Category Archives: Homsexuals

Why Can’t Christians Cut Homosexuals a Little Slack? – Part III

By falling from our God-given image as spiritual beings, we have plunged into a secular persona revealed in sexual obsession.  Americans aren’t merely interested  in sex, or passionate about sex; as was said about Sonya Heine, we are addicted to and obsessed with sex.

That obsession has given homosexuals the freedom to demand their lifestyle as equally normal and acceptable.  Though only those whose arrogant disregard of God’s authority, and the Bible as his inerrant Word, could now claim as original, acceptable behavior  what God condemns throughout the Bible as fallen, wicked behavior.  That is the dead-end thinking of the pro-homosexual lobby.  They feel they can’t be criticized, let alone judged, for their sexual choice since it came with their nativity.  Such specious thinking always occurs when we insist on finding new rules when our lifestyle contradicts the old ones.  Somerset Maugham and Oscar Wilde did it in their day to justify homosexuality.  Their heirs continue the travesty in ours.  It amounted then, and amounts now, only to colossal self-deceit, of which all humanity has an endless capacity.

Part III – The issue of tolerance.

Knowing the Russian opposition to homosexuality, President Obama appointed some openly-gay athletes to represent the U.S. in the opening and closing ceremonies in Sochi.  Obama called his decision a clarion for tolerance and diversity in America.  All it rang was a further death knell on a dying country.

The issue of tolerance is so overworked in society it mocks any attempt to impose Biblical teachings of any kind.  For what is there in our unsaved culture that desires, let alone seeks, let alone tolerates, being restrained by God’s Word?

The Corinthians thought themselves tolerant by accepting as spiritual equals a man who lived sexually with his step-mother.  But Paul censored their tolerance and called for the pair’s exclusion from the Christian assembly I Corinthians 5:1-5.

Tolerance taken to its extreme, to which it will unerringly go, will never criticize any behavior, however wicked, simply because tolerance removes limitations on expression.

If we aren’t intolerant of spiritual wrongs; if we do not speak publicly against them; if we resort to a “live and let live” philosophy, the righteous are no less wicked.  For how can wrong have rights?  Indeed, only a perverted culture can, in the same breath, demand rights for wrong while it damns right as wrong.

Do we automatically condemn homosexuals to hell?  No.  Jesus Christ alone makes those decisions, for he has all the authority to make them.  If he wants to make exceptions for anyone, he has the right.  However, he never gives his believers the right to make exceptions to his rules.  For he knows that as soon as we start making exceptions, we’ll have only exceptions and no rules.

However, and an interesting sidebar of inconsistency:  while demanding tolerance of their lifestyle, homosexuals offer none to Christians who believe God spoke clearly, emphatically and repeatedly against the practice.  What kind of tolerance is it when homosexuals demand we accept their lifestyle while they refuse to let us embrace Christ’s?  Why would they think it necessary for Christians to surrender Christ’s teachings to curry favor with fallen mortals?  Especially when we are repeatedly warned to hold firmly to our faith in Christ Matthew 10:22; I Corinthians 15:2; Ephesians 6:14; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 1:22-23.

What kind of disciples would we be to buckle under sledge-hammer blows, let alone the pin-pricks of homosexuals?  God made us oaks in the woods, not pansies in flowerpots.  As Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:13-14, God has equipped us in every way to stand for Jesus.  Having been thus equipped, and ordered to stand, we STAND for Jesus.  Finis.

 

Why Can’t Christians Cut Homosexuals a Little Slack? Part II

Recapitulating Part I – Whatever ancient Greek tradition supposed, or contemporary mores claim, God himself distinguished male from female and didn’t want the lines between them blurred, let alone crossed.  As a theological/spiritual, not a political or medical or social issue, God authored the precept he wanted observed.  Fallen humanity has become his enemy by adopting a differing view. But in a powerful warning:  in any contest between God’s Word, and human opinion, who inevitably wins?  See Acts 5:33-39.

 Part II. 

God made the creatures to live by instinct.  Therefore, whatever they instinctively need to do, we accept it as part of their limitations as “creatures of instinct.”  When, by his will,  he created humanity in his image, he intended them to be spiritual, rational beings who lived by God’s own precepts, rules and expectations.

Adam’s sin violated humanity’s God-given nature.  It began a distancing of humanity from God:  from a life controlled by, even if not submitted to, divine authority, into a complete secularization of humanity subject only to its own wits, opinions and rules.

Where obedience would have led Adam into an exalted state, disobedience led him into a fallen state.  The secularization Adam unintentionally began became his son Cain’s intentional lifestyle, typified by his arrogance in offering God what he chose to give, then brutally murdering his brother for simply being the better man.

The polar opposites between our initial and fallen natures are illustrated in two statements God made.  One, “in his image”—our original state; “dust we are and to dust we return”—our fallen state.

That secularization continued into bigamy, murder as a policy of settling disagreements and the plummet of sexuality from men and women within marriage into aberrant fornication, adultery, bestiality and homosexuality—living according to instincts, drives and impulses—NOT according to the Holy Spirit’s Presence.  The loss of the Spirit’s presence turned us from spiritual into sexual beings:  meaning, instead of being directed by spiritual principles we became victims of sexual passions.  While the entire Bible didache warns us against the change, and calls us from our lost to our original state through repentance and baptism, we decide, by our response to God’s call, to live either as spiritual or sexual beings.

The call to repentance and baptism remains strong in both testaments, despite God’s knowledge that from most it will receive no positive response, with Jeremiah’s preaching an example.  Many will perish…but none because God withheld his directions for life; or because he maliciously established impossibly high standards, so no one could reach them, and he could damn right and left because God delights in sending as many as possible to Hell and saving as few as possible for Heaven.  As I Timothy 2:4 says, “God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

Still, as Solomon wrote in Proverbs 19:3, our folly ruins life, then we rage against God for letting us choose wrongly.  But God isn’t fazed by our attacks or fooled by our excuses or impressed by our explanations.

Thank God for his Word:  against which we sin; over which we can never gain ascendance; and which fairly and graciously judges.  Thank God for his nature:  which always has compassion on the penitent; always judges behavior as generously as possible; which makes exceptions wherever possible and only punishes as severely as necessary where it isn’t possible; which never seeks reasons in Law to condemn us; which always ransacks Grace for an excuse to exonerate.

Indeed, he will graciously forgive any repented sin.  But we must accept it as sin.  There’s no need for us to justify what we call normal habits, attitudes, behavior or sexuality when God has labeled it a perversion of his original intent for us.  Let us not be mistaken; and let us not deceive ourselves.  He judges us according to his original intent for us and our original state with him.  He will NOT use a standard by which WE feel comfortable, can accept and agree by compromise to be fair.  That isn’t going to happen.    – End Part II.

Why Can’t Christians Cut Homosexuals a Little Slack? Part I

David Wilmot’s Proviso demanded the exclusion of slavery from any territory acquired from Mexico.  The House tied that as an amendment to President Polk’s legislation asking for $2 million to help settle boundary disputes with Mexico.

The bill and amendment enraged Senator Benton since it served no purpose but to surface the slavery issue.  It divided the Whigs for the Democrats and the House from the Senate.  Benton scathingly denounced it as an issue over which two parties disagreed so much about nothing.  A Country of Vast Designs, p.288

Is the conflict over homosexuality a lot of noise over nothing?  Or is there basic Biblical truth about humanity in the differences that makes it worth all the conflict it engenders?

Consider the theological basis of the conflict as the defining explanation.  Genesis 1-3 contains the ultimate authority on acceptable human sexuality, morality, cultural values and family lines of authority.  Since this is a study of sexuality, we’ll confine our remarks to references to it in Genesis 1-3.

First, Genesis 1:26-28 noted an entirely different concept in God’s mind when he created Adam—man; with the following evidences as proof.  One, God made only mankind in his own image.  Nothing even remotely similar to that fact occurred in God’s previous creative acts.  Two, God made humanity the ruler of all that he made.  Three, only to humanity did God speak personally—“to them” in blessing and command.

Second, Genesis 2:20 reinforced Genesis 1:26-27.  After Adam had named all the creatures God made, he saw NOTHING like him.  Whatever else God made, Adam remained separate.  In that biblical perspective God condemned all evolutionary speculation as baseless hypothesis.

Thus…Adam’s rib as Eve’s provenance.  I don’t know how far back into history our traditional explanation of it goes.  It was common currency when Matthew Henry popularized it in his Commentary.  It was the view my preacher Leon Appel held  when marrying couples:  God used Adam’s rib so Eve would always be the beloved he held near his heart.

While not untrue, it fails to appreciate the more basic meaning of the rib.  In creating woman from the man, God used enough of Adam to produce someone exactly like him while reserving the right to make her a different kind of someone exactly like him.

No one can doubt that men and women are different.  Let three humorous examples illustrate.  Sigmund Freud reputedly once said that he had a few words with his wife—then his wife had a few paragraphs with him.  Nearly any married couple can understand the difference.

Actress Rita Moreno was to be honored for her movie work.  And she would have but five minutes for an acceptance speech.  She retorted that, as a Puerto Rican, it would take her five minutes to say hello!  As a Puerto Rican or a woman?

In the comic strip Baby Blues (San Diego Union, 2/4/14), Zoe says she had to prepare a five-minute report for school.  Which she couldn’t understand since that would be only enough time for her opening remarks.  Her brother Hammie, standing by, contributed a different perspective; he would polish off five minutes in ten seconds.

The point all this makes:  God fashioned distance between Adam and Eve he wanted preserved and never lost; observed and never crossed.  Men would always retain their masculinity and women their femininity.  And no violation of either gender would be acceptable to him and no cross-gender would be tolerated.

This poses a troubling truth to all who promote homosexuality.  If, as they say, homosexuality is a birthright, why did God pronounce creation very good with only a heterosexual couple as husband and wife?  And they, uniformly and without exception, the only model God’s Word affirms?  With Whyany diversion—homosexuality, polygamy, adultery—constituting a perversion.

Do advocates of homosexuality want to accuse God of contradicting himself, when he claims to be perfectly consistent?  Do they insist on establishing their preferences over his commands?  End – Part I