Hoffstadt Creek Bridge, Mount Saint Helens (photo from trekearth.com)
An article in the local Maple Ridge Times explains that a Maple Ridge Anglican church has voted to allow same-sex marriages, and will do so when given permission by the diocese. This church had kindly assisted me with my questionnaire a few months ago and so I do not write this article with hard feelings against anyone! I genuinely appreciated their help in providing a liberal theological voice to my questionnaire. I have nothing personally against any liberal churches or homosexuals. The Times explains that at least 15 churches have voted to separate from the Anglican Church of Canada over this issue.
In the article the Reverend explains that they are an inclusive church and they stand for the liberal voice. I am a moderate conservative, and do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but I thought that a truly Christian church should stand for the voice of God through Scripture. The Scripture is to be followed as God’s Revelation for the world and the church, regardless if it means taking a conservative or liberal stand on an issue.
The Reverend points out that some people state homosexuality is a choice, but he disagrees. I can half grant his point as I think evangelicals at times are in error when they separate sinful choices from a corrupted human nature. It is not simply a choice. The Reverend states that homosexuality is part of the natural order of creation. I reason that this is a half-truth. Yes, in a fallen world, some persons by nature and choice are homosexual. I am not a scientist and I am not going to argue for or against the idea that some persons are born homosexual, but, even if it can be shown scientifically in conclusive manner that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals this would not make homosexuality natural within a Biblical context, in a fallen, corrupted creation. As human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. Those who live in homosexual practice stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). The entirety of humanity is corrupted, including physical nature and so a hypothetical homosexual nature in some persons would still mean that homosexual acts would be sinful.
The Reverend states that we need to get away from flat earth theology and become more enlightened.
Biblically enlightened?
As I noted in my previous article on this subject, Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83).
Biologically enlightened?
Basic biology tells me that marriage by definition is in part sexual and can, under normal circumstances, lead to sexual reproduction. I am not stating that a heterosexual couple that marries and cannot have children is not a valid marriage, nor is a marriage invalid where no children are produced by choice. Old persons that get married cannot have children, however, the physical sexual act of intercourse would be the same for all heterosexual couples and would be natural regardless of whether or not pro-creation could take place. The natural ability to sexually reproduce is impossible normally with homosexual couples, thus there is a clear distinction and I think that this should be legally recognized.
The Christian Church with the use of Scripture and biology should definitely be able to see that there is a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but many extreme liberals within the Church have lost trust in the word of God. I for one if I was an Anglican would refuse to submit to leadership that does not take a contextual evaluation and application of Scripture very seriously, placing it in front of sentiment and social and political ideology.
The Reverend notes that some Christian churches opposed the abolition of slavery in the past and compared it to the issue of churches opposing same-sex marriage. I think this is faulty reasoning as the Bible does not condemn any ethic group or race as being less than human or unnatural, but homosexuality is considered unnatural and sinful. Slavery did exist in Biblical times, but an aspect of New Testament teaching is equality of persons in love and that a person should no longer be a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother as Paul tells Onesimus concerning Philemon in Philemon 1:16.
In closing, I present a link and article and some key points from the article. I provide this as a contrast to the views of the Reverend regarding civil rights for blacks and homosexual rights. I can write concerning this article if needed in comments.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18338
Texas: 'Gay rights,' civil rights not the same, black leaders say
He (Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church and president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention’s Pastors’ Conference) pointed out three major differences between the two movements.
First, civil rights are rooted in moral authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in the lack of moral restraint, McKissic said. Trying to undo the damage of years of a race of people in slavery was the right thing to do, he said, whereas trying to change laws solely because of the decisions of a group of people is not the right thing.
Second, civil rights are rooted in constitutional authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in civil anarchy, McKissic said. According to the Constitution, all men have God-given rights. It was because of these rights Martin Luther King Jr. and others fought for freedom. He cited a speech King gave in Washington D.C. “He says, ‘America has written black folk a check and the check came back marked with insufficient funds,’ because the Constitution guaranteed us rights to vote, rights to buy property. It guaranteed us certain unalienable rights.”“But,” McKissic said, “the gay community [is] trying to write a check on an account that hasn’t been opened yet.”
Third, the sufferings of the homosexual do not compare to the suffering of the black man in America. McKissic said when the homosexual community suffers through 200 years of slavery, is declared only three-fifths human and is denied the right to vote or buy property, then the two movements can be compared.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Hi Russ.
ReplyDeleteGreat that you are having a go at the taboo subjects mate. It will be interesting to see what sort of comments you get on this sensitive issue.
It was interesting bringing up the biological perspective. I lived and worked on a farm for the first 15 years of my life and I learnt a lot about the birds and the bees. Some might think I led a sheltered life but there did not seem to be any other alternative if life was to survive.
That's my 2 bobs (20 cents) worth. Hope all is well with your health and your major paper.
Regards,
Russell from down under.
Some might think I led a sheltered life but there did not seem to be any other alternative if life was to survive.
ReplyDeleteThat's my 2 bobs (20 cents) worth. Hope all is well with your health and your major paper.
Thanks greatly, Russell.
Yes, life continues through pro-creation. I know that in the animal kingdom sometimes animals do try to have sex with animals of the same sex, as a former dog of mine attempted. However, I think perhaps he confused the smaller dog as female, as he was a large dog.
Again, as with the Social Justice article I wrote in the December archives, my main focus in writing this article is not homosexuality or same-sex marriage, but rather that Scripture should be followed in context by those claiming to be Christians. Mounce, Cranfield and Dunn are all New Testament scholars that use the Greek and they appear to examine the original text in context with this issue. A serious Greek word and contextual study by myself or anyone open-minded would yield the same results, and I am simply reporting what the Scripture states and attempting to use common sense. I do not use a literalistic approach, but a contextual one.
Again, I am not against anyone, and so I do not expect people commenting to be against me, but if someone is against me personally and they do comment, they need to be respectful.
Thanks for the good wishes, mate. The BC government states I can receive the mandible jaw surgery!
Russ
Hi Russ.
ReplyDeleteMy dad called it "bulling". One cow jumping on another at milking time. He always put the bull in with them real quick. We always had lot's of calves in the spring. Wonders will never cease.
Great about your operation.
Russell.
I have not seen the term "bulling" used that way before...ha ha.
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeleteRegarding slavery, I would think that those who spoke against slavery were like those speaking against homosexuality today.
I have been in online discussion boards with former homosexuals who came to Christ, and all of them said that homosexuality is a choice.
On the other hand, I believe that different people have different weaknesses. Some people are alcoholics. I personally have never had any real temptation toward drinking or drunkenness, because alcohol doesn't really appeal to me. Other people find it practically impossible to give up smoking, while others have never had any attraction toward cigarettes. The same goes with drugs, etc.
I would grant that a homosexual has a weakness toward that temptation. In the same way, I would also grant that a pedophile has a weakness toward pedophilia. Is a pedophile born with a God-given sexual attraction toward children? No. Neither is someone who participates in beastiality born with a God-given sexual attraction toward animals. All of these are perversions of (and replacements for) the God-given sexual attraction between a man and a woman. I tend to think that somewhere along the way, there was a process that occurred that damaged the natural sexual attraction. Now, the person finds gratification only (or mainly) with someone of the same sex; or someone who is a child; or an animal.
Also, if a homosexual is born that way, then how do you explain a bi-sexual person?
Christians need to stand up for Truth and Morality because homosexuality has become widely accepted, even within the churches, to the point of being protected. Similarly, Christians should stand up against abortion and other evils as well.
On the other hand, homosexuality is not the only sin. Gossip, lying, theft, cursing, hatred, and all the other sins will send a person to Hell just as quickly as homosexuality will. Homosexuals are not the only sinners in this world; we are all sinners...every last one of us.
So, though we should stand against sin in general, I don't think that we should put one sin above all the others. The Westboro Baptist Church and their "God Hates Fags" slogans are NOT the godly way to go about it, I don't believe. Though we cannot excuse or ignore sin, neither can we pretend that we ourselves are without sin; nor are we 'above' those who practice homosexuality. Jesus told the crowd who were about to stone the woman caught in adultery, 'Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone.' Though Christians are forgiven and holy in God's eyes (in position), we are not yet perfect in practice.
Mark Cahill is a good example in this area, because he goes to Gay Pride parades and passes out gospel tracts, telling them the Good News. And when he presents the gospel to them, he doesn't tell them, "Listen, you are going to Hell because you're a homosexual; you need to accept Jesus and get saved!" Instead, he takes them through the Ten Commandments, which we all have broken, and shows them that they are sinners, without having to focus on the fact that they are homosexuals.
However, as far as your point of whether churches (and people who call themselves 'Christians') are being biblical when they embrace homosexuality, I believe that we should hold them accountable. If those same churches were saying that drunkenness or pornography was OK with God, then we would certainly hold them accountable for that; likewise, we should do the same when they claim that homosexuality is part of God's plan.
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you make a thoughtful and logical discussion of a very emotional topic. I agree with your excellent theological points... but then I also think about the scriptures in John that tell us that love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God...so the love between same sex is not sin, but the physical act is? I always end up throwing up my hands and saying, It is too tricky for me to figure out, thank goodness God is smarter than me, I have faith in Him, and I will try to love everyone who He brings to me...Jen
Thanks, Jeff!
ReplyDeleteRegarding slavery, I would think that those who spoke against slavery were like those speaking against homosexuality today.
Yes, and those people are like those speaking against abortion on demand.
I have been in online discussion boards with former homosexuals who came to Christ, and all of them said that homosexuality is a choice.
Homosexual acts are a choice, but within my Reformed view and inspired by writers such as Feinberg and Edwards, I have developed the following model of how free choices are made within a limited free will, which is determined by God and always done within the individual's nature. A person will always choose to act within his/her nature.
The model
I would cautiously deduce that behind human motives and desires is consciousness and self-awareness. This consciousness would be caused freely by God in the act of creation. God would give human beings within their nature consciousness and self-awareness, an understanding that they have identity as an individual. There would be in a sense significant, yet limited freedom present within the human consciousness to have an understanding of personal identity, apart from every other individual entity, but this in itself would not be free will or choice, and would not be libertarian free will.
Human nature and consciousness does not choose to be as it is, but was created by God, and has been corrupt since the fall of humanity. From consciousness and self-awareness, human beings would develop motives and desires, and eventually make limited free will choices. The primary cause of human acts is determined by God who creates the human nature, and influences and allows human choices, even ones that are sinful. God does not tempt persons to sin, but by making it possible and allowing it, wills it in a sense as he has the power to prevent all evil. The secondary cause of human acts is the individuals that act according to nature, consciousness, motives, desires, and a limited free will influenced by God.
All of these are perversions of (and replacements for) the God-given sexual attraction between a man and a woman. I tend to think that somewhere along the way, there was a process that occurred that damaged the natural sexual attraction.
Also, if a homosexual is born that way, then how do you explain a bi-sexual person?
I agree, and the corruption process took place in the genetics of Adam and Eve and therefore all persons are genetically prone to sin prior to even be able to choose to sin in an adult-like manner. Since corruption and sin does not impact each person in the same way, some persons can be more prone to homosexuality than others. I doubt persons are born homosexual, but because of our corrupted human natures certain persons could be born with a tendency to be homosexual, and could later commit these acts especially when accompanied by other factors. This does not make homosexuality natural though.
Thanks, Jen. I appreciate your comments once again.
ReplyDeletePerhaps two persons of the same sex can Biblically love each with the same intensity as a heterosexual romantic couple, without the same sex love being physically or psychologically sexual.
This issue has become a real mess,due in part to the main stream church not being proactive and being a leader in handling this issue through the years. The church could have been reaching out to people who struggle with homosexuality and helping them in a sympathetic proactive and positive way holding fast to the teaching of Scripture which clearly condemns such acts as unnatural and sinful. The Church, the Body of Christ, professing Christians despite what current culture or worldly trends promote need to be anchored and obedient to Holy Scripture and love and help people around us who have such tendencies.
ReplyDelete-Homo Promo Nomo-
The Church, the Body of Christ, professing Christians despite what current culture or worldly trends promote need to be anchored and obedient to Holy Scripture and love and help people around us who have such tendencies.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and thank you for the good comments. I think we are in overall agreement.
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeletegood post. The anglican church seems to be the leader in that area of calling evil good.
You said about procreation, and of course I agree with the things you wrote. Yet reading something like THIS its a scary thought just where science make take us next!
Thanks, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteFrom the link:
The breakthrough paves the way for lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own.
Gay men could follow suit by using the technique to make eggs from male bone marrow.
Yes, children of their own...unnaturally.
Taking stem cells from an adult donor - possibly a cancer patient - removes the ethical problems associated with using embryos.
Some good news at least.
There are also fears that children born from artificial eggs and sperm will suffer severe health problems, like the mice in the Newcastle experiments.
Hmm, the problem of evil could strike again, surprise, surprise.
Couples who have children from artificial sperm created from women would be able to have girls only. This is because the female sperm would lack the Y-chromosome needed for boys.
This seems problematic.
An update of Britain's ageing fertility laws is going through Parliament and is likely to allow the use of artificial sperm and eggs in IVF treatment - but only for heterosexual couples.
Well, we shall see how long homosexual couples are excluded.
Similarly, a man could be both father and mother to a child created with his own sperm and a lab-grown egg. Such children would be at high risk of genetic abnormality.
Yes, but too bad for any of the biological experiments that go wrong.
Good you are bringing this very "touchy" subject to front and centre. There has been much contraversy re this subject for ever so long. It would appear that the words in Scripture are being disregarded: "Man was created in God's image." Then as a companion for man, God created woman. This is as it should be, and Scripture strongly speaks against homosexuality stating it is a sinful practice. God also permitted man freedom of choice so through the years man/woman has chosen how to lead his/her life, but the words of Scripture have not changed. If gay couples wish to marry, let them go in front of a judge who can perform the ceremony. Why are these gay couples, in this modern age, wanting their marriage sanctioned by God and having a ceremony in a church in front of witnesses and performed by a minister of the gospel. It truly is sad that some denominations have started accommodating this request, and 'yes' it is causing strife for church members, and some churches memberships are being split up because of it. Yes, there will be a judgement day, and all will be judged accordingly. It sickens me to think of future generations now that science is getting into the act of procreation, discovering lesbians can have babies (only girls) and now talk of enabling homosexual males to also have children. You are correct in mentioning the fact that errors will be made, and the question arises as to who will suffer the consequences. "Oh what fools we mortals be!"
ReplyDeleteIf gay couples wish to marry, let them go in front of a judge who can perform the ceremony. Why are these gay couples, in this modern age, wanting their marriage sanctioned by God and having a ceremony in a church in front of witnesses and performed by a minister of the gospel.
ReplyDeleteWell said. Christian churches should follow the Scripture on this issue and can in a fallen world tolerate same-sex secular marriages, although I would prefer civil unions. However, the Church should not reject the Biblical teaching on these issues and judgment does await.
Thanks.
Good piece of preaching, til that last point. No matter how much denigration people may suffer as a result of a personal lifestyle decision (in this case, deciding to continue in the habit of using members of their own gender sexually) it is not the same thing as the sufferings imposed on people on account of their ancestors having been enslaved. One is arbitrary bigotry, the other a narcissistic, self-imposed, martyr's complex. With no disrespect to any human being, any individual who claims minority status or consideration on account of their homosexual practice is inviting any self-respecting African-American (or American of Native, Japanese, or Mexican descent) within earshot to slap them for their sheer presumption.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Robert, that was a good piece of preaching as well. Dwight McKissic made some reasonable points and clearly civil rights and homosexual rights do not essentially equate.
ReplyDeleteWhat I see is... what the homosexuals want is rights to do their own thing, no matter if it kills another morally, spiritually or physically and the black man in America's rights were for more higher and nobler pursuits.
ReplyDeleteAnimals do not have a soul, thereby go about their life at the base impulse of baser, non-spiritual needs. Humans already are given free will by their creator to choose this debase lifestyle, as in Sodom and Gomorrah of the Bible, and those who do not have "wisdom from above" (as only a born-again believer would have) can't understand why this would not be just fine and dandy. That's why humans must be "saved", they are born into Satan's domain, with an unsaved, unregenerate soul. We are told not to quench the Holy Spirit, which they have to be doing to promote those things that are abominations to God.
Here's a glimpse of the state of things in American churches:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave106.htm
Very good comments, thanks.
ReplyDelete...and those who do not have "wisdom from above" (as only a born-again believer would have) can't understand why this would not be just fine and dandy.
Those who are living in their sin nature and have homosexual desires, would in many cases not understand why God would oppose those desires and resulting choices and actions. When persons originally became corrupted, so did many of the resulting human desires.