Tag Archive for: Homosexuality

I was in my mid-20s living in San Diego. I joined some people from a nearby church and went to a Pride parade to pass out water, give hugs, and hold signs saying “We are sorry the church hasn’t loved you the way Jesus would” (or something along those lines). All of a sudden, I was descended upon by a film crew with a microphone asking me what Jesus had to say about homosexuality. I was not expecting this, but I was giddy to share the love of Christ and talk about how we are all sinners saved by grace and how Jesus never singled out homosexuality as worse than any other type of sexual immorality. In the middle of my sentence (which I had been certain would be received with amazement, tears, and more questions about how to know this Jesus guy), the film crew interrupted me and said, “NOTHING. He said nothing about homosexuality.” And then they walked away without a word, off to find their next “interview.”

 

I sat there dumbfounded. What had just happened? And was it true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality? And if not, why not?

Spoiler alert: Jesus really doesn’t ever address homosexuality specifically, and in our current sexual climate, this argument is being trotted out regularly to convince people that Jesus, therefore, didn’t really have an opinion on the topic (or He tacitly affirmed it).

Jesus really doesn’t ever address homosexuality specifically, and in our current sexual climate, this argument is being trotted out regularly to convince people that Jesus, therefore, didn’t really have an opinion on the topic (or…Click To Tweet

I have always been drawn to the epistles and Revelation. The Gospels were a little less interesting to me because I couldn’t quite picture Jesus. I knew what the New Testament taught about sexuality, but it had never occurred to me that our theology hadn’t come from Jesus Himself. If your kids are coming to you asking why, here are a few things to help them think through the topic.

  1. Jesus did speak about sex and marriage
    While it is true that Jesus never specifically mentions homosexuality, it doesn’t mean that He had nothing to say about sexuality or marriage. Jesus employs the K.I.S.S. method [1] and consistently points His listeners back to how things were in the beginning, with male and female, united for life, not to be separated (Mark 10:2-9). But some people assume that since He didn’t specifically mention homosexuality that must mean He was at least ambivalent about it. Such a conclusion does not give enough weight to what Jesus did say or why He only addressed certain topics. (For example, He didn’t say anything about bestiality or incest, either. To be consistent with this argument, you’d have to argue that He was on the fence about those things, too.)

The one thing we know He didn’t say was that certain types of sexual immorality were more damnable than any other. After all, sexual sins always involve us sinning against our own bodies (1 Corinthians 6:18). We are all equal at the foot of the cross.

The one thing we know Jesus didn’t say was that certain types of sexual immorality were more damnable than any other. We are all equal at the foot of the cross. #lgbtq #trueequality Click To Tweet

  1. Jesus came specifically for the Jewish people first
    Yes, Jesus came to die for the whole world (John 3:16). An often overlooked part of the Gospels, however, is that He came for the Jewish people (Israel), first. (Matthew 15:24). His entire 3 ½ year ministry was focused on this one demographic (though He never turned a gentile away because of it). In Romans 1, Paul clarifies multiple times: “First for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” So keep in mind that Jesus’s primary message was to Jews — the people who were then tasked with taking the good news to the ends of the earth (Genesis 12:2-3Matthew 28:18-20). [2]This brings me to my next point.
  2. Jesus didn’t reiterate what His audience already knew
    The Jews already knew what the Law said about homosexuality, so they were a step ahead of most gentile cultures. The law of Moses was very specific about sexual morality (Leviticus 18 and 20). It lists every single possible person (or thing) a Jew was prohibited from having sex with. Why was it that specific? Because every single one of those sexual behaviors was happening or even commonplace in the land of Canaan! God warns them not to do any of these things, or they would be destroyed just like the Caananites were (Leviticus 18:28).

When Jesus came to the first-century Jews, they had known for generations what sexuality was intended to be. He didn’t need to reiterate this or go into specifics. This would be like coming to America to spread the message of driving on the right side of the road: your audience already knows it. When do we see homosexuality mentioned in the New Testament? You guessed it: when the author was speaking to a gentile audience who did not have familiarity with God’s laws regarding sexuality.

In summary:    

Jesus did not have to address every different type of sexual immorality to advocate for biblical sexuality. He stuck to original design and even doubles down in Mark 10:5-9. We can do the same with our kids every time they come to us with “But what about [fill in the blank with new sex, gender, or marriage question]?” Just keep pointing them back to God’s original design, and things get a lot simpler. Remind them we are all prone to wander from God’s design. Every single one of us. We are all equal at the foot of the cross as image-bearers struggling to accurately reflect God’s image.

Jesus did not have to address every different type of sexual immorality to advocate for biblical sexuality. Remind your kids that we are all prone to wander from God’s design. Click To Tweet

References:

[1] K.I.S.S. = Keep it simple, stupid! A motto drilled into us by my freshman year biology teacher/coach

[2] Notice that not a single apostle was a gentile.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)   

 


Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder and President of Mama Bear Apologetics. She feels a burden for providing accessible apologetics resources for busy moms. She is the chief author and editor of the bestselling books  Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies, Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design, and the soon to be released Honest Prayers for Mama Bears. Hillary has her master’s degree in biology and loves helping moms to discern truths and lies in both science and culture. She and her husband, John, have been married for 16 years and minister together as an apologetics team. She can never sneak up on anybody because of her chronic hiccups, which you can hear occasionally on the podcast and in interviews.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/448Dz36

 

What could possibly be wrong with “following our heart”? Isn’t that what culture always tells us to do? In this week’s solo podcast episode, Frank responds to a troubling email from “Jane”, a self-identified lesbian teenager struggling with conflict at home since coming out to her mother. Tune in as Frank walks through a series of thought-provoking questions designed to help Jane reflect on the long-term consequences of her choices. During the episode, Frank tackles key questions, including:

  • Why is theology the foundation of all knowledge?
  • Why shouldn’t people define themselves by their sexual desires?
  • What should (and shouldn’t) parents do if your child comes out to you as same-sex attracted?
  • Should your attractions determine your actions?
  • What are three reasons why homosexuality falls short of natural marriage?
  • Do sexual desires ever change over time?
  • If no one is harmed, why shouldn’t people simply follow their hearts?
  • How do sexual patterns among homosexuals differ from those in committed heterosexual relationships?

Discussing sexuality from a Christian perspective is intellectually simple but emotionally difficult, which is why taking a gentle approach can make all the difference! This episode will encourage listeners to guard their hearts, consider the real-world consequences of living without moral boundaries, and most importantly, remember why following Jesus is always the right choice—no matter what culture says.

Do you have a question for Frank? Send it to Hello@CrossExamined.org!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Correct, Not Politically Correct by Dr. Frank Turek
BOOK: Born Again This Way by Rachel Gilson
BOOK: Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age by Rosaria Butterfield
YOUTUBE: Follow Your Heart Presentation

 

Download Transcript

 

How do you convince non-Christians that homosexuality is wrong without using the Bible? Does human flourishing replace the need for God and the moral argument? And why does God create people that He knows will end up in Hell?  In this week’s solo podcast episode, Frank tackles three BIG questions that were recently sent in from our listening audience. During this discussion, Frank shares some practical advice on how to address these sensitive topics along with questions like:

  • Should Christians be concerned about what people do privately?
  • How does natural marriage contribute to spiritual maturity?
  • Are morals biologically determined?
  • Does the existence of Hell prove that God is unjust?
  • What thought-provoking questions can you ask people who are in support of homosexuality?
  • Why doesn’t atheism solve the problem of evil?
  • What does the Bible say about divine justice?
  • How can pain and suffering possibly result in GOOD?

Brace yourself — this episode is not politically correct, but it will be correct! Be sure to grab a copy of ‘Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage & Transgenderism‘ and ‘Stealing from God‘ for more in-depth answers to these three BIG questions!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Toxic Empathy – https://www.toxicempathy.com/
BOOK: Correct Not Politically Correct – https://bit.ly/3qws2ZL
BOOK: Stealing From God – https://bit.ly/41hLt91
VIDEO: Frank and Alex O’Connor – https://youtu.be/qNeB1RVeJHo

In the mid-1990’s a Theology professor at Duke Divinity School, named Richard Hayes, wrote a book called The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. It made waves in the Evangelical world because it was the first time a relatively liberal theological scholar took a definitive stance on the biblical sexual ethic. For decades conservative Christian scholars and pastors have cited Hays’s work in this book as evidence that scripture speaks clearly on issues concerning human sexuality and morality.

There were other, more conservative, names that had come to the same conclusions as Hays prior to and after his book was published. However, the very fact that someone of his pedigree, hailing from such a scholarly institution as Duke University, so unequivocally stood on the orthodox understanding of scriptures concerning sexuality was seen as a sort of ace in the hole against the arguments of affirmation theology.

In his 1996 book Hays said this:

“Thus, in view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture’s present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God’s sexual creatures: marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose.” (The Moral Vision, pgs. 399-400)

But Wait, There’s More

Recently, however, Richard and his son Christopher, a professor at Fuller Seminary, published a book called The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the biblical story. In it, Richard and Christopher lay out an argument for repudiating Richard’s previous work and leaning into affirmation theology. This seismic shift was heralded as a possible inflection point in the Evangelical Church’s defense of the biblical sexual ethic.

The book’s premise relies on understanding that God changes his mind throughout the history of scripture:

“Although these stories (OT stories, particularly Moses) are told as if God is ‘learning on the job,’ the portrait they create is consistent with a recurring image of God throughout the Bible. Even where judgment seems to narrow the scope of blessing, there are signs of the wideness of God’s mercy. God’s plan for the world is broader than some think.” (pg. 48)

God’s changing of mind and widening of his circle of inclusion is used throughout the book to support the claim that the next step in this widening work is through the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and their lifestyles:

“Those who do not conform to traditional expectations for sexual orientation should be the next to be explicitly included, as an extension of this ancient and traditional process.” (pg. 4)

In this book review, I will look at what it seems Richard and Cristopher intended to accomplish, the arguments in the book, and, as always, what the book does well and what it does poorly.

Purpose of the Book

Some might believe that the purpose of this book is to change conservative minds, but this is not the case. Richard and his son seek not to change staunch conservatives but to give hope to those in the middle or to the left on the issue of sexual identity and Christianity. The book is also meant to serve as a salve on the wounds of those who have felt alienated by the church’s traditional position on human sexuality. Thus, this is not an academic book, unlike Richard’s first work in 1996, but is, instead, a book focused on empathy, shifting the narrative in the conversation, and extending an olive branch to people either firmly in the affirmation camp or those that are on the fence.

At the outset, Richard and Christopher do not hide the ball as far as that is concerned:

“The reader will find few footnotes” (pg. 4).

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“… after I suggested we write this book, he asked me, “who is the intended audience?” And I said, “Maddie.” That’s my daughter, whom we have raised to appreciate the strength that comes from diversity and who can see very clearly that the future will have no patience with debates over human rights for those whose sexual orientation does not conform to ‘traditional’ standards” (pg. 16).

Clearly, this book is not intended to convince me. And it did not, as that was not its aim.

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

The book strikes a tone of love and care for people in the LGBTQ+ community. It shows a care for their eternal souls and is seemingly meant to serve as an apologetic for them to come to faith in Jesus Christ even if they have been hurt by the theology and/or actions of the Church in the past.

“…but the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity… To them -perhaps to you- we say: You’re not crazy to think you and yours are created equal and loved equally by God” (pg. 16).

I appreciate the heart of two individuals who desire to see all come to faith in Jesus Christ and seek to remove any unnecessary obstacles from their path. The question becomes though, what is necessary and unnecessary for the gospel? I have often said that homosexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles are the one sin the church has often told people they need to solve prior to coming to the cross of Christ. This is wrong and harmful. In that much, I agree, but going the extra step to affirm certain lifestyles because otherwise it would cost too much for people to follow Jesus, that is a bridge too far.

Jesus himself said we need to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33), so it is not readily apparent that the obstacles of a biblical sexual ethic should be glossed over. That being said, I believe Christopher and Richard’s heart for people not of the faith is on full display throughout the book. They have clearly been impacted by the stories of pain told to them by people in those communities and I resonate with that.

“A gay acquaintance tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade-schooler, and his Sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it and the words, ‘God don’t make no junk.’ Most of the sheets probably wound up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when we needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t” (pg. 36).

“My own experience of participating in a church where gay and lesbian members were a vital part of the congregation’s life and ministry has caused me to stop and reconsider what I wrote before” (pg. 10).

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, “Who are we that we can block God” (pg. 213-14).

These personal experiences (Christopher shares, at length, multiple experiences of students at Fuller early in the book) seem to be the impetus for such a change of mind. Experience is of seminal importance throughout the book, and reading scripture through the lens of experience seems to be the preferred method. The desire is admirable, the empathy understandable, but the theology and methodology is flawed.

Unity of the Church

Another thing that seems to bother both Christopher and Richard is the division over this issue. In multiple spaces throughout the book, both authors indicate a desire to move beyond these debates and to the more important matters of the law of Christ. They see the fracturing within the church, rightly, as a bad thing. The divisiveness over such issues seems paltry and unnecessary to them.

Ultimately, it seems one of the goals of their book is to encourage people to let go of division and arguments so we can move forward much like the early church did with food sacrificed to idols.

“The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring” (pg. 2).

They find exegetical arguments counterproductive to the unity of the church on these issues and thus, they do not make many, if any, throughout the book:

“We believe that this debate should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations. (The regularly cited texts are Gen 19:1-9, Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Rom 1:18-32). In this book we have not revisited them. It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today. But drawing conclusions based only on these passages would be like basing a biblical theology of slavery on Exod. 21:2 (which assumes one can buy a slave) and 1 Pet 2:18 (which tells slaves to be subject to their masters), or a theology of immigration on Ezek 44:9’s exclusion of foreigners from the sanctuary” (pg. 206-207).

“As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriages could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination. But it is not impossible to imagine that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ – just as Catholic and Protestant churches already do with respect to their different standards on clerical celibacy and women’s ordination” (pg. 216).

While there are certainly issues with these assertions, and certainly I do not agree that exegetical arguments concerning what is and is not a sin are pedantic in any way, I can appreciate the heart for unity behind the words. But unity in sin should not be the goal. This leads us to what this book does poorly.

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

The most glaring issue with this book is that the argument is blatantly flawed. In fact, in arguing for the widening of God’s mercy to be extended to a certain group both Hays men fail in properly defining the word mercy and why mercy is needed in the first place. Not only that, but both men indicate that the passages of scripture outlawing such sexual activity do, in fact, say and mean what Richard claimed they did in 1996.

At one point Richard Hays quotes long passages from his previous work and then concludes said section with this statement:

“As a judgment about what these very few biblical texts say, that statement still seems to me to be correct” (pg. 8).

So, it is not that the interpretation of said scriptures are incorrect, but that God has simply changed his mind and widened his mercy beyond these passages. In other words, because of God’s ever-expanding mercy these passages no longer carry moral weight for how we view sexuality.

How do we know this to be true? Well, basically, because it seems to be true according to Richard and Christopher Hays and that if it isn’t true then our position is “harming” people:

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“Any religious tradition that makes its peace with harming people is to be feared” (pg. 5).

These statements of seeming theological fact are devoid of scripture and devoid of clarification. For instance, who is to say that fighting the battle against sexual sin is a battle that God doesn’t call us to fight either personally or societally?

If the passages themselves retain their meaning (as Richard seems to believe) then it would be paramount to explain how 1 Corinthians 6:18 or 2 Timothy 2:22 mesh with this perspective as well as Ephesians 5:1-13. It certainly seems, from these and other scriptures, that the declaration that Christians ought not fight battles against sexual immorality of this kind is not based in proper hermeneutics.

Adding to that is the question of harm. What does it mean for a religious tradition to “harm people?” How has conservatism done so? Could it not also be the case that affirmation into sin could harm people even if said affirmation feels good and freeing to them in the moment? These are questions that Richard and Christopher never ask.

As for proper exegesis of specific texts, it seems that both Hays see these academic exercises as unnecessary. There is a “deeper logic” of the biblical story in their minds, but this logic is based on nothing other than experience and emotion as far as I can tell and makes leaps based on how one perceives certain threads of scripture and God’s changing of mind through the Old and New Testaments.

“Exegetical debates can become red herrings and distract us from the character of God” (pg. 12).

This is a particularly troubling quote as it assumes that one can adequately understand the character of God without proper exegesis. How do we KNOW God’s character at all without debating the proper exegesis of certain passages? It would seem we can import our idea of what God SHOULD be like, but we may never arrive at who he truly is without it.

For an answer to how God moves in history according to the Hays men a quote from the middle of the book will help the reader:

“Paradoxically, such conservatism proceeds as if God were dead, or were at least done with the world. If God were done with us, then we could simply add up the sum of the texts and arrive at the right answer, once and for all. (This, I’m afraid, is not too far from what Moral Vision did in regard to homosexuality, although it seems to me that my father was always uneasy about the answers” (pg. 92).

Many assumptions are made in this text. One, that conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand what they mean by this, one has to grasp their argument that God changes and widens his scope of acceptance throughout history.

“The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny” (pg. 86).

I may agree this seems to be a problem if one embraces [classical theism], but it is not a problem if one embraces middle knowledge or even open theism.[1] Whether the Hays duo are Open Theists I do not know (though much of their argumentation hints that this may be the case). I believe a robust understanding of God’s middle knowledge makes sense of the passages alluding to God’s changing of mind. Also, even if one is a theological determinist there are certain exegetical tools at one’s disposal to explain how an unchanging God might seem to “change his mind.”

Of course, it is ridiculous to say conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Conservatism proceeds as if God were actively conforming us and others to his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12).

There are many literary devices one might use to explain God’s interaction with humanity over time. For instance, when Jonah finally agrees to preach to Ninevah and the people repent God relents of his promised destruction. The question: did God really change his mind; it seems as if he did.

But the lesson of Jonah is that God is perfectly consistent. He will relent from deserving punishment if repentance occurs regardless of who the people are and how we feel about them (Jonah 4:2). God WOULD have destroyed Ninevah had they not repented but he relented because they repented. Since God knows all things then he knew they would repent but for them to repent they must hear of God’s impending judgement, thus, God sends Jonah. Does this point to fickleness on God’s part or a change of heart or character? No, exactly the opposite. God knows how we will respond based on his foreknowledge of our decisions and he knows how he would have responded if we had done otherwise.

But no such robust discussion on God’s character occurs in this book. The underlying assumption of the book is that human sexuality is as innate as race and thus “sexual minorities” are just as relevant to the expanding of God’s inclusion as the inclusion of Samaritans and gentiles:

[Block quote] “A reader working through the whole book of Isaiah has heard earlier that ‘[The LORD] will assemble the outcasts of Israel’ (11:12). Now, God is going to gather more – not just the outcasts of Israel, but other nations as well. God is going to enlarge the tent. Those who were once forcibly excluded from it are now meant to be ushered in” (pg.105).

“It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same” (pg. 108).

“A constant theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on reinterpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes . . . Here we should pause to reflect: Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?” (pg. 151).

The theological gymnastics employed to reach these conclusions throughout the book are phenomenal. At one point they state that human sexuality has become a Romans 14 issue:

“The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to ‘despise’ the ‘weak,’ narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the ‘weak’ ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to ‘pass judgment’ on the sinful laxity of the ‘strong’ who condone same-sex unions” (pg. 200).

What is their basis for this? Well, it is their reading of the “stories of scripture” through the lens of emotional harm rather than fleshly and spiritual harm.

Logical Leaps in Correlation

“The stories we’ve summarized in the foregoing chapters disclose a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings – even when those prohibitions were explicitly attributed to God in earlier biblical texts” (pg. 207).

One of the most damaging aspects of the book are logical leaps made without argument. The Hays duo consistently make claims of harm without defining what it means to harm someone with theology and how affirming uncomfortable or upsetting truth could be harmful even if upsetting.

“To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (pg. 207).

But this trajectory of mercy does not include affirmation of sinful behaviors in any sense. There is no acceptance of the worship of idols, there is no acceptance of fornication, of theft, of bearing false witness or greed. In fact, where mercy is extended in scripture, by Jesus or otherwise, with it comes an expectation of life change and repentance. From the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there is not a single example of God’s mercy widening so far as to include explicitly listed sins against God such as sexual immorality, something that Richard Hays even indicates is still considered sin if one simply reads scripture for what it says:

“It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (pg. 206).

The idea that Christians overcame slavery despite its supposed affirmation in scripture is leaned on as proof in the book as well:

“We could fill a whole book with discussion of such examples, but the general point is clear: Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category” (pg. 212-213).

But even if that were the case, this is not a story of the broadening of mercy but of the restricting of behavior based on a better understanding of God’s ultimately revealed character in the scriptures and the Imago Dei held by each human through exegesis. Time and again the same leaps in reasoning are used to justify the newly held position.

God opening up worship to Eunuchs – embracing “sexual minorities”

God including gentiles in the promise – embracing “sexual minorities”

God embracing Samaritans in the covenantal promise of Christ – embracing “sexual minorities”

On this last example they do not go into detail on John 4 when Jesus does open up the plan of inclusion to Samaria but at the same time tells the woman at the well that the Samaritans are wrong, that she is in sin, and that future worshipers will worship in spirit and TRUTH.

[Block quote] “There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances” (pg 214).

But the issue with the above quote is that being a foreigner and eunuch is not inherently sinful and that God does not embrace “tax collectors and sinners” without changing them. Zacchaeus changes his lifestyle (Luke 19), so does the woman caught in adultery. The embrace of mercy is not without the expectation of shedding the shackles of sin even if it is a sin that we hold closely within our own constructed identity. It seems the Hays men confuse conversion with sanctification.

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

A more minor issue with the book is the random and sudden inclusion of progressive political stances strewn throughout. Gun control, immigration and other politically conservative positions receive unnecessary blows as the arguments are made:

“These deaths, he says (Garry Wills) are an ‘offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.’ Most people are capable of understanding the statistics about gun deaths, and the many things we could do to reduce them, but alas, they are sure that the Second Amendment means free access to all sorts of firearms. When we grit our teeth in the face of the death of children, we sacrifice them to false gods” (pg. 67).

Perhaps the above quote might be correct even if I disagree, but it is either tone-deaf, disingenuous, or both to include something about Moloch and guns without touching on abortion even once. This would be enough to make one think that perhaps this is simply an ideological work rather than a theological one. This is just one example.

There is no limiting principle

The final issue I want to highlight with this book is that even if the argument worked for same-sex relationships it does not seem that Richard and Christopher are content to stop there. They seem to employ a sort of Motte and Bailey technique of argumentation as they argue for same-sex unions specifically on occasions but then incorporate the entire gambit of sexual ideology (LGBTQ) throughout the book as well.

“Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities?… If the church today looks to the council as a pattern – and if it decides that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as ‘porneia’ – we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer to its members of differing sexual orientations. . .  One reasonable suggestion is that same-sex relationships should aspire to the same standard of monogamous covenant fidelity that the church has long commended and prescribed for heterosexual marriage. And, at the same time, the church should be no less careful to uphold the same standard consistently for its members of heterosexual orientation” (pgs. 186-87).

To argue simply for same-sex inclusion might be one thing (though, I still believe their argument fails). But it seems they have their sights set not simply on this but on the entire progressive sexuality gambit. The constant use of terms like sexual minorities and LGBTQ leaves no guard rails to sexual behavior. Would pedophilia be off limits? Bestiality? Incest? One is left to wonder. Exactly how far does God’s mercy widen in this arena?

“As for the rest of us, when it comes to respecting other people, it’s not plausible to hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and still present ourselves as their friend, or their ‘brother (or sister) in Christ.’ Most people are not interested in that kind of grudging acceptance” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

Would Richard and Christopher Hays really say it is never plausible to do this? If that is the case, then I suppose we must be open to polyamory, pedophilia and more? After all, who are we to “hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and present ourselves as their friend?” There is no limiting principle offered throughout the book. Only, the continuous and seemingly never-ending widening of God’s mercy in acceptance of previously outlined sin so long as the sin can be seen as an identity marker for a minority group.

“We believe that welcoming people of different sexualities is an act of faithfulness to God’s merciful purposes. Let’s not make God’s offer of grace a lie” (pg. 220-21, emphasis mine).

Conservative Christians would agree with the above statement, but Hays and Hays intimate that welcoming equals affirming. Of course, God’s grace is not a lie. Of course, it extends to all people regardless of their sexual past or their proclivities, but it does not follow then that these sexual sins are not sins and it does not follow that they are worthy of full acceptance and affirmation. Finally, what exactly is meant by “different sexualities”? This is not simply a call for including homosexual “marriage” but opens the door to a wide variety of sexual aberrations. Where does it end?

Conclusion

As the authors say:

“This book is therefore not just an argument about the meaning of the Bible in the past, but an invitation to readers to make new meaning in the present by listening to the Spirit and joining God now in saying, ‘I will gather others to them/besides those already gathered’ (Isa 56:8)” (pg. 221).

Clearly, this book is not about what the Bible means but simply what Christopher and Richard Hays believe God’s character SHOULD be based on their own experiences and feelings:

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, ‘Who are we that we can block God’ (pg. 213-14).

Because they have been influenced by people whom they love, who live sexually impure lifestyles, they seem to embrace the conclusion they desire and read the scripture through that. There is a reason exegesis is ignored in this book because, to come to the conclusion they desired, they could not practice it. Instead, they practice eisegetical approaches to narratives throughout scripture.

This book fails in academics, fails in rhetoric, and fails in discipleship. It is a net negative for the church and while the arguments should be understood, the book as a whole should be rejected as it is unreasonable, unbiblical, and illogical. I give this book a 4 out of 10.

References: 

[1] Editor’s Note: The author said, “theological determinism” here. But, the deeper more robust contrast here is with Classical Theism as that (traditionally understood) contrasts with both (1) Molinism and middle knowledge as well as (2) Open Theism. Classical theists can vary in how they relate to the doctrine of “theological determinism,” though they all agree that God foreordains everything in some sense, even if they can disagree about whether that is “compatible” with human free will.

Recommended Resources: 

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

 


Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3YTS3zM

In the following piece, I will discuss the ongoing controversies surrounding Andy Stanley and the recent Unconditional Conference held at North Point Church — outlining clear departures from the scriptural teachings found in the Bible.

I will spotlight three key concerns to illustrate how Andy Stanley promotes an approach and an ideology contradicting New Testament teachings on homosexuality.

Say it Ain’t So!

As followers of Christ, we strive to align our lives with God’s Word, maintaining unwavering faith in times of discord. It is disheartening to see influential Christian figures like Andy Stanley, who command extensive ministry recognition, endorsing views contrary to biblical Christianity.

Even as I profoundly disagree with the path Andy Stanley and his church are taking, I remain hopeful for him to reconsider his wayward stance as a fellow Christian. My intention is not to provoke empty quarrels or breed negativity but to bring clarity and guidance in navigating through these contentious subjects. I endeavor to deal with this sensitive topic with grace and respect, promoting unity among believers (see Romans 12:16-18; 1 Peter 3:8).

The Apostle Paul, however, cautions the body of Christ, that is, the Church, to “avoid those who instigate division and trigger obstacles against the teachings we follow” (Romans 16:17). Thus, we must engage in these tough conversations, pushing ourselves to think critically and delve deeper into scriptural truths about our identity in Christ and what the Bible teaches about sexual sin.

First, An Unbiblical Presumption About LGBTQ+

Taking this warning to heart, let me address my first concern about what Andy Stanley and several of his leaders within North Point espouse. According to Greg and Lynn McDonald — founders of Embracing the Journey, and the couple who put on the Unconditional Conference at North Point — they don’t declare a theological stance on LGBTQ+ matters. That assessment, however, is not entirely accurate. In fact, they hold to a very unbiblical presumption. These proponents (McDonalds, Andy Stanley, Justin Lee, David Gushee) argue that Christians viewing homosexuality as sinful are misinterpreting biblical text, causing profound harm to LGBTQ+ individuals. Behind this presumption is a deviation from Jesus’s clear teachings on human gender (it’s binary) and marriage (it’s a union only between a man and a woman). See Matthew 19:3-6 and Genesis 2:18-25.

Second, Entangling Alliances

The second entanglement is the invitation and alliance afforded by North Point Church to platform activists, such as David Gushee, a progressive Christian who advocates for same-sex “marriage.” In his book, “Changing Our Mind: A Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBT Christians,” Gushee boldly declares an error of perspective by early Christians on the moral dimension of homosexuality. He alludes that salvation calls on all, regardless of sexual identity or orientation. This perspective also resonates in the narratives of “gay-Christian” men like Justin Lee and Brian Nietzel (both in same-sex “marriages”), who have been frequent guest speakers at North Point.

Third, Andy Stanley’s Own Teaching

Third, it’s troubling to conceive the teachings from Andy Stanley himself. Stanley loves to say he and his church, North Point, are all about the gospel and sharing the love of Jesus with those far from God. But what does the gospel actually mean if homosexuality and transgenderism, and same-sex “marriage” are not considered a sin? If we can hijack what Jesus taught and throw out whatever we disagree with–the end product is a different gospel altogether.

In a way, Andy Stanley is modifying God’s love to embrace all walks of life, no matter the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

In his advocacy for LGBT rights within the church, Andy adopts a practice-oriented perspective. He often shares pastoral anecdotes where he counseled families with sons or daughters who identify as LGBTQ+. As Andy stated in his “I Love My Church” sermon at North Point, “Jesus drew big circles in his ministry.” Suggesting that not loving and affirming LGBTQ+ individuals for who they are is not expressing love in the same capacity that Jesus did.

Compassionate Error Is Still Error

No matter how eloquent or compassionate Andy Stanley tries to make it sound, what God calls sin, is still sin (Romans 1:26-27). We have no right or authority to override the commands of God written down in the Bible. John, the apostle, distinctly writes, “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands” (1 John 5:2).

As the church, sanctified, washed, and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:11), we are not to give ourselves over to sinful desires that defile our bodies and bring enmity between us and God. Instead, we are to offer our bodies as members of righteousness. That, my friends, is true love.

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book 

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 


Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org

 

Language is complex. Language provides the building blocks for communication in society.  What certain words or phrases mean within a given context helps to shape the understanding of the culture at large. Words, and their definitions, are what organize society. Words that define a culture’s foundational institutions most of all. Concise language provides clarity and direction for communities, cultures, and countries.

Language matters. It is important to define what I mean by language here. By language, I simply mean the common words used in a culture and their natural meanings. I am not pitting a *type* of language (English, Spanish, German etc.) against another. It is within these *types* of language that we find the foundational elements of society.

What is a Woman?

It is this fundamental organizing principle of language that is at the heart of the Daily Wire documentary What is a Woman.[1] In it, conservative commentator Matt Walsh seeks to hammer down a definition of the word woman.  In one of the more interesting choices of the documentary he travels to Kenya to meet with a Mosai tribe to seek out their perspective on the topic. In this scene the point of how words are defined is poignantly made. The Mosai do not struggle with what a woman is because they have clearly defined the word within their culture, however, gender theory activists struggled to define the word beyond a mere tautology (a circular definition like: “Apple is defined as an apple”). The ambiguity in our culture concerning the definition of woman is the point and confusion is the natural product. This confusion leads to the dismantling of any cultural implications for the word. In fact, it seems to be erasing the concept entirely. When the definition of a word becomes tautological it is rendered useless. (i.e., if we don’t know what a woman is, then it’s no clearer if we define a woman as “someone who is a woman”).

We must now say “pregnant people”[2] or “birthing person” to not offend those that embrace the new non-definition of woman.  As that definition erodes, the science follows.  Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

This is not a new problem for our progressive society. The redefinition of love[3] into tautology has eroded trust in truth[4], made sexual experience only about consent, and opened the doors for polyamory, bestiality, and even pedophilia. Most recently, our culture has chosen to do the same to the word marriage, and what is worse, many conservatives simply go along with it.

What is a Marriage?

In 2015 the Supreme Court unilaterally decided to change the definition of marriage[5] and recently, Congress followed suit by ratifying the ironically named Respect for Marriage Act[6] in which the legality of gay marriage is codified into federal law. Leaving aside (what should be) the obvious religious liberty complications, the redefinition of marriage, while trivial to some, is a defining moment in the history of this nation.

Marriage is one of those words that has provided the foundation for society for hundreds of years, and not just western society. Much ink has been spilled about what it means for a secular society to redefine marriage.[7] The secular arguments are important because they rest at the heart of society. Marriage, in principle, is the union between two adult human beings, for life, based on the principle of procreation. Alan Keyes, in this debate with Barak Obama in 2004 puts it succinctly:

When the moderator presses the issue with exceptions (elderly couples, infertility, etc.) Keyes does not bat an eye. The idea of procreation being principally possible in marriage is not undermined by outliers and does not open the door for impossibilities. Surrogate procreation, which many homosexual couples have turned to,[8] helps to prove Keyes’ point. The impossibility of natural procreation, in principle, within the confines of homosexual partnership turns procreation into a consumeristic experience rather than a foundational building block for society.

But this redefinition of marriage goes deeper than procreation. It goes straight to the heart of parenthood. Statistics show that children growing up in a two parent (mother and father) household “do better.”[9] The foundational elements of western society are dependent on a majority of children growing up under the direction and nurture of a father and mother. Again, there are outliers within the data, but the principle here stands firm on the scientific evidence. Marriage, as defined throughout history, is foundational for a functioning and moral society.

That is not to say that there is no possibility of same-sex unions providing stable and loving environments where children will thrive and grow into functional members of society, but it is to say that without the foundation of marriage, as historically defined, this possibility becomes far more remote.

Secular History of Marriage?

Those who study history know this full well. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels built a key tenant of their argument on the destruction of the nuclear family.[10] They understood that the keys to overturning the structures of society rested in redefining the foundational institutions of said society: “Theoretically, any sexual relationship between mutually consenting persons would be possible. What would not be possible would be the security of a life-long marriage. This sexual relationship could not be chosen.”[11]

It is for this reason that the Black Lives Matter movement embraced the destruction of the nuclear family, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”[12] There is a deeper and more sinister work at play in dismantling the family system founded by the God.

I say founded by God because it is so, and again, Marx and Engels understood this well. If they could dismantle religion[13]and disrupt the institution of the family the revolution would naturally occur.

Scripture on Marriage

Beyond the secular arguments there stands the argument based on the truths of scripture.  How the church ought to define marriage, fight for marriage, and interact with culture on the topic of marriage is of the utmost import. The Respect for Marriage Act will force churches across the nation to choose a side and prepare for direct confrontation. First amendment protections are not clearly defined (this is a feature of the bill, not a bug) and thus, the tax-exempt status of conservative churches that embrace biblical values will come under scrutiny.

I am not going to argue for the tax-exempt status of the church, but I will argue that the American church will have to choose, possibly for the first time, whether to confront the government head on and deal with the consequences therein or toe the political line. There are, of course, issues that do not call for the church to be confrontational, but the abolition of traditional marriage is not one of them.

The biblical case for marriage is powerful and simple.  Many progressive objectors point to the ubiquitous presence of polygamy within the Bible as a contradiction of the traditional marriage values orthodox Christians espouse. This dishonest trope fails (or refuses) to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive text.

God establishes the marriage covenant at the outset of Creation: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus affirms this definition in Matthew 19:5-6. Paul affirms it as a qualification for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:2, as a picture of Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:21-33 and refers back to in clarifying the relationship of husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 7.

But what About All the Polygamy in the Old Testament?

Good question. Polygamy is handled much like slavery in scripture, it is not endorsed by God, but it is regulated.  The regulation comes with intention of future eradication. Exodus 21:7-11 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 offer these regulations. However, many Jewish scholars believe Leviticus 18:18 might prohibit it directly.[14]

As David Wilbur says: “…We can understand the Torah’s polygamy legislation as representing not God’s perfect will but his response to the realities of a fallen world. In the beginning, polygamy, like divorce, “was not so.” Marriage in creation was a monogamous union.”[15]

The first case of polygamy in scripture is noted as an aberration in Genesis 4:19. Lamech was the great-great-great grandson of Cain. It took five generations from the Fall for humanity to introduce the concept of polygamy and everywhere that polygamy and sexual deviancy followed so did turmoil. From Abraham and his concubine to Lot and his daughters, to Jacob and his wives, we find that sexual sin is the direct result of rebellion (Romans 1).

Why this foray into polygamy as we seek to defend the definition of traditional marriage?  Simple. As the polygamy of the Old Testament affirms, the dismantling of the institution of marriage carries with it dire consequences. One of the themes of the Old Testament is that of humanity’s rebellion in all of God’s designs. Marriage is no exception.  We find similar issues throughout Israel’s history; the multiple marriages and sexual sins of Israel’s monarchy are directly related to dysfunction in the Royal family and in the nations of Israel and Judah themselves.

This is why Jesus calls the church his Bride. There is a reestablishment of God’s purposes in the language of marriage.  It is one of the only human institutions ordained by God prior to the fall that is carried over into the church age by Jesus Christ himself. The orthodox view of marriage ties us back to the original design of the garden.  The redefinition of marriage in our culture carries with it a similar harbinger of things to come as Lamech’s choice to marry two women in Genesis 4. In Genesis 6 we find the world in wicked disarray. That is not necessarily because of Lamech’s choice to marry two women, but the dismantling of the institution was a symptom of a wider and more insidious problem. The wickedness of the heart.

So it is with our own society. The redefinition of marriage into a mere commitment based on a tautology. Marriage has become a contract concerning two consenting individuals that love each other and want to spend their lives together (so long as it is convenient, annulment of the marriage is simple enough when things get hard). What is love? Well, love is love.  Affection and desire.  Emotive infatuation.  A lifetime commitment based on absurdity, and we wonder why divorce is rampant.

But if love is love and consent is all that matters who is to say that man-beast[16] marriage is immoral? Or man-child marriage? Or polygamy? You might scoff, as many have, and glibly assure me that this slippery slope is only in my mind, but a New York judge recently ruled in favor of polyamory.[17] If a 5-year-old can choose his/her own gender and can consent to treatment what is to keep him/her from consenting to sex with a 30-year-old? Love is love. How can a child be wise enough to understand his own gender transition needs[18] but not wise enough to consent in a romantic relationship?  The rebranding of pedophilia to Minor Attracted Persons (or MAP) indicates the movement is already gaining steam.[19]

As Christians we must allow scripture to define our terms. That includes marriage. As Christopher Watkin and Tim Keller explain:

“…language both expresses and forms a world. To use particular language is to live in a particular world. This is also a reason for Christians, wherever practicable, to use biblical language to describe the world. The Bible’s categories of creation, sin, grace, idolatry, and so on are not neutral and interchangeable with other sets of terms; they are particular figures that belong to and provide the rhythm for the Bible’s account of reality.”[20]

We ought to fight for the civil respect of God honoring definitions.[21] If we want our society to thrive, we ought to implore our civil authorities to abide by God’s definitions.  We cannot do as David French did and acquiesce to the gods of pluralist society.[22]

The defense of marriage is the defense of a god-honoring society. It is not the only thing to defend but it is a foundational thing to defend.  We must stand firm.

Endnotes

[1] https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman; https://freethinkingministries.com/movie-review-what-is-a-woman/

[2] https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/inclusive-gender-neutral-language

[3] https://www.bustle.com/p/8-lgbtq-activists-share-what-love-is-love-means-to-them-in-donald-trumps-america-7278041

[4] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[5] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/

[6] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404

[7] https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/marriage-what-it-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-redefining-it

[8] https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/types-of-surrogacy/can-lgbt-couples-pursue-surrogacy/

[9] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/children-do-better-when-raised-in-intact-two-parent-homes/

[10] https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf

[11] Ibid., pg. 669

[12] https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/09/black-Lives-Matter-Handout.pdf

[13] https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/

[14] https://davidwilber.com/articles/does-the-torah-prohibit-polygamy

[15] https://davidwilber.com/articles/understanding-the-torahs-polygamy-regulations

[16] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1328310

[17] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/10/new-york-judge-rules-favor-polyamorous-relationships/

[18] https://freethinkingministries.com/gender-identity-the-bible-and-the-christian/

[19] https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/allyn-walker-says-attraction-to-children-isnt-immoral/

[20] Christopher Watkin and Timothy Keller, “Humanity,” Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023), 100–101.

[21] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-right-christian-nationalism/

[22] https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/6377fb0dce44df0038de4c62/respect-for-marriage-same-sex-religious-freedom/


Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3Kuy6K2

 

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Back to where we started.

What if I told you that the issue with Lil Nas X was not his being gay, but with how he perceived the Church’s response to his being gay?

He has somehow come away with the understanding that he should hate himself because he has a natural proclivity to same-sex attraction.  For some reason, pointing out a lifestyle of sin has been equated to pointing out the evil of the person. I think this reason is tied to the idea of identity.  In this final section of this series, I will attempt to offer a “better way” in dealing with these issues.

It is important to note, however, that these ideas are not original with me.  Many who have come before me such as Christopher YuanRachel GilsonPreston SprinkleLeadthemhome.org and others champion these same principles, but I will attempt to outline a strategy here that is simple, straight forward, and yet extremely difficult.

In an attempt to assuage the conflation of sin and sinner Christians have come up with a pithy phrase that you may have heard (or even said): “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”

As I mentioned in part one of this series, sexuality is a different animal altogether.  This is not some universally accepted vice that must be confronted like drug addiction or alcoholism.  The world has done a bang-up job in making this issue one of identity, and the church, for some reason, has agreed to the terms.  Therefore, when a Christian says, “Hate the sin but love the sinner” the non-Christian balks in disgust.  Why?  Because the non-Christian has no identity except that which is being called a sin.  Thus, the non-Christian believes that the Christian is subtly saying, “hate their identity but love what they could be if we could change them,” but they are currently happy with their identity.

Of course, this is not the intention of the phrase, but its use has had an unintended consequence in the LGBTQ+ community for decades.  A full generation of human beings that identify as their sexual proclivity have come away with the belief that Christians hate them for simply being “who they are.”

Their solution then, is to either hate themselves and try to be something they are not, or to leave the bigoted views of those who claim to love them behind and pursue a life of what seems to offer fulfillment and happiness.

To the liberal church’s credit, they recognized this reaction as unacceptable.  After all, God wants all people to come to a saving faith in him, does he not (1 Timothy 2:3-4)?

While their diagnoses of the problem may have been accurate, in parts two and three I touched on why their response to the problem (affirming people in their sin) was not and is even doing more harm than good.

So, what then?

How does the church affirm the holiness of God and his moral framework for creation and minister to those that closely identify with the sin that drives their sexuality?

I recently listened to a podcast by conservative pundit Andrew Klavan, who is a Christian.  Klavan has a gay son that proclaims a faith in Jesus Christ, thus, Klavan struggles with the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

I will not get into critiquing Klavan’s beliefs on this matter; however, I believe his response to a listener’s question regarding her own gay son deserves some consideration.  In the midst of answering this mother’s question Andrew says something to the effect of:

“Homosexuality is the one sin that we don’t allow in our church.  We don’t tell the fat man to stop being gluttonous, but we tell the gay man to stop being gay.  My advice is to love your child with the love of Christ and pray that he will pray to God concerning his sexuality as we all should be bringing our sexuality before God” (paraphrased).

I believe Andrew is onto something here.  We treat Homosexuality differently than any other sin.

Now, some might rebut Andrew’s statement by indicating (rightly so) that sexual sin is more severe and has an internal consequence that other sins do not (1 Cor. 6:18).  So, gluttony may not be the best example, but the response to other sexual sins then should be considered.

How many young people in your church have had sex before marriage?

How many men (and women) are viewing pornography regularly?

How many marriages have crumbled due to infidelity or abuse?

How many teens struggle with opposite-sex attraction in a way that is sinful?

What would happen if we treated each of these people the same way we treat those struggling with (or embracing) homosexuality?

What if we did not think the answer to homosexuality was to make a person straight but to help a person become dedicated to Christ?

In the same response Klavan mentions a concept that is conspicuously foreign in some of our conversations regarding homosexuality.  He says something to the effect of allowing God to confront the sin in people’s lives since we are all mired by some sin or another.

In the same vein, noted theologian and Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Zambia, Voddie Baucham is credited for saying this concerning the gospel:

“The gospel message is more about sin than about sins. The point is that I don’t need to approach a person on the basis of a specific sin that they need to quit but on the basis of a Nature that needs to change” (emphasis mine).

How often do we ask a person struggling with lying to stop lying before coming to Christ?  How often do we ask someone that is addicted to drugs or pornography to quit their addiction before coming to Christ?

The way we handle homosexuality in the church, however, almost forces a gay man or woman to renounce their homosexual behavior before they can come to Christ.

What if we spent less time convincing people of individual sins and more time pointing to our own sin nature as the reason we need a savior?

This does not mean we ought to ratify sinful behaviors as good.  If we did that then we are limiting the ability of the Spirit to convict individuals of individual sins.  Tell an addict that their addiction is not only unproblematic but part of their identity and that they should embrace it and why would the addict ever seek a way out of their addiction?

The church has a nasty history of handling sexual issues poorly and we need to come to terms with that.

I believe that the message the world needs to hear is not that they are evil but that they are broken, and they cannot hear that message unless we first tell them how broken we are apart from Christ.  In other words, it is not so much the desire to convince the post-Christian culture that they are morally bankrupt, but that they are without hope just as we were without hope.

Instead of shouting into the burning building that the people inside are going to die because they are inside, we offer a way out of the building.  “If you don’t want to die, come this way!”

This is what Voddie Baucham is saying concerning how we ought to preach the gospel.  The gospel is not the good news of behavioral modification.  The gospel is the good news that the Almighty God of the universe has provided a way to life!

In my conversation with the former student concerning these things she expressed a concern about the “hate on the internet” from supposed Christians concerning the LGBTQ+ community. This concern stems from two things, a misunderstanding of what hate really is on her part, sure, but also an inability to engage with society in a way that draws them to Christ on the Christian’s part.

Take, for example, Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17.

Paul could have walked through Athens and chosen to address their polytheism and idolatry.  However, he knew that this would not be a winsome way to express the good news of Jesus.  Instead, he lauded their spirituality and passion and found a hook on which to hang the gospel.

Outside of the church we must start looking at conversations with the post-Christian American culture more like a Mars Hill conversation than a letter to the Corinthians conversation.

What is the difference?

In one, Paul was addressing unbelievers (Mars Hill) and in another he was addressing supposed believers that knew better (1 Corinthians).

The church has spent so much time convinced that homosexuality is a threat that we have lost the opportunity (in many ways) to minister in grace and truth. There is no real threat to the Church!  The gates of Hell themselves pose no danger! (Matthew 16:17-19)

The liberal church has ministered to them in grace and has augmented the truth and thus, the job of the orthodox church is made that much more difficult.  There are now competing gospels for the gay person. This is a failure of the Church not of God and not of those that are being confused.

One gospel that affirms their identity both sexually and as a child of God and one that affirms their ability to be adopted as children of God but insists a thorough reckoning of the self in regard to behaviors and appetites.

But in the reaction to pursue truth with passion we have left grace at the window in many situations.

We do not need to convince the homosexual that they are participating in a particular sin to win them to Christ, but we must convince them that they are a sinner (regardless of whether or not they are gay) that is in need of a savior.  In other words, the conversation is the same with a young man living with his girlfriend as it is with a young man living with is boyfriend, and yet, we tend to handle the two situations very differently.

They need not renounce all of their sins prior to knowing Jesus, just that of their sin nature.  They renounce slavery to sin and embrace slavery to righteousness as they place their faith in Christ.  And then the Holy Spirit gets to work and, as we all know, they will likely continue the struggle!

If they come away with the idea that they ought to hate themselves, it is likely that we have handled the conversation poorly.

So what does this “better way” mean?  Do we remain silent on the topic of homosexuality culturally? No, but we must cover the truth in love.  Homosexuality is not the primary issue, just as sexual promiscuity or pornography use is not the primary issue.  The primary issue is a heart that needs desperately to be transformed, fulfilled, and made new.  Give us a heart of flesh instead of stone Lord! (Ez. 36:26) Too often, the church operates with a heart of stone towards those that are in the LGBT community.

I think the following are some (not all) ways that the church can start to make headway in the conversation on sexuality in our culture.  These are not easy, but I believe they are simple and in line with scripture and the gospel.

  1. Refuse to use the language of “identity” concerning sexuality. Simply do not do it. If a couple comes to your church and says, “we are a gay couple” treat them in the same way as you would an unmarried heterosexual couple that is cohabitating.
  2. Abandon the idea that God will choose to make someone “straight” if they come to Christ. This puts an undue burden on a specific group of people. God may not take away my lustful desires, but I can pray that he curbs them to his will.  The same can be said for people with a bent towards homosexuality.  God may not (and probably will not) make them “straight” and that is okay.  To be celebrated and supported even!  These brothers and sisters will need our support more than most as they will feel stuck between two opposite worlds.
  3. Reassure the gay person of the gospel, offer accountability (if they desire), and do not treat them as if they have something wrongwith them just as you would not treat a person struggling with any other sin that way.
  4. Encourage faithful study of the word, not only on the issue of homosexuality, but on the whole counsel of God. If they want resources on the topic, offer to go through a book by Christopher Yuan or Preston Sprinkle with them (read it first for yourself!).
  5. Pray, love, and befriend! Understand that you should not compromise on the truth, but that does not mean love and friendship should go out the window.
  6. Encourage church leadership to think through this issue with a gospel mindset, not a moralistic mindset. Offer resources, like I mentioned above, and specifically consider leadthemhome.org.
  7. Be cognizant of how you act online concerning these things and resolve to progress

Lastly, understand that this is an uphill battle.  We will be bucking trends on both sides of the aisle.  We could lose friends, we could accidently offend, and we could be called all sorts of names from those that believe homosexuality is a sin and from those that believe it is not.  Stand firm on the truth, regardless of consequences, but do not abandon grace and love in the process (Matt. 5:10).

I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I do not believe it is a sin beyond the grasp of an Almighty God. The Church needs to stop treating it as though it is the one sin that must be fixed before someone darkens our doors. May God grant us all grace and favor as we endeavor to glorify his name and bring others to the foot of the cross!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3C3mXsd

 

By Josh Klein

As we enter into the final section of critiquing the objections to the orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending such a significant amount of time on these particular points.  The rallying cry for the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy and love, but as I established in part one (HERE), I believe that true grace, mercy and love must be based on the Truth established in God’s word. In order to have proper compassion we can not entertain falsehood.

We intrinsically know this to be true.  If your child believes with all his heart that he can fly and climbs to the top of your house to prove it do you let him jump because it is unloving or unmerciful to tell him he’s wrong?  Or do you do whatever it takes to keep him from jumping even if it makes him cry, get angry, or hate you?  A good parent does not even need to consider the problem.  The correct response to the situation is natural.

In the same way, we must address sinful habits in our own lives and untruths in the world.  We cannot be compassionate to the child by allowing him to plummet to his death and we cannot be compassionate to fellow believers as we watch them plunge their lives into unrepentant sin.  That would be unloving.  So we must first establish what is true and then we can place true empathy and compassion on top of that foundation.

The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time in ministry.  I believe we should answer each with grace and truth and any subsequent argument ought to be handled the same way.  I have attempted to do so here.  I pray to God that he has empowered me to succeed in that endeavor. I answered one of the more technical objections in last week’s article that you can access by clicking here.

Homosexuality is just as much a sin as eating Shellfish in the Bible

This argument ignores New Testament scriptures on the topic completely, it is also incredibly flawed theologically and is primarily used only as an argument with which to denigrate those of the faith as inconsistent or hypocritical.

This, of course, is an argument that Christians still eat shrimp and mussels but will not agree that the homosexual act is good/right even though both come from the same book of the Bible.  In Leviticus 11 we find that God forbids the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, just seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God forbids men to lie with men and women to lie with women going to far as to call the act an abomination.

The difference in language of these two things is paramount to understand.  While the Hebrews are to detest shellfish, they are not ordered to detest those who consume shellfish, just the shellfish itself.  Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination” but God does call sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find that God removes food restrictions from the believer (as well as eternal restrictions of faith!) to Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same thing for homosexuality.

Perhaps some might try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, however, the early church certainly did not.  It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this vision as a twofold allowance of food consumption and God bringing salvation to the gentiles without forcing the gentiles to convert first to Judaism.

Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for his chosen nation to set themselves apart from those around them. Simply put, part of the prohibitions in the Old Testament were simply made to distinguish God’s chosen people from the gentile nations around them.  It is fair (and safe) to assume that God’s prohibition on clearly cultural differences (consuming shellfish, wearing certain fabrics, circumcision etc.) would dissolve over time as he ushered in the church age and Jesus became the fulfillment of what those laws were intended to convey, whereas his prohibition on moral issues (murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) would not change, because they are based on His character and His design for life, not simply on setting a nation apart for himself.  There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to the law of God.

Thus Leviticus 18 carries a much more relevant prohibition than Leviticus 11 because one has to do with God’s character and the other with establishing the theocracy of Israel specifically. Much has been written on this topic and I cover it only sparingly here but for a more comprehensive look at the subject the book The End of the Law by Jason Meyer is a good resource.[1]

Homosexual was not even a word in the Bible until 1946

We covered a bit of this argument in part 2, but will look at the lay argument here. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19th century, first appearing in the English dictionary in 1892.  The term was coined by German psychologists in the 1860s in reference to the act of same-sex sexual relationships. Bible translations tend to run behind common vernacular by a significant time gap, thus, the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-40s should not be a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scriptural translations.

Prior to the 40s the word that is translated as homosexual likely would have been translated as Sodomite or Sexually-Immoral.  In fact, as we found last week, I believe those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases since they cover a broader range of sexual immorality rather than simply pointing to a homosexual relationship.  However, to say that the word homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946 and that therefore it is a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous on its face.  The intent of the passages was clear prior to the 40s and helped to form the decision to insert the word in the translation history after the 40s.  The interpretive history of these passages lent credence to the use of the word initially and, while it is not the best translation currently, I do not believe it to be a poor translation either, though, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like there to be clarity in translation towards behavior and not simply attraction.  My problem with the translation in general is that it is making an interpretive decision for the reader rather than simply translating the word, and this means that the narrowing of meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation and more.

God Did Not Make a Mistake when He created Me

In fact, God did not make a mistake when he created anyone.  However, to continue on the theme of Romans 1 from last week, we find that being born with a proclivity to a certain action does not necessarily make that action or desire good and right.

Being born as someone with a disposition to addiction would not make becoming addicted to pain killers good or right.  In the same way, being born as someone who is highly sexually driven that desires multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.

In my opinion, homosexuality is the same sort of sin, but we have turned the discussion on its head. Making homosexuality a matter of identity rather than behavior did no one any good and we are currently reaping the “rewards” for such a miscalculation.

Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, both for men and women.  In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 seeks to help the Roman church understand the depravity of man and why we need a savior.  Romans 1 is not meant to indicate personal behavior, but it is meant to be read in the context of all human history.

If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and bicker about who was born what way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice.  The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man.  Sin shattered God’s created order and introduced all sorts of behaviors that could be and have been deemed natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense here – meaning rebellion against God).

No, God did not make a mistake in creating you.  Scripture is clear that you are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), but scripture is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural bent towards sin that needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires.  Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the magnifying glass.  The transition from death to life is immediate and permanent but it is also a process of understanding where we are broken and where we need to be mended by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul indicates at the end of chapter 7 the only answer is through Jesus Christ, otherwise we are still under the headship of Adam and thus, in sin, and in death. Which is why having a dual identity is so problematic.  This means God can remake only part of who we are, because we have eliminated him from impacting our other identity.  It is sequestered off in a dark closet that his renovation crew is not allowed to touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of utmost importance in this discussion, but according to a survey recently conducted on supposed “born again” Christians, thus fundamental doctrine is also under attack.  Ultimately compassion without adherence to truth ends up there.  It is not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

So no, God did not make a mistake in allowing any person to be born, but that also does not mean that we are all born perfect either.  Two things can be true at once. God can have fearfully and wonderfully made a person and also that person could be irreparably damaged beyond repair with natural bents towards evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his/her behalf.  All people are worthy of dignity and love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also broken image bearers because of sin and must be repaired by their Creator.

I know this, because I am this.  No, I am not a homosexual, but I am wickedly depraved.  I need a savior, I have one in Jesus.  This same savior is available to all who would believe, and he will make them a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) with the ability to find victory over whatever sinful proclivities they may have been born under, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.

A Homosexual in a Committed Consensual Relationship is Fulfilling a Marriage Covenant

This is the last one we will have room for in this section, and it is the easiest and most difficult to answer.  The easiest, because I believe that understanding the actual meaning of Romans 1 and the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will ultimately lead one to the understanding that marriage can only be, and has only ever been, ordained between a man and woman and the marriage bed (Heb 13:4) must not include two of the same sex.

That said, it is the most difficult to answer because my heart genuinely aches for those that have those homosexual proclivities that desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all that is good about those relationships.  But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because scripture seems to be clear on the issue, and I do not know of a married couple that can (or should) abstain from sexual intercourse in order to maintain a pure relationship.  If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically accurate, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious.[2] And as we will see next week, there are many professing gay Christians that agree with this.[3]  Some resources are footnoted below.[4]

So what then?

I am sure I have not covered every single TikTok take in the previous sections. I am sure there are many more, but let us move on.  What then, is the responsibility of the church?  In Part 4 I want to look at a better way of handling these things than what the church has done for the past few generations.  I believe the church has, and continues to have, fallen short in ministry to those that struggle in this arena and while I do not have all the answers, I do believe we can start down the path of a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 does get right is this: I believe the church’s handling of homosexuality has been myopic and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and it is changing), but it must change without compromise with the Truth.

References:

[1] https://www.christianbook.com/the-law-mosaic-covenant-pauline-theology/jason-meyer/9780805448429/pd/448429?event=AFF&p=1011693&

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Washed-Waiting-Reflections-Faithfulness-Homosexuality/dp/0310330033

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Born-Again-This-Way-Coming-ebook/dp/B0822YXJTC/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=born+again+this+way&qid=1630075251&s=books&sr=1-1

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sexuality-Gospel-Desire-Relationships/dp/0735290911/ref=sxts_entity_rec_bsx_s_def_r00_t_aufl?cv_ct_cx=Christopher+Yuan&dchild=1&keywords=Christopher+Yuan&pd_rd_i=0735290911&pd_rd_r=16cfa890-064c-4ddb-ab8a-de32677f69d2&pd_rd_w=ye02G&pd_rd_wg=GblHm&pf_rd_p=923d3ad5-e62b-462e-9474-e4d7cf9b91ea&pf_rd_r=TXGCY9NT2B4VYJBZP87J&qid=1630075278&s=books&sr=1-1-795edd5f-cc24-47c7-9173-701523fd4bcf

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with 12 years of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3m6iFLK

 

By Josh Klein   

Previously, we looked at the dichotomy between what it means to declare homosexual activity a sin and how those who believe in Christian orthodoxy deal with it.  We addressed the current cultural movement’s roots and introduced the idea of identity into the argument.

It was necessary to do this so that we can have a strong foundation from which to build the following arguments.  We must first know why the liberal theologians seek to glorify homosexuality as an identity to understand why the interpretation of scripture has shifted from condemning obvious sinful behavior to condoning that very same behavior.

If you have not read part one you can do so by clicking here.

The goal of the believer should not be to convince the unbeliever of individual sins, such as homosexuality, but to seek to persuade, with the power of the Holy Spirit, that individual that they themselves are a sinner and in need of God’s saving grace.

But once this person becomes a believer, how does the conversation about homosexuality continue?  If they are encouraged to keep this identity in addition to their new identity in Christ we find we have created schizophrenic believers seeking to serve the master of being defined as a homosexual as well as a child of God.  This can be and is a miserable existence.

In parts two and three of this series, we will be looking at what liberal theology has sought to do to ease the pain of this transition, and in part four, I will look at offering a better way of dealing with this particular issue to those in line with Christian orthodoxy.

The liberal church has sought to assuage this tension by redefining, reinterpreting, and reengaging with scripture on the topic.

New theology is rarely good theology, and, in my opinion, such is the case in this instance.

The following are but a sampling of the arguments that are making the rounds on TikTok, Instagram, and in the liberal church concerning the LGBTQ+ movement (for the sake of length we will focus only on homosexual activity here).  These interpretations are based on a worldview of new tolerance, love, and empathy and are not only damaging to the culture but, and more importantly, are damaging to the Church and to the individuals being snowed under by such sleight of hand theological teaching.

I believe this is the kind of teaching Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 18:6 when he said, “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

As we go through these arguments it is important to remember that, for the purposes of this article, we are having a discussion with supposed members of the same faith.  A different standard is to be used with those outside of the faith (1 Corinthians 5:12).

The exceptions to the historical view of homosexuality in the church come under the moniker of love and acceptance and the scholarship starts with this baseline.

I will be the first to admit that many more educated than myself will come to the studious understanding of homosexuality in scripture that disagrees with my own.  That said, I believe that their starting place is to find an exception where there is none.  And as the saying goes: If you look hard enough for something you will probably find it. They seem to start with the presupposition that if God is love then certainly, he would not allow those he loves to have such a miserable existence as to live with an identity that is hostile to their creator.

They could be partly right. Our identity as sinners is most assuredly offensive and deeply saddening to God.  He did do something about this though, he offered us a new identity in Christ rather than in Adam through Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf.

Perhaps now we understand why it is so paramount to understand our identity apart from sexuality to truly embrace the gospel.  Jesus does not promise to fix us completely during this life and even guarantees that we will have trouble (1 Cor. 13:10-12John 16:33).  Simply put, this means that whatever identity we have apart from Christ must be sacrificed to be identified with and in Christ.

Liberal theology seeks to solve this problem by moving particular acts of sin to the realm of sacred and thus, to ratify the former identity as God-ordained.

The new theology of acceptance of sin does the trick of turning a thing defined as sin into something else entirely.  As we will see, it narrows the scope of sexual sin so that an interpretation of scripture that includes the sexually sinful act of homosexuality or promiscuity is considered too broad.

There are also many simply naïve arguments against the idea of homosexuality as a sin that are easily debunked and explained away with some simple study of the scriptures.  We will tackle the most technical objection first, and in next week’s treatment, we will move on to the rest as we close out this four-part series.

Note: When I am referring to homosexuality, I am speaking of the ACT, not the disposition or attraction.  I believe that attraction is not a sin in and of itself, but lustful thoughts and sexual activities associated with homosexuality and with heterosexuality (outside of marriage) are biblically defined as sinful activities.

The Greek word translated Homosexual should be translated Pedophile therefore the Bible does not speak against same-sex relationships in the original languages.

Let’s get technical.

This statement makes an argument on translative decisions without regard to the doctrine of sin historically.

There are a few words translated as homosexual in the NASB that could be translated to mean different things.  A new book that was set to be released in the summer of 2021 called Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] makes the argument that a mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (along, presumably with the other passages in scripture that translate to homosexual) is what spurred an entire generation to puritanical homophobia.  There is even a documentary set to be released about the topic in late 2021.

These are likely the arguments that my friend has seen on TikTok.  The question then, should be asked, is homosexuality a sin and why would the word be translated differently in 1946 than it was before?

First, we will tackle the main scripture at hand in this new book.  1 Corinthians 6:9 says this:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”

Incidentally, this same word ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) is used in 1 Timothy 1:10 as well and seems to be a word coined by Paul himself to indicate a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender.

It is a compound Greek word that combines ἄρρην (arrēn), which means “male” or “man” and κοίτη (koy’-tay) which means bed and is often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.  So, the word literally means two “men” that are “in bed.”

Commonly, prior to 1946, this term had been translated as Sodomite.  Those that wish to glorify homosexual intercourse as an acceptable activity for Christian believers to partake in read deeper into the word and believe that Paul is speaking of the significant and disgusting use of boy-love in the ancient Greek world.  It is no secret that many of the Greeks practiced pedophilia (child-love) with young boys as grooming processes for older men.

But this argument fails in multiple respects.  First, the argument indicates that the language around the word is transactional, and thus, the sexual act is clearly transactional as well (pointing to the temple prostitution of young men) but that is not the case.  The tenses are clearly behavioral, it is towards people engaging in voluntary acts of sex and/or worship. The second problem is that the assumption made that arrēn means boy is simply incorrect. παῖς (pais) is the word for boy, and the word from which we get pedophilia (literally: boy-love). Yes, in Revelation many translations insert the word “child” to clarify the meaning, but this is not inherit in the word.  For instance, Revelation 12:13 could (and possibly should) just as well be translated “he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male” without the word child inserted at the end.

The word that Paul coined in these two passages is correctly understood and has been understood throughout history, as a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex regardless of age.

Therefore, I am in favor of the translation reflecting the wide breadth of the word, rather than the narrow scope.  Is this passage condemning homosexual sex?  Yes.  Is it also condemning pedophilia? Yes.

Since Paul is coining the term, it seems he is seeking to create an umbrella for a sexual act that is deemed sinful by God. Many proponents of the pederasty theory indicate that Paul could have used a different term, the problem with this suggestion is twofold.  Both common Greek words for man are too generic to indicate what Paul was trying to get across. Anthropos and Anēr can both be used as generic terms for all people.  Arrēn, however, cannot be.

The other problem with this theory lies within the context of the Old Testament.  There is a “lost in translation” problem for many as they study the Old Testament and the New.  They think Paul would have been reading the Hebrew Old Testament.  And, he would have, but in his writings, Paul quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). This provides another hurdle for the pederasty theory.  In the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22, we find that the term used for male is arrēn and the term used for “lie with” is koitē. It is reasonable to deduce then, that Paul is putting these two words together as a direct result of their being used in the LXX (Greek OT) translation of Leviticus 18.  Which would indicate that Paul would believe his readers would be directed back to that passage.  And this makes sense seeing as Paul does not explain the newly coined word but believed that his readers would simply understand what he was referencing.

The problem remains though, how to best translate this word in English.

I believe a better translation to use in the situation is Sodomite or go completely concrete with “men have sex with males.”  The etymology of which stems from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.  You likely know the story, but here is a summary: God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their pride and arrogance and debased and evil culture.  He sends angels to investigate and Lot (Abraham’s nephew) saves them from being ravaged by the locals sexually, he even offered his own daughters to the men of the city (which, by the way, was NOT okay with God either, but I digress) in Genesis 19.

It is at this point that many take sodomy to mean anal rape, but it is not that simple.  While the original sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, the consequence of their original sin bore itself out in homosexuality and sexual depravity in general.  Sodomy, then, has commonly been seen throughout history as the sexual act done between two people of the same gender.

Sodomy is a much broader and harsher term than Homosexual, and I believe it gets better at the heart of what Paul is speaking to in his letters.

However, one of the things the author of the aforementioned book does is to redefine the word sodomy to mean “sex that is not used for procreative purposes.”  However, that has not been the general understanding of sodomy for generations.  In fact, currently, Britannica defines Sodomy in four ways – homosexuality, anal intercourse, bestiality, and pedophilia[2].

So, if the better translation of the word in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would be Sodomite, would that indicate that homosexual behavior is deemed good in God’s eyes?  An objective observer would be forced to admit, in my opinion, that it would not, but that it would simply be one of a multitude of sexual behaviors that are deemed sinful according to the nature of God’s word.

The other issue that I have with this argument is that it completely leaves out Leviticus and Romans in consideration.  In fact, Romans 1:26-27 is possibly one of the clearest condemnations of homosexual sex in the New Testament.

This gets to the heart of Genesis 19 as well.  Many believe that the issue with Genesis 19 was not the homosexual sex, but the implied rape that would take place.  However, we find in Romans 1 that this is not entirely the case.

When a culture rejects God and refuses to worship him and him alone, he responds by giving them what they want – their depravity.  Romans 1:26-27 indicates that the culmination of the original sin of rejecting God and worshipping the created rather than the creator (I was born this way so it is holy and good could be seen as worshipping the created rather than the creator) comes with both men and women exchanging the created order of sexual relationship with the internal passion and desire for each other.  The word used for men in this passage is the same word Paul used to combine with a bed that is translated homosexual in current translations.

In one of his many great literary works C.S. Lewis says this, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”[3] I am not using this quote to posit that those that are homosexuals are going to Hell, but to bolster the viewpoint that Romans 1 clearly indicates that self-gratification is the line that leads to rebellion and destruction and homosexual behavior is part of this giving over of God.

This leads us next, to the more popular objections.  We will tackle those next week.  The reason we are spending two weeks on objections is this: It is important to establish what the truth really is in order to move forward with true compassion, grace, and mercy.  The same can be said for understanding any other sinful behavior in our lives.  While I will treat these objections academically, I want to take a moment at the end of this week’s article to acknowledge that academic arguments are one thing, and they are important, but dealing with people is something entirely different and of utmost importance.  That is why I seek to provide a better way at the end of this four-part series.  My goal is to treat the topic with tenderness, respect, and love, but to base all of this on the firm foundation of truth. Stay tuned next week for the final response to what seem to be the most popular objections to calling Homosexual activity a sin.

References

[1] http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-how-the-bible-became-anti-gay/

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16309-there-are-only-two-kinds-of-people-in-the-end

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with 12 years of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/uEKOQv2

 

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Do you know the name?  I do not know why you would, but Lil Nas X has become a bit of a cultural icon in recent years.  He wrote a hit country/hip-hop song in 2019 called “Old Town Road” with country star Billy Ray Cyrus.  The success of the hit propelled Lil Nas X into the modern spotlight.  The song, and its remix, won him fourteen awards spanning from the Grammys to Kids’ Choice Awards[1].

As a result, Lil Nas X toured the country singing for elementary-age kids and was even quoted as saying young kids were his “core audience”[2] in early 2021.

Why am I writing about Lil Nas X on a Christian website?

Well, this man that vies for the eyes and ears of children recently released a new music video that is anything but “kid-friendly.”  In his song Montero, Lil Nas X is seen flirting with the Devil, having the Devil lick his navel, pole dancing to Hell, and then giving Satan a lap dance in the underworld.  At the end of the clip, Lil Nas X breaks Satan’s neck and removes his crown, declaring himself the king of Hell (which we know is inaccurate, theologically speaking… Satan does not rule Hell – see Rescuing Hell).

To capitalize off the viral video’s success, Lil Nas X also teamed up with a branding company called MSCHF (a play on the word mischief) to release a pair of Nike-branded shoes (Nike has since sued MSCHF for copyright infringement) dedicated to Satan[3].

Lil Nas X also happens to be a gay man. Which would not even be on the top list of problems with the aforementioned publicity stunt, but since Lil Nas X used his upbringing as a catalyst for the release of the new song and video, it is pertinent to the conversation[4].

This article, though, is not about Lil Nas X, or Satan shoes, or the increasing leftist dogma being thrust upon our children.

I wanted to look at the core issue around Lil Nas X’s song, and a core issue going on in Evangelical circles for the past decade-plus.

Homosexuality.

A few weeks ago, I got a text from a young person concerning this very subject:

“I want to do research into God’s view on homosexuality because I’ve been seeing a lot of different takes on TikTok and Instagram and such but it could be heresy or misinterpretation or something else and I want to find out for myself.”

In Sean and Josh McDowell’s book The Beauty of Intolerance[5], the two seek to tackle the issue of Truth and Love and use the example of a family’s argument about sexuality as the impetus for such a discussion.  If you have not read the book, it is a good read and gets to the point of the current culture of a new tolerance that seeks compliance, rather than acceptance, to a narrative of subjective moral values.

But the argument on homosexuality within the Church goes back decades, so what is new?  The newness of the issues stems from a poor approach to the issue of homosexuality in the 1970s-1990s from the conservative evangelical Church.  Homosexuality was rarely talked about and was often seen as a political issue more than a sin issue.  I highlight some of this in a previous article on Free Thinking Ministry’s website[6] (Cuties article) so I won’t go into all of the history here.

However, I think it is important to note that the argument that Christians got lost on during that time was whether or not Homosexuality was a choice or genetic.

The argument goes that if it was a choice, we could reform the homosexual; but if it was genetic, then we could not.  This argument also implies that natural proclivity could equate to God-ordained behavior.

I remember growing up in the ‘90s hearing many evangelicals talk like it was absolutely imperative that no “gay gene” would ever be found.  Almost as if that scientific discovery would shatter thousands of years of orthodoxy on the topic.

But the biblical case against homosexual behavior is not genetic.

It is spiritual and biblical.

Genetics are just as affected by the fall as our spiritual state, and we know this.  When we say things like “in the end, there will be no more sickness or death,” we are not just referring to scripture (Rev. 21:4) but we are affirming that there is a physical component to the fallen nature of man.  In other words: Our DNA, physical dispositions, and natural proclivities are fallen just as our soul is fallen.

I want to be clear, I am not calling homosexuality a sickness, at least not a mental illness anyway. But it, like many other “dispositional sins” is a sickness of the soul.

Homosexuality is a product of the fall[7] just as much as lying, cheating, or heterosexual promiscuity.  Whether or not it is natural is of no relevance to the theological topic.  There are many natural behaviors that we are called to curb as Christians.  Covetousness, lust, greed, and pride are just a few of many natural proclivities that human beings are born with that must be dealt with overtime in the sanctification process of the Christian.

Homosexuality falls in line with many of those natural proclivity sins.  The church argued against genetics when it never needed to, and as it argued against genetics it allowed a narrative of identity to undercut the nature of the issue.

And now we have a bigger problem.

No longer are we speaking to the activity, we are speaking to a person, and in their minds, we are asking them not to be themselves.  We are telling them to release, not only a proclivity of human nature but their entire identity of belonging.

In a sense, we are telling them to call themselves evil.

But no Christian worth his/her theological salt would state that being gay condemns a person to Hell.  No, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners, and thus, we stand condemned already (John 3:17). In a sense, it is not sin that makes us evil but our evil hearts that make us sin.  God rescues us from our already moribund disposition.  We are all basically bad and we all need a new identity to overcome this badness.

However, one can see why someone that identifies with being a homosexual would find it hard to follow a God that calls what they think is their defining nature a sin. If a person is basically good, then their core identity is also basically good.

But orthodox Christian doctrine teaches, and rightfully and logically so, that we are all basically bad and in need of saving.  Our identity then is sin and we need an exchange of identity to be good! All of us.

Orthodox theology, to the LGBTQ+ people, screams that God made a mistake when He made them.  And like Lil Nas X, they either hate themselves or rebel against the faith altogether:

TW Screenshot

The result of preaching behavioral modification instead of identity transformation is self-loathing and angst, not a conviction.

The natural result of this, then, is to capitulate to the offended; and the liberal theological movement sought to do just that.  They sought to provide a theological landing spot for hurting homosexuals in the body of Christ.

God is love, and as a result, He would not want anyone hating themselves because of their identity.  So, we must augment our hamartiology (the study of sin) to allow for behavior that was understood to be sinful over the history of the church because God does not make mistakes.

It is true that God does not make mistakes, but it is not true that His creation right now is perfected.  Thus, we are inherently flawed and sinful.  If we were not, why would we need a savior at all?

The mistake the liberal theologians make is to assume that there is any room for an identity other than “child of God”[8].

I am a man that is attracted to the opposite sex, but my identity is not wrapped up in that attraction.

My identity is either a sinner or saint.  Blessed by God to be invited into His family, I can declare that I am a child of God that happens to be attracted to women.  However, as a result, that natural proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

One woman for a lifetime.

I have embraced this limitation joyfully, because it is no limitation at all, but is a realization of the freedom found in the Godhead through Christ. And I believe, firmly, that those who are homosexuals can experience this same counter-intuitive freedom.  More on that in the next few weeks.

The response to homosexuality in that regard should be simple enough.  You can be a man or woman that happens to be attracted to the same sex (regardless of if it is a choice or is a genetic disposition) but if you are a child of God (believer in Jesus as your Savior) then that proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

Which, unfortunately for the person with natural homosexual proclivities, would be self-denial of acting on that attraction.

My heart aches for this person in a very real way and my empathy extends to them in more ways than they know.  But the truth is the truth, and sin is sin. There is no such thing as having compassion on a lie, for entertaining a lie and letting it live is neither compassionate nor merciful.  True compassion is lovingly, but firmly, confronting sin and falsehood in the name of Christ and offering freedom in His name.

Just as any heterosexual man that has struggled with pornography will attest, this self-denial of sexual pleasure is beyond difficult and nothing to be glossed over. But we do not deny sexual pleasure to punish ourselves, we do so to glorify God.  Boundaries are not set to avoid Hell, they are set to glorify heaven.  When we make the mistake of setting boundaries around sin to avoid sin instead of to glorify God we set ourselves, and others, up for fantastic failure.

And it is when we do this that we are tempted to empathize with the seemingly unwinnable battle.  I have empathy for all who fight to avoid sin.  I know how hard that is, but misplaced empathy can lead to a dangerous theological road and that is what we will tackle next week.  How do we show empathy but hold fast to the truth?  For that is true mercy and compassion.  And that is the mission of the Christian.

Footnotes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Lil_Nas_X

[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/06/lil-nas-x-says-children-are-his-core-audience-right-now-and-thats-ok

[3] https://satan.shoes/

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/lil-nas-x-s-satan-shoes-trolled-some-christians-montero-ncna1262495

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Intolerance-Setting-Generation-Truth-ebook/dp/B015F06DMS

[6] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[7] https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/1/26-27

[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=NASB1995

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with 12 years of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/nEESkRX