together.  It’s like the fun you had as a child when you would draw mustaches and funny eyebrows over photos of people: good stuff.

---

Over at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/bible-verse-of-the-day/ this was the verse of the day:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50.20, ESV)

I wonder how many Arminians, post-Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians would deny that the events of 9/11 or the death of Trayvon Martin, for two instances, are events that God meant for good, to bring about that many people be blessed.  After all, people were saying right after those events that the events were not of God, yet what good reason would Joseph have for saying that his ordeal was meant for good if his statement here--which Christians accept as being true--is not believed to be a prophetic utterance?  In Joseph’s mind was it a given fact that all events are things which God means for good, to bring about that many people be blessed?

Gay Activists Need to Read This Book

Fred Butler suggests that, in light of real life people who say they used to be gay, but are living according to God's plan of sexuality ought to read a book that gives the testimony of one such person. He deals with the lie that there is nothing that can be done to change one's orientation. While this is but one person's testimony, I think many folks who desire to leave the gay lifestyle can though God's grace. Some I think will be healed of their attraction, but many will have to struggle with thoughts and temptations (just like everyone who struggles with sexual temptation or a difficult addiction or any sin) throughout their life, but in both cases, there is hope. It is through the Gospel.

She stands as a trophy of God’s redeeming grace. An living monument of how God not only saves a person, but also supernaturally transforms an individual from a radical lifestyle in rebellion against Him to a radical lifestyle submitted to Him.  For only God can take a homosexual atheist feminist university professor and make her a God fearing, Proverbs 31 woman who is a stay at home wife and mother who homeschools her children. That is amazing grace indeed!

One of the biggest lies spread throughout our popular culture by gay activists and their willing enablers in the media is that homosexual orientation is biologically fixed. So a person is born with their sexual orientation to the same-sex and there is nothing he or she  can do, or should do, to change that.  It is a basic part of who the person is, like dark skin is for the Aborigine.  Anyone, say for instance evangelical Christians, who believes a person’s sexual orientation and same-sex attraction can be “changed” is stupid and essentially uneducated.

This lie has taken such deep root in our society that anyone who even makes an effort with helping a person change his or her sexual orientation is deemed abusive. Counseling therapy that seeks to help “re-orient” a person’s homosexual tendencies to healthy, opposite sex attraction is viewed on the same level as practicing lobotomy and shock therapy. The state of California even recently passed legislation prohibiting professional counselors from offering any therapy for homosexual orientation to anyone under the age of 18.

Gay activists go so far as to deny there is any thing called an ex-gay or former homosexual, because none could possibly exist in their worldview. The crippling problem with their anti-ex-gay narrative, however, is the existence of ex-gays who are now married in healthy husband and wife relationships who renounce their former gay lifestyle.

One such individual has recently published her testimony about coming out of the gay lifestyle and embracing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  Rosaria Champagne Butterfield was not only a lesbian activist, she was also a tenured associate professor at Syracuse University in the English Department with teaching responsibilities in the Center for Women’s Studies. She was on the cutting edge of gay activism, particularly feminist gay activism.

Then God got a hold of her life. Through the ministry of a Reformed Presbyterian minister and his wife, the two challenged Rosaria and God used their simple evangelism to save and redeem her. Her conversion, she remarks, was like an “alien abduction” which is an apt illustration seeing how it is God alone who totally transforms a person.

Rosaria is now married to a pastor with a family of her own. She tells her testimony in a book entitled, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, a book I first heard about through a book review by Carl Trueman. He and his podcast co-host did a 30 minute program discussing the book which I would recommend downloading and giving a listen.

Rosaria also has a website where other interviews, both audio and video, can be downloaded or watched.

She stands as a trophy of God’s redeeming grace. An living monument of how God not only saves a person, but also supernaturally transforms an individual from a radical lifestyle in rebellion against Him to a radical lifestyle submitted to Him.  For only God can take a homosexual atheist feminist university professor and make her a God fearing, Proverbs 31 woman who is a stay at home wife and mother who homeschools her children. That is amazing grace indeed!

Beyond the crude facts of homosexuality

This more or less dovetails a post that DB recently pasted; I’ve only now managed to organize my thoughts enough to post them, plus I have a new perspective on them.

---

I don’t often divulge details of my personal life, but I’ll be painfully candid in this case for illustrative purposes.  For a host of reasons that I cannot get into, I do not like most people.  (Notice that I did not say that I dislike most people, but rather that I do not like most people, at least not as much as most people like other people.)  Now, there is a girl at work whom I do like, perhaps both platonically and otherwise; this person is also physically well-endowed, flaunts it, flirts...and already has a BF.  So, faced with the choice of either leading a tortured existence every day at work or making the problem go away, what’s a guy to do?  Whether figuratively or literally, the easiest thing to do is to just hurry up, get a hotel room and be done with it; or the easiest thing is to attempt to just push the other guy completely out of the picture in a way that brings about unnecessary strife or rifts between the boyfriend and this girl who still likes him anyhow.  However, what I know of Christ’s teachings on sexuality (cf. John 14.25-26, John 16.12-15, 2 Peter 3.15-16, 1 Corinthians 7.8-9, Mark 7.20-23) and what I know of the Golden Rule both have an impact on my decision-making processes: thus I choose the tortured existence.

Where there is fuel there is fire, which is why a day at work can be miserable in ways to which I already alluded.  But where there is not fuel there is also trouble.  In the absence of this person, or of a significant other in general, I am left to realize my solitary existence and what a solitary existence means.  I’m not a part of one of these happy couples that you see at the restaurant, theater, park, club, or whatever.  Instead, whenever I see these couples I am sadly made aware of that which I do not have but others do have.  (Sadness of this kind is only intensified in those cases where one realizes that his odds at finding someone with whom they have chemistry and a shot at becoming part of a lasting couple are one in a billion; because those who are not easy on the eyes or are unlikable are by definition unattrative.  With that said, there is also a word that denotes what is experienced when he or she deals with such a thing, and that word is “grief.”)

As if it were not enough to have sadness and grief piled upon pain of other sorts, let’s also throw loneliness into the mix.  If someone is used to a solitary existence then they can, in God’s grace, adapt or otherwise erstwhile have the fortitude to flourish to some degree in their solitary existence.  However, if one is forced to taste of what life is like for most people on this earth, but later has that respite from solitude taken away, one must now deal with a new problem and a new sorrow: loneliness.

So there it is: a continual, daily, or weekly grind of loneliness piled upon grief piled upon sadness piled upon the experience of being teased.  Sounds great, right?  But this is exactly the sort of thing that Christians who hold fast to biblical teachings expect of gays and lesbians who either profess or do not profess to be disciples of Christ, is it not?  Of course, I do not criticize Christians on this matter, because they rightly acknowledge the fact that the Creator himself expects all people to be on the winning side of the war between the will of God vs. the desires of fallen, post-Edenic human nature (cf. 1 Peter 2.11); nonetheless, I think that people would do well to consider some of the pastoral and existential implications of contemporary culture wars as they pertain to homosexuality.  Why do I think that people should consider such things?  This is because if we as Christians counsel sinners with the words “Go and sin no more” or “Take up your cross daily and follow,” then both parties should know what they are getting themselves into in the entire process.

Unregenerate man, in large part, hasn’t the will or the interest to follow the exhortation “Take up your cross daily and follow.”  In fact, unless the meaning of the phrase and the means by which the phrase can be obeyed are explained, the person who attempts to counsel others with these words runs the serious risk of appearing to have no grip on reality or on what kinds of issues people actually deal with in life.  So I claim that such a would-be counselor should carefully consider and analyze his actions in advance, because Christianity ought not be more offensive than it already is, as one can glean from Titus 2.9-10, 1 Timothy 6.1-2, and 1 Peter 2.12.

Likewise, the phrase “Go and sin no more” does not strike me, for one, as a comforting set of words or the sort of things that good pep talks are made of: simple words and advice probably won’t be very useful to those people who are called upon to leave their same-sex significant others along with their incorrect sexual desires.  Keep in mind that in daily struggles against the flesh sometimes even the best of us apparently just give up and decide to stop fighting, which not too long ago seemed to be the case with Amy Grant and Gary Chapman (http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/1999/12_8/pages/grant.html) vis-à-vis the Difficult Teachings of Matthew 5, 19 and 1 Corinthians 7.  So I claim that any would-be biblical counselor should carefully consider and analyze his actions in advance and act accordingly, because sheer head knowledge of moral rights and wrongs is no guarantee that any of us will do the right thing and continue to do the right thing.

So any believer who is ready to stand up and begin to push back against the contemporary social forces that are encouraging everyone and every institution to sanction homosexuality should consider the pastoral and existential implications of their own deeds in advance; they should consider them and act accordingly for moral reasons and reasons of practicality.  Meanwhile, of course, I state the above not merely as a matter of brute facts and logic but also as a matter of someone who to some degree can begin to relate to what others might be going through.  With that said, I would urge any would-be counselor on this issue to choose his words wisely according to the time, place, person and circumstance.  For example, I think that Christ proves himself worldly-wise with regard to his words about eunuchs and the Difficult Teaching in Matthew 19 and I also find concepts and biblical teaching about theodical character-building to be somewhat comforting: these are the sorts of things that I would like to hear, somewhat, if someone were exhorting me not to choose the easy/evil solution to my own problems.  Of course, other people may respond differently to such words on an emotional or rational level, so other appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos may be helpful with other people.

But just as one’s own heterosexual affects and emotions are not activated and deactivated as easily as the flick of switch, so it is with gays and lesbians who need to leave behind whatever sin they need to leave behind but, yes, may still have to lead their lives in the meantime amid the same temptations and same strong urges, desires and drives of the flesh which they had before, because struggles in life do not necessarily go away when someone repents.  Let everyone remember this.

This is a couple months old, but Jesse Johnson offers some good pastoral thoughts on how to deal with the challenge of homosexuality, from a more relational perspective. He suggests some things we can do to help us stand for the truth and be loving toward those who are homosexual. DB

Remember the gospel, which is another way of saying the over-riding issue is that homosexuality is a sin, and that all sin is against God. Yet God is also eager to forgive any sin that is confessed in faith, and repented of. The reason this issue is difficult is because the Christian has the desire to see his friends and co-workers come to faith, and we know that salvation is really impossible if a person refuses to recognize their sin.

Homosexuality: six ways to love the sinner, hate the sin

by Jesse Johnson

Monday’s announcement by Jason Collins that he is gay is the latest example of the homosexual “issue” being elevated into the secular marketplace. The new normal is for homosexuals to announce their sexual identity, and then receive affirmation for their bravery, boldness, and honesty from their co-workers and clients (or, in the case of Collins, journalists).

This puts Christians with secular jobs in a predicament. Most believers understand perfectly well the concept of hate the sin and love the sinner. But that concept is more and more being seen as inadequate simply because homosexuals often perceive their sexual orientation as their identity, thus rendering any attempt to love the sinner while hating the sin as contradictory.

The difficulty is compounded for believers who work with, for, or around those who are openly homosexual. How should Christians respond to those in the work place who are homosexual? If you manage a company with homosexual employees, or if you have homosexual co-workers, how do you find the balance between hating the sin and loving the sinner? Here are six suggestions:

1) Remember the gospel, which is another way of saying the over-riding issue is that homosexuality is a sin, and that all sin is against God. Yet God is also eager to forgive any sin that is confessed in faith, and repented of. The reason this issue is difficult is because the Christian has the desire to see his friends and co-workers come to faith, and we know that salvation is really impossible if a person refuses to recognize their sin.

2) Don’t approve of homosexuality. There is no positive aspect of homosexuality in the Bible. Every mention of homosexuality in scripture is negative, and it is both an act and a lifestyle condemned by God. In all your interactions with homosexuals, remember that their identity is rooted in a practice that God calls sin, and that (like all sin) leads to destruction. This issue is complicated because unlike many other sins, the homosexual is often in search of approval for his/her actions, which is something that the believer simply cannot give.

In our culture it is not even the sin itself that is the issue, as much as it is the push for affirmation of the sin (Romans 1:32). The goal is to have others give their acceptance of their sin ( “the opinion of America is changing”), and that is the one thing that you cannot do. I can’t think of another group that has strived to justify their sin as much as this group, and to a large part they have been successful. As you strive to find the balance of loving the sinner and hating the sin, remember that there is a red-line you cannot cross; you cannot do anything that would give the impression of approval for a homosexual lifestyle.

3) Have compassion on homosexuals because Satan is a hater and a destroyer. A person shackled to a gay lifestyle is a person who experiences profound pain, rejection, and isolation to an extent that most people don’t understand. It’s hard to imagine the damage that is caused to someone when they question their own sexual identity. It strikes at the very core of their being. That pain and insecurity is masked by coming out, but it is not taken away. Instead, it leads to a perpetual search for acceptance, and ultimately it is a life that leads to misery. Remember, Satan hates people, and those who are ensnared in sin should be the object of Christian compassion.

4) Demonstrate love to homosexuals—the same love that God showed us when we were separated from Him. Develop relationships with co-workers who are homosexual. Get to know them, pray for them, and don’t shrink back from sharing the gospel with them. Refuse to say anything negative about them, and show them a loyalty and friendship from a heart that is filled with concern for them. Remember that at the end of the day, we “don’t owe anybody anything except love” (Romans 13:8).

5) Don’t tolerate any divisive or hate speech. If you manage a secular company, and you have employees that can’t work alongside someone who is gay without being divisive or unprofessional, you have to deal with that divisive and unprofessional employee. Your employees need to work together, and ensuring that this is the case is not tantamount to showing acceptance for homosexuality, but rather is a mark of professionalism, and a sign of Christian maturity.

6) Be honest with a homosexual co-worker by letting him know that you have the desire to love and care for him, without in any way giving him the impression that you approve of his sinful actions. Tell him that this is the same tension you have with all non-Christians, but that it is even more pronounced with him, and ask for help in trying to find that balance. Explain that it is your desire to see him come to faith, and in the meantime it is your desire to get to know him and pray for him, but that you don’t want him confused about your understanding of sin.

Are these suggestions helpful? What would you add?

Is The Bible Really So "Bigoted" and "Phobic"?

The Bible does not condemn those who merely are sexually attracted to their neighbor’s spouse.  However, what one does with that attraction is what will be the death of him if he makes the evil choice.  Yet the Scriptures are never condemned as being adulterophobic.

The Bible does not condemn those singles who merely are sexually attracted to single members of the opposite sex.  However, what one does with that attraction is what will be the death of him if he makes the wrong choice.  Yet the Scriptures are never condemned as being extramaritalsexphobic.

In fact, the Bible does not condemn those who merely are uninterested in meeting the physical needs or desires of their spouse.  However, if this lack of interest persists as a product of repeated decisions borne of laziness, selfishness or foolishness, then these decisions will be his undoing.  This is one thing that the apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians, chapter seven; yet no one would ever think to condemn the Scriptures as being abstinencephobic.

So may the reader consider this refresher course in biblically-based sexual ethics and the way in which it is worded.  We all need to get back to basics sometimes, as does Desmond Tutu and any number of persons today who in all undue glibness throw certain labels at Christianity or the Scriptures regarding certain social issues.

************

Meanwhile, do not think that what liberal Christianity, as it were, has to say about the issues of the day are unimportant.  Liberals in general tend to think alike, coalesce, move in the same direction of thinking though they be a diverse group.  The Christian theology, again as it were, that attempts to paint a rosy picture of homosexuality is well likened to a viral infection, fifth column or Trojan horse.  First it attacks the Law and the apostles of Christ, because it must.  In the meantime, there remains the problem that recorded in the Gospel accounts is Christ’s acceptance of the authority of the Law even during his own time; accordingly, this becomes the next target as attempts are made to defeat it by glossing over it, lying about it, or writing it off as a matter of interpolation.  And the defeat of the Law, the apostles of Christ, and of the words and teachings of Christ comes at a great price: the destruction of sound practices of exegesis and hermeneutics.

Once the basics and common sense behind normal exegesis and hermeneutics are destroyed, the groundwork is laid for a groundswell of theology or teaching which fits with liberal thought patterns and emotional patterns: Sola Scriptura is effectively lost to false intuition and wishful thinking, the teaching of the everlasting punishment of the damned is lost, hell is reimagined as a condition that exists on this earth, universalism becomes a given, and the idea of divine omnipotence probably isn’t far behind.  Read this post again in fifteen years to see if and how it mirrors events of the day.

Speaking of Homosexuality- Joe Dallas

Joe Dallas offers some insights, in a Christian Research Journal article, into the assertions some folks make in regard to homosexuality. It is worth a look as he deals with the claims of innateness, insignificance and the charge of intolerance.

Finally, we take seriously Christ’s admonition to refrain from judging persons, yet we recognize the need to judge behavior, as all people must do constantly. “Bashing” an individual is quite different from discerning that that individual’s behavior is wrong or harmful and, consequently, speaking up and taking action if necessary to rectify such behavior.

Speaking Of Homosexuality

Article ID: JAF1296

By: Joe Dallas

This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume 29, number 06 (2006). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to:http://www.equip.org

---

SYNOPSIS

The success of the gay rights movement can be seen in the shifting public attitude toward homosexuality. Proponents of gay rights have repeated three prohomosexual arguments, frequently and emphatically, for the past 30 years. Those arguments have formed an ideology that some of our most powerful cultural institutions support, and have even converted the thinking of some Christians on the matter of homosexuality. They have become “conventional wisdom.” The prohomosexual public not only rejects the traditional view on homosexuality, but derides it as ignorant, intolerant, and dangerous, which poses a formidable challenge to Christians. Any effort to “speak the truth in love” on this hot topic, therefore, requires Christians to respond in a reasoned, balanced way to these three criticisms. The innateness argument claims that homosexuality is “inborn”; therefore, it is normal and God ordained. Traditionalists can respond that although homosexual orientation may not be chosen, homosexual acts clearly are chosen, making the person who chooses them morally responsible. Human nature, further, is tainted by original sin; therefore, as likely inborn but immoral tendencies such as alcoholism demonstrate, “inborn” does not necessarily mean “normal” or “God ordained.” Theinsignificance argument states that most homosexuals are decent people; therefore, their homosexuality is insignificant. Traditionalists can respond that the Bible asserts, and human experience confirms, that homosexuality is a significant sin that has negative consequences. We observe those negative consequences in homosexual individuals, in children raised by same-sex parents, and in societies that accept homosexual behavior as normal. The intolerance argument maintains that the traditional viewpoint is ignorant and dangerous; therefore, it must be silenced. Traditionalists can respond that we fully recognize the worth of homosexuals as persons, and reject the irrational belief that to disagree with someone’s behavior is somehow to dehumanize or “bash” him or her.

---

In 1991, comedienne turned talk show host Joan Rivers invited me on her show to offer a Christian perspective on homosexuality. Rivers and her New York studio audience warmly received the gay couple who preceded me as they explained how they were born gay and, therefore, couldn’t change, and yet loved God and conducted their lives with integrity. Voicing its approval through cheers and applause, the audience accepted each point without question. When I was invited on stage with the opposing view, however, clearly, “the villain” had arrived.

Rivers was incredulous. “How can you say homosexuality is wrong,” she demanded, “when God gave those feelings to gays?”

Yes, and we’re Christians just like Joe,” the gay men chimed in, “so we reject his version of the Bible.”

My response was cut short and I was turned over to the studio audience, which made no attempt to hide its hostility, grilling me with sarcastic questions and scolding me with accusations. For the next half hour, the Joan Rivers Show became a classroom where the professors—the host, a gay couple, and a socially liberal audience—tried in vain to correct my “outdated” ideas.

Fifteen years later, similar lectures from some of the most influential secular institutions—education, mental health, media, and entertainment—reveal that they have come not only to adopt the prohomosexual viewpoint but to promote it aggressively. The resulting change in society’s attitude towards homosexuality testifies to the astonishing success of gay activists and their allies, and to the challenge this success poses to the church.

There is a widening chasm regarding homosexuality between traditionalists (those who believe the moral standard is heterosexuality) and revisionists (those who believe the moral standard should be revised to legitimize homosexuality). Traditionalists are, as of this writing, a slim majority (e.g., 55 percent of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center in June 2006 oppose gay marriage¹) but many of them feel as ostracized as I did during that 1991 interview. That is because those who hold the microphones (reporters, actors, talk show hosts, and university professors) unapologetically tend to be revisionist. They teach the same lecture on homosexuality I heard in New York, often with great passion and style. The lecture usually features at least one of the following three arguments:

Innateness: Homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable; therefore, it is normal and God ordained.

Insignificance: Most homosexuals are decent, respectable citizens who happen to be gay; therefore, their sexual behavior is insignificant.

Intolerance: The traditional view of homosexuality is ignorant and promotes anti-gay sentiment, which gives birth to prejudice and violence; therefore, it is unacceptable.

These arguments often are presented as though they have been proven or are self-evidently true, which makes anyone who challenges them homophobic and intolerant. Many Christians shy away from discussing the subject for these reasons alone. There are times, however, when Christians must be controversial for the sake of the truth. We have received a divine mandate from Christ not just to evangelize the world (Matt. 28:16–20), but to influence it as well (Matt. 5:13–16). Jesus preached the gospel, but also made public statements on social issues such as racism and sexism (John 4:4–11), religious hypocrisy (Matt. 6:1–2, 5–6), and the abuse of power (Matt. 20:25–26).

Paul instructed the Ephesians not only to separate themselves from immorality but to reprove it openly (Eph. 5:11). We likewise are required to engage the culture by clearly articulating biblical positions on controversial issues that are relevant to our contemporary society. Sexual issues are not exempt from this mandate. To refuse this challenge is to refuse our calling to be both salt and light to those who are perishing.

Western culture—indeed, the world at large—is showing unprecedented opposition to any engagement on homosexuality from a traditional perspective, whether in public forums, in academic circles, or even in our own churches and homes. For example:

• In 2004, a Colorado woman converted to Christianity and subsequently withdrew from a lesbian relationship. When she and her former partner went to court to determine custody arrangements for the daughter they had raised together, the court ordered her to refrain from exposing her daughter to religious material that is critical of homosexuality.²
• In Washington, D.C., a circuit court judge stated in her ruling that the Catholic Church had committed “terrible violence” towards a gay man to whom it refused communion because of his open homosexuality.³<
• In Canada, public statements “inciting hatred” towards homosexuals have been declared illegal, even if made from the pulpit, although what constitutes “inciting hatred” remains unclear.⁴
• In Sweden in 2005, a pastor was sentenced to jail time for violating Swedish hate-crime laws by preaching to his congregation against homosexuality.⁵

Revisionists have challenged the right to teach the traditional view on homosexuality, requiring proponents of that view to explain why they reject the revisionist position. “Churches in the future,” columnist Chuck Colson recently observed, “will be trying to keep the state from encroaching on matters of faith and morals.”⁶ An editorial in Christianity Today magazine notes, “This is becoming an inescapable conflict for every church that dares to teach Scripture’s clear message on sex.”⁷

Speaking of homosexuality, then, is inescapable. Some of us have loved ones, coworkers, or relatives who are gay or who embrace the gay ideology with whom we desire to dialogue; others belong to denominations that are splitting over the issue. Some of us work in industries heavily influenced by the gay lobby; others are simply concerned citizens. All of us are affected by the issue, however, and it is not unlikely that each of us, at some time, will be required either to convert to the revisionist position or to explain our reasons for maintaining the traditional one. In the interest of being better equipped to meet this challenge, this article will offer a response to the three fundamental arguments of the revisionist camp.

INNATENESS

The claim that some individuals are “born gay” settles the issue for many simply because it makes people feel better about their sexual orientation, or the sexual orientation of someone they care about. It can comfort family members, because, as one mother of a homosexual declared, “A genetic component says this is not a fault; this is not your fault.”⁸ The notion can relieve gays themselves; it “made me feel good about myself,” and “less [like] a sinner,” one gay man remarked.⁹ It can even convert a traditionalist such as William Cheshire, conservative editor for the Arizona Republic, into a revisionist. Cheshire stated in 1993 that his “feelings about gays and lesbians were dominated by religious beliefs.” After reviewing studies that suggest that homosexuality is inborn, however, his attitude “did a complete reversal,” leading him to support gay rights.¹⁰

No wonder, then, the alleged innateness of homosexuality is bedrock to revisionists. If homosexuality is inborn, it can be viewed like race or gender, putting homosexuals in the same minority status as African Americans or women. Linking gay rights to civil rights grants to homosexuals the nobility of being an oppressed yet determined class struggling for dignity and fair treatment. It also portrays traditionalists as being in the same oppressive class as those who opposed civil rights.

That is a winning strategy. In the Pew Research Center poll cited earlier, a direct correlation was found between the belief that homosexuality is inborn and support for same-sex marriage. Among respondents who believed homosexuality was “innate,” 58 percent also supported a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, but among those who believed homosexuality was acquired after birth, over 70 percent opposed this redefinition.¹¹ The link between belief in the innateness of homosexuality and acceptance of homosexuality, therefore, is strong. If homosexuality is innate, revisionists say, it is unchangeable, and, therefore, God must have created it.

Here traditionalists are tempted to one of two errors. The first is a knee-jerk reaction that attacks the integrity of researchers who link homosexuality with biology and accuses them of political motives. It is valid to question such studies, but it is wrong to dismiss them outright; each study should be given a fair hearing without resorting to ad hominem arguments. Rob Schenck, co-founder of the Washington, D.C.-based evangelical policy group Faith and Action, states, “If it’s inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don’t have one, evangelicals won’t have any credibility.”¹²

Such a response questions whether the studies have been authenticated and accepted by peer researchers. It further affirms any results that seem unassailable. In so doing, it concedes no ground to revisionists because these studies only address homosexuality’sorigins; they do not prove its normality or morality.

This leads to a second common error. Traditionalists often assume that we have to disprove “born gay” theories to maintain the biblical position that homosexuality is immoral: either homosexuality is innate and thus not immoral or it is immoral and thus not innate. Traditionalists, thereby, often trap themselves in long, ineffective debates that miss the point: a condition may have genetic or biological origin, yet still be unhealthy and immoral. In other words, the premise that homosexuality is innate may be true, but even if it is, the conclusion that homosexuality must therefore be moral does not follow.

Many experts make the claim that alcoholism, obesity, and violence are partially or completely influenced by genes. Experts also regard these behaviors as unchangeable, ongoing inclinations that have to be managed and resisted for a lifetime.¹³ No one is arguing the moral legitimacy of these conditions, however, just because they may be innate. The consensus among professionals and laity is that “inborn” does not necessarily mean “good,” nor does “unchangeable” necessarily warrant normalizing a condition. Homosexuality is not exempt from this common-sense consensus.

A Christian Response

The “born gay” argument gains its strength from the belief that what we are is what we were intended to be. Experience tells us otherwise; birth defects and early inclinations toward antisocial behavior are not the work of a loving Creator. We are imperfect from birth; we are imperfect for life. This testifies to the fact that our human natures are fallen (i.e., sinful), a foundational concept in Christianity.

David laments that he was born in sin (Ps. 51:5) and Paul confirms both the inborn nature of sin and our ongoing struggle with it (Rom. 6–7). The first human tragedy we see in Scripture speaks to this, as God informs Adam that sin’s impact on him and his race will be both spiritual and physical (Gen. 3:17–19; see also Rom. 5:12–20). The sin nature manifests itself from birth and we wrestle with it until death.

Traditionalists view homosexual orientation or attraction as one of many manifestations of fallen nature, and homosexual behavior as a deliberate, immoral response to such attraction. We may concede that orientation is involuntary; people do not choose to be attracted to the same sex any more than people choose to be born with a sin nature, but the bulk of evidence regarding the origin of homosexuality still points to a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors as its root.¹⁴ Given the interplay of such factors, it seems likely that homosexual orientation originates in the course of a person’s developmental process rather than being determined at birth, sort of as a path of least resistance. Whatever its cause, though, homosexual orientation is usually discovered, not chosen.

Once a person discovers his or her homosexual orientation, that person can choose whether to act on that orientation, as each member of Adam’s race chooses whether to act on his or her sinful nature. This is where moral culpability comes into play: conditionsmay be involuntary, but acts are chosen. It is difficult to resist acting on deeply ingrained sinful feelings, but that is the challenge every fallen human faces.

The same logic applies to feelings that seem unchangeable. I have found, in my own life and among men I have ministered to since 1987, that when a previously entrenched sexual behavior is abandoned, temptations toward it continue, but they diminish with time. This confirms the traditionalist view. The fall impacted us body and soul, and Paul speaks to the struggle between flesh and spirit (Rom. 7:14–25; Gal. 5:17), a struggle to which any honest believer will attest.

The following three points, then, summarize the traditionalist’s response to the “born gay” argument: First, homosexuality, like many sexual or emotional tendencies, seems to appear early in life and remain deeply ingrained over a lifetime; however, although homosexual orientation may not be chosen, homosexual behavior clearly is chosen; thus, those who choose it are morally culpable. Second, “unchosen” and “unchangeable” do not necessarily mean “inborn.” It still is unclear what role genetic, biological, or other factors play in the formation of homosexual desires. Finally, “inborn” does not mean “normal” or “God ordained.” Many conditions are inborn, but their origin does not determine their normality or morality. Such determinations require a more substantive standard than the explanation of being “born that way.”

INSIGNIFICANCE

The premise that most homosexuals are respectable citizens might be true, but the conclusion that their homosexual behavior must therefore be insignificant is not. When speaking on this subject, I am often approached by a well-meaning person who says, “I have a gay brother/sister/friend who is loving and responsible. So who cares about a person’s sex life if they’re not hurting anyone?” For some people it is difficult to view the sexuality of someone who is likeable and of decent character as a major concern, especially when compared to the pressing issues our media-saturated culture faces daily, such as terrorist threats, global poverty, unbridled violence, and other atrocities.

It is even more problematic to hold the traditionalist view when it condemns the behavior of someone we love. We would rather get along than divide over moral issues, and that desire for unity leads many people, Christian leaders included, to minimize homosexuality’s impact. Examples abound: former president Jimmy Carter,¹⁵ author Brian McLaren,¹⁶ gospel singer Cynthia Clawson,¹⁷ and Chuck Smith, Jr., son of the highly regarded founder of the Calvary Chapel movement (see Reviews, p. 47),¹⁸ have stated publicly their belief that homosexuality is at best a secondary issue, that traditionalists need to reevaluate their position on it, and that its practice should not be condemned by, or even within, the church.

Here the mixture of truth and emotions is both confused and confusing. Sexual matters between consenting adults are seen in our culture, and, increasingly, even in the church, as inconsequential—a matter of individual conscience, perhaps, like drinking alcohol or dancing, but no cause for concern. The traditionalist who sees the matter more seriously is viewed, accordingly, as legalistic, quibbling over small matters while ignoring weightier ones.

A Christian Response

Sexual behavior from a biblical perspective, however, is anything but insignificant. According to the Genesis account of creation, when God looked on all He had made, including man and woman in their naked sexuality, He applauded. Later in Scripture, sexual union is afforded the highest honor, when it is used as a “type” (or example) of God’s intimate, passionate commitment to His people (Isa. 54:5–6, Hos. 2:19–20; Eph. 5:22–33). Homosexuality, conversely, is never mentioned in Scripture except in a negative sense; and as a union between two of the same gender, it cannot embody the complementary mystery that a male/female union affords (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10).

That is why traditionalists view sex as something to be greatly celebrated and fiercely protected. We take the guidelines surrounding it literally and seriously, because Scripture relates in ghastly detail the confusion that follows when people abandon those guidelines.¹⁹ We promote them, hoping to see our friends and neighbors spared the heartache that sexual confusion yields.

As various states, and, perhaps, eventually, the United States as a nation, consider the legalization of same-sex marriage, and thus the wholesale legitimization of homosexuality itself, this promotion of the traditional view is fueled by three convictions: traditional marriage stabilizes society; redefining traditional marriage will have a destabilizing effect on marriage and thus on the culture; and same-sex parental partnerships cannot offer the benefit to children that male-female parental partnerships can.

Evidence abounds that traditional marriage enhances an individual’s life span, physical and psychological health, and financial security.²⁰ As individuals go, so goes the culture; that which stabilizes one benefits all. When considering same-sex marriage, then, the question becomes whether it will weaken the marriage institution, strengthen it, or have no impact on it or the culture that benefits from it. The evidence so far, as the following will show, points solidly toward a significant weakening effect.

A decade ago, renowned gay journalist Andrew Sullivan predicted that gay couples, once given the right to marry, would change the way heterosexual couples viewed the institution, especially as it regards monogamy. Citing “the need for extra-marital outlets,” he suggested that the practice of nonmonogamy, so common among gay male couples, could open up the minds of heterosexual couples to the freedom of an “open contract” that would allow both husband and wife to enjoy multiple sexual partners.²¹

Sullivan’s seemingly outrageous words have become, in retrospect, prophetic. The claim that legalizing gay marriage will domesticate homosexual men has not proven true. On the contrary, homosexual couples are changing marriage more than marriage is changing them.

In the Netherlands, for example, where same-sex marriage was first legalized, one study found that gay men in same-sex marriages had an average of eight sexual partners per year outside their marriage or “partnered” relationship, usually with the full knowledge of their spouse.²² Columnist Stanley Kurtz noted that in Sweden and Norway, the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples has resulted in a general cultural trend away from marriage and toward “more frequent out-of-wedlock birth and skyrocketing family dissolution.”²³ New York magazine, likewise, reports, “Many straight couples struggling with (monogamy) issues look to gay male friends, for whom a more fluid notion of commitment is practically the norm.” The article describes a heterosexual husband’s desire to make his marriage “open” after hearing his gay friend describe his own sexual pursuits outside of his committed relationship.²⁴

No one can reasonably argue that broader acceptance of adultery and its resulting domestic instability can ever be in the best interest of couples, children, or society at large. Further, no one can deny the benefits to childrearing that a heterosexual couple—with the inherent perspectives and strengths of both genders—brings in contrast to the sameness of a homosexual couple.²⁵ Some would object that marriage already is in a sorry condition and point to the high divorce rate and unconscionable levels of domestic violence and dysfunction, but this argument indicates the need to reform, not redefine, the institution. Adding more clutter to an already messy house is hardly the solution. A total housecleaning is called for, and to the culture, it is a call we respectfully and urgently make.

Among Christian believers, though, we advocate not only adoption of the traditionalist standard, but enforcement of it as well. Here we sternly part company with those who minimize the significance of homosexuality in the church, for three reasons.

First, the Bible, which is our authority for life and conduct, describes incest, adultery, bestiality, fornication, prostitution, and homosexuality in negative, prohibitive terms. We affirm, therefore, that there is such a thing as sexual sin, which carries specific and unique consequences (1 Cor. 6:18), and that homosexuality is one of many such sins.

Second, contrary to assertions that homosexuality among Christians is just a personal or secondary matter, involvement in unrepentant, ongoing sexual sin is in fact one of the few reasons Paul gave for excommunicating a church member or for distancing oneself from him or her (1 Cor. 5:1–5, 11–13). If we are commanded to withdraw from a believer who is involved in such sin, we hardly can consider it insignificant.

Third, the enforcement of these standards is necessary for the purity and health of the church at large (1 Cor. 5: 6). We recognize this as a necessity that is more critical than “getting along.”

This position hardly negates the traditionalists’ recognition of the character and qualities of many homosexuals. We can distinguish between good traits and wrong behavior without allowing one to nullify the other. We can appreciate, for example, the wit of Ellen DeGeneres, the virtuosity of Elton John, or the insights of journalist Andrew Sullivan. We likewise can value the qualities of our gay friends and loved ones, all the while maintaining and expressing a clear position on homosexuality itself.

The argument that if a homosexual’s general character is good, his sexuality is made insignificant by his goodness bypasses what Scripture and common sense teach us. Good people can do bad things, and bad things cannot be reclassified just because of the goodness of the people who do them.

Rahab the harlot, for example, played a pivotal role in Israel’s conquest of Jericho. By striking a bargain with Joshua’s spies when she gave them shelter, she saved herself and her family from the destruction brought onto Jericho’s other inhabitants (Josh. 2), and thereby gained a place in the roster of “faith heroes” (Heb. 11:31). She was, nevertheless, a harlot. Is anyone really going to suggest that because Rahab did a good thing and exhibited saving faith, prostitution thereby can be legitimized?

King David, for that matter, was designated “a man after [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14 NIV). Could his notorious adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband Uriah (2 Sam. 11:2–5, 6–25) be regarded as “insignificant” because of his undeniable virtue? Despite David’s ongoing place of honor in God’s kingdom, the price that was exacted on him and his family for his sin (the death of the child begotten in his adultery) was severe. There is an obvious difference, then, between good character and bad deeds, both of which can coexist in the same person.

Homosexuality is a significant sin that warrants an unwavering and comprehensive Christian response. When it is practiced in the surrounding culture, the church should respond as we would to any sin being openly accepted and celebrated: with loving concern for the sinner, reasoned arguments against the sin, and fervent prayer that the revisionists within our culture will reconsider it. When practiced within the church, however, the church should name, rebuke, and correct the sin until the brother or sister who is practicing it repents.

Other life-dominating sins exist as well in the church. Revisionists often accuse traditionalists of focusing only on sexual sins, while hypocritically winking at others that are nonsexual, but equally grievous. This is a criticism the church should note. The church should acknowledge and correct, for example, greed, materialism, and gossip as well, when they exist among believers. Too often the church ignores them, giving some warrant to the revisionists’ charge of hypocrisy.<

To repeat the same mistake with homosexuality by ignoring it, however, is not the answer. The most effective and biblical response, rather, seems to be to recognize all sin as serious—requiring repentance from the practitioner, forgiveness from God, and that delicate balance of grace and discipline in the church’s response.

INTOLERANCE

In Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll illustrated the power held by the one who decides what a word means:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is to be master—that’s all.”

Who is to be master is, indeed, the question, because whoever decides the meaning of a word controls the debate, reserving the right to define words as he or she pleases. Therein lies the power of the intolerance argument.

In the past, people generally agreed on the meanings of the words hatred, violence, andbigotry, and that the actions they designated were immoral. When a person said “hatred” in the context of another person or group of people, both the speaker and the listener considered the term to mean a malevolent desire to damage someone in either words or deeds or both. When someone said “violence” in such a context, all parties likewise understood this to mean something literally and physically injurious. In other words, society played by the same rules: words had mutually agreed on meanings.

Like Alice, however, we today have stepped through the looking glass into a strange new world in which a common understanding of terms and definitions no longer exists. To many in our postmodern world, “belief” now means “bigotry” or “hatred,” and “moral standard” means “judgmental intolerance.” Almost everyone in our culture still agrees that things such as bigotry and intolerance are wrong, but we have lost our shared perception of what qualifies as bigotry or intolerance. A linguistic anarchy now prevails in which terms can be conveniently and strategically defined to mean whatever one wishes them to mean.

Nowhere has this perversion of language shown itself more plainly than in debates over homosexuality. The most vehement denunciations have come from those who slap labels such as “hatred,” “bigotry,” and “intolerance” on the views of traditionalists. These denunciations often come from respected leaders, and so they carry tremendous weight.

Coretta Scott King, the late wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., said, for example, “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”²⁶ Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in a similar vein, stated, “I’m glad that I believe very fervently that Jesus would not be on the side of the gay bashers.”²⁷

These two widely recognized civil rights leaders equate “homophobia” and “gay bashing” with anti-Semitism and racism, and make it clear where they think Christians should stand on this issue. At first glance, we agree with these statements. Dehumanizing a group is wrong, and bigotry and “gay bashing” are unacceptable. On these points, traditionalists and revisionists agree. The crucial question, however, is who gets to define terms such ashomophobia, bigotry, and gay bashing? If they are defined as “cruel words or actions aimed at homosexuals,” then no one will dispute the definition.

When, for example, two men sadistically murdered a young homosexual named Matthew Shepard in 1998, the gay bashing was obvious and inarguably violent. When Kansas minister Fred Phelps leads his cult-like parishioners to hold up signs declaring “God Hates Fags” at the funerals of AIDS patients, bigotry seems too nice a word to use. Traditionalists join revisionists not only in complete agreement with the use of these terms in these instances, but in disgust, outrage and contempt for such behavior.

If, however, these terms also are applied to beliefs and statements that simply are critical of homosexuality, then they become weapons used to silence the traditionalist view, and that silence is the ultimate goal of many activists. Cardinal John O’Connor learned this when he spoke against condom distribution and pro-gay curriculum in the New York Public School system. In December of 1989, while conducting mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, he was screamed at by activists who accused him of murder, then threw themselves into the aisles, chained themselves to pews and stomped on the communion wafer he’d just consecrated. When Colorado-based Focus on the Family took an official stand on a statewide amendment regarding homosexuality, rocks were thrown through the facility’s windows, employees were verbally assaulted in restaurants by gay activists, and dead animal parts were left on the ministry’s front door. Chuck McIlhenny, a Presbyterian minister in San Francisco who discharged his church organist for unrepentant homosexual conduct, had his residence firebombed as a result, and when a conservative speaker attempted to address an evening service at Hamilton Square Baptist Church (also in San Francisco) the church was surrounded by activists who vandalized the building and screamed, “We want your children!” throughout the service.

The terrorism in each of these cases was justified by the activists’ beliefs that the traditionalist view equated a form of bigotry that needed to be stopped by any means necessary.²⁸ Gay columnist Paul Varnell is explicit about this: “The chief opposition to gay equality is religious. We may conduct much of our liberation efforts in the political sphere or even the cultural sphere, but slowing our progress is the moral/religious sphere. If we could hasten the pace of change there, our overall progress would accelerate—in fact, it would be assured.”²⁹

Like the innateness and insignificance arguments, the intolerance argument furthers the goals of the gay rights movement considerably. If revisionists cannot convert traditionalists to a prohomosexual viewpoint, then tactically there is nothing left to do but to silence them. To silence them, whether through intimidation or hate crime legislation or public contempt, one needs only to convince society that the traditionalist is hateful, bigoted, and dangerous. Read Mrs. King’s and Bishop Tutu’s remarks again and ask yourself if that convincing has not already begun. The premise that the traditional view of homosexuality is ignorant and dangerous is certainly untrue, so the conclusion that it therefore is unacceptable is equally untrue.

A Christian Response

The traditionalist has some good company in Paul who also was falsely accused of intolerance (e.g., Acts 21:27–29);  rather than raging against or hiding from his accusers, he met their charges head on, and we must do the same. Here, then, are some key points in defense of the traditionalists who have been charged with ignorance, hatred, and bigotry.

First, we are not ignorant on the subject of homosexuality (we do read and consider research studies that pertain to it, for example). We simply view homosexuality differently than does an ever-increasing portion of Western culture.

Second, we hold the same view that Western culture used to hold. The culture shifted, and when it asked us to shift with it, we merely said no. We did not initiate this fight.

Third, we hold convictions, not prejudices, which, like all convictions, are based on a particular worldview. We believe that the Creator has revealed His intentions for humanity in the Bible, that the Bible has specific instructions for how we should conduct our lives, including in matters of sex, and that it prohibits all forms of sexual behavior apart from heterosexual marriage.

Fourth, the guidelines spelled out in the Bible have worked historically. We now are being asked to discard them in lieu of social experiments such as same-sex marriage, and we refuse. We, as citizens in a truly diverse culture, continue to advocate that our culture consider that a return to those guidelines is a legitimate option.

Fifth, when objecting to homosexuality, we fully recognize the worth of homosexuals as persons. We reject the irrational belief that to disagree with someone’s behavior is somehow to dehumanize him or her.

Sixth, our beliefs do not constitute a phobia (i.e., as in homophobia). A phobia is “an irrational dread or fear of a person or thing,” and we neither fear nor dread homosexuals. We disagree with them about the morality of their sexual behavior, and the difference between disagreement and fear is clear.

Seventh, classifying traditionalists with racists is disingenuous. We unapologetically believe in the superiority of some behaviors over others, but we reject the notion of the superiority of any persons over others.

Finally, we take seriously Christ’s admonition to refrain from judging persons, yet we recognize the need to judge behavior, as all people must do constantly. “Bashing” an individual is quite different from discerning that that individual’s behavior is wrong or harmful and, consequently, speaking up and taking action if necessary to rectify such behavior.

The gospel of John refers to Jesus as being “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). We normally assume that we have to be one or the other—honest or kind—yet in Jesus, we see a perfect balance between the two. We do well to emulate this. On one hand, we are compelled to consider our own need for grace, and thus extend it whenever possible. On the other hand, we are bound to consider whether it really is kind to withhold truth from someone who is engaged in harmful error. Few issues coax the grace/truth balance from us the way homosexuality does.

Speaking about homosexuality poses a challenge we cannot avoid, especially when our words are controversial and often misconstrued. Martin Luther King, Jr., reminds us, however, “The Church is neither the master of the state, nor is it the servant of the state. Rather, it is the conscience of the state.”³⁰ To which we might add: God help any culture whose conscience abdicates its role.

Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage

Jonathan Leeman over at The Gospel Coalition offers a great look at why those who are Christians cannot support something like same sex marriage (SSM). This post is for believers who should be faithful to the Bible.

To support it publicly or privately is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32...
I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade anyone who does not share these convictions.
My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Be sure to read on:

More and more commentators are saying that we have passed the tipping point on same-sex marriage in the United States. Almost daily another politician or public figure stands before a microphone to declare his or her support. It feels like the dam has burst; the paradigm shifted.

Whether or not same sex marriage is a political fait accompli, I don't know. What concerns me in the present hour is the temptation among Christians to go with the flow. The assumption is that the nation no longer shares our morality, and that we must not impose our views on others and blur the line between church and state. Besides, we don't want to let any political cantankerousness get in the way of sharing the gospel, right? So we might as well throw in our lot. So the thinking goes.

How hard Christians should actively fight against same-sex marriage is a matter for wisdom. But that we must not support it, I would like to persuade you, is a matter of biblical principle. To vote for it, to legislate it, to rule in favor of it, to tell your friends at the office that you think it's just fine—all this is sin. To support it publicly or privately is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32.

Further, same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love. And it is not freedom from religion that the advocates of same-sex marriage want; they want to repress one religion in favor of another.

Christians must not go with the flow. They must instead love the advocates of same-sex marriage better than they love themselves precisely by refusing to endorse it.

I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade anyone who does not share these convictions.

My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Deeper Understanding of Humanity

I believe Voddie Baucham is exactly right to say that "gay is not the new black," and that we should not formally equate sexual orientation to ethnicity or sex as an essential component of personal identity. It is amazing to me that recent legal battles simply take this equation for granted without holding it up to the light and looking at it.

There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say "I am a homosexual" in the same way someone might say "I am a male" or "I am black." First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don't hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.

All the talk about "equality" depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.

Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple's union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.

Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of "civil unions." Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.

Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.

Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.

It is more mature because Christianity begins with the frank admission that fallen human beings are corrupted all the way down, all the way in. A child assumes that all of his or her desires are legitimate. Adults, hopefully, know better. And a mature understanding of fallen humanity recognizes that our fallenness affects everything from our biology and body chemistry to our ambitions and life loves. Same-sex attraction is but one manifestation. This is why Christ commands us to go and die, and why we must be born again. We must become new creations, a process that begins at conversion and will be completed with his coming.

Also, the fact that Jesus is Lord means his authoritative claim on our lives reaches all the way down, all the way in. We have no right to stand before him and insist upon our definitions of masculinity, femininity, marriage, love, and sexuality. He gets to write the definitions, even when they go against our deepest desires and sense of self.

Rooted in biology or not, there is a difference between gender, ethnicity, and "orientation." Orientation consists primarily of—is lived out through—desire. And the fact that it involves desire means it is subject to moral evaluation in a way that "being male" or "being Asian" are not.

Here is what's often missed: neither the fact of the desire, nor its possible biological basis, gives it moral legitimacy. Don't mistake is for ought. We understand this quite well, for instance, when it comes to the behaviors associated with some forms of substance addiction or bipolar disorder. The biological component of these maladies certainly calls for compassion and reams of patience, but it does not make their attendant behaviors morally legitimate. To assume they do means treating human beings as just one more animal. No one morally condemns a leopard for acting instinctually. Yet shouldn't our moral calculations for human beings involve something more than assent to the biochemistry of desire? We are more than animals. We are souls and bodies. We are created in God's image. To legitimize homosexual desire simply because it's natural or biological, ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.

All of this is to say, Christianity not only offers a more mature concept of humanity, it offers a deeper concept. It says we are more than a composite of our desires, some of which are fallen, some of which are not.

Remarkably, Jesus says that our humanity goes deeper even than marriage and sex, and certainly deeper than fallen versions of them. He says that, in the resurrection, there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. Marriage and sex, it appears, are two-dimensional shadows that point to the three-dimensional realities to come. A person's humanity and identity in no way finally depends on the shadows of marriage. Dare we deny the full humanity of Christ because he neither consummated a marriage nor fathered natural children? Indeed, wasn't the full humanity of this second Adam demonstrated through begetting a new humanity?

There is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's version of the human being. It is inhumane to morally evaluate people as if they are animals whose instincts define them.

And there is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's quest for same-sex marriage. It is inhumane to call bad good, or wrong desires right. It is inhumane to equate a person with the fallen version of that person, as if God created us to be the fallen versions of ourselves. But this is exactly what same-sex marriage asks us to do. It asks us to publicly affirm the bad as good—to institutionalize the wrong as right.

Christianity says that we are not finally determined by ethnicity, sex, marriage, or even sinful desire. We are God-imagers and vice-rulers, tasked with showing the cosmos what God's triune justice, righteousness, and love are like. The Christian message to the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle is that we believe they are even more human than they believe.

Deeper Love

Christianity offers a more mature and deeper concept of love, too. Love is not fundamentally about a narrative of self-expression and self-realization. It is not about finding someone who "completes me," in which I assume that who "I am" is a given, and that you love "me" authentically only if you respect me exactly as I am, as if "I" is somehow sacred.

Christian love is not so naïve. It's much more mature (see 1 Cor. 13:11). It recognizes how broken people are, and it loves them in their very brokenness. It is given contrary to what people deserve. We feed and clothe and befriend them, even when they attack us. But then Christian love maturely invites people toward holiness. Through prayer and disciple-making, Christian love calls people to change—to repent. Christian love recognizes that our loved ones will know true joy only as they increasingly conform to the image of God, because God is love. This is why Jesus tells us that, if we love him, we will obey his commands, just like he loves the Father and so obeys the Father's commands.

Christian love is also deeper than love in our culture. It knows that true love was demonstrated best when Christ laid down his life for the church to make her holy, an act which the apostle Paul analogizes to the love of a husband and wife and the husband's call to wash his wife with the word (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:22-32). The Bible's central picture of gospel love is lost in same-sex marriage, just like it's lost when a husband cheats on his wife.

The progressive position might call the orthodox Christian position on gay marriage intolerant. But Christians must recognize that the progressive position is unloving and inhumane. And so we must love them more truly than they love themselves.

Public Square and Idolatrous Religion

What then shall we say about the public square? Shouldn't our understanding of the separation between church and state and religious freedom keep us from "imposing" our ideas upon others? Why would the church being the church affect our stance in the public square among the non-church?

What people can miss is the distinction between laws that criminalize an activity and laws that promote or incentivize an activity. The laws surrounding marriage belong to the latter category. The government gets involved in the marriage business—to the chagrin of libertarians—because it thinks it has some interest in protecting and promoting marriage. It sees that marriage contributes to the order, peace, and good of society at large. Therefore, it offers financial incentives for marriage, such as tax breaks or inheritance rights.

In other words, institutionalizing same-sex marriage does not merely make government neutral toward unrighteousness; it means the government is promoting and incentivizing unrighteousness. The 2003 Supreme Court decision to overturn laws that criminalized homosexual behavior, by contrast, need not be construed as a promotion or affirmation of homosexual behavior. The irony of the progressive position on same-sex marriage is that it cloaks its cause in the language of political neutrality, when really it is just the opposite. It is a positive affirmation of a brand of morality and the whole set of theological assumptions behind that morality.

To put this in biblical terms, institutionalizing same-sex marriage is nothing other than to "give approval to those who practice" the things that God's word condemns (Rom. 1:32). And behind this moral affirmation, Paul tells us, is the religious "exchanging of the immortal God for images" (Rom. 1:23). To establish same-sex marriage, in other words, is an utterly religious act, by virtue of being idolatrous.

For the Christian, therefore, the argument is pretty simple: God will judge all unrighteousness and idolatry. Therefore Christians should not publicly or privately endorse, incentivize, or promote unrighteousness and idolatry, which same-sex marriage does. God will judge such idolatry—even among those who don't believe in him.

God Will Judge the Nations

Let me explain further. Both the Old Testament and the New promise that God will judge the nations and their governments for departing from his own standard of righteousness and justice. The presidents and parliaments, voters and judges of the world are comprehensively accountable to him. There is no area of life somehow quarantined off from his evaluation.

Hence, he judged the people of Noah's day, Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh in Egypt, Sennacherib in Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, and the list goes on. Just read of his judgments against the nations in passages like Isaiah 13-19 or Jeremiah 46-52.

It's not surprising, therefore, that Psalm 96 and many other passages make the transnational, omni-partisan nature of God's judgment clear: "Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns.' . . . he will judge the peoples with equity" (Ps. 96:10; also Ps. 2; Jer. 10:6-10).

Does the same principle apply in the New Testament era? Yes. The governors of the world derive their authority from God and will be judged by God for how they use their authority: Caesar no less than Nebuchadnezzar; presidents no less than Pharaoh:

• Jesus tells Pilate that Pilate's authority comes from God (John 19).
• Paul describes the government as "God's servant" and an "agent" to bring God's justice (Rom. 13).
• Jesus is described as the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).
• Kings, princes, and generals fear the wrath of the Lamb and hide from it (Rev. 6:15).
• The kings of the earth are indicted for committing adultery with Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:3).
• Christ will come with a sword "to strike down the nations" (Rev. 19:13), leaving the birds "to eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty" (v. 18).

God will judge all nations and governors. They are politically accountable to his standard of justice and righteousness, not to their own standards. To depart from God's righteousness and justice—for every government in the world, Old Testament and New—is to incur God's wrath. 

The fact that we live in a pluralistic nation in which many do not acknowledge the God of the Bible makes no difference to God. "Who is the Lord that I should obey him?" Pharaoh asked. The Lord demonstrated in short order precisely who he is. The fact that Americans believe a government governs "by the will of the people" makes no difference either. A Christian knows that true authority comes from God, and so he or she must never promote and incentivize unrighteousness, even if 99 percent of the electorate asks for it.

This does not mean that Christians should enact God's judgment against all forms of unrighteousness now, but it does mean that we Christians should not publicly or privately put our hands to anything God will judge on the last day. Yes, politics often involves compromise, and there are times when Christian voters or politicians will be forced to decide between a lesser of two evils. And for such occasions we trust God is merciful and understanding. Still, so far as we can help it, we must not vote for, rule for, or tell our friends at the office that we support unrighteousness.

Does this mean we can impose our faith upon non-Christians? No, but endorsing same-sex marriage is another kind of thing. To endorse it is to involve yourself in unrighteousness and false religion, and an unrighteousness that God promises to judge.

In fact, same-sex marriage itself is the act of wrongful governmental imposition. Martin Luther wrote, "For when any man does that for which he has not the previous authority or sanction of the Word of God, such conduct is not acceptable to God, and may be considered as either vain or useless." And God has never given human governments the authority to define marriage. He defined it in Genesis 2 and has not authorized anyone to redefine it. Any government that does is guilty of usurpation.

Since same-sex marriage is effectively grounded in idolatrous religion (see Rom. 1:23, 32), its institutionalization represents nothing more or less than the progressive position's imposition of idolatrous religion upon the rest of us.

I am not telling Christians how many resources they should expend in fighting false gods in the public square, but I am saying that you must not join together with those gods. There is no neutral ground here.

Embrace and Stand Fast

Churches should embrace their brothers and sisters who struggle with same-sex attraction, just like they should embrace all repentant sinners.

And churches should stand fast on deeper, more biblical conceptions of love by loving the advocates of same-sex marriage more truly than they love themselves. We do this by insisting on the sweet and life-giving nature of God's truth and holiness.

In our present cultural context, Christian love will prove costly to Christians and churches. Even if you recognize the Bible calls homosexuality sin, but you (wrongly) support same-sex marriage, your stance on homosexuality will offend. A people's strongest desires—the desires they refuse to let go of—reveals their worship. To condemn sexual freedom in America today is to condemn one of the nation's favorite altars of worship. And will they not fight for their gods? Will they not excommunicate all heretics?

But even while Scripture promises short-term persecution for the church, it also, strangely and simultaneously, points to long-term praise: "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12). I'm not sure how to explain that, but I trust it.