Does Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Produce Equality?

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason discusses a problem regarding the fight for equality. For more information, visit str.org.

What Did Jesus Say About Homosexuality?

Is it true that Jesus skirted this important issue? Bobby shares how we can know where Christ stands on this controversial issue.

What Is The Most Unloving Thing A Christian Can Do To A Homosexual?

Bobby talks about being lovingly bold with those who need to hear the truth.

Are People Born Gay?

Bobby examines the common claim of a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality.

Should Christians have an activist stance against homosexuality in this culture? - Denny Burk

http://www.godtube.com/embed/source/0j0cjmnu.js?w=400&h=255&ap=true&sl=true&title=true">
href="http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=0J0CJMNU"> Christianity.com: Should Christians have an activist stance against homosexuality in this culture? - Denny Burk from christianitydotcom2http://www.godtube.com/christianitydotcom2">christianitydotcom2
> on GodTube.http://www.godtube.com/">GodTube.>

Homosexual Marriage as a Challenge to the Church: Biblical and Cultural Reflections”

Dr. Mohler’s chapter “Homosexual Marriage as a Challenge to the Church: Biblical and Cultural Reflections” from the volume Sex & The Supremacy of Christ is outlined at www.newattitude.org

From the chapter introduction:

As Christians, we are charged with the difficult task of compassionate truth-telling. This has never been easy—just ask the apostles—but it is particularly difficult in a time of cultural ferment and sexual revolution. Compassionate truth-telling requires the church to speak from its deepest convictions while demonstrating the love of Christ—speaking truth that will be heard as a hard message while demonstrating the love of Christ through the very act of telling the truth. Compassionate truth-telling means, not only the accurate presentation of biblical truth, but the prayerful and urgent hope that the individuals to whom we speak will be transformed by that truth and respond to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

The challenge of compassionate truth-telling means that we must think strategically and carefully about how these issues should be addressed, both in terms of individual conversations and in the larger context of public debate. We must ensure not only that we think rightly about these things as ordered by Scripture, but that we speak rightly
about controversial issues as well. We cannot address homosexual marriage as an isolated issue but must place it in the larger context of the Christian worldview and of the great story of God’s purpose in creation and redemption.

The Christian worldview affirms the unity of the good, the beautiful, and the true—known as the “transcendentals”—in the transcendent, self-revealing God. Thus, the Christian worldview understands the good, the beautiful, and the true as being established in the very character of God. At the same time, these transcendentals—the good, the beautiful, and the true—are, in reality, the same thing. Each is rooted in the beauty of God, in the reality of his character, and in the glory of his holiness.

In its confusion, the world wants to separate the good from the true, the true from the beautiful, and the beautiful from the good. In isolating and separating the transcendentals, the secular picture of the world becomes fractured and disoriented. Thus, this confusion can produce tragically problematic arguments for why the false may be beautiful, the ugly may be true, and evil may be good.

We understand the source of this confusion, of course. The Christian doctrine of sin, rooted directly in the Genesis account of the Fall, explains that the consequences of sin lead directly to this kind of disorientation and confusion.

Christians must resist the temptation to speak the truth in a manner that falls short of the good, the beautiful, and the true. We betray the truth when we speak of it with an ugly spirit, or attach it to base arguments or mean-spirited impulses. We must reunite what the secular world has divided and present Christian truth in all of its power, its beauty, and its goodness.

With all that in mind, how shall we approach issues related to homosexual marriage? I have grown increasingly convinced that most of our approaches focus on what homosexuals would have to rethink in order to see this issue with clarity and understand the error of their lifestyle and social agenda. We often assume that the real issue is what kind of people homosexuals would have to be in order to hear our message and receive its truth. While this is an important consideration, I am convinced that the more urgent challenge for the church is to clarify our own self-identity and our understanding of the gospel. What kind of people must we be, if we are to address the challenge of homosexual marriage with faithfulness and Christian love?

I would suggest seven principles that can serve as a framework for a Christian response to the challenge of homosexual marriage. Each of these is deeply rooted in biblical truth, and each is pointed to the challenge of addressing homosexuals with compassionate truth-telling.

__________

From the chapter:

2. We must be the people who cannot ever talk about sex without talking about marriage.

The moment Christians accept that we can talk about sex without talking about marriage, we abandon the high ground of the Christian worldview and surrender the question at stake. From the very beginning of every conversation about sex, we must emphasize that Christians cannot talk about sex without making clear its connection to marriage.

The moral credibility of the Christian church is very much at stake in the debate over homosexual marriage. If Christians allow a low estimation of marriage, and if we accept the breaking of marital vows and the violation of marital covenants, we destroy the very foundation of our moral capital in the debate over homosexual marriage.

We must hold to a culture of marriage because we know that God’s glory is displayed in this institution and because we know the power of human sexuality. Sex is so powerful, and sexual desire is so easily corrupted, that we must point to marriage as the institution God has designed in order for sexuality to be enjoyed, appreciated, and fulfilled.

According to the Christian worldview, sex makes sense only within the context of marriage. Sex outside of marriage is an insult to the Creator’s design and a display of human arrogance. Unsatisfied with God’s provision for us in marriage, human sinfulness is displayed in our demand for autonomy—for our “rights” as creatures—and in our rejection of the Creator’s purpose.

Marriage becomes the touchstone for our understanding of why sexual sins areso inherently sinful. We understand that adultery is sinful precisely because it robs God of his glory by desecrating a covenant made in his name. Marriage is intended to be a display of covenant fidelity, which points to the faithfulness of the Creator and the character of the covenant-making God. The New Testament goes so far as to present the relationship between Christ and his church in the metaphor of the bride and the bridegroom. Adultery is so abhorrent precisely because it lies about what covenant faithfulness is supposed to be. Similarly, fornication (premarital sex) is understood to be sin precisely because, in this practice, the creature is demanding a partof what marriage represents while rejecting the entirety of the marital covenant. But God will not allow his good gifts to be separated.

Throughout the Bible, sexual sins are revealed in their inherent sinfulness precisely because each of these sins—whether incest, or bestiality, or homosexuality, or lust—is a desire for something less than God’s completion in the covenant of marriage, and for something less than purity in our reception of God’s gift.

Christians simply cannot talk about sex without talking about marriage. We are the people who have to talk about covenant faithfulness because we serve the covenant-making God. We must talk about male and female with constant reference to marriage. We must talk about the relationship between Christ and his church, the gifts of intimacy and fidelity,and the reality of order within the institution of marriage, simply because the Bible so clearly puts marriage at the center of human existence. A genuinely Christian response to the challenge of homosexual marriage would go back to marriage itself and to the gift of gender, demonstrating the rightness and the perfection of marriage as a picture in miniature of the kingdom of God. Every marriage, every domestic household, is to be a little picture of the kingdom of God in the right ordering of all things and in the creatures’ grateful reception of the Creator’s gifts. This little picture—this little domestic portrait that centers in the covenant of marriage—presents a picture more powerful than anything the world can ever distort. The existence of just one faithful marriage demonstrates the fatal falsity of any other ordering for human sexuality.

____________

Here are Dr. Mohler’s remaining points in the chapter:

1. We, as Christians, must be the people who cannot start a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage.
2. We must be the people who cannot ever talk about sex without talking about marriage.
3. We must be the people who cannot talk about anything of significance without acknowledging our absolute dependence upon God’s revelation—the Bible.
4. We must be the people with a theology adequate to explain the deadly deception of sexual sin.
5. We must be the people with a theology adequate to explain Christ’s victory over sin.
6. We must be the people who love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality.
7.We must be the people who tell the truth about homosexual marriage and thus refuse to accept even its possibility because we love and seek the glory of God for all.

Download the full chapter(right click and select “save as”).

Holy Homosexuals?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "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, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Now, listen to John MacArthur as he proclaims Biblical Truth against homosexuality at the 2:45 mark of this video...

Posted by J & J Bible Ministry,

"Utterly Normal?" -- No "Post-Homosexualist" Era Yet

By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com

Our language has reached some important natural limits of meaning. A recent media report considered the increasing number of homosexual couples, both male and female, who are now "having babies." Well, these same-sex couples are not "having" babies in the sense that language has customarily been used. When a same-sex couple "has" a baby, everyone knows that there is more to the story. A homosexual couple simply cannot "have" a baby the same way that a heterosexual couple can. This is a matter of the natural order and biology, not mere social custom.

This came to mind when I read Will Young's article published in the July 28, 2007 edition of The Times [London]. In "We Gays Haven't Won the Battle Yet," Young accepts the fact that modern society has experienced a massive shift on the subject of homosexuality.

In his words:

In the 40 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the passing of gay rights on to the statute book has been a triumph. Gay couples have more security and equality thanks to civil partnerships, and gays are now treated with fairness before the eyes of the law. So as a gay man, I celebrate this and feel lucky to be alive in Britain in 2007.

But, he argues, "it is important to draw a distinction between legal change and the shift in attitudes. It is quicker to pass a law than achieve the necessary movement of public opinion – and attitudes still lag behind the law. So we can't yet give ourselves a proverbial pat on the back."

Young was responding to a column written by Matthew Parris published just days before. In that article, Parris argued that his fellow homosexuals should realize this massive shift in favor of homosexuality and celebrate it, declaring victory in the struggle to normalize homosexuality.

As Parris argued:

I'm coming out as a post-homosexualist. Forty years (tomorrow) after the 1967 law ending the absolute prohibition of homosexuality, 13 years after the reduction of the age of consent from 21 to 18, six years after the further reduction from 18 to 16, and two years after the arrival of civil partnerships, I have finally become bored with the whole damn thing. Bored, not with being gay, but with talking about it. I blame Tony Blair.

Do cats witter endlessly on about being cats? Do redheads drive us to distraction with their thoughts on being ginger? How many serious comment columns in the editorial pages of newspapers are devoted to the musings of straight men on what it is to be a heterosexual? No, they just get on with it – with being cats, redheads or straights. Such things are for the lifestyle sections of weekend magazines, not rubbing shoulders with the debate on global warming, housing or the terrorist threat.

Fellow-queers: stop moaning. How interesting is any of this to the rest of the world any more? Other groups out there have it worse than we do in Britain. We've got the political changes we asked for. Social change will take longer but it's happening, steadily. Kidding ourselves that we inhabit some sort of a gulag is making it harder, not easier, for the next generation to relax about their sexuality. Let's remind them that in the whole history of mankind there has been no better, luckier, time or place to be gay than Britain in 2007.

So Parris called for the recognition of a new "post-homosexualist" era. He identified organized religion as the only major obstacle to full acceptance of homosexuality, but observed that "most of our fellow Britons don't seriously subscribe to any of these superstitions, so why take it out on them?"

Young isn't buying the argument. As he considers the status of homosexuality and homosexuals in society, he sees a very different reality -- and his observation is as relevant to the situation in the United States as it is to life in Britain.

Consider his argument about the "next stage" needed for the full acceptance of homosexuality:

The next stage is trickier. It's how to make people understand that gays are utterly normal; it's how to change outlooks so that it never crosses people's minds that to be gay is to be so different or alien; or to stare if two men hold hands, or to do a double take if a man says "meet my husband"; it's how to be able to be honest about yourself without people accusing you of "ramming your homosexuality down my throat". Hop over to the Netherlands and sexuality is not such an issue; but here in Britain things are different. I am still often referred to as the "gay pop idol – Will Young" (very much in that order of importance); yet in other countries the gay word doesn't come into it – someone's sexuality is regarded rightly as a being an irrelevance or unnoteworthy.

This is a very important observation -- and a crucial reminder that the natural order of things has a way of asserting itself in the end. Mr. Young wants people to "understand that gays are utterly normal." And this would mean that the issue "never crosses people's minds" -- that no one notices anything unusual when two men hold hands or if a man says "meet my husband."

Young, who is a well-known figure in Britain, became famous when he won the first "Pop Idol" contest on British television. In his view, a public acknowledgement of homosexuality should be a matter of no real interest. As he wrote, "Coming out should just be a statement of fact – I have red hair, I drink tea, I sleep with the same sex."

It isn't that simple, of course. And it isn't that simple precisely because there is a deep moral instinct within us that continually reminds that sex between persons of the same sex is not natural or normal. The very fact of this difference even remains a part of the discourse among liberals who think they believe in the moral normalization of homosexuality.

The stubborn fact is that most people still notice when two men or two women hold hands in public. When two men tell their colleagues and neighbors that they are "having" a baby, those neighbors can't help wondering how.

Will Young undoubtedly believes that this inability to see homosexuality as a matter of no consequence is explained by deep prejudices that are woven throughout the culture. But Christians believe that this moral instinct is explained, not by social custom and prejudice, but by the revelation of God in nature and in the human conscience --the very knowledge the Apostle Paul described in the first chapter of Romans. God has given his human creatures the knowledge that homosexuality is just not "utterly normal." This knowledge may be denied or suppressed, but it will not disappear.

____________________

Image: Rembrandt van Rijn, "Self-Portrait as the Apostle Paul"

'Gay'-rights leader quits homosexuality

---

---

Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle

---

By Art Moore @ http://www.worldnetdaily.com

---

Michael Glatze with Matthew Shepard's mother, Judy Shepard (Harvard University photo)

He was a rising star in the "gay rights" movement, but Michael Glatze now declares not only has he given up activism � he's no longer a homosexual.

Glatze � who had become a frequent media source as founding editor of Young Gay America magazine � tells the story of his transformation in an exclusive column published today by WND.

Although Glatze cut himself off from the homosexual community about a year and a half ago, he says the column likely will surprise some people.

"This will actually be news to anybody I used to relate to," he told WND.

The radical change in his life, Glatze recalls, began with inner "promptings" he now attributes to God.

"I hope I can share my story," he said. "I feel strongly God has put me here for a reason. Even in the darkest days of late-night parties, substance abuse and all kinds of things � when I felt like, 'Why am I here, what am I doing?' � there was always a voice there.

"I didn't know what to call it, or if I could trust it, but it said 'hold on.'"

(Story continues below)

Glatze said he became aware of homosexual feelings at about the age of 14 and publicly declared himself "gay" at age 20. Finally, after a decade in which his leadership role in the homosexual activist world grew � but alongside it, a mysterious inner conflict � he says he finally was "liberated."

In fact, he writes in his WND column today, "'coming out' from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life."

Before "coming out" in his column today, Glatze contacted WND Managing Editor David Kupelian after reading his book, "The Marketing of Evil, which Glatze said "has given me so much help in my process of healing from the profound influences of evil in our current society."

"There is nothing that would give me more pleasure," he wrote to Kupelian, "than to say the Truth about 'homosexuality' and atone for my sins in that regard."

Glatze's transformation calls to mind that of another prominent "gay" magazine publisher who also has renounced her former lifestyle. Lesbian activist Charlene Cothran, longtime publisher of Venus magazine, became a Christian and gave her magazine a new mission "to encourage, educate and assist those who desire to leave a life of homosexuality." She adds: "Our ultimate mission is to win souls for Christ, and to do so by showing love to all God's people."

In his column, Glatze doesn't mince words, calling homosexual sex purely "lust-based," meaning it can never fully satisfy.

"It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one," he writes. "Normal is normal � and has been called normal for a reason."

After becoming editor of Young Gay America magazine at age 22, Glatze received numerous awards and recognition, including the National Role Model Award from the major homosexual-rights organization Equality Forum. Media gravitated toward him, leading to appearances on PBS television and MSNBC and quotes in a cover story in Time magazine called "The Battle Over Gay Teens."

He produced, with the help of PBS affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to address homosexual teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards. Young Gay America's photo exhibit, telling the story of young people across North America, toured Europe, Canada and parts of the U.S.

Time, Oct. 10, 2006, quotes Glatze as expert

In 2004, Glatze moved from San Francisco to Halifax in eastern Canada where his partner, Young Gay America magazine's publisher, had family. The magazine, he said, sought to provide a "virtuous counterpart" to the other newsstand media aimed at homosexual youth.

But Glatze contends "the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so more 'respected.'"

In 2005, Glatze was featured in a panel with Judy Shepard, mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, at the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

"It was after viewing my words on a videotape of that 'performance,'" he writes, "that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence."

"Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God," he says. "I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in."

Toward the end of his time with Young Gay America, Glatze said, colleagues began to notice he was going through some kind of religious experience.

Just before leaving, not fully realizing what he was doing, he wrote on his office computer his thoughts, ending with the declaration: "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life."

"I was so nervous, it was like I wasn't even writing it myself," he said.

Inexplicably, he told WND, he left the words on the screen for others to see.

"People who looked at it were stunned; they thought it was crazy," he said.

But he left his co-workers wondering about where he stood, never having fully explained his decision to step down.

Looking back on his old lifestyle, Glatze told WND whenever he had a sense that he was doing something wrong, "I would I just attribute it to, 'that's just the way life is.'"

"If ever I were to question anything, [my colleagues] would say, 'You're such an idealist.'"

Glatze said he thought opponents of homosexual activism were "mean and crazy, and they wanted to hurt me."

"I thought they were out to get me," he said. "They made me really, really mad � and scared, I think. I wanted them to go away."

Glatze said he couldn't allow himself to think they were sincere in their beliefs.

But he now has deep respect for a Christian aunt who disapproved of his lifestyle.

She "was never judgmental, but always firm," he said.

Read Michael Glatze's WND column today, "How a 'gay rights' leader became straight"

---

Related offers:

David Kupelian's best-seller, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"Male and Female He Made Them"

---

Related stories:

Time magazine blasted for promoting 'gay teens'

Homosexual adoption report written by 'pro-gay advocate'

---

Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.

How to Witness to Someone who is Homosexual

Kirk and Ray go to San Francisco and West Hollywood to witness to homosexuals, showing how to share the way of salvation without causing undue offense. www.FreeCDTracts.com

Was it Something I Said? Continuing to Think About Homosexuality

By Albert Mohler @http://albertmohler.com/

Well, never doubt the power of the media. My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know -- but the controversy represents both a challenge and an opportunity.

Several thoughts:

I must admit much frustration about the way many in the media have handled the issue. Headlines proclaimed "Seminary President Says Babies Born Gay" -- something I neither believe nor said. Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort -- real or hypothetical. Reading these reports and headlines was a painful and exasperating experience. If I believed those things attributed to me, I would not agree with myself and would condemn myself.

I am even more frustrated with many conservative Christians who read the secular headlines without even bothering to read my article. They jumped to conclusions that I do not hold and castigated me for advocating things I have opposed all my life. I have received a great deal of hate mail from those identifying themselves as homosexuals outraged that I believe homosexual acts to be unconditionally sinful. But I also received mail that can only be described as hateful from those who identified themselves as Christians -- people who clearly had never read my article and simply jumped to conclusions or accepted misrepresentations. Furthermore, some who identified themselves as Christians spoke of homosexuality and homosexuals with hate-filled language that literally made me shudder. Do we really love sinners? Do we not understand ourselves to be sinners saved by grace?

I have been gratified by those who have articulated serious concerns, but who later, after reading my actual article, expressed gratitude for a serious attempt to think through these urgent issues from a biblical perspective.

There is no way that I can answer the avalanche of questions and issues individually, but here are a few thoughts that might help us think together.

To my fellow evangelical Christians:

1. Let's get this straight -- God's condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God's Word. The Bible could not be more clear -- all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator's rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God's express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God's verdict.

2. There is no conclusive research that indicates any biological basis for sexual orientation. But -- and this is a big "if" here -- if science were ever to discover a correlation or causation with biological factors, Christians should not be surprised. We believe in the catastrophic and comprehensive effects of the Fall and God's judgment upon sin.

3. Such a discovery, if it were to be accepted, would not change God's condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior, nor would it mean that this represents the inviolable "identity" of any individual. As I argued previously, moral responsibility does not require absolute moral choice. A soldier in battle may not have chosen to be in a situation of moral anguish, but he is still absolutely responsible for his decisions and actions. Those who commit homosexual acts, whoever they are and whatever their biological profile, are absolutely responsible for their sin. Regardless of any actual or hypothetical orientation, those who commit same-sex acts are responsible for the choice to commit the sinful act. Those who claim that they did not choose their sexual attraction are nevertheless fully responsible for choosing to perform sexual acts the Bible condemns as sin -- period.

4. Some Christians seem absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as sexual orientation. There is a point to be made here. No "orientation" can alter the sinful status of sinful acts. Some have written me to say that there is no such reality as a homosexual, only those who perform homosexual acts. This flies in the face of the Bible, however, which speaks of those who commit such sins by their sin -- murderers, liars, adulterers, gossips, etc. It does not help to deny this. But, even though no "orientation" can alter the moral status of actions, the fact remains that some persons are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex while the majority are sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. There are other terms to use here, ranging from "sexual attraction pattern" to "sexual arousal profile," but sexual orientation seems a bit less explicit and is generally understood within the culture.

5. Research into the human genome and the possibility of germ-line therapies raises all kinds of moral concerns, ranging from the creation of designer babies to the redefinition of humanity. In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies -- or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all. Furthermore, genetic factors are likely to be so complex and inter-related that no single genetic factor or set of factors is likely to be found to cause anything as complex as sexual attraction.

6. Caring Christians will be aware of the fact that many persons who struggle with homosexuality -- males and females -- testify as Christian believers or as those troubled in conscience that they simply have no idea where same-sex desire originated in their lives. They do know that they did not choose this pattern of attraction. Again, that does not reduce their moral responsibility in any way or to any degree. But caring Christians, fully committed to the sole authority of the Bible, must want to help persons to understand and deal with this specific temptation to sin.

7. The causes of same-sex attraction are likely to be very complex. The research of Joseph Nicolosi and others points to specific social and environmental factors as a prime cause. Boys who do not identify themselves with Dad by age two are clearly at risk. Dr. James Dobson addresses many of these factors in his book, Bringing Up Boys. Given the devastating impact of the Fall, we should not be shaken to our foundations if other causative factors are found. In any event, Christian compassion must lead us to want to know how this would happen in order that we can help those struggling with this sin. We should be thankful for those who, through biblical counsel and guidance, are helping homosexuals to find victory in Christ.

8. Let's remember that all of us are born with a huge moral defect -- we are sinners from the start. Christians who have responded with claims that God would not allow a person to be born with a bent toward sin miss the clear biblical teaching that all of us are born with a bent toward sin and with a sin nature. We are born marked by Adam's sin and already under God's just condemnation for that sin.

9. The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone.

10. Thanks are due to all who wrote or contacted me about these issues. That is not an easy thing to write, given the caustic tone of many communications and the fact that so many did not even bother to read my article. Nevertheless, I learned from your responses, and I am sure that God intended them for my good. I also want to be humble in asking fellow believers to join me in thinking about these crucial questions. If I have missed something, point it out. If I have violated Scripture in any way, bring this to my attention. If I am confused in any way, point to clarification.

We must be committed to being relentless in seeking to ground our thinking in biblical truth. The issues we face are daunting. The issue of homosexuality will not go away. Bromides and careless thinking will not serve the church well.

Christian families are struggling with sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and a myriad of others who are themselves struggling with this sin or caught in its grasp. Many homosexual persons are waiting anxiously to see if Christians really love the sinner even as we hate the sin. When it comes to homosexuality, the Christian church has often violated its Gospel by appearing to hate both this sin and the sinners who involve themselves in homosexuality.

Here is a haunting question to consider. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, "such were some of you." The complete text reads: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners -- and Paul includes homosexuality in that list. Why do we not see more redeemed sinners testifying to the grace of God in bringing them out of the sin of homosexuality? Could it be because many churches would rather just isolate themselves from persons in this category of sin?

As John Newton, author of the hymn "Amazing Grace," once testified: "I know that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior." We should seek the glory of God in the salvation of sinners -- sinners of every type and temptation.

To those identifying themselves as homosexuals:

Again, I am thankful for your communications. Some were filled with hate and with language that is unrepeatable here. Some of you consider any claim that homosexual acts are sinful to be hateful. Others would insist that declaring heterosexual marriage to be a resolute norm is hateful. Many claim that trying to help a person out of homosexuality is hateful.

I do not expect that anything I can say or write will change that determined response. All I can do is be clear about what the Bible reveals about God's verdict on all homosexual acts. Christians are called to love homosexual persons, but we cannot love homosexuality. That is simply not an option. We cannot mislead you by telling you anything other than what the Bible says about homosexuality. The greatest act of compassion a biblical Christian can offer is to tell the truth about our sin, and point all persons to redemption through faith in Christ.

Furthermore, I have heard from so many persons who struggle in their consciences with homosexuality -- persons who claim with obvious sincerity of heart that they do not know the origin of this temptation and deny that they consciously chose it. I am trying to take this into serious account and not to misrepresent what you say and know about yourselves.

From a biblical perspective, it makes no sense to say that homosexuality is normative supposedly because God "makes" people that way. God does not allow any of us to escape his righteous judgment on our sin, whatever the biological, environmental, social, or historical factors that we may claim as explanatory factors.

My purpose in writing my previous article was, in the main, to draw attention to a very real threat to human dignity that lurks as a possibility on our horizon -- a possibility explicitly described in the Radar magazine article. This is the possibility that, if a biological marker (real or not) is ever claimed to mark homosexuality in prenatal testing, widespread abortion of such babies might well follow. As the author of the magazine article I cited explained, the liberal commitment to unrestricted abortion rights might well run into direct conflict with liberal commitment to the normalization of homosexuality. In that event, hypothetical in the present time, it will be biblical Christians, opposed to all elective abortions, who will stand for the full human dignity of all human beings, born and unborn.

Keep the communications coming. As I said to my evangelical brothers and sisters, I am sure God means for me to learn much from what you say.

Mohler on Homosexuality

By Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com

I'd like to commend (Albert Mohler's) chapter in the book Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. His chapter is on homosexuality, but the focus is on the kind of people that we—the body of Christ—must be. (You can listen to the audio online for free.)

Dr. Mohler’s main points are as follows:

1. We must be the people—the body of Christ—who can’t start a conversation about homosexual marriage by talking about homosexual marriage.

2. We are people who can’t ever talk about sex without talking about marriage.

3. We must be the people who cannot talk about anything of significance without acknowledging our absolute dependence upon God’s revelation—the Bible.

4. We must be the people with a theology adequate to explain the deadly deception of sexual sin.

5. We must be the people with the theology adequate to explain Christ’s victory over sin.

6. We must be the people who love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality.

7. We must be the people who tell the truth about homosexual marriage, and thus refuse to accept even its possibility because we love and seek the glory of God for all.

Because point #5 overlaps with the previous post, I'll reprint it here in full:

The church of the Lord Jesus Christ, standing on the authority of Scripture, must have a theology adequate to explain how God’s glory can be so pervasively denied and how God’s design can be so utterly corrupted as it is in the advocacy of homosexual marriage. How is it that humans miss this point so entirely?

In reality, there is only one sufficient explanation for sexual brokenness, and this is the very essence of sin. In Genesis 3, the Bible presents the truth of the Fall and its consequences. Sin is the one category indispensable to our explanation of the human problem. We cannot possibly
reach a correct diagnosis of the human condition without getting to the very heart of what sin is and what sin means.

In Romans 1, Paul describes human sinfulness as an effort to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (v. 18). Thus, at the center of human sinfulness is an ambition to rob God of his glory and to hide the truth from ourselves, even as we give ourselves to lawlessness and moral
anarchy.

As Paul sees it, the human race is involved in a massive exercise of self-deception, suppressing the truth and hiding it even from ourselves. We are all without excuse in this, says Paul, because God has revealed his laws even in the very structure of the universe (vv. 19-21).
Nevertheless, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Rom. 1:22-23). Rather than accept the truth, we have exchanged the glory of God for various forms of
idolatry.

As Paul makes clear, God’s verdict is devastating:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:24-27)

Can there be any doubt that this text speaks precisely about homosexuality? As a matter of fact, this important text speaks not only about the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but about the corrupted nature of homosexual desire. The language about women who “exchanged natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature” and “men likewise,” who “gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,” indicates that homosexual desire is itself a perversion of the divine intention.

The devastating nature of God’s righteous verdict on human sinfulness is made clear with specific reference to the sexual sins detailed in this text. The formula repeated three times in this text (plus v. 28), “God gave them up,” is one of the most chilling words of judgment anywhere in the Bible. The utter finality of this formula stands as an irrefutable verdict
on the nature of homosexuality.

This text should not function as an intellectual “trump card” for Christians to use in argument, but rather as a foundation for revealing the universal and pervasive sinfulness of humanity. Paul’s purpose is to show that our human rebellion against God is the very essence of sin,
and according to Romans 1, homosexuality is the chief illustration of that truth. Rebelling against God’s design for sexuality is the primary exhibit of human sinfulness in action.

Again, we must acknowledge that homosexuality is not the only sin listed by Paul in this important chapter. As a matter of fact, Paul follows with a catalog of human sinfulness that encompasses all of us. By the time he mentions gossips, slanderers, haters of God, the insolent, the haughty, and the boastful, much less those disobedient to parents (vv. 29-30), he has included every single human being who ever lived. When speaking to homosexuals about the truth of God revealed in this passage, we must make clear that it not only indicts homosexuals for the sin of homosexuality, but every other sinner for every sin ever committed. Nevertheless, the specific reference to homosexuality here helps us understand the depth of sexual brokenness and sexual sin. We dare not miss this point or ignore Paul’s message.

An important dimension of Paul’s argument deals with the issue of idolatry. It is worth noting that the specific forms of idolatry common to the Graeco-Roman world, and to other ancient cultures, centered in exaggerations of human sexuality and fertility. A quick look at most museums of antiquity will reveal cases filled with figurines characterized by exaggerated genitalia. Many are explicitly pornographic, as the power of sex has been transformed into an idol and object of worship. This is an insight of inestimable theological significance.

When Christians address homosexuals and homosexual advocates with the reality that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior as sin, we must acknowledge that we are sexual sinners speaking to other sexual sinners. Armed with the Bible’s profound understanding of human sinfulness, we understand that sin corrupts every dimension of human existence. The doctrine of total depravity affirms that the entire human being—including sexual desire and the emotions—is utterly corrupted and disoriented by sin and its consequences.

Christians have often sinned against homosexuals by arguing that homosexuality is simply a “chosen” form of behavior and lifestyle. Clearly, participation in homosexual behavior is a matter of choice, but the underlying desire is often not experienced by homosexuals as a matter of choice at all.

The biblical understanding of sin helps us to understand that every human being is a sexual sinner and every profile of individual desire is corrupted by sin’s effects. Even as our bodies show the effects of sin as we age, decay, and die, our affections show the corruption of sin because we desire what should not be desired. The church of the Lord Jesus Christ must stand before the world and acknowledge that we often do not even understand our own desires and inclinations.

When speaking of homosexuality, we must acknowledge that the pattern of male and female homosexuality is often different. We must understand that female homosexuality is often directly traceable to the misbehavior of men. Males have often acted toward women with such
violence, anger, and rejection that they can no longer trust men to meet their needs for intimacy.

Is a woman who resorts to lesbianism for such reasons responsible for her sin? Of course she is, but we must understand that all of us are inclined to lie to ourselves as we rationalize our misbehavior. This is true not only for homosexuals but for all human beings. As a matter of fact,
sin is so deceptive that we no longer even understand why we desire what we desire. The Scripture clearly identifies lesbianism as sin, but we must understand that this pattern of sin often follows an experience of sin at the hands of others. This does not excuse the sinner, but it helps us to understand why this sin can become such a deeply rooted part of an individual’s self-understanding.

Male homosexuality is usually a very different reality. The male sex drive—more essentially physical and genital—can be corrupted in so many different ways. There is no man who will be able to stand before God on the Day of Judgment and say, “I was only interested and aroused
by righteous and holy desire.” Each of us is a sexual sinner, and the male pattern of sexual sin includes corrupted desire, confusing arousal, and perverse thoughts.

No man, not even the most committed heterosexual husband, will be able to say on the Day of Judgment, “My sexual affections, my sexual arousal, was always, from the very beginning, only directly toward that which was holy—the covenant of marriage and the wife that I was given.” Every man struggles with a corrupted affection, and that corrupted affection, given the reality of the male sex drive, is often directed toward a desire for fulfillment entirely at odds with the glory of God. Every man bears a different sexual struggle, but every man is engaged in a sexual struggle, and this should give us an attitude of sympathy as we address homosexuals with the truth.

When homosexuals say, “I did not choose this,” they are often speaking the only truth they know. The homosexual movement tells homosexuals that their arousal is their destiny. This is a slander against God. We must learn not to trust our sinful affections and erotic interests, but to submit all of this to the objective authority of God’s Word.

By God’s grace, we must all come before the throne of Christ and pray that God will order our affections, our passions, and our erotic interests to his glory. We must say that to ourselves, even as we say it to the homosexual.

All of us stand under the same need for forgiveness and with the same accountability before our Creator. We must not sin against our homosexual neighbors by describing their pattern of sin as something they have arbitrarily chosen in terms of desire. We must declare God’s verdict that every single homosexual act is sin and that homosexual desire is itself sinful, but we must speak with compassionate honesty even as we seek to understand this reality.

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

By Albert Mohler @ http://albertmohler.com

What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.

The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com explains:

A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.

Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."

What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.

That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has called for an end to the research, while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual. No kidding.

Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.

But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.

Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar magazine. In "Is Your Baby Gay?," Gray sets out a fascinating scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?

This question stands at the intersection of so many competing interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of our times.

Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?

As Gray suggests:

In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!

More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.

If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

by Editor @ http://christianresearchnetwork.com

In keeping with the post below here at Christian Research Net this is a link to a very thorough study of one of the pressing issues of our time by Joe Dallas. He is founder of founder of Genesis Counseling Dallas is a “former gay rights activist and staff member of a Metropolitan Community Church, [who] has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems.”

This article series is also carried at Monergism.com under their article category on the subject of homosexuality here.

New Version of Bible for Gay Community

by Editor@ http://christianresearchnetwork.com

A recent report from PRWeb provides us with further information on just how blasphemous the “days of Noah” and the “days of Lot” will be before our Lord returns. Tim Fleming offers a new version of the Bible for the Gay Community, “as well as a new book entitled God’s New Law, which describes a prophecy from the year 2000 that forgives homosexuality and fornication. This new book is meant to inaugurate the rebirth of mankind and the acceptance of gay marriage in God’s kingdom.” The web article further states:

Starting with the witnessing of Christ, the author, Tim Fleming, claims that, in the year 2000, God tested one of his begotten and realized the value of forgiving those who are willing to forgive, and He has therefore offered salvation to the homosexual community for the sacrifices they have made through mental anguish.

You can read the entire article here.

Audio: Men Burning For Men

by Jason E. Robertson

Listen to this debate between Gene Cook Jr. and a gay "Christian" named Rick Bretlinger.
Warning: this debate will make you want to bang your forehead on the wall... especially when Rick says (55:13 sec.) that it is clear in the Bible that men should not have sex with women in such a manner that procreation is impossible but it is OK if a man has sex with a man.
BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG...

Rich has written a book (not yet in print) entitled "Gay Christian 101, a spiritual self defense for gay Christians". But after listening to his arguments I think he should re-title his book, "The Art of Re-defining Biblical Terms So That One Can Get the Bible to Say Anything He Wants." ‎ Read Post and Comments!

If Animals Exhibit Homosexual Behavior, Does That Mean Homosexual Behavior Is Natural For Humans Because Humans Are Animals?

posted by Ray @ http://northlandcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/12/if-animals-exhibit-homosexual-behavior.html

Homosexual behaviour is widespread amongst animals, according to a Norwegian museum. But what does this prove for us humans?

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova can't keep off centre court. Having set down her racquet, she is taking up cudgels in favour of gay sheep. Apparently researchers at Oregon State University and Oregon Health and Science University have been tampering with the hormones of sheep to ensure heterosexual behaviour and hence higher reproduction yields for the farmers. In protest, Navratilova, a lesbian activist who moonlights as an animal liberation activist, faxed these institutions the following statement:
"How can it be that, in the year 2006, a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments? ... I respectfully ask that you pull the plug on this appalling and misguided research. Surely you can find a way to redirect the millions of public tax dollars that are being wasted on these experiments to a more fruitful venture -- perhaps by funding a gay and lesbian community centre to foster dialogue and acceptance for people of all sexual preferences?"
This is Martina's beef. As a vegetarian and a lesbian, she fears that people will no longer think that homosexuality is hard-wired if gay rams can be reprogrammed. The "insidious implication" is that homosexuality in humans can be cured. Her contention is that it is "natural".

She has been supported in this by Norway’s National History Museum. This hitherto obscure institution has been featured around the world because of its unique photographic exhibit, called "Against Nature?" The world's first museum exhibition dedicated to gay animals, it "proves" that that homosexual behaviour is not a "crime against nature". Homosexuality, it claims, "has been observed in most vertebrate groups, and also from insects, spiders, crustaceans, octopi and parasitic worms. The phenomenon has been reported from more than 1500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them, but the real extent is probably much higher." Despite some protests, school children are getting guided tours.

For anyone who has a traditional view of sexuality, these images, are, admittedly, rather confronting. If animals engage in sexual activity for non-reproductive reasons how can the link between the unitive and procreative ends of human sexual intercourse be maintained as a fact of nature?

However, the answer is easier than it might seem at first blush. Homo sapiens is an animal, but not merely an animal. We have a lot in common with parasitic worms, but there are some differences, too. Our bodily nature is subject to intellectual direction. A human being unites the intellectual and the corporeal, what is rational and what is animal. We get a distorted picture of man when we focus on one aspect to the exclusion of the other. They can never be separated.

Interpersonal relations which are truly human cannot be reduced to physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Anyone who chooses to behave in that way is rightly called an animal. When he acts like a sex-obsessed parasitic worm, he becomes less than human. This is the fallacy underpinning the Norwegian exhibition. Its logic can be expressed as follows:

-Homosexual behaviour is observable in animals.
-Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
-Man is an animal and therefore homosexuality is in accordance with human nature.

Now try extending this argument to other aspects of human life. Animals don't take care of the elderly -- should that lead us to close down nursing homes? Cannibalism can be observed among animals -- should we sell unwanted babies as sausage filling? Most people would say that we shouldn't. Humans are different.

And let's take a closer look at the word "unnatural". Are homosexual acts an intrinsic part of an animal’s nature? The Museum’s zoologists are prepared to stick their neck out and say they are, at least for giraffes. The reasons why male giraffes behave this way are not well understood, but they are certainly not the fruit of conscious, rational decisions. The behaviour of animals is largely governed by stimuli and instinct; they lack the human linguistic ability to be able to "talk through" their emotions. But humans can keep their desires in check and even train them into virtues.

Amongst animals, stimuli can lead to unusual behaviour. Tomcats kill their kittens after receiving “mixed signals”. The hunting instinct is so strong and so hard to switch off that dismemberment and even snacking on their own kittens may ensue. Similarly, the strength of the sexual instinct leads to some quite odd behaviour if it does not have a normal outlet. However zoologists may decide to classify such stray behaviour in animals, human reaction to sexual stimuli involves a good deal of channelling and self-control.

Amongst animals, sex can serve a purpose other than reproduction, such as diffusing tension in social situations. Humans accomplish the same thing with handshakes and smiles. If they were to behave like bonobos in their workplace, there would be a torrent of sexual harassment suits. According to some zoologist, dolphins pack rape. Is that "Against Nature?" Not for dolphins maybe, but it sure is for rational beings.

Due to our rational nature comparisons with non-rational animals collapse at the level of interpersonal relationships. Even at the level of biology, human rationality must be taken into consideration. Humans choose to follow hormonally fuelled drives; sheep have no choice about it. Martina Navratilova and her Norwegian fellow travellers are on shaky philosophical ground if they want to use animals as human role models.

Richard Umbers lectures in philosophy in Sydney. Mercatornet

Homosexuality and the Bible

By Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com

Robert Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and is "the leading scholarly defender of the church's historic understanding of homosexuality as revealed in the Bible."

You can access his work online at www.robgagnon.net.

I would recommend starting with this interview, which gives an overview and defense of his position.

Those who want something more in depth may want to look at a 112-page review written by Prof. Gagnon, available here.

Readers will find treatments here of every major issue in the debate, including discussion and analysis of:

• The different hermeneutical scales or interpretive grids used by proponents and opponents of homosexual practice (pp. 19-25).
• The difficulty in neutralizing Scripture for a pro-homosex agenda (pp. 25-30).
• The nature argument (pp. 30-46).
• The relevant biblical texts and the arguments used to limit their relevance for today's debate: Old Testament (pp. 46-54) and the New Testament (pp. 54-85), including Jesus (pp. 56-62) and Paul (pp. 62-85).
• The three main "new knowledge" arguments for dismissing the biblical witness against homosexual practice: the exploitation argument (pp. 65-76), the orientation argument (pp. 77-79), and the misogyny argument (pp. 80-82).
• Whether homosexual practice is the diet and circumcision issue of today (the Gentile inclusion analogy; pp. 86-90).
• The alleged analogies to slavery, women's roles, divorce/ remarriage and other changes to marriage over the centuries (pp. 90-97) vs. analogies to incest, polysexuality, and pedosexuality (pp. 98-101).
• Manipulative rhetoric in the church debates about homosexuality (pp. 103-114).
• The science side of the debate (pp. 114-30), including the question of the moral relevance of congenital influences and claims to an unchanging orientation (pp. 116-19), the question of whether culture can affect the incidence of homosexuality (pp. 120-25), and the question of whether "gay marriage" is good for society (pp. 125-30).

• 
  

Finally, for those want to explore the issue in depth, you can purchase his monograph, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001).

Homosexuality & Christianity

Ted Haggard and Homosexuality

From Justin Taylor at http://theologica.blogspot.com/

I suspect that a large number of new readers have found this blog through a search on "Ted Haggard." A number of them have left comments with the basic message of "do not judge." Some of them are by evangelical Christians who recognize that homosexuality is wrong but, by God's grace, recognize it as contrary to the moral will of God and are fighting for purity. Some have come by simply to mock Christians as hateful hypocrites. And a larger number have explained that they are gay Christians and that Haggard's only sin was that he wasn't true to himself and deceived others.

For my gay readers:

Please know that you are welcome here. I wish we could sit down and talk, rather than communicate through this blogging medium--which is great for quick information but not necessarily conducive for meaningful dialogue and loving expression of concern.

I would encourage you to consider read this testimony by Joe Hallet. (Joe died from AIDS in 1997.) I'd also encourage you to consider visiting Exodus International. It is a place where many have found hope and healing.

I thought it might be helpful to provide an extended quote from Al Mohler, first addressing homosexuals, and then addressing the church. (You can listen to or watch this message online.)

We must also admit that sin has enduring consequences, even in this life. An analogy might be useful at this point. Consider a man who has sinned by driving under the influence of alcohol. One night, sinfully drunk and recklessly irresponsible, this man gets into his car and drives it right into a wall at high speed. His body is broken, but his life is saved as he is taken to the hospital and receives emergency treatment. He recovers from the accident, but he will forever walk with a limp. Throughout his life, he will drag an injured leg, which can heal to a point, but will never be fully restored. Let us follow this man as he comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He becomes a wonderful trophy of God’s grace, as the grace of God transforms him, reordering his affections right down to the fact that he gains victory over alcoholism. Regeneration has produced a new man, even as sanctification is demonstrated in his growth in grace. Old things have passed away and behold all things have become new (2 Cor. 5:17)—but he still walks with a limp.

The work of the Holy Spirit in his life is evident, even as his limp continues as a part of his experience. He will limp all the way to the grave. He has become what only God could make him as a demonstration of God’s glory in the salvation of a sinner. But until the day of his glorification, this man will limp.

That limp does not become a disqualification for this man’s ability to display the glory of God. As a matter of fact, he may begin to see his limp as a way of explaining to people, “I want to tell you who I was in order to tell you who I now am by the grace of God. You see, this limp is a part of my story. I do not exult in this limp, but this limp is an important part of telling my story about how I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ and how he changed my life.”

In reality, every one of us limps. Throughout our lives until the day of our glorification, every one of us will limp. We must look to the moment of our glorification as the moment of our release from every limp. On that day, every tear will be wiped away, every injury will be fully restored, everything will be made right, and everything will be made whole. Everything and every redeemed person will then perfectly display the glory of God. We are the people with the theology adequate to explain this, and thus, we can offer the only genuine means of personal transformation.

We know better than to say that people cannot change. We also know better than to believe that people can change themselves. As Jonathan Edwards made clear, we sin in our affections, and we do not even understand ourselves in terms of why we love the things we love and desire the things we desire. This is why we are so dependent upon the work of Christ in our lives and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in reordering our affections. This is no easy process, but it is real and it is enduring. Is our purpose to make homosexuals into heterosexuals? The answer to that question must be both yes and no. We must urgently urge all sinners to repent and abandon their sin, but convincing homosexuals to think of themselves as heterosexuals is not tantamount to salvation. We must be honest about the sinfulness of homosexuality in order that we can show homosexuals their need for salvation and the transforming power of Jesus Christ in their lives. We can promise that this power of transformation will, by the grace of God, lead to a reordering of their lives and require a turning away from the sins of their past. As Christians, coming for whatever our individual background in sin may be—we come under mutual accountability to the Word of God and his command in all things—including our sexuality.

I want to speak honestly to those who are struggling with homosexual affection. You must know that this is sin, and you must recognize that your affections are corrupted by sin. Even in your own heart, you can probably never even separate your desires and impulses in terms of inner motivation and affection. Like all of us, you are a sinner in the midst of a sinful world, but don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t change. Becoming heterosexual is not salvation, but the miracle of regeneration and sanctification will produce, by God’s grace, the right affections in your heart and desire. Knowing what God has declared to be objectively right and objectively wrong, we must direct ourselves—whether our sinful sexual profile be heterosexual or homosexual—toward the objective glory of God as revealed in his Word. We must claim the promises of God and seek God’s glory in every dimension of our being.

Do we want homosexuals to find heterosexuality? Yes, as much as we want liars to become tellers of the truth and adulterers to be faithful; as much as we want the disobedient to become obedient to parents and the proud to be humble. God’s glory is in seeing that God’s command is accompanied by God’s provision so that we, by his grace, can be transformed so that we will even desire what he wills for us to desire.

This is what the church is all about. We are the people who gather together to exalt in the grace of God and to proclaim the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ as the answer to human sinfulness. We come together to hold each other accountable to the Word of God and to rejoice in what God is doing in us until the very day that we die. We come together in the assurance of the resurrection that is to come and the glorification that will be God’s gift. Like the apostle Paul, we are convinced that “he who began a good work in [us] will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).

And here is one of his words to the church:

We must be the people who love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality. This is a tough challenge. We have to be the people who, because we are possessed by a passion to see God’s glory in his creation, love homosexuals more than they love their sin. This means that our love has to be a tenacious love. This will also require that we come to know and establish relationships with those struggling with homosexuality. Armed with an awareness of both the problem and God’s provision, we have no right to consider that homosexuals are beyond the grace of God or that any individual is beyond the hope of redemption and transformation. Compassionate truth-telling is deeply rooted in Christian love, and this means that we must love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality.

Every sinner loves his sin, but the church must love sinners more than sinners love their sinfulness. This is precisely how Christ has loved us, and we must love other sinners even as Christ has loved us.

We cannot allow a homosexual to reduce his identity to being a homosexual. This is a tough message, but we live in an age of identity politics when people say, “What I do in my sex life is who I am—period!” We are the people who know that this is nonsense. Sex is a part of who we are—a vitally important and powerful part—but it is only a part of the total human being. Our sexual desires and sexual practices are genuine pointers to our inner reality and our relationship to God, but sexuality is not the end of the story.

Christians must be the people who refuse to put the period at the end of the sexual sentence. We cannot allow homosexuals to be isolated as a class of persons who are beyond the grace of God and exist in some special category of human sinfulness. We must be the people who say to homosexuals, “I am going to love you even more than you love your sin, because in this same way I was loved until I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Someone loved me more than I loved my sin, and this is how I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.”

Our doctrine of salvation must be accompanied by a strong doctrine of the church. The ecclesia—the purchased people of God—are a covenanted community gathered in mutual accountability to the Word of God. In the bonds of Christ, we are to love each other even more than we love ourselves. Even in the process of church discipline, our purpose is not only to protect the integrity of the people of God, but to love persons into obedience and conformity with the Word of God. The common life of the church is really all about this mutual accountability, mutual encouragement, and exhorting each other to faithfulness unto the authority of the Word of God. The church sins when we deal with these issues wrongly, unscripturally, and superficially.

It is easy to detect a sense of fatigue setting in among Christians in America who are tired of arguing, debating, and speaking the truth about homosexuality in the midst of a fallen and rebellious culture. This fatigue is evidence of sin, even as it is an understandable response to the difficulty of our task. We are now coming to a point of cultural crisis, and the church is called to faithfulness as we must declare God’s truth with a boldness never summoned before. The church must demonstrate even more candor, more courage, and more truth-telling. We must demonstrate more genuine compassion, even as we reach out to a civilization that is literally falling from within. Even as civilization falls, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ must stand as the People of God, determined to keep its wits even as it shows the love of God and seeks the glory of Jesus Christ, in season and out of season.