Posted on 01/25/2013 11:12:27 PM PST by Morgana
Because of the bias of the liberal press, Steve Chalke’s recent endorsement of permanent gay partnerships and the extreme unorthodox views of the ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ group, to which he belongs, have had an unhelpfully disproportionate amount of media coverage.
Many Christians are understandably confused.
I received this letter this week which I think is not an atypical experience.
I am publishing it anonymously with permission and have removed the name of the church.
‘My husband and I worship at a leading conservative evangelical Anglican church and we value the teaching we receive there. Our adult children come from different angles, one from a traditional evangelical church in London, the other from a more liberal Christian background. The recent Steve Chalke article will highlight the differences in our views. I have tried to find support for the evangelical views to enable us to discuss this from an informed evangelical point of view. Your blog has been useful but I wonder if you have any further areas you could direct us to? I would appreciate any help you can offer.’
So, here are some articles and resources that I hope are helpful (each title is hyperlinked)
1.A battle I face
Vaughan Roberts is Rector of St Ebbes Church in Oxford and a popular Christian author and conference speaker with an international ministry. He has also struggled personally with feelings of same-sex attraction. This testimony was published in Evangelicals Now last year and is clear, biblical, passionate and pastoral.
2.How can the Gospel be good news to gays?
Sam Alberry is associate pastor at St Mary’s Church in Maidenhead. This brief article is clear and compassionate taking a firm biblical stance on the issue but arguing that people with homosexual orientation need more grace and not less.
3.The Bible and Homosexuality
Greg Downes is theologian in residence at Christianity Magazine. This article which unpacks a traditional evangelical understanding of homosexuality appeared initially as part of a head to head with Steve Chalke but it has had very little publicity. It is an excellent overview of the main Scriptures and links to a longer article going into more detail.
4.Biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality
This new book, published last summer by the Evangelical Alliance gives ten affirmations clearly setting out EA’s position on the subject. In explaining these affirmations it reviews biblical and scientific material and explores the pastoral outworking of an evangelical position. It will especially be of help to church leaders and pastoral workers as well as those with same-sex attraction seeking to live faithfully as Christian disciples.
5.Unwanted same sex attraction
This booklet was published just over a year ago by Christian Medical Fellowship and is jointly written by an evangelical theologian and a professor in psychiatry. It sets out a framework for Christian ministry among people with same-sex attraction which is psychologically rigorous, theologically orthodox and pastorally sensitive.
6.Homosexuality
This is an article in the CMF File series which gives a basic overview of the subject of homosexuality from both a Christian and Medical perspective. Although I wrote it ten years ago before the Equality Act most of the material is still very much up to date. It is available in photocopiable pdf format so makes a useful handout.
Wanna know just how destructive sodomy is on a society? When God blessed Israel with a civil/criminal code, He made sodomy a capital crime.
Our purpose should not be to make every sin a crime. That would be both oppressive and futile. But if we’re discussing what legislation would be best for our nation, we might be wise to learn something from a good example.
“Sorry but it’s not understandable.”
The context of why he’s saying it is understandable is that recently the leader of a very large and influential evangelical/baptist church called Steve Chalke has come out in favour of same-sex “marriage.”
This has caused great consternation amongst British evangelicals who looked up to him as having one of those “model” ministries.
I agree with you that the confusion should not be understandable at all for anybody who believes the Bible is the Word of God, but unfortunately when influential pastors like Chalke clothe their positions in apparently biblical principles it can do great damage to many people’s faith.
“It’s foolish to look down on homosexuals when one’s own life is full of sin.”
What a great post - thank you.
My wife and I went to an Exodus regional conference a year or so ago - we wanted to learn about (and from) those affected by homosexuality so our church would be better prepared to minister to the coming tsunami of sexual sin issues in the church.
I have been involved in a host of healing ministries over the years - but I’ve never fellowshipped with believers that had such a huge gratitude for what thier saviour has done for them - I was awestruck - and would recommend any serious Chrsitian to attend one.
Well said. Homosexuality is more subjectively repulsive to most people than is fornication, but sexual sin is sexual sin.
Ravi Zakarias gives a college student a very good answer (see on youtube) to this question. He also states that the Bible is firm, but God does not hate these people, but wants to “love them to salvation”. That should be our approach, as believers, to love them and accept them as God’s creation, like we would anyone else, but to never condone the activity. Speak or admonish in love and concern, never judgmentally. When given an opportunity, warn them of the day of judgment when their sin will keep them from God’s eternal presence.
Either Luther was wrong about “Faith Alone” or he wasn’t. If Faith Alone is correct, telling people they have to repent and stop sinning contradicts that doctrine. Stopping their favorite sin is the hardest work a lot of people will ever do and very definitely work the same as obeying Christ and helping the poor is work. Thousands of books and probably millions of sermons have decried anything someone is expected to do in addition to accepting and having faith in Christ as a “works salvation” and not only unnecessary, but a heresy.
Those who preach “Faith Alone” and accuse others of believing in "works salvation" have painted themselves into a corner.
The confusion is due to the very nature of what Evangelicals preach. If “Faith Alone” is correct, then those who preach and teach that doctrine have to accept that “Faith Alone” really means Alone and therefore it’s not even possible for someone to be apostate. In fact, if you believe someone can even be apostate after they've accepted Christ, you're denying the fundamentals of the doctrine of, “Faith Alone”, and the doctrine of, “Once Saved, Always Saved” as well.
If, on the other hand, “Faith Alone” is an error, those who now preach that doctrine need to repent for preaching error and stop preaching it just like those who are homosexual need to repent for their sin of homosexual behavior and stop the behavior.
Call a required work “repentance” all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that if it’s required in addition to faith in Christ the doctrine of “Faith Alone” is an error that leads people astray.
thank you for your posts on this topic
God is good
The problem is ‘pride’
How soon until we see a thief,greed,swindler,anger,envy,jealousy or hate ‘pride’ parade
This is a very difficult topic. I appreciate the thought, study and prayer that are obvious in your statement.
On one hand we should not be comfortable with sin- be that lust, adultery (the divorce rate in the Church is the same as in the world), greed (the prosperity gospel), hate, gossip, or any other sin.
Yet we live in a world filled with sin. Do we let the divorced sit with us on Sunday? If not, we will exclude about 50% of our country.
Christ died for everyone. In good conscience I can not block someone who is divorced from Christ.
Likewise, maybe 3 to 5% of the world is homosexual. I think that for some it may be a choice, for others I think they were just born that way. How do we deal, in the love of Christ, with this group?
I am not smart enough to judge, nor have I been called to do so. I think my duty is to tell them that Jesus died for them, and loves them. Let God take it from there. I need to, the best I can (and it isn’t easy), show them love, not judgement. The challenge is to balance Christ’s love so that it is not seen as an endorsement of their behaviors.
It’s “understandable” in the same way that abortion is “complicated”—only if you’re trying to have it both ways.
You wrote: “This is a very difficult topic...The challenge is to balance Christ’s love so that it is not seen as an endorsement of their behaviors.”
True.
You may find this enlightening:
Dennis Prager: “ The only holy sex in Judeo-Christian religions is between a husband and wife. All other sex is unholy. But not necessarily immoral. ....many religious people blur the distinction by labeling unholy actions immoral actions. And that has often given religion a bad name because thinking secular people know that some actions called immoral by the religious are not necessarily immoral.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/06/14/we_are_not_just_animals_judeo-christian_values_part_xv
People who do not believe in God or religion can surely lead ethical lives. But they cannot lead holy lives. By definition, the ideal of the holy, as understood by Judaism and Christianity and that unique amalgam known as Judeo-Christian values, needs God and religion.
Here is the best way I know of to explain holiness in Judeo-Christian religions: There is a continuum from the profane to the holy that coincides with the dual bases of human creation — the animal and the divine.
The human being can be said to be created in the image of God and in the image of animals. We are biologically animals, and we are spiritually, morally and theologically God-like (at least in our potential). God is the most holy; and animals, as helpful, loyal and lovable as many are, are at the opposite end of the holiness continuum. This is in no way an insult to animals. Saying dogs and lions are not holy is no more degrading to them than saying men are not women or women are not men. That is how they are created.
There is actually a secular way to understand this. If we saw a person eating food with his face in a bowl, we would think, “He eats like a pig” or “He eats like an animal.” That is an insult to a person — because humans are supposed to elevate their behavior above the animal (this is a goal of Judeo-Christian and just about every other major religious tradition). But it is no insult to an animal. When an animal eats face-first out of a bowl, we hardly think ill of it; but when a person mimics animal behavior, we do think lower of that person. So, even non-religious society has imbibed some of the view that acting like an animal is not how a human being should generally act.
Now, to better understand this, one needs to appreciate that holiness is not a moral category. There is nothing immoral in eating with one’s face inside a bowl. It is unholy to do so, but not immoral or unethical.
It is crucial to understand the difference between the moral and the holy.
Even many religious people blur the distinction by labeling unholy actions immoral actions. And that has often given religion a bad name because thinking secular people know that some actions called immoral by the religious are not necessarily immoral.
This is particularly true in the sexual arena, where many religious people characterize unholy behavior as immoral behavior — so much so that the very word “immoral” has come to be equated with sexual sin.
Much consensual adult behavior that Judeo-Christian values would prohibit is unholy rather than immoral. For example, non-marital sex between consenting adults violates the Judeo-Christian code of holiness, but not necessarily its code of morality (if there were coercion or trickery, it would, of course, be immoral). The only holy sex in Judeo-Christian religions is between a husband and wife. All other sex is unholy. But not necessarily immoral.
All immoral actions — such as stealing and murder — are, of course, unholy. But not all unholy actions (like eating with one’s face in a bowl) are immoral.
Nevertheless, just because holy and moral are not identical does not mean the holy is not monumentally significant. Elevating human behavior above the animal and toward the divine is one of the greatest achievements humans can accomplish. If we really did behave like animals in the sexual arena (like the famous bunny rabbit, for example), society would eventually collapse.
Speech is another example. In our increasingly secular world, fewer and fewer attempts are made by people to elevate their speech. That is why public cursing is now much more prevalent. In most ballparks and stadiums, one hears language shouted out that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Sanctifying speech is another religious value; it is not a secular value. Whenever I see a vehicle with an obscene bumper sticker, I am sure of only one thing: The owner of that vehicle does not regularly attend religious services.
The consequences of the death of the holy are ubiquitous. Secular Europe is far readier to feature nudity on public television than is Judeo-Christian America, and it is far more accepting of people walking around nude in public at beaches. The Judeo-Christian problem with public nudity among consenting adults at a beach or even at a nudist colony is not that these people are necessarily acting immorally (they may not be touching one another or even sexually arousing each other); it is that they are acting like animals. Clothing gives human beings dignity; it elevates them above the animals whose genitals are always uncovered (the first thing God made for man and woman is clothing).
And that is what the Judeo-Christian value system ultimately yearns for — the elevation of human conduct to the God-like, rather than allowing us to behave like fellow animals.
<><><><>
Dennis Prager: “...Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. ...”
HERE:
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
CERC ^ | DENNIS PRAGER
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml
bttt
Whatever homosexuality may be, nature/nurture or a soul trap designed by Satan himself, do we have a responsibility to help them and support those who help them turn away from what separates them from God?
thanks..I don’t know why but can never get links to post.
When you have faith in something, you act on that faith. I think that’s the point the Bible makes. Yes. You are saved by faith alone, but your works are proof of your changed heart. I you say you have faith and continue in the same sins as before, then you don’t really believe. Make sense?
BTW, I’m not saying Christians are without sin. We still continue to fall short, but we shouldn’t be wallowing in it. I think this is what Christ meant when he washed the disciples’ feet. When Peter said he wanted his whole body washed (don’t you just love that guy), Christ said He only needed his feet cleaned. I think that symbolizes the Christian walk. We no longer need a total cleansing like the first time when all those past sins were wiped clean. We only need touch ups.
“Call a required work “repentance” all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that if it’s required in addition to faith in Christ the doctrine of “Faith Alone” is an error that leads people astray.”
Naturally I believe that “sola fide” is an error, but I have yet to meet an evangelical who has tried to excuse sin on the basis that faith alone is required for salvation.
Maybe your experience is different?
James 2:17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
James 2:18 But some man will say : Thou hast faith, and I have works : shew me thy faith without works ; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well : the devils also believe and tremble.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
James 2:25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
James 2:26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.
I accept the Scriptures as my authority on Salvtion, not Martin Luther, but apparently some folks prefer Luther to the Apostles.
Yes it is and quite recently on this very same topic.
It seems like a great many people believe they're under no obligation to Christ in any way as long as they've made a public confession of their faith in Christ. Somewhere along the line repentance that includes a change of behavior has become just another one of the "false doctrines" those "works salvation" people preach.
That's why I say I think they've painted themselves into a corner whether they realize it yet or not.
Regards
I have no reason to read Romans because I’m not a Christian.
I’m a Noahide,just like Zionist Conspirator.
“The problem with homosexuality is denying it’s wrong, refusing to repent, and giving in to the temptation. Churches who say it’s OK to be an unrepentent homosexual are apostate. They are evil, worse than those who are ignorant of the true, and I’d hate to be in their shoes when they stand before Christ.”
I recently got banned from a christian chat room and one of the reasons they complained to me that I used use the word “gay” instead of “homosexual”. They also thought gay marriage was okay in the church. They said “we should love them as Jesus did”. Yea I don’t recall that Jesus who held to Hebrew customs would have gone for gay marriage. /sarc. There was just no telling these so called christians what the bible said on homosexuality because they thought it was just all old testament law. For the record, this site was a mixture of all christans mostly non denomiational.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.