Posted on 08/05/2012 1:34:44 PM PDT by Morgana
While a student at Dallas Seminary a good friend of mine and I went to an IHOP to study for a Hebrew exam. My friend seemed unusually anxious, tender and, admittedly, a bit awkward. At some point during the evening I finally asked him if he was okay. He looked around cautiously, then in a whisper said to me, “I need to tell you something I have never told anyone else before.”
“Okay,” I said. “You can tell me anything.”
“I’m gay.” With that, I stood up from the table, invited him to stand up, and gave him and a hug and told him he was my brother and that I loved him.
I don’t think that heterosexuals like me can even begin to fathom the intense anxiety embedded within the heart of a gay individual, particularly if he or she is still in the process of attempting to be public about his or her inner-world. Being sensitive about such things, while at the same time affirming and embracing values that are higher than whatever brokenness and messiness we have, whether gay or straight, is tough.
Ironies Christians Must Wrestle With
Here are some ironies that I see regarding homosexuality and Christianity in general. First, I am blown away by the number of couples who claim to be Christian who are living together outside of a sanctioned marriage covenant, are sexually active, etc., and yet willing to denounce homosexual marriage as inappropriate and sinful.
I am also intrigued that our more liberal friends in the church and society move heaven and earth to dismantle the biological/genetic differences between men and women, and yet go to great lengths to amplify the supposed biological/genetic differences between a homosexual and a heterosexual.
I wonder how many heterosexual married men sitting in our pews voice disdain for homosexuality but go home and quietly turn to the Internet to watch lesbian porn.
The church seems so concerned about gay marriage, but I wonder where we were when “no-fault” divorces were first redefining our culture.
What if all the money and manpower available to Chick-Fil-A on August 1, 2012 were directed by Chrisitans toward eradicating the water crisis in Africa or poverty in the inner-cities of America?
When in general terms gays and lesbians find genuine love and care from within their own community and not from followers of Christ, then perhaps their claim we are homophobic is right on.
Values We Must Own, Whether Gay or Straight
Hebrews 12:15-16 puts forward a remarkable statement that on the surface is confusing: See to it . . . that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. The confusion comes because in the Old Testament story of Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of soup (see Genesis 25:29-34) there is not one reference to sexual immorality. What is it that the writer of Hebrews is saying?
He is laying out a principle of life, one that is applicable to the heterosexual person and homosexual person, and it is this: Esau was born hungry and needed food for survival, but that did not necessitate Esau letting his hunger define him and cause him to set aside God’s very best (in his case, the all-important blessing of birthright) for lesser things (a bowl of stew). From this insight consider the following reflections:
First, being born a certain way, whether real or perceived, does not justify forfeiting God’s best for our lives. Esau was hungry, understandably so, but to throw aside what God had designed for his life due to his hunger was completely inappropriate. The assumption that one has a disposition toward certain behavior or beliefs does not justify settling for something that God has not prescribed. As it relates to sex and sexuality, this means that settling for something less than God’s prescription of a one-man/one-woman covenant relationship, as ordained by God in Genesis 1 and 2 and affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19, is sin, whether one is gay or straight.
Secondly, we must discern how to satisfy our real or perceived dispositions without settling for something less than God’s best for our lives. For Esau it would have been to strongly deny the temptation to forfeit his birthright, satisfying his hunger with something less than the grandiose enticement put before him. As it relates to sex and sexuality, for any of us, straight or gay, it must mean amplifying meaningful intimate relationships without the sexual overtones. It might mean embracing or at least acknowledging an orientation while not letting certain behavior get the best of us.
Thirdly, it might mean we simply don’t get the bowl of soup. “You mean, I am not allowed to be sexually engaged unless it fits within the one-man/one-woman covenant relationship?” Yes. That is exactly what that means. The only alternative to the marriage covenant between one man and one woman is celibacy, regardless of whether one has a gay orientation or a straight orientation. There are no exceptions to this.
Fourthly, we must distinguish between conditioning and conduct. Esau was conditioned by the fact of his existence and his immediate environment to be hungry. Being conditioned a certain way is not inherently wrong. It is what one does with that conditioning that merits attention, and for him it was to throw good things away to satisfy his hunger. With this in mind, it is notable that the Bible never speaks against homosexual orientation–only those who “practice” consensual homosexual acts (see 1 Corinthians 6:9, for example). This has huge implications for gays and heterosexuals–how we perceive one another and ourselves.
Important Take-aways
Any sexual practice beyond the scope of one-man/one-woman convenant marriage is sin, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual. Period.
We are exhorted to limit our fellowship with believers who persist in sexual immorality (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-13), whether gay or straight. This may even include family members or friends that we dearly love. The goal, of course, is restoration (see Galatians 6:1-2).
We should welcome all who in their hunger and thirst for righteousness willingly humble themselves before the Lord Jesus (Gal. 6:10).
Quit arguing with gay people about whether or not they were born gay. All of us have real or perceived dispositions to contend with. The question is whether or not we will fully surrender ourselves to the Lord’s will for our lives.
There is never a place for mistreating or being disrespectful to a homosexual. Or anyone, for that matter. Ever. Doing so is evil.
If heterosexuals have found themselves mistreating or being hateful toward homosexuals, then they must repent. We must remember that Jesus bled for all people. Everyone has worth and dignity.
If homosexuals (and heterosexuals, for that matter) are making sexual choices apart from God’s one-man/one-woman covenant marriage context, then they must repent. God never condemns the orientation, but he is crystal clear regarding his expectations for the unique and powerful gift which is sex.
“”I wonder how many heterosexual married men sitting in our pews voice disdain for homosexuality but go home and quietly turn to the Internet to watch lesbian porn.” “
I oppose this, but it’s irrelevant to the topic.
If 100% of all men sinned in this way, it still wouldn’t make homosexuality less sinful.
Yep. Couldn’t agree more with the Pastor on those points but he seems to be saying that if heteros do it homos should be able too. Then we’re all sinners in the hands of an angry G-d. Then there are sins of commission and sins of ommision.
Is he gay, as in he has an attraction to the same sex, but doesn’t act on it....or is it that not only does he act on it, but doesn’t even think it should be considered a sin?
Those are two completely different things.
In case number one, it is an acknowledgement that he has a cross to bear, but is willing to deal with it.
“Looking into the Old Testament, how many wives did David “the beloved” have. YHWH looked into his heart (and liked what he saw). How about Solomon “the wisest man in the world”. How many wives did he have? As I recall 700. When did the allowed number of wives become one?”
The allowed number was one at creation.
Mankind, after the fall, started corrupting that standard. Some, like you mentioned, went with multiple wives. This behavior was sinful and God’s word on it has not changed.
In the New Testament, Jesus gives marriage examples with one husband and one wife, and argues biblical doctrine based on that presupposition.
Men with more than one wife can’t be ordained into the ministry, according to our instructions in Titus.
Solomon and David are presented as sinners, not as saviors. Where they do well and keep God’s word, we can emulate them. But we can hardly copy them exactly. David, was an adulterer and a murderer; Solomon worshiped foreign gods.
The Catholic church fought the easy divorce laws, and the Protestants stood back silently because the elites told them this was the evil Catholic church trying to foist their beliefs on America.
And when abortion was made a "choice" up to the time of birth, the protestants also were told that the evil Catholics wanted to foist their beliefs on America, so most were silent (I say most, because Dr. Koop back then did oppose abortion, but I can't remember any other prominent Protestant doctor or church leader who did the same).
When Catholics opposed euthanasia in Oregon, again the media went by the meme that the evil Catholics were trying to foist their out of date beliefs on society.
Now with "gay marriage" the Bible churches are the target, but actually it is the Catholics and LDS churches who have been most active in opposing these laws.
David and Solomon lived about 1000 BCE. And reading the Old Testament, you can see the trouble that multiple wives brought to a man: misery and jealousy between the women, strife between the children of different mothers, and having a bunch of wives didn’t stop David from committing adultery with Bathsheba...
the idea of one wife came as the Jewish people slowly came to realize that women were equal to men in dignity, and that polygamy lowered the dignity of women.
So by the time of Malachy, monogamy was accepted, and he insisted that divorce was hated by God.
By the time of Christ, monogamy was the Jewish custom, and at his time there was a big argument among the rabbis about divorce, if it should only be for adultery of the woman, or could it be allowed for lesser reasons. Christ said no divorce, although Paul did allow divorce for a Christian if the non Christian spouse would not allow the practice of religion.
Actually. the beginnings of the nation’s acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable practice came about with the AIDS epidemic. It was initially called GRID (gay related immune deficiency). The horrible and swift deaths of so many young men stirred sympathy in many segments of our society. The conundrum was that it was difficult to maintain that sympathy and condemn the behavior. Many people of influence in the media and show business made the disease a banner for their own purposes. It goes against good people’s nature to be “mean” to the dying so if you were a “good” person you certainly couldn’t say anything against these folks whose lifestyle actions endangered themselves. They were depicted as brave sensitive intelligent young men who found themselves sick dying and rejected. They were shown as loving and gentle in their relationships, not unlike you and I. All this so we couldn’t handle the epidemic as it should have been handled by quarantine and abstinance. How many of the lives of those talented young men could have been saved if such “mean and drastic “ measures had been employed? I lived through this epidemic here in SF during the 80’s. Many friends died in a matter of months while the board of supreme argued about whether or not to close down the bathhouses. They didn’t die of AIDS, they died of political correctness and the cowardness of a society to address its problems using proper but unpopular responses to its problems. Now it’s s “stop and frisk” being decried. How many more deaths will occur on our streets so that we can avoid being guilty of “racial profiling”? Thanks “progressives”, you have once again moved to avoid overpopulation.
I can’t account for where you’ve gone to church...though I do say divorce has not been addressed very well by the evangelical community...in fact, the push to “love and accept” people who are divorced (which was probably something that was needed) fast became a way for divorce to become “no big deal”...
which is exactly what is the problem with sodomy now.
Yes, we are called to love the sinner but hate the sin.
OTOH, abortion and homosexuality have been addressed by some brave pastors and leaders.
David had many wives, yes....and Solomon did, too. But the lesson of the Tanakh or Old Testament *isn’t* that their familial behavior was exemplary. Indeed, Solomon himself is widely thought to have written an entire book regarding the problems he encountered by his behavior. And one of the two biggest failures of David involved his pursuit of another woman.
The line you reference was perhaps one of the worst in an overall pretty good article.
I agree with you that just because there is one problem in Africa or the inner cities doesn’t mean we needn’t address another cultural problem.
Samaritan’s Purse is doing a great job finding water for the thirsty in Africa. And the poor in the inner city is a RESULT of liberal ideology...not a lack of compassion by evangelical Christians. :)
So I think you make very good points. The bulk of the article, though, was pretty good imo.
I apologize. When I wrote "you", I had in mind plural you, the whole group of posters on this thread. I should have addressed my reply differently and picked a different item to click to reply. It is dissappointing to observe so many people accepting the assumption without thinking that some men are born that way. This assumption makes it difficult for our society to understand the truth and especially difficult for men struggling to recover.
It was that way from the beginning. God made one woman and one man, and joined them together. Sinful humans decided they wanted to do it another way.
To a westerner, ANY westerner, the video just seems funny; but in the Middle East (where the video is from) it reflects the dominant Middle East psychology about being “gay”, where the only “really” gay man is the man who accepts “penetration”; so the “gay” man is a castrated (psychologically) or effeminate (or effeminate behaving) man, like seen in the video. The guys watching the dance, in the Middle East context, are just “guys”, period.
11.
We had an earlier post today that brought up a forgotten American black hero George S. Schuyler
(
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/who-was-george-schuyler_640518.html&ei=JQgfULuvJ-mL6gHDx4CgBw&usg=AFQjCNG5iimb3ZgNPqthIf2ToaWgWaayXQ
),
who is forgotten to most people because the Progressives and Marxists want him forgotten, because he was a Conservative, who while still knowing in his day that much needed to change for many blacks, socially, he believed the law, and most particularly federal law was a bad instrument and the wrong instrument to do it.
But the "gay activists" and the "gay activist agenda" was born with a lot of other Progressive and Marxists agendas of the 1960s, and carries with it the socialist ideals that first marry "the society" and "the government" as one entity (because government is democratic) and therefor the force of law - government - can be the ultimate source of "social justice" and similar social goals.
I see the agenda of the "gay activists" to demand "marriage" and deny acceptance of "civil unions" is not a demand for tolerance or even "equality under the law" which "civil unions" like the one in New Jersey can do. It is an attempt to use the law to demand "acceptance", socially and otherwise.
But no "acceptance" demanded by the law is true acceptance because it is not obtained by the free will of those from whom it must be GIVEN. The use of law means it - acceptance - is taken, not given. No form of true respect can be taken.
Before we are done, people will come to understand that that philosophy leads to a society that extinguishes tolerance, because it extinguishes diversity and thereby tolerance becomes irrelevant.
It is amazing that that agenda is proceeding with great success (for now) at pretending it is all for diversity and tolerance. How far it will get at extinguishing diversity before the people wake up is anyone's guess.
And what about the militant gay agenda intent on steamrolling anyone who does not agree with their lifestyle? What about setting people up and then taking it to the media to try to destroy them? What about the retribution and venom aimed at those who wish to live the Gospel?
The wrong folks are being called hateful and bigoted from what I see.
And what about the militant gay agenda intent on steamrolling anyone who does not agree with their lifestyle? What about setting people up and then taking it to the media to try to destroy them? What about the retribution and venom aimed at those who wish to live the Gospel?
The wrong folks are being called hateful and bigoted from what I see.
It is the sexual immorality of Heterosexuality that has birthed homosexuality to where it is today....
The Sexual Freedom of the 60’s permitted sexuality outside the confines of Holy Marriage to rear it’s ugly head in all it’s forms....
Yeah, all those Rock Band benefits for Africa really did the job, didn't they? Or are you deliberately forgetting what a smashing success the US military venture in Somalia turned out to be?
For that matter, what if all of the public service ads about "tolerance" were directed towards people who are, you know, STARVING TO DEATH, instead of well-fed, self-indulgent people who are seeking to legitimize perversion?
Cheers!
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.