According to the prevailing culture, I’m now a “hater” and some new kind of villain called a “homophobe”.
I am, they say, a very bad person.
They say I want to rob innocent people of their “civil rights” and oppress an entire group of people.
They say I am a loveless bigot and a hopelessly ignorant fool.
They want be to either change my evil ways or stay silent about certain superstitious beliefs until I I die… accompanied by societal applause for the fact that I’m gone.
My choices are to bow the knee to the beast in my church and in my home or risk being consumed by it.
I am a Christian.
I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
In truth I do not hate anyone, nor do I want to oppress a single soul.
I simply want the right to live and teach what I believe is eternal truth that leads to eternal life in a world of death.
I am going to do so whether you give me the right or not…
The Bible teaches us that God’s design for human marriage is one man and one woman.
It teaches it from beginning to end and when it isn’t literally teaching this, the metaphor is used to describe Gods relationship with His people.
It’s an unavoidable teaching.
Homosexuality is never taught as an optional choice, but as a sin.
Because of that clarity from the mouth of God I can’t offer homosexuality as a valid lifestyle to my child or my church.
I didn’t write it, I just believe it… even when it’s personally uncomfortable and culturally scorned.
I don’t hate homosexuals or any other sinner…I would have to loathe myself as my sins are different but equally noxious to God…and have been equally forgiven at a common cross.
In fact because of the cross, I can love all sinners with the love with which I have been loved by God.
My job is to offer the work of that cross to all people because all people are sinners and I want you to be forgiven and inherit eternal life.
It’s the love of Christ that compels me, not the hatred of your choices or lifestyle.
You may reject that offer, but love demands I make it.
Hate is antithetical to my mission.
If I hated you, I wouldn’t speak at all.
Make your own application…
Thank you for saying this.
Truth, grace and love. Oh, how we all need it.
1. God hates sin BECAUSE He loves the sinner. In the same way I hate cancer.
2. If you really wanna get uncomfortable, bring up what Jesus says about divorce and remarriage. Either we boldly speak against both or neither. No cherry picking.
I would rarely bring it up at all in the course of a pastorate…when you teach a book at a time, the book dictates your message.
Most of the Bible makes me uncomfortable…because it speaks of my sins much more than this one.
Amen, Michael. They just moved the goal post again.
Michael. Perfectly spoken. We place our focus on the speck in someone else’s eye to distract us from the plank in our own.
Divorce is just as big a “threat” to the morality of our culture and churches as those abominable gays are.
To coin a new phrase, I pretty much have to teach “plank by plank”. 🙂
Divorce has done untold damage to our society.
The difference is that I am expected to affirm the sin as “not sin” in this case…and I can’t.
And the heterosexuals who are crying the loudest for gay marriage today are the same ones who cried the loudest for no-fault divorce back in the day as well.
“A federal judge on Friday blocked Michigan’s ban on domestic partner benefits for employees who work for public schools or local governments…. U.S. District Judge … said the law violates the Equal Protection Clause.”
Exactly as predicted. Michigan voted in (in 2004) a constitutional amendment that defines marriage only as a union between a man and a woman. Overridden by the EPC.
Who was that cretin that came on here and told us calm down, this will not affect only the non-gay marriage states?
I think one question could be, “is the church going to give married homosexuals the same grace and acceptance as the church gives to men who leave their wife and children for a trophy wife and are still in the ministry?
That’s where the rubber meets the road…
I have more grace in my heart for the gay couple, to be honest.
The reason this issue gets so much attention is not because of overzealous fundamentalists preaching about it all the time but because of liberals who insist that we accept their life style as non-sinful and keep bringing up the topic over and over again. Some even claim to believe in Jesus of the gospels but pick and choose what they want from the Bible in a subjective free for all. When Jesus said “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” he gives no excuse for the heterosexual’s propensity to sin with lust. I think this goes without say, that a man should also not lust after a man although Jesus didn’t say this specifically. I think this goes without say and Jesus didn’t mention the man on man lust because a man should not be marrying a man in God’s law so this is not adultery rather its a perversion.
I don’t think this is a “liberal vs. conservative” issue.
I am a political liberal on most issues.
I am not referring to politically liberal. I am referring to theologically liberal.
I couldn’t care less what the Zeitgeist of prevailing culture says, or those who try and belittle your beliefs. If we disagree on theology and politics, So? So what? What is that supposed to mean? I will ally myself with a kind and good man any day over one that demands alliance based on belief system alone. And I believe you are a kind and good man.
Still not a helpful label.
Some folks think I’m a liberal theologian because I don’t hold to a pretrib Rapture or believe that the first chapters of Genesis are a science text…and I’m ecumenical.
The biblical points you made were accurate in my opinion.
You may be right about the term “liberal” not being a helpful label. I will take note of that. I guess I am somewhat responding to the unhelpful term of fundamentalist or more recent “selective fundamentalist” of a gentlemen’s blog that I have been banned from posting on.
Thank you, you think better of me than I am…would that we all would do the same for each other.
My concern is that we have invested so much in political outcomes and fighting in that arena that we have lost an opportunity to be Christ’s ambassadors to a fallen world.
Our message is about the love of God and His desire for reconciliation with all people…simply pointing out sins is to trivialize our mission.
Blogging does not lend itself to nuance.
The label “fundamentalist” is cast about without definition, just as “conservative” and “liberal” are.
Using a label is one way to avoid dialog…and indeed to avoid hearing anything at all but our own thoughts on a matter.
We want to be ‘right’, so someone else of necessity must be “wrong”
Theology…and life…is far more complex than that.
This is such a tough issue, and even more so to dialog about online. I avoid it pretty much completely on FB.
You are correct that we are considered haters if we do not support the homosexual lifestyle, and yet….
I have several friends who are loudly supportive of the homosexual viewpoint, and who are Christians. I read their posts, and honestly, I wonder if I am being too rigid, or too backward. What I do find, however, is that I feel guilted into wanting to support their viewpoint…not convinced.
I feel shamed. I feel…hated.
Maybe, I’m not sure, but maybe that is how they have felt, and if that is the case, that is wrong.
We have shamed and we have guilted more than we should.
We have not shared the Gospel as freedom and as a way to wholeness and a way to health. However, when we are lost in our identity of sin, that doesn’t sound like freedom…it sounds like having to give up our identity, and of being denied.
Again, such a tough issue. Thanks for expressing well your views. I listen and pray more than I speak on this issue…
That was better than what I wrote…as usual. 😉
Michael, agreed! Maybe even the term homosexual is a term we should not use because do we really have a precise definition of it? There are those that just have desires but don’t act of them. There are also those that are bi-sexual who have desires for both sexes that either act or don’t act on it. There are those that have both sets of sex organs from birth, those that are transgendered and those that have gone sex re-assignment. With all of this variation maybe we should just get rid of the term homosexual altogether because I’m not sure it serves anyone any good. Sin is sin and from what I read in the Bible same gender sex is sin and is one of a slew of different types of sexual immorality.
You may well be right.
Our main objective is to plant a cross over the top of it all…and to offer the benefits of the finished work that was accomplished there.
One thing that has become problematic is the change of terminology. Gay no longer refers to who one is sleeping with, it is an identification. So that when we say “homosexuality is sin”, they cannot differentiate that we are calling their actions sinful. They hear us calling their entire being sinful. It is truly a communication barrier. And I don’t know how to overcome that.
I never thought I would see the day but homosexual couples will be mainstreamed and the church will accept it. That is what I believe will happen.
I lived with a homosexual for many years as housemates. I know the struggle the guy had but no matter how much this guy wanted to insist on me embracing this aspect of him, I choose to ignore it because I don’t believe this was healthy for him to embrace this identity of himself as being gay. This may sound harsh but I could not in good conscious affirm him in his gayness. I just couldn’t do it and won’t do it.
Is this greater sin that what we have already institutionalized?
I hear you.
My objective with gay friends and co-workers has been to affirm them as people made in the image of God…while understanding that I believe God has issues with the lifestyle.
At one time it looked greater but no longer. The church accepts what it is forced to accept especially in the sense that the church is a free market institution. Look what the press has done to Paula Deen for exaggerated reasons. Imagine what will happen when the full force of politically correct opinion descends upon us.
I do however have one beef with us the church over this issue and that concerns the genesis of homosexual behavior. My pastoral work convinces me that sexual confusion comes from sexual abuse and we re-victimize the abused by the way we treat those who are confused in their sexuality. The virulent homosexual advocates re-victimize them too but they do it by embrace instead of rejection.
This issue will get worse and worse and we will be shocked at the results. You are representing it well. We will become haters.
That is haters in the eyes of our critics
“My objective with gay friends and co-workers has been to affirm them as people made in the image of God…while understanding that I believe God has issues with the lifestyle.”
That is exactly how I (and I am assuming many of us) treat our heterosexual friends, co-workers, and family who are “living in sin” with their “partners.”
Well its more than a lifestyle to many a gay person, its an identity. I am not saying my homosexual roommate was sleeping around with a bunch of guys as a lifestyle but rather his identity was wrapped up in wanting to find Mr. Right. This is not a lifestyle issue, its an identity issue.
“Imagine what will happen when the full force of politically correct opinion descends upon us.”
This is why you should be helping me define what a beast empire looks like biblically instead of going to conferences and enjoying yourself. 🙂
The eschatological marker we are seeing is not the acceptance of sin, but the coming of the beasts.
I think so and you are correct I need to work with you on that
I hear the voice of a prophetess when you speak…so speak more and louder.
We need to hear you.
PP Vet, @#11
Homosexuals have just as much right to plunder public funds as do the heterosexuals.
As I tell anyone who asks me about my religious view of homosexuality:
It is either the sin of ‘sodomy’, or the sin of ‘fornication’, your choice. God will never honor the union (regardless of men’s courts) so the choice is yours.
That said, I don’t consider the sin any more grave than the ones I have & will commit. But, I do seek repentance for my transgressions. Again, the choice is yours.
Now, civil views? Equality is fine with me, I have no authority to tell you what to do with your life. I will witness to you anyways though.
Neo @ 7 “Divorce is just as big a “threat” to the morality of our culture and churches as those abominable gays are”
It is WAY bigger. Just looking at the divorce rate compared to the homosexual population is mind boggling. Where are the ‘God hates Divorcees’ picketers?
I just want to be given the courtesy of being allowed to disagree with same sex marriage without being labeled, as Michael said, as a hater or homophobe, as I am neither. Our culture seems to immediately start name-calling if anyone simply has a differing point of view on this subject.
Andrew @ 15 “The reason this issue gets so much attention is not because of overzealous fundamentalists preaching about it all the time but because of liberals who insist that we accept their life style as non-sinful and keep bringing up the topic over and over again”
When is the Bride going to take a stand and say “why are you asking us for permission? We didn’t write the rulebook, we don’t have the authority to accept the lifestyle as non-sinful, even if we wanted to”
That should pretty much end the discussion for the most part.
Carl Trueman has some good articles on the subject:
Can I quote this on my facebook page? It’s exactly what I’ve wanted to say since the twin decisions came out, but I did not have the words.
Of course you can.
If something is ever helpful, then no need to ask, my friend.
Who was that cretin that came on here and told us calm down, this will not affect only the non-gay marriage states?
I was the cretin, PP Vet, but what I wrote is that this does not make gay marriage legal in a state like Michigan. And it does not.
If some judge wants to give state benefits to state employees in domestic partnerships, in contrast to a 2011 law (having nothing to do with gay marriage and the 2004 law) – so be it. The Supreme Court ruling had no legal precedent weight, but was used by the judge to give the ruling that no doubt he/she was looking to give anyway.
Here is a link (which are usually helpful – especially when insulting a member of the community).
My gratuitous insult stands. 🙂
The comment to which I was referring – I am certain it was not under your name, Steve, it was a name rarely seen making a comment here – made the implication that the scope and impact of the SCOTUS decision was not much to be concerned about, with the implication that Christians expressing concern were Chicken Littles.
It was an evil comment. This is a huge and momentous decision, and it frees judges such as the one in Michigan to act.
The scripture is clear that telling God’s people that everything is going to be fine, when it is not, is evil.
Do we win in the long run? Do we have a kingdom that cannot be shaken? Yes, but that is not what is being discussed.
The point is that the Equal Protection Clause will be used to make gay marriage effectively legal in all states.
Move to a another state, get married, move back, and claim Equal Protection. If not EPC, then Due Process.
“… where the majority’s second rationale leads — nationalizing gay marriage, the way Roe nationalized abortion.”
If you can find a single responsible knowledgeable commentator online who does not believe that, really, Steve, please show me the link.
For a reality check see:
and many others.
So you are now going to continue to openly proclaim that this is not what is going to happen?
I hope you are right.
PP Vet is right, this is the crack they were looking for.
I also said the other day there is no doubt it is a big victory for the gay marriage crowd. Just that it was not the “Roe” equivalent to mandate gay marriage throughout the land.
Personally, I think the Church is REALLY missing the mark in protesting tax and survivor benefits issues. Which is what this is all about at the present time. Yes, it is the slipper slope, but sometimes the slippery slope argument is hard to make with any sort of logic and compassion.
“That’s where the rubber meets the road…
I have more grace in my heart for the gay couple, to be honest.”
At least I can see where a man would go with a trophy wife but imagining a man with a man or a woman with a woman is physically disgusting
Why worrry if you get labeled a hater? Isn’t that what is expected of those in the World when we don’t co sign to their sinful lifestyles/ We can’t be Cowards and start back pedalling. As far as Divorce goes I agree that Remarriage after an unbiblical Divorce is rarely ever touched on.
Why does it seem like Christians feel an obligation to mention adulerty, divorce every time another Christian talks about homosexuality as a sin? How come when someone talks about adulerty/fornication no one starts saying “hey but homosexuality is a sin too”
The scripture is also clear by virtue of the story of Sodom and the second chapter of Romans that this sort of behavior can become progressively worse in a society as it gets farther afield. Encouraging it with billions of dollars in government money ….
As Christians we need to stop apologizing for what we believe and stand frim with True Grit
Guess that is the first chapter of Romans. Although probably the second chapter and every other chapter in the Bible as well.
Give it a while and polygamy is next.
Bisexuals are grouped with homosexuals in every single law that speaks of the latter. So how can one deny a bisexual the right to marry both the man and woman that he/she “loves” – There is no doubt that is next. THAT is where the polygamy (or polyamory) argument will begin.
Whew that was a close. I thought SW was going to be the first CC pastor in the history of this site to simply admit he was wrong (without some sort of mitigating addendum).
Steve Wright says:
Few seem to understand this DOMA ruling does NOT establish gay marriage rights nationwide. All the states that have outlawed gay marriage remain as is. This is wholly about federal BENEFITS in about 1000 programs that now will go to the spouses in the few states where gay marriage is allowed. This is not a Roe v Wade for gay marriage
Steve Wright says:
June 26, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Oh it is a victory for that cause…no doubt. But a lot of folks on both sides are overstating what exactly happened. In fact, this came to the Court because a surviving spouse in a gay marriage owed over $300,000 dollars in estate taxes which should have gone to her (as a spouse) tax-free if the feds recognized their marriage in New York. From what I am reading, the Court actually had the open door in these cases to rule for the Constitutional protection of gay marriage (like Roe v Wade) and chose not to. I’m sure our red/blue state divide will get even more entrenched now…
PP Vet, if what I wrote there is wrong (and in the context of what I was reading all over facebook by my pro-gay marriage friends) then I don’t want to be right.
Now, isn’t there some televangelist on whose show you’re missing? 🙂
I’m afraid the perception will become the reality and this will be the new RoevWade.
Well, I can see by Steve’s statement that he was misunderstood.
However, I do believe this is the crack the LGBT (did I miss an initial) groups were looking for.
I see this fight as lost now. I wish it were otherwise, but it is what it is.
America seems to be falling deeper into secularism. It is not the America I remember from the past anymore.
I think that Ecclesaistes 7:10 speaks to some of this thinking:
Say not, “Why were the former days better than these?”
For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.
What we should be asking is:
How do we as Christians live in the world that is coming?
How do we maintain a stance against sin with increased resistance to our message?
How do we strengthen our marriages?
How do we set our marriages apart from the secular society?
On the Brian Abeyta thread, Ricky Bobby finds himself unable to differentiate between narrative and teaching.
“unable to differentiate between narrative and teaching.”
Did confront David for having Concubines and multiple wives? Nope. He confronted him for taking another man’s wife.
If the bible was all about God confronting the people in it about sin, it would be a very very long read. God doesn’t always confront us about each and every sin. Try again.
Should be “God confronting them about each and every sin”
I need to get to bed. Got stuff to do tomorrow.
“If the bible was all about God confronting the people in it about sin, it would be a very very long read.”
It is a long read. Fact remains, Nathan was cool with the Concubines (sex slaves) and multiple wives, Nathan (on behalf of God) was ticked off about taking another man’s wife. That was David’s “sin” not the Concubines and multiple wives.
Doesn’t take much common sense to see that one (or does it?)
I am trying to honestly understand your position, SW:
Are you saying that in a strictly technical legal sense, temporarily, “all the states that have outlawed gay marriage remain as is” (your words) as a result of the SCOTUS ruling, but it is a “great victory” (your words) for that side and will ultimately have a disastrous impact on the non-gay marriage states as well?
If so, we are in agreement with each other and almost all commentators.
Hi PP Vet. I do think we are in agreement. We might disagree on that word “ultimately” if we sought to nail down a time prediction when for example Oklahoma will have legal gay marriage ceremonies performed by the state. http://newsok.com/gay-marriage-rulings-wont-affect-oklahomas-ban-oklahoma-attorney-general-says/article/3856567
“The court’s decisions confirmed that it is up to the states to decide how to define marriage, not the federal government,” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said after the high court’s decisions.“As a result, Oklahoma’s constitutional provision that defines marriage in Oklahoma as between a man and a woman remains valid.”….The high court sidestepped the broad question on Wednesday of whether state bans on gay marriage are valid under the U.S. Constitution..
(that last part is a big deal and what people need to remember for now)
Like I said, I posted in the context of what I was reading all over facebook in that hour or two of immediate aftermath – and in fact I posted that comment on facebook first. Except I added the words “people need to chill” – now a few days later people have sufficiently “chilled” and are reporting (and making predictions) much more responsibly.
And what I was reading was people mistakenly to interpret that decision as an immediate Roe v Wade victory – people talking about all the wonderful marriages they imagined going to before summer ended.
The point is that the Equal Protection Clause will be used to make gay marriage effectively legal in all states.
Today, a federal judge said the state constitution (in Michigan) does not matter!!
Technically, gay marriage is not recognized there. Functionally, in practice, that does not matter, or in any state. The Assyrians have breached the gate and will soon have the king’s house.
Let’s give people an honest report.
But, we should continue the fight on the front on which we are now called to fight, wherever that now is. That is where we need wisdom.
I must confess that I’m leaning libertarian as I age. I’m finding that I think in simpler terms.
Christians-love your neighbor.
Democrats-pay for your own stuff.
Republicans-mind your own business.
Libertarians-your dreamland utopia will never exist.
PP Vet. So far, including Michigan, all you have pointed to are concerns about government money. I’ll grant you that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Like I said earlier, if the Christians are going to get upset that government workers in other states are going to get spousal benefits – it seems like a waste of time. Many states have civil union, domestic partnership benefits already for such couples anyway.
Let’s give the people an honest report.
Can two gays get married in Michigan today. No.
Will schools teach gay marriage is legal in Michigan. No.
Does this affect the church in Michigan in any way, shape for form. No.
Do insurance companies in Michigan have to honor gay marriages in their rates. No.
And on..and on..and on.
Can they claim to be married if they were married in another state? No.
Can they claim state of Michigan financial benefits if in a domestic partnership, yes, per this judge.
The judge was ruling on a 2011 law, a law passed 7 years after the gay marriage ban.
Can they claim state of Michigan financial benefits if in a domestic partnership, yes, per this judge.
I forgot to add of utmost importance…they also have to be employed by the Michigan government as well. Narrowing the field even more.
“Tis only a flesh wound”, says SW. 🙂
Would that it were so, my friend. Let’s check back in a year and see who is proven right about the impact of this.
I hope you win!
I do know Christian men in other countries that had multiple wives before they became believers. Should we should encourage divorce in these situations? Polygamy seems to be a cultural thing and not necessarily biblically prohibited as is homosexuality unless of course you are referring to qualifications of elders which are to be the husband of but one wife. I’m not recommending more than one wife because I think its unwise but I struggle what to say to those in other countries with more than one wife. However, I will never recognize a gay marriage. There is no such thing that is pleasing to God.
Serious question, as I don’t know you or what you do for a living. Under what authority would you recognize (or not) any other person’s marriage? What difference would it make to a gay married couple?
I have to ask the question about people’s opinions on homosexual intimate behavior and their comparisons or contrasts to heterosexuals.
If we agree that homosexuality is banned and considered an abomination by God; how about where heterosexual couples engage in the same intimate acts as homosexual couples and ignore the natural functions (speaking in particular here of the woman’s role in these acts)? Simply put is what goes on in the privacy of a heterosexual married couple different from that of a homosexual couple?
That’s a good question…and my first response would be that the marriage covenant sanctifies whatever consenting adults choose to do.
That’s off the top of my head…
No difference if you’re referring to sodomy.
Only thing worse than the Supreme Court ruling is dirt-stupid questions like that.
People demanding special treatment for their perfidy, that is the issue, not what happens in private.
You’re hostile these days… 🙂
It’s not a stupid question, it’s one that every pastor has been asked more than once.
It may not be directly connected to the court ruling, but the nature of the blog is that it goes different directions from whence it started…
I didn’t mean to hurt you.
Hostility is a virtue.
How you learn your lesson
answering the question.
“That’s a good question…and my first response would be that the marriage covenant sanctifies whatever consenting adults choose to do.”
Thanks, but that’s seems a bit too broad. I won’t deny that culture has tainted my views of woman and sexuality and I would believe it would be safe to say most women are victims of modern pornography in that the expectations of many if not most men are based on it. Yes I know many and maybe most men and women here on PP do not actively watch porn, but where can one turn in this culture and not see its influence on women and how they are perceived.
I suspect this is one of those questions which bear the idea, “don’t ask if you don’t want to know the answer.” However, I believe good disciples of Jesus ask the tough questions, like “why is homosexual behavior and therefore marriage called an abomination by God?”
It’s not a stupid question. Read Mark Driscol’s stuff and even a woman teacher like Kay Aurthur and you will see it is a common question about what goes on in private between married couples.
Hey maybe if you’ve decide the answer you could let us know what your feelings are?
“The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl.”
This is ridiculous! I can’t believe that people actually believe this is a choice an 8 yr old can make. This boy will have to live with this his whole life.
Guess more of this can be expected.
I too lean Libertarian, but I gotta say something about the Republican statement.
I am no fan of repubs, believe me, but as for “mind your own business” ,if that refers to the topic here, no one asked to see their business.
They shove it in our faces on a daily basis now and expect us to react in a conformist fashion.
It is stupid in the context of the SCOTUS ruling, since it is a completely different question and one that is not a matter of public policy.
Yes I am more hostile than usual, I am staggered by this Supreme Court ruling and its implications. I feel like it is over, barring a miracle, for America.
I am not in the mood for watching fireworks this year. It will be like watching a funeral.
Plus I hate discussions about sex. I hate it when pastors mention sex from the pulpit. Especially perversion. I will hardly let it be mentioned in my home – as the book says, there are some things even the Gentiles will not discuss.
Just a general statement. Dems tend to be more socially liberal, while Reps trend more conservative. I’d like both parties to stop (on a federal level) trying to legislate behavior between consenting adults, and decriminalize personal choices such as drugs. I REALLY want both sides to keep their noses out of other countries’ business.
When the pastor uses the phrase “due benevolence”, I blush.
Anything worse, I walk out. 🙂
I had some dinner and spent some time in the scriptures with friends and it has been a blessed day! I’m glad He is Messiah and Lord!
Now about my question again.
The reason I asked it isn’t to see how people feel about their intimate relations it is to ask by what measure they are responding to the Supreme Court decision and its fall out. It is easy to make homosexual behavior, marriage and over all promiscuity the villain here, but by what standard do we do so?
Are we against the marriage because it is simply between two people of the same sex? Why do we think it is bad? If two men were pure (virgins) before their marriage and then only sexually intimate with each other for their entire physical married lives, would that make a difference?
Therefore if heterosexual married people engage in the same sort of activity what’s the difference between them and the homosexual couple? If there isn’t any then why do we care at all who gets married?
Oh well I’ll drop the question. It seems like as I said, maybe we don’t want to know the answer because then we will be responsible for our actions.
BTW I am opposed to any form of covenant (marriage) which leads to sexual intimacy between people of the same sex.
If a gay man was celibate he would be sexually pure. I don’t believe such a person exists.
So celibacy is for some reason impossible for gay men? Is it possible for straight men?
I’m sorry folks, but can we please admit that real bigotry is one reason why some Christians feel the need to make this behavior appear more sinful that other behaviors?
I have a real concern about the breakdown of the family in our culture, although I’m not looking to govt to fix anything, other than to stop rewarding the baby momma culture.
It would seem statistically that we see family breakdown all around us, in every neighborhood. The participants are overwhelmingly heterosexual.
I very much agree with Jim, well put.
The “family” was breaking down in the 1950’s. The male-dominated abusive patriarchy resulted in the rebellion of the 60’s and 70’s.
Stuff may have looked good no the surface in the Beaver Cleaver 50’s…but behind the scenes the family was breaking down with abuse, alcoholism, neglect, male dominating bull, etc.
We saw the “fruit” of the family breakdown of the 50’s when the “kids” now grown up in the 60’s and 70’s rebelled and freaked out b/c the family was a wreck and they were disillusioned with the duplicity and reality they saw at home vs. the veneer presented by TV, Church etc in the public.
My kids know I love them more than anything and they know I respect them and will never hurt them or dominate them. They have power in the relationship and they have my mutual respect. They aren’t perfect, and that’s OK. There are boundaries for sure, but responsibly enforced boundaries.
Many of my friends parent in a similar manner…much different than the parenting I experienced and observed in the 80’s. I think my kids generation (at least here) will bear “good fruit” b/c of the emphasis and lessons learned in the parenting I’m seeing in our Microcosm here in our small part of the planet.
How many of the Hippies and Jesus Movement people in the 60’s and 70’s had abusive and/or neglectful parents and/or absentee fathers in the 50’s?
A ton of them…it’s why they were easily proselytized into “Papa” Chuck Smith’s brand of church after being invited by Lonnie Frisbee.
RB. Astute observations…
My folks were awesome so the allure, for me, was wrapped up in the myth of the rapture, that we lived in the terminal generation, that Israel in the land was God’s divine countdown to Armageddon, that of all the movements to be part of The Jesus People Movement was a pure Philadelphia version of the pre-rapture church and we were going to be snatched away at any moment, and that our movement was not “charismania”…
The whole package was epitomized in CCCM which is why I packed up and moved to SCal in 1978 seeking some kind of biblical stability, and instead was a willing adherent to neofundamentalism.
“Family breakdown” had nothing to do with it, but fear of being “left behind” had everything to do with it.
When I decided to cling to Jesus, my fears of end times stuff went away because He simply assured me I belong to Him and I need not look for end times signs, just be about His business, redeeming the world and living His kingdom.
Hmmm, bad parenting in the 50s cause the abuse issue at CC in the present. I’ll have to think about that one. 🙂
Bob framed the most delicate question in the most succinct way. I was wrestling with how to ask the same thing. Thanks Bob. It’s just something most people consider an “icky” subject.
…which is why I’m going to keep my focus on playing my guitar and wait until the discussion returns to the appropriate use of The-N-Word in the non urban community.
It’s my lot in life to make y’all look good. There’s only one kind o’ bigot in the world.
Does anyone here know anybody who identifies themselves as celibate gay or gay celibate?
Chuck didn’t process-lite anyone. They came to him. And those who were allured by Lonnie prolly fell away when any speck of hard times came.
RB, as much as your personal situation sucks with Bob and your mom, you have learned to love your kids unconditionally. You are well aware of how damaging bad parenting is to kids and your kids are blessed to have you as their dad.
I obviously agree with 107. And why don’t the fornicators march in the streets? Because they are accepted in society with no worries. America makes multimillionaires out of those who encourage our children to fornicate.
I know Christians who supported the adulterer in the last prez election who never would have supported a gay man. He was an invited speaker at CPAC, while GOProud was dis-invited.
It’s the way of the world…
The apostles didn’t curse Caesar, but rather encouraged us to not do what they do.
Does this mean I think Christians shouldn’t say anything about homosexual acts being a sin? Obviously not.
covered, yes, that is the saving grace and about the only thing I’ve done really well as a Christian* Thank God for that. If my epitaph reads “Big Jerk, but Loving Dad” then I’ll be OK with that.
Jim’s on a roll…agreed again.
One article I read indicated that 80% of contemporary unmarried Christians aged 18-29 admit to having premarital sex.
Yeppers, that’s me! add my name to that unGodly list. It was my lifestyle for a few weeks before committing to marriage and after being celibate for the first three and a half years of my young Christian life. But y’all nevermind the celibate lifestyle part. It doesn’t qualify me to have an opinion. Now, someone throw a stone.
And I’m worse than that! Guilty of accessory to murder.
My stone will read: Here lies Gary. Elsewhere he told the truth.
I should clarify- not legally guilty, just morally.
So the practical logic that emerges from this matter is fairly simple: if it’s okay to give a pass to premarital sex, there is no good reason not to do the same for homosexual behavior.
The answer is right here- in the wording. One is called a behavior and one is not. Does anyone else see the elephant in the room?
So here is the main point at which I am driving. Christians have no chance whatever of challenging homosexual behavior with integrity unless they start with the sexual sins of heterosexuals.
False premise. Straw man. No such conundrum exists. Not to mention that when the bible -oops. I mean Paul- condemned homosexuality he didn’t qualify it.
By the way, my current rants really don’t have that much to do with the topic as much as the double standard I’m reading on this thread. If any of you remember my old posts you will know my stance on the topic along with my personal involvement. Gotta finish reading the link now.
Oh please. Sinning shamedly vs. sinning proudly.
It is not that the sin is bad – the worst sin is religious hypocrisy, and that is my own personal specialty. But at least I don’t brag about it. Much.
Gary said, “So here is the main point at which I am driving. Christians have no chance whatever of challenging homosexual behavior with integrity unless they start with the sexual sins of heterosexuals.
False premise. Straw man. No such conundrum exists. ”
It does in the context of the Christian Bigotry position which basically states that while most Christians* tolerate and don’t emphasize and practice heterosexual sins, they make a taboo out of homosexual sin.
In the Moral Absolute context, you have a point.
“Oh gawd, I thank thee that I am not like that man over there, such a great sinner! I’m observant, I’m biblical, I’m blah blah blah, mutter, mumble, sputter sputt…!”
But the other guy, the schmuck, he knew what he was, so all he kept saying to God was, “Be merciful to me, a sinner… be merciful…”
…aaaaand one was justified, and the other?
Jesus made it always about personal inner landscape
No no no. You’re still missing it. I’m not justifying my sin. I’m making the comparison of a one time mistake (which I repented of and made full restitution) and a life style. I thought you guys were smarter that that. I’m disappointed.
I must take a different approach. I think you guys are all pissing God off. Why are you talking about your sin past and present instead of talking about the unconditional forgiveness that has transpired on your behalf.
God has cast your sin away – and you go looking for it. Have you never heard the gospel message?
I said I repented. God has forgiven my sin. Not the issue, MLD.
MLD, agreed. Universal Reconciliation. That’s the real Gospel IMO. Sin has been dealt with once and for all of time past and present at the Cross.
Unilateral Forgiveness and Universal Reconciliation.
The present mercy of God, recognized, leaves me trembling.
May His goodness be our boast.
I think I’ll end my current disruption with an amen to the guitar. I hope we can all agree on this: “May His goodness be our boast”.
OK, one more thing, and maybe this is what bothers me about this topic. I think that some Christians think that their unbelieving neighbor’s “problem” is their sin. Their problem is that they have not believed unto eternal life. Are we to share Jesus, or are we to tell people how we feel about their sin?
Once again-“May His goodness be our boast”.
“Unilateral Forgiveness and Universal Reconciliation.” Yes – but not universal entry to heaven,
Hell will be populated with people whose sins are forgiven.
I think I’ll take another stab at this. It looks to me like some here are excusing a lifestyle that God clearly condemns in favor of some other issue. Fact is God condemns hetero fornication as well as homo fornication. That’s a given. It such a given that it doesn’t need to be expounded upon. It’s a “duh”. What I was trying to address is a lifestyle vs a one time sin. I wasn’t excusing sin or boasting about it. I made the mistake of using a personal example to illustrate my point. What a simp I am.
Maybe it never occurred to some of you that there is a difference between a one-time sin repented of, confessed, and forgiven, and a lifestyle of sin and rebellion. If I said I’m an alcoholic would you know if I was drinking, or how much, or if I was recovering? Have you ever heard someone refer to themselves as a recovering gay? I’m not going to talk about my experience with gays. I don’t want to be condemned any more. I considered just walking away from this forum. I don’t know any of you. I guess I’m more of a simp than I thought.
Those of you who pounced on me and judged me rashly, I’m disappointed in your apparent shallow shortsighted eagerness to rush to do exactly that which you condemned me for. The only conclusion I can make is that you haven’t sinned since you became a believer, or maybe you’re not really believers, just judges. Either way I’m disappointed. I’m just a jerk in a box with a label, but I wanted to try to explain myself.
I sin everyday – I probably break each of the 10 commandments everyday – that is why I need Jesus everyday. So I guess “sinner” is my lifestyle.
The biggest lesson I learned when I left evangelicalism and became Lutheran is that I am – “Simul Justus et Peccator” “Righteous and at the same time a Sinner.
100% Sinner and 100% Saint.
I don’t buy into the the “everyday I get better and better and sinless. No, each day Irealize a bit more what a sinner I am.
I completely agree with you on that, MLD.
I mean I agree on all 3 points.
In this we are both Martin Luther’s disciples.
Jim said: “Are we to share Jesus, or are we to tell people how we feel about their sin?
Once again-“May His goodness be our boast”.”