Answering the Claims of Gay “Christian” Apologetics

Articles I have written answering the various arguments put forth by gay apologists who claim the Bible, rather than condemning homosexual behavior, commends and encourages it.

I also have an audio version of some of these messages at my other website, Fred's Bible Talk.

Debunking Gay Apologetics: Answering the apologetics of so-called gay evangelicals.

Toward a Biblical View of Sexuality

Slouching Toward Gomorrah

Were David and Jonathan Gay?

The Abomination of Sodomy

The Folly of Same-sex Theology

Gay “Christian” FAQs [1]

Gay “Christian” FAQs [2]

Miscellaneous Articles

Gay Apologists and Revisionists

Answering Some Gay Christian Apologists

The Rodney King Philosophy and Gay Revisionists

The Centurion’s Servant

Is the Word “Eunuchs” The Bible’s Way of Saying Homosexual?

Thoughts about Ray Boltz Declaring His Homosexuality

On Christians, Compassion, and Being Gay

Debating Dr. Laura

Articles on Homosexuality and Culture

Defining Deviancy

Prop. 8

Thoughts on the Evolution of Homosexuality

Debating Dr. Laura

Selling Daughters into Slavery.

Right before Christmas I had a friend email me a link to a so-called letter written to Dr. Laura Schlesinger. In the letter, a writer is taking the popular talk radio guru to task over her views of homosexuality and her use of Leviticus 18:22 as a proof text.

The identity of the original author is unknown. Snopes, the urban legend resource site, claims the letter has been circulating around in email form as early as May 2000 and has found its way into various publications over the last 10 years or so. The writers of the leftist alternative history show, The West Wing, used the letter as a model for the president to berate a cartoonish character version of Dr. Laura in one of its episodes.

Even though the original author is anonymous, that is only better for him or her, because who ever the person is who wrote it, the argumentation presented is embarrassingly dumb. It reveals a shallow mind that doesn't really care to think through the position of his or her opponent, but is meant more as a spring board to mock Scripture as God's Word.

That said, it is true this person is "debating" Dr. Laura. She is a conservative, and Jewish, so she at least acknowledges the OT. But as conservative and Jewish as she may be, we're not dealing with some one who is orthodox in her basic convictions. She isn't theologically solid let alone biblically astute. The times I have heard her go after homosexual marriage using the Bible made me want to smack my forehead, and her lack of wisdom in her anti-homosexual pronouncements sort of brings this type of scorn upon herself.

I won't reproduce the letter (you can find a full copy at the two links above), because a lot of the "objections" raised in the letter I have answered in other posts from some time ago. I did want to address at least one point, however. That concerns the text often cited from Exodus 21:7. The writer states,

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

The objection is taken from Exodus 21 that reads in part (From the KJV by the way),

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Now, what has always amused me in discussions with skeptics and cranks regarding what they think the Bible says, is how they, unchurched, biblically illiterate persons, become instant experts in what the text says and means.

The basic objection goes like this: The Bible is condoning slavery, but not just any kind of slavery. It allows for a father to sell his own children into slavery if he so chooses. And, making it even worse is this passage tells us that God is okay with a father selling off his own daughter to be a sex slave to some dirty old man. This is a primitive practice of a prehistoric society; the kind of stuff we see in the backwaters of third world Islamic countries like Sudan or Pakistan. Seeing that we live in a progressive, modern 21st century culture here in these United States, why would we want to appeal to an ancient book that allowed the sex trade to flourish in their society to inform us what we should believe about gays and whether or not they should marry each other?

Let me highlight three problems with this facile reasoning:

First of all is the assumption that the "slavery" described in the Bible is the same slavery we experienced here in America and fought a Civil War over. This is false. In reality, the "slavery" described in scripture is an indentured servitude designed to maintain the dignity of a person or family in extreme poverty or debt. A good portion of ancient slavery was this kind of servitude. We still practice indentured servitude to a degree in today's world. Only now we are paid for it differently. Granted, we go home to the wife and kids in the evening, but in the morning, we are required by our servitude to get up out of bed and serve a "master" of sorts in order to make a living.

Secondly, coming to the text in question, it is also wrongfully assumed that the daughter being sold is being sold to a man who immediately engages her in a sexual relationship. This is also false, as a careful reading of the text demonstrates. The passage is establishing strict regulations that protect the girl's purity. The idea is a man places his daughter into the service of another man as a maid servant. She was to serve him for at least 6 years, because on the 7th year she was to be released from her obligation as other Levitical law informs us. If the man has the intention of marrying her, he was to look after her as a daughter. If he had intended to marry her, but then doesn't want to, he was to let her be released back her family, the idea of being redeemed (vs 8). The same requirements were set up if the man wants her to marry his son. If the son marries someone else instead, the girl was to be taken care of even allowed to be married to someone else, "not diminish ... her marriage rights" as it is translated in the NKJV. In other words, she could not be forcible kept a virgin and never allowed to marry.

Third, OT scholar, Walter Kaiser, notes a few mistakes when translating this passage in his book, Toward Old Testament Ethics.

1) In verse 8, many translators follow the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew and miss the significant little word "not" that is important to the meaning. The verse would read, If she displeases her master so that he does NOT betroth her to himself. The idea is what I noted above: If the man does not want to marry her, he is to let her go. He can't keep her in a perpetual state of chastity all of her life.

2) The translation of verse 10 as, If he marries another wife, is unclear because it implies the man now has two wives, the original slave girl and now a second woman. But verse 8 has already noted that the original girl has been rejected for marriage. Rather than meaning he is adding to a harem of women, the text means he marries another woman other than the original girl in service to him.

3) In verse 10 and 11. If a man doesn't marry the girl, or if a man has obtained a girl for his son and he doesn't marry her, the girl was to be allowed to marry. The idea that she was to go free and it is the man or the family she served who lose financially, not the girl.

Then lastly, in the discussion of biblical authority condemning homosexuality, this passage is truly irrelevant to the debate. It doesn't really matter what the Bible says about other alleged "hot button" issues like slavery. What does it say about human sexuality? And as I have pointed out in a number of posts over the last few years when I have addressed gay apologetics, human sexual behavior is always tied to God's character and HOW He has created men and women to function as sexual beings. Homosexuality, and the behavior of gay sex, is an abomination because it violates God's basic creative decree regarding the nature of humanity.
Slavery doesn't violate the nature of things as God has created them to be.

On Christians, Compassion, and Being Gay

I have been receiving some interesting comments from an old acquaintance of mine under my post last week addressing Carrie Prejean. I thought the issues he raised in objection to some of the things I wrote against Perez Hilton specifically, and homosexuals in general, were well stated and worth bringing to the front page for consideration.

His primary objection is the use of what I guess could be called "incendiary" language to describe homosexuality.

Fred, your statement that they are only defined by "deviant behavior" shows your complete lack of understanding and ignorance on the subject.

If one were to read the other comments by my friend, he doesn't necessarily ascribe to the Bible the same amount of divine authority to inform men in our day and age as I would. That of course yields a significant difference with how we each identify man's sin problem and God's remedy. However, without going in to great detail with defending the authority of Scripture, suffice it to say, I believe God has given us an authoritative divine revelation that is relevant for addressing the human condition, and that includes sexuality. I also believe this God given revelation is fundamental in shaping one's life by informing a person's view of God, man, and the world in which we live, and how Christians are to understand and respond to homosexuals.

That stated, when I say homosexuality is "deviant behavior" I do so from a biblical position. I am not attempting to be needlessly mean-spirited. I am affirming a position clearly marked out in Scripture: homosexuality is unnatural and a deviation from what God has created regarding human sexuality. I have even written on this in a previous article.

The mistake of those who advocate homosexuality is to wrongly conclude harsh criticism of their lifestyle is intentionally mean-spirited and unloving. This is not the case at all as I, a person who takes God's Word seriously, attempt to address what God has declared as sinful.

He continues,

I wonder if you throw around calling people with a weight problem, "gluttons and temple-desecrators" or those who have been divorced and remarried, "adulterers and fornicators" or those who are a little too concerned with how many things they have "Idolaters". Do you call them out as easily as you do the gay "perverts?" If the church excluded all of the people who habitually did those things -- it would be an awfully small building.

Well, when it comes to individuals who habitually sin, then yes, a person who would habitually lie to me I would call a liar, or one who habitually engaged in adultery I would call an adulterer. This is what Scripture would call such a person engaged in unrepentant behavior. In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul identifies people according to the characteristics of their sin. There are fornicators, thieves, and liars, and we are told such individuals engaged unrepentantly with these sins will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Now, that is not to say these people are unredeemable. Paul does go on to state in the following verses many of these people had been washed from their sin, justified by Christ, and filled with the Spirit, and now have a new identification. What sins that once habitually marked their life are now replaced with righteousness.

Moving along to another important thought to consider from Dan. He writes,

I spent 15 years in ex-gay ministries of some sort – doing my best to not be gay. Obviously I have my own baggage. My frustration is this asinine, ignorant assertion on the part of most Christians that being gay is simply a behavior that you just stop doing – then you aren’t gay anymore! Pretty simple. NOT. The behavior is only one part. There’s the issue of lust, controlling thoughts and the mind, there’s the shame of even having the thoughts in our society.

And

But there is no choice in being gay. If you are gay, you are – whether you ever have sex or not. Is it genetic? environmental? I don’t know. I suspect it is a combination of both. One thing it is not is simple.

I have always maintained that a person's struggle with homosexuality is real. It isn't some choice he or she intentionally decides to make in order to be trendy. Perhaps there are some cases like that, but for the majority of individuals who call themselves "gay" there are real, genuine struggles they experience, and it isn't a behavior they can decide to stop.

Identifying the source of these homosexual orientations, however, is probably where Dan and I would sharply disagree. Again, this goes back to our fundamental convictions regarding the authoritative nature of Scripture. Where as some would say being gay is genetic, environmental, or a combination of both, I would say ultimately it comes down to how sin permeates the whole being of mankind. If sin, as the Bible declares, separates men from the knowledge of God and orients them earthward, driving them to live in rebellion against God and stirring up inordinate affections, I would expect man's sexuality to be impacted by sin as well. Sexual sin may manifest itself in a variety of ways, both heterosexual as well as homosexual.

The question then is: Can a person change in any meaningful fashion?

I would say yes.

Now the immediate reaction from those who would consider themselves "gay" is to reply, "How can you say such a thing? No one can fundamentally change their internal nature!" The idea being a person who is "gay" has been determined to have this orientation by some outside factors beyond his or her control. There are a number of things to say in response to this charge, because I think it is wrongly assumed that because we are talking about sexual orientation and desire such change is impossible.

-- First off, all people across the world experience strong desires, impulses, and orientations, but we tend to categorize them as bad or good according to what offends or doesn't offend our sensibilities. For example, there are heterosexual people who often claim they have a sex addiction in which they must feed their sexual desires by frequenting many partners. However, we tend to look at these "desires" as being harmful to the individual and label them as "addictions" not orientations.

Now, I would imagine my friend would say this is a non-related illustration. These are straight people engaging in irresponsible, sexual behavior. He, as a gay man, doesn't engage in irresponsible, sexual behavior. But let me take it a step further, I have listened to testimonies of self-professed pedophiles who assert their sexual interest in pubescent girls or boys was an "orientation" much like homosexuality. Yet, even if they don't fulfill their "orientation" we still recoil in disgust from such people. They are treated as a threat to society and are psychoanalyzed to determine how they can change their "orientation." Why are they not allowed to cultivate their "orientation"? I think in our progressive culture it is naive to believe there isn't a sophisticated 10 or 11 year old willing to experiment with this lifestyle. All that is needed to do is lower the age of consent laws so they can be free to make that choice themselves. This of course is an absurd scenario (at least at this time in history), but point being: just because a person has an orientation or desire doesn't necessarily make it a good and healthy thing.

-- Secondly I think the work of sanctification is misunderstood. To say a person cannot change in relation to thoughts, deeds, and desires God has clearly declared as being sinful and against His created order, undervalues the power of the Holy Spirit to sanctify a person and bring that person into conformity to God's standards of righteousness. Christ's salvation is more than being saved from eternal damnation. It also entails deliverance from the power and enslavement of sin. Paul's whole discussion in Romans 6 is to tell the Christian that sin no longer has the power over him as it once did (Rom. 6:6,7). Sin's dominion has been rendered inoperative, so that the Christian CAN live obediently to the righteousness of Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit works in his life (Rom. 8).

Yet, this is a work of God's Spirit in the heart of sinners to re-orient them Godwardly by the regeneration of the Spirit. I believe Dan is correct when he wrote that 15 years of ex-gay ministries didn't do anything to change him. That's because ex-gay ministries can't do anything to change a person. In fact, no amount of Church related activities or ministries can do anything to change a person struggling with any sin in his or her life. That has to be a divine work of God alone in the person's heart. Certainly ex-gay ministries and serving in the local church have their place in the spiritual growth of a person, but they are not the starting point with dealing with sin, habits, trials, or any number of issues all men struggle with in their personal lives.

-- Then third, that brings me back to what I stated above about the authority of God's Word in a person's life. If the Bible is just a 2,000 year old book with nothing important to really say to us in 2009, as Dan implied in another comment, or if it is only a book which is important and influential, but should remain separated from the "worship" of the living God, then there is nothing objective on which we can truly base our relationship with God. All that is left is our individual subjective spiritual experience which determines how we express compassion.

We certainly cannot confront sin in any form, nor can we exhort believers in truth. In fact, how can anyone even really know anything objective about God's person and attributes? Unless there is an authoritative standard of revelation, no one truly can.

Usually the response is to say it is a relationship with the "living God," but how exactly does that "living God" explain Himself to the person? How can anyone know for sure the truthfulness of His will? For the "living God" may direct one person in a specific direction, where as he may direct another person in an entirely different direction. Those directions may be utterly contradictory, but no one can really say anything against such irrationality because the experience of a personal life journey trumps what objectivity may exist.

But, all of that to zero in on Dan's main point I believe if also important: Christians are regrettably known for their harshness and hatefulness toward people who would call themselves "gay." On this we are fundamentally agreed, and it is sad confession. There is a need to express to them Christ's love and compassion with both word and action. Christian's should not run from a person who says he or she is gay. They must be prepared to engage them with Christlikeness.

However, in spite of the Christians failing in this area, any expression of love and compassion they do give is not to be absent a confrontation of what has been revealed as sin in God's Word. To ignore those issues would not be loving, because it does not tell the person the total truth of what God has clearly stated in Scripture about homosexuality.

Gay "Christian" FAQS [2]

Continuing with answering some of the "frequently asked questions" I have received concerning my series answering gay "Christian" apologetics.

The Bible names many things as being an abomination to God. Eating certain animals as food and wearing clothes mixed from two different fibers, for example. Modern day evangelicals seem to be picking and choosing which "abominations" they want to reject and accept. So, why do they have no problem eating shellfish, but have a problem with gays?

This question is drawn from the lists of regulations recorded specifically in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that were implemented by God in order to keep the people of Israel culturally and morally separate from surrounding pagan nations. Throughout the book of Leviticus, for example, God tells His people what is to be considered an abomination to them. Some of those "abominations" are particular animals declared unclean by God (Leviticus 11), and specific sinful behaviors like idolatry and homosexual practice (Leviticus 18, 20).

Advocates for a homosexual lifestyle seize upon what they mistakenly view as an inconsistency among Bible-believing evangelicals. They argue evangelicals who claim to believe the Bible is God's Word are hypocrites if they openly eat from the unclean animals listed as being an abomination, while at the same time condemn homosexual practice which is also called an abomination in the very same biblical book.

Interestingly, even conservative groups who would be against gay marriage often steer away from the Bible as the source for their objection of gay marriage simply because of this falsely perceived contradiction. Obviously we live in modern times where no one except maybe traditional, kosher keeping Jews recognize the food laws in Leviticus. Thus, it is believed that building a case against gay marriage from biblical passages containing regulations which were relevant only to Jews 1400 years before Christ will only serve to unnecessarily shackle any argument against the gay marriage agenda for our day.

However, these objections are built upon some faulty notions.

Let us first consider the word abomination. The English word abomination as found in the OT Torah is translated from two primary Hebrew words, (sqs) sheqets and (t'b) to 'ebah. Both words have the general idea of something detestable, loathsome, or abhorrent. Both words are also used interchangeably with reference to those things considered an abomination to people. For example, the Jews were considered an abomination (to 'ebah) to the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32), where as the unclean animals listed in Leviticus 11 were to be an abomination (sheqets) to the Jews.

But, the word to 'ebah was used by the Hebrews for the highest degree of abomination, or that which offends the religious sense of the people [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia vol. 1]. That is because to 'ebah is used exclusively to describe those people, things, or acts detestable to God because they are contrary to His holy nature.

An important distinction to notice between these two words is the penalty suffered for one who commits sheqets as opposed to one who commits to 'ebah. A person who commits an abomination (sheqets) by touching an unclean animal would be ritually unclean until the evening (Leviticus 11:24 ff.). In other words, the person would not be able to participate in religious services for a brief period of time and in some cases had to go through a series of purifying rituals. However, one who commits an abomination (to 'ebah) violated the character and nature of God and would receive the death penalty. That is exactly what we have described in Leviticus 20:13 of a man who has sexual relations with another man.

Walt Kaiser lists at least 16 violations of the law which could result in the death penalty [Toward an Old Testament Ethic, p. 91]. Those violations could be grouped under four headings:

1) violations against the image of God in man: murder, kidnapping;
2) sexual sins: unchasity, adultery, rape, incest, bestiality, homosexuality;
3) rebellion against one's parents and civil authorities;
4) and high handed sin against God Himself: blasphemy, idolatry, profaning the Sabbath, false prophecy, practicing witchcraft and magic.

A couple of things to note from the penalty of committing to 'ebah:

First, there most certainly is a distinct difference between eating shellfish and pork and engaging in homosexual behavior. Though Leviticus 11 declares unclean animals as being an abomination for the people of Israel, a person would not be put to death for handling a catfish. The severity of the penalty demonstrates the severity of the sins listed in each of those 4 groups. Those sins are a direct act against God's person and holiness. Hence, it is wildly inaccurate to equate the abomination of homosexuality with the abomination of wearing clothes made from two different fibers.

Secondly, this clear distinction is the reason why the Leviticus 11 clean and unclean animal laws can be laid aside in the NT, yet the condemnation of homosexual behavior remains an abomination. That is because the food regulations were only meant for a specific group of people, the theocratic nation of Israel in order to keep them separated from the other pagan nations surrounding them. It is also the reason why God can end the food laws after the coming of Christ (Peter's vision in Acts 10). There is no longer a specific theocratic nation of Israel God has established as His unique people.

The abomination of homosexual sin, however, transcends both testaments, because it is a sin that violates God's holy character. Whereas the purity laws governing the nation of Israel can come to an end, God's holiness always remains and will never come to an end.

Gay "Christian" FAQS [1]

Since I began addressing the apologetics put forth by the so-called gay evangelicals, I have received many emails from folks asking me to expand upon some of the things I had written in response to their arguments.

I wanted to compile a list of the most "Frequently Asked Questions" I have received over the last year or so since engaging gay "Christian" apologetics.

Why do you put the word "Christian" in quotes when you describe gay "Christian" apologetics?

Well, quite simply I do not believe a person can be a Christian and a practicing homosexual. A person is seriously deluded if that individual believes he or she can be submitted to the Lordship of Christ and promote a lifestyle that is clearly condemned in scripture as being a deviate sin against God's holiness and created order. Christ is Lord over all areas of a person, including his or her sexuality, and He has revealed direct guidelines as to how a man and a woman are to express their sexuality in marriage to a partner of the opposite sex.

Moreover, God has revealed through the pen of Paul that deviant homosexual activity is a way of life from which a person is in need of salvation. He wrote to the Corinthian Christians "that such were some of you" of those in the congregation (1 Cor. 6:11). Paul goes on to speak of former homosexual practitioners in the Corinthian church who no longer lived that lifestyle. Thus, there is a contrast here, along with a biblical principle of spiritual living. That being, the former life of practicing homosexuality was contrary to those who participate in the Kingdom of God and a Christian puts off old ways of living and puts on new ways of living in light of the believer's new identity with Christ's Kingdom.

More specifically, I don't believe a Christian can engage in the gay evangelical propaganda efforts of flagrantly twisting all the biblical texts condemning homosexuality so as to make them teach an entirely different lifestyle than what God has conveyed regarding human sexuality. Though gay apologists are not altering the physical text by changing words, they are certainly re-interpreting them by pouring alternative definitions onto words that they claim affirms homosexual orientation and behavior, rather than judging it. So, when I use quotations around the word Christian, I am recognizing there are individuals claiming the name of Christ as their own and calling themselves "Christian," yet they are advocating a way of living that is diametrically opposed to the very Lord they claim they serve. Hence, I am of the opinion that pretty much all those individuals are not Christians to begin with and fall into the category of those people Jesus says called Him "Lord, Lord" but in reality never really knew Him (Matthew 7:21).

What about a gay person's desires? How can you deny the homosexual attraction and feelings many of them claim has been a part of their life since childhood?

This question is often presented as if it is unanswerable and cannot be trumped at all. The "feelings" or "desires" are a result of one's sexual orientation which is something biological, and thus should never be changed.

Sometime ago I had a person write to me who has struggled with homosexual sin much of his life. He told me how he had since the early age of 5 been attracted to other boys. Being raised in extreme legalistic fundamental circles, such desires were certainly considered wicked. He had tried to over come them by thinking sexual thoughts toward girls, but to no avail. He had even tried marriage to a woman, but mustering up sexual interest in her was a challenge and they both eventually divorced over it.

His testimony was meant to convince me that his homosexual feelings went beyond just him "choosing" to live a gay lifestyle, but was a biological orientation which God had designed. His sexual attraction to men was something out of his control and thus unchangeable and it was unfair for heterosexual men to be allowed to act upon their sexual attractions, whereas he was forbidden.

The Bible provides for us some specific insight to the general nature of man, and it is from these insights I will frame a response to this line of reasoning. Allow me to offer a few thoughts:

1) I have always argued a person may well have homosexual desires from an early childhood. Yet those desires do not make them right, nor should they be stimulated by the person. That is because our desires come from our hearts, and the scriptures declare the heart of man is sinful. The scripture describes the heart as the inner person, the seat of a person's volition and being and what orients the person in a specific direction.

There are some Christians who mistakenly believe their desires and passions are distinct from their heart, as if the two are non-related. Additionally, they divide one's body, or biological make-up, from this spiritual part of man. Yet the heart and body function together as a whole. The sinful heart does influence the bodily desires. Sin has put our physical bodies under the corruption of death, resulting in disease and eventually physical death. So to, death's corruption can certainly impact our desires which will in turn impact our attitudes and behaviors. Jesus affirmed as much when He told how our sinful defilement does not come from sources outside of us, but from the outworkings of our own sinful heart (Mark 7:20-23). The outworkings of that heart is expressed in a person's thinking, actions, and repeated behavior, and I would also add, what the person desires or longs for.

2) Because all men and women are born with hearts oriented away from, and in rebellion against the Lord, it is only biblical to conclude one's desires, even from an early childhood, can be corrupted by that sinful heart. Paul writes of inordinate affections in Colossians 3:5 as a vice in need of being put off by the Christian. Other translations render the phrase "wicked passions" or "lustful desires." If, as the Bible teaches, sin impacts a person's mind, darkening his knowledge to live a life suppressing the truth of God (Rom. 1:18ff., Eph. 4:17ff.), sin can certainly be said to affect a person's desires as well. Paul when writing to Timothy spoke of those who were "lovers of themselves" and "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim. 3:2, 4). Here we have an example of those who have strong desires, but their love and passions are oriented toward sinful things. So too is it with homosexuals who claim the power of their desires over their personal lives.

3) Assuming this person is telling me the truth about his early childhood, no matter how early in life a person may experience specific desires, such an experience does not establish those desires as being right. We cannot appeal to our experience as the standard of what we think is correct about life. Our hearts are easily deceived and led astray, and unless we look to an ultimate authority in which we are to orient our thinking, what we "experience" will lead us into error every time.

4) Again, assuming this person is telling me the truth about his childhood, and his "desires" are similar to others who claim they have always maintained a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, I find it unusually he had a sexual attraction at such an early, pre-teen age. I wasn't sexually attracted to girls until much later in in my childhood development. In fact, sex is one of the last things on a pre-teen's mind unless the child was exposed to something which acted as a catalyst to awaken those desires. It can be anything inordinately sexual like exposure to pornography at a friend's house, or even worse, being molested by an older person. Thus I wonder if there is something more, or certainly unspoken, going on in these people's minds when they make these claims of same-sex attraction at an earlier age.

5) I believe Christ is a redeemer. His redemption is more than from the judgment and penalty of God's wrath, but it is also a freedom from the tyranny of sin. We have been freed from the power of sin so that we can live as we should before God. Roman's 6 tells us we have been ransomed from the wages of sin and death and the judgment of the old man, Adam, and are now made slaves of Christ and righteousness. Our identity is with the New Man, Jesus Christ. Additionally, the sanctifying work of the Spirit redeems our minds to think godly desires. Hence, I believe desires, over time, can be changed. That is what the renewing of our mind entails (Romans 12:1,2; Colossians 3:10).

One thing to keep in mind, though. Many Christians erroneously think when they are saved, all the sinful desires and temptations will go away in an instant. Yet they are disappointed to despair when such does not happen to them in their personal lives. Salvation leads to sanctification, and sanctification is a life long process of putting off old, sinful habits, and putting on new righteous habits. We don't get brand new minds, but we are given the spiritual freedom to now seek after righteousness and our duty as believers is to retrain our minds. Our minds have been warped by exposure to long periods of worldly thinking, and the process of sanctification is to shed off the worldly wisdom, to begin thinking biblically and according to a Christian worldview. That is the whole process of being submitted to Christ's Lordship.

What I see from those individuals - even those struggling with any sin in their lives, not just homosexual feelings - is only a mindset to put off. They seek legalistic, works oriented means to deal with their sinful desires. Submitting themselves to lists of dos and don'ts, or perhaps seeking an unbiblical means to deal with the sin, like what my emailer wrote about trying to change his homosexual lusts by lusting sexually after girls. What ever the case, when their futile efforts fail, they give up and resign to the notion they cannot have victory over sinful passions. Hence, some conclude that if they still have certain desires after all their efforts are exhausted to deal with those desires, then they must be okay. But Romans 8:2ff. tells us that dealing with sin according to the flesh will never work. One must have the Spirit of God indwelling him (Romans 8:9). One is not of Christ who does not have the Holy Spirit. Thus, those who are truly saved will press on to seeking righteousness because they have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them and so they not only put off sin, they put on righteousness.

Isn't the reaction by the evangelical Church of condemning homosexual feelings and forbidding loving, consensual marriage both anti-Christian and cruel?

This question is often presented from a false sense of persecution. The idea being this person wants to enjoy a sexually satisfying relationship, but his "orientation" is toward the same-sex, and so to forbid the person the privilege of fulfilling such a relationship in marriage to a same-sex partner is cruel, because he or she could never be sexually satisfied with an opposite sex partner.
But, the question is disingenuous, because no one is forbidding this person from being married. What is being forbidden is the allowance of distorting who God says can participate in marriage. As I have noted in two previous articles addressing human sexuality HERE and HERE, God is the one who has ordained marriage at the start of creation and He is the one who has limited the participants of marriage to being one male and one female. Any deviation from that model in the form of divorce, or polygamy, or homosexuality, would be against what God originally designed and intended for marriage.

Now, with some of these deviations God regulates them through laws. Divorce is the most common deviation, but those laws regulating divorce and remarriage are not meant to give affirmation of allowance to those other extreme deviations like homosexual behavior, but are meant to restrain man's hand from more sin that what already exists in the situation. Additionally, homosexuality goes beyond a sin in need of regulation to protect innocent people. What makes homosexual orientation and behavior sinful is the fact the sexual act is a perversion of God's natural order. Again, I go into more detail in another article in my series, but suffice it to say, men are not physically designed to have sexual relations with each other, as are women with each other. Because two men or two women have the same sexual components, they cannot engage in sexual intimacy in the fashion God designed.

So, does that mean a guy struggling with homosexual desires is to just find a girl and get married anyways even it he is allegedly repulsed with the idea of have sex with her? Well, not exactly. I know there may be well intentioned pastors who have counseled some young man to do such a thing as if that would solve his struggles with this sin, but marriage in this situation may not be an option at all. The wiser response is to disciple the young man to think through the sanctification process of his temptations and allow God's Spirit to retrain his mind to be in conformity with Christ's righteousness in the areas of human sexuality as revealed in scripture.

Debunking Gay Christian Apologetics [pt. 5]

The Folly of Same-Sex Theology

Note to Readers: In order to frankly address homosexual sin, I have utilized some explicit descriptions in this post which may make some folks uncomfortable.

Rick Brentlinger, webmaster of Gay Christian 101, has left some comments under my post about Rick Warren.

His various comments raise some important matters the Church MUST consider in our current day where homosexual activists are brazenly more aggressive in promoting their sinful lifestyle. Sadly, the people of our society whose minds have been savaged by postmodern relativism, understands homosexuality to be perhaps an unusual thing, but an otherwise benign lifestyle, rather than the sexual perversion it is. Their response ranges from a disgruntled passivity which says "that's not for me, but 'live and let live' if gays aren't bothering anyone," to a full on embrace of total acceptance where every single person in our world must be forced - even if it means kicking and screaming - to love homosexuality without question.

Those who oppose homosexuality - a lifestyle, by the way, solely defined by a sexual behavior - are marked as bigoted, backward, and repressive of basic human rights. And even more specifically, the charge of bigoted and intolerant is leveled against unapologetic, Bible believing Christians who define their rejection of homosexuality by what has been written clearly in God's Word against homosexual behavior.

This debate will only become more heated, even to the point I believe of severely limiting the free speech rights of anyone who would dare speak against homosexual sin and a gay lifestyle. The Church has to be prepared for this inevitability of persecution by a God-hating world. But where they also need to be prepared is with defending the faith against individuals like Rick who revise the scriptures, along with church history, so as to teach that God never condemned loving, consensual, same-sex partnerships. Rick writes passionately for his position, but his argumentation does not withstand even the least bit of scrutiny.

My lovely wife asked me why even bother responding. Doesn't this fall under being entangled with foolish arguments? My primary purpose is not to convince Rick. Though I desire to see him repent from this sin of corrupting God's Word so as to justify his sinful lusts, that change will take a divine work of God in his heart. The audience I have in mind are those quite readers of my blog who can be confounded by Rick's arguments and do not have the sophistication to answer his claims. It is these individuals whose thinking I want to shore up by providing them the necessary refutations to confront and rebuke gay "Christian" apologetics when they are encountered.

Now, with that introduction in mind...

In response to one of Rick's first comments, I had asked

"I personally would like Rick to articulate his theology of sexual relations and marriage from a biblical foundation."

I asked that question, because I have yet to see a serious attempt by gay apologists to formulate a theology of human sexuality and marriage from scripture. In response to me, Rick linked me to his website's mission statement and then to a series of articles reflecting the historical revisionism often presented in gay apologetics. For example, citing from the discredited historical research of John Boswell who died of AIDS in 1994. Boswell re-interprets the story of the martyrdom of St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman army officers exposed as Christians and martyred for their faith, as being two gay Christian lovers. Though I think Rick believes his collection of articles reflect a theology of human sexuality and marriage, they are in fact polemical propaganda pieces complaining against what he perceives as the unloving status quo toward gays by evangelical Christians.

Before continuing, it may be helpful if I define what I mean by a theology of sexual relations and marriage.

God did not create humanity and then leave us alone to engage in unbridled sexual activity with total abandon. When God created man and woman, He did so in His image (Genesis 1:26, 27). Meaning God invested His authority in men to rule over His creation as His representatives. It also implies that in bearing the image of God, men are to do so in holiness. Our entire way of living is to reflect God's glory. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:31, So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. That would certainly include human sexuality.

In order for men and women to pursue sexual lives reflecting God's holiness, God established boundaries with specific commands that not only define the means in which people can express their sexuality, but also what is going to be best for them as a whole person. With in the first and second chapters of Genesis, God established the foundational boundaries of human sexual relationships: marriage. Within that institution of marriage, God further limits the human participants: one man and one woman. They are given a specific mandate: be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. This mandate obviously involves sexual intercourse between the couple resulting in the birth of children.

Throughout the entire Old and New Testaments, this original model is the divine standard. Even more so in the NT where Jesus Himself appealed directly to this creation model when debating the Pharisees about divorce. The Apostle Paul reiterates the creation model a number of times in his epistles, especially in Ephesians 5, where he reveals how a spirit-filled marriage between a man and a woman pictures the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32).

Now, one other significant factor needs to be considered when outlining a theology of human sexuality: the entrance of sin into the world. Man's fall into sin not only separated him from God, but also darkened his mind to spiritual truth, drawing him away into acts of rebellion against his Creator. Sexual sin became one of the dominant displays of his rebellion. For instance, mankind radically departed from the creation model by engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners outside the bounds of committed marriage. Additionally, all sorts of sexual perversions abounded including homosexuality. These sexual sins were even pervasive among God's people, so much so that He provided further regulations through commandments to keep their sin in check, but more importantly, to bring them into conformity to His holy standard so that His people could have a relationship with Him.

In light of these fundamental remarks, let me move on to some of Rick's specific comments.

He writes,

The "love" of the anti-gay crowd is not mediated through the prism of Matthew 7:12 or Matthew 22:36-40. Anti-gay christians would never be satisfied to be treated the way they treat gays and lesbians.

Two thoughts strike me in response. First, any one who names homosexuality as sinful is considered a part of the "anti-gay crowd," as if their opposition to homosexuality is either founded in a vacuum or just basic redneck bigotry. Perhaps I am "anti-gay," but my reason for being "anti-gay" as I have articulated in several articles over the last couple of years at this blog on the subject of gay apologetics, is due in part to the clear teaching of God's Word. It is not because I have some innate prejudice against gays because I merely think their lifestyle is yucky.

Secondly, notice how the love of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is defined as affirming and tolerating sinful behavior. As if I am merely to turn a blind eye toward it and make no comment, particularly a negative comment, against how those captured by homosexual sin behave. I would probably agree with Rick that many Christians need to evaluate how they treat men and women ensnared by homosexual sin, for often they are mean spirited toward those individuals. However, genuine, godly love will warn others of the dangers of sin, even if it is confrontive and at time offensive to the one hearing the rebuke. I would be unloving not to do so.

Then we come to the heart of our profound disagreement regarding homosexuality and human sexuality. Rick writes,

From the beginning God affirmed it is not good for the man to be alone, Genesis 2:18. The intimate companionship of God Himself, with Adam in the Garden of Eden, was not enough for Adam. God affirmed this fact and intentionally created Eve to meet Adam's need. Marriage rights should include gays and lesbians.

We affirm that if a perfect man, Adam, without a sin nature and living in an unfallen world, needed more than the companionship of God Himself to meet his intimacy needs, it is reasonable to conclude that gays and lesbians need a similar kind of holy union which God provided for the original couple, to meet our intimacy needs.

We affirm that the viewpoint of many Christians, that all gays and lesbians must live celibate lives, never having their deepest intimacy needs met, constitutes a cruel refusal to obey the explicit command of Jesus in Matthew 7:12...

We further affirm that Biblical principle and Christian charity require an empathetic response to the God-created intimacy needs of gay and lesbian Christians. Our mission is to communicate this truth to the body of Christ.

The terms "intimacy" and "intimacy needs" are repeated at least three times in these paragraphs. How exactly is "intimacy" being defined here? Particularly in regards to a biblical paradigm? If I am understanding Rick's idea here, quite simply, the intimacy he is referring to is the sexual intimacy experienced during intercourse. I believe the primary reason for sexual intercourse is to unite a couple together. To make them one flesh as Genesis states.

Speaking from one who is married, there is a deep, abiding emotional connection which takes place when a couple has sex for the first time. Any who is in a healthy marriage will attest to this. That is why fornication, or premarital sexual relations, and adultery, are such devastating sins. Fornication "unites" a person emotionally to a partner, maybe even multiple partners, who will never be a true marriage partner. I have heard testimonies from both men and women who engaged in premarital sex and those illicit encounters deeply impacted them emotionally. Though God certainly can bring forgiveness and one can be healed by the sanctifying Spirit over time, often there is a profound personal struggle to experience the joy of sexual intimacy with the true marriage partner. Adultery can be even worse, for the intimacy intended for only one person is given to a stranger outside the marriage union. Not only has the one who committed adultery sinned against God and the other spouse, but the innocent spouse now struggles to regain trust and the joy once experienced in the sexual union before the adultery.

More to the point, true sexual intimacy comes down to the sex act itself. A man and a woman physically naked before each other, not knowing shame or embarrassment, engage in sharing their bodies for the sole purpose of giving and receiving sexual pleasure. When God created man and woman, He equipped them both with the necessary sexual genitalia to not only accomplish this pleasure to the fullest, but also result in the possibility of children.

As much as Rick speaks of intimacy, a same sex couple cannot experience the true sexual intimacy as God designed it from creation. Those who have given themselves over to homosexual passion may think they can experience that intimacy, but they are lying to themselves. The primary reason is biological. Two men have the same sexual organ, and though they can simulate a sex act to sexual release, this intimacy cannot compare to what is genuinely experienced between a man and a woman as God designed them. This is what I believe Paul has in mind in Romans 1:26, 27 when he speaks of homosexuals going against nature. The idea is that they are engaged in sexual activity that does not fit the function of their biological genitalia. In other words, and to be blunt, the anus is not meant to function as a sexual organ. It is designed to eliminate waste, not serve as a receptacle for another man's penis. Additionally, this is just one of the reasons why the gay revision of Romans 1 as to be condemning only pedophilia and not so-called consensual, same-sex relationships is absurd. The sexual penetration of two adult men is just as "against nature" as that of a grown man with a boy.

Then, allow me to skip to one final comment before saving the others for another post.
Rick writes,

The Church does not condemn all heterosexual behaviour by association on the basis that some heterosexuals commit the sins of adultery, fornication, lust and rape.

We affirm therefore that basic decency, common honesty and elementary logic require that gays and lesbians receive the same thoughtful consideration. That some homosexuals commit the sins of adultery, fornication, lust and rape does not warrant the conclusion that all gays and lesbians deserve unqualified condemnation. Our mission is to make all Christians aware of this basic truth.

If I am reading his comment correctly, Rick is saying that the heterosexual sex between a man and a woman is not condemned just because there are those heterosexuals who commit adultery, premarital sex, and rape. (I am not sure what he means be "lust," lust being a heart attitude that leads to specific sin). In other words, just because there are women who engage in prostitution does not mean human sexuality is condemned as sinful. In like manner then, in Rick's mind I guess, the homosexual sex between two consensual adult males in a committed relationship should not be condemned just because there are S&M perverts flaunting their perversion in a San Francisco gay day parade.

The problem with this comparison and contrast is the biological factor Rick over looks. Like I mentioned above, two men or two women cannot experience the sex God intended people to experience because their sexual organs are incompatible. A sex act simulated by an artificial device or substituting a non-sexual orifice cannot properly function in the manner God intended men and women to have sex. The folly of his so-called "logic" for homosexual sex seems to be utterly lost on Rick and other apologists advocating for a gay Christian lifestyle.