Homosexuality

• 1 Comment

•

I have heard it said (correctly) that the early Christians faced a moral world that in either the same depravity, or worse than what we see now.

Well, farther back than that.

If the Hebrew people had not lived surrounded by idolators and other evils, they would not have fallen in WITH them. So the evidence is that their world saw evil, as ours does.

The Jews just before Christ had forcibly dispersed, and some had returned; and the evil that they saw was as evil as today.

I think (purely subjective) that today seems more difficult for us because it appears so new to us. And (objectively) we do see things that we have NEVER seen before.

Was immorality rampant in 1st Century Rome? Absolutely. Was it worse than today? I don't know. Some say yes, others say no.

I think that we feel it more because Western Christians have long enjoyed "majority rule," thus staying safely wrapped in the insulation of tunnel vision.

The phrase "total depravity" best describes the world, and always has. We expect it.

We grieve - yes, for that depravity, but we grieve having to stand by, seemingly helpless, watching the DECLINE of our country and culture, at a breakneck speed.

Homosexuality is the best example.

Only a couple of decades ago, we (collectively) viewed same-sex-sex as abnormal. We knew gay people, we loved them as friends and family, but we loved them, not their chosen lifestyle.

Gay people sometimes (perhaps often) faced bullies and that should never have happened. People should never see bullying as acceptable.

In (culturally speaking) a very short amount of time, we see a decline.

- Traditional family unit (dad, mom, kids) and the gay community as outliers.

- A move away from the traditional family unit with the introduction of "consequence free sex" and "no-fault-divorce" (note: we do find good and Biblical reasons for divorce, and I don't find "nobody's fault" on the list.)

- With the traditional family unit undermined, open acceptance of the homosexual becomes tolerated by the culture

- As single motherhood becomes more acceptable, homosexuality becomes not only tolerated, but acceptable as a viable option.

- Demand of recognition of gay relationships becomes more popular, as does public spending for single motherhood.

- Demand of recognition of gay relationships becomes the demand that the culture view those relationships as identical to heterosexual relationships.

- The demand to see homosexual relationships as identical becomes the demand for culture (via "we the people") to sanction these relationships.

- the demand for sanction becomes the demand for approval

- the demand for approval becomes the demand for celebration by all people.

- the demand for celebration becomes the demand for participation, regardless of sincerely held religious convictions.

As Christians today look around and see our spiritual siblings SUED and FORCED to provide services to ceremonies found morally offensive, I find myself able to identify with Christians in other times and places, who steep in total depravity through no fault of their own.

We, who enjoyed cultural insulation for centuries, may find this a difficult transition. No, we WILL find this a difficult transition. From power to weakness, from majority to minority, from peace to persecution.

Is the "remnant" ready? I want to be part of the remnant - and I know I'm not ready. If the "steps of grieving" can be applied to this - I'm still in the "denial stage" but we need to get ready.

We need to be in the world, but not of the word. Persecution awaits, Jesus promised. Whether we will be found worthy of the persecution that HE endured, is yet to be seen.

•

The “soul of marriage” is a mystery. The apostle Paul wrote: ‘“ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.’

Satan, and the world as his helper, is striking at the soul of marriage - in (at least) a two-pronged offensive.

Both of these are an attempt to strike at the very image of God.  If we have a warped view of marriage, we will also have a warped view of God.

If we have a warped view of God, we will end up making Him in our own image...which is no god at all.

The first way I see involves striking at the image of Christ and His bride.

The second way I see involves striking at the image of God in creation.

One aspect of the "soul of marriage" is reflection of Christ and His bride.  The beautiful wedding dance of headship and submission shows Christians what their marriages should look like, and Christian marriages should show the world what Christ and His bride look like.

Egalitarianism teaches that there are no gender roles in marriage - since Scripture tells us that Christian marriages reflect Christ and His bride, no gender roles in marriage = no leadership, stewardship, or headship of Christ over His bride.

This assault on the soul of marriage leads to a warped view of Jesus.

The second front of the battle is "4SR" (State Sanctioned Same Sex Relationships.)

The  onslaught of the world against marriage, to force the recognition 4SR as "marriage," is stunning in its swiftness.  Even five years ago, we would not be having this conversation.

While I fully believe that God the Father is beyond gender (is a spirit,) He DOES get to pick what gender He wishes to be recognized as.  God chose "Father" - so that's what we know Him by.

That said, since He is beyond gender, the Bible makes sense:

 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

It  seems that God - in His own image, created male and female.  Together, they form a "oneness" that reflects the image of God.

There is more, and I want to expand, but in a nutshell, these two points are the main offensives, with various strategies within those offenses, where Satan is attacking the institution of marriage.

•

an article here

As I read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals for the umteenth time, and as I read this article, I'm reminded that (Rule #5)

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

I put "false accusation" in that category.

Read this article quoting Mozilla, and consider Brendan Eich.

Eich co-founded Mozilla. His guidance got it up and running. Last week, he quit in disgrace. His "crime?" Eight years ago, he donated $1,000 to California's Prop 8 (Constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage." I'm not going to send any readers there, but find an article on the matter and read the comments.

No longer can "same sex marriage" be a matter of opinion - those who hold the view that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman should be drummed out of the public square.

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

Really. What standard are they not living up to...the one that the co-founder helped to set in place? If this is the "true to ourselves" that they want to live up to, the world, in one week, became a much scarier place for people of a more conservative faith.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

How did we "expect" them to act? Obviously, liberals expected Eich to be forced out (or not promoted in the first place) much more quickly.

Oh...and "engage" must equal "get rid of all those who don't toe the gay agenda party line."

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

As long as "standing for both" means "getting rid of everybody who disagrees," Mozilla is doing great at that.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

And some are more equal than others.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

The rank hypocrisy makes me angry.

This week, not quite so diverse,

Not quite so open,

The beliefs and opinions of those who think that marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman...not quite so encouraged to share.

If their "higher standard" is anti-Christian, shutting down of conversation, and shutting out all who disagree, they seem as if they are on the right track.

As I write this, an alert came in telling me that SCOTUS has declined to hear Elane Huguenin's case in New Mexico. The world can now force Christian photographers to either act against their conscience, or be forced out of the public square.

There can be no disagreement on the "SSM" issue, or you will be ridiculed, fired, sued, forced out, called vile names...

all for the sake of "tolerance."

Welcome to the New United States of...

•

Last Friday, Michigan became a "gay marriage" state, by the decision of a federal judge, overturning a vote of the people.  Even though the governor has requested a stay until it can be sorted out in SCOTUS, at least one country clerk has "gender neutral" marriage licenses ready to go today.

I want to be clear.

I am going to be a BRIDE.

I am NOT "applicant A"

I am NOT "party B"

I am NOT "thing one" or "thing two"

1 - A license, by definition, says that the state is giving me permission to do that which is otherwise illegal.  If I must have a license in order to marry, then marriage is illegal, unless the state gives me permission to enter into a marriage.

2 - the state, by way of being the one who gives permission to marry (as opposed to God giving permission) now has the authority to define marriage (as opposed to God defining marriage.)

3 - what the state is giving "us" (citizens) permission to do is no longer "marriage" (according to Scripture.)

When is it time for Christians to opt out of a corrupt system?

Do Christians need the state's permission to enter into a covenant before God, their family,  and their church community?

I don't want a "gender neutral" marriage certificate.

 

•

This was today's reading from "Everyday Prayers" - bringing to mind one of today's political hot topics.

(GSSR - "government sactioned same-sex relationship)

When caught between your faith conviction, and what the government says you should honor/do/buy...what do you do?

We hear "love the sinner, hate the sin."  And when the baker loved the sinners, made friends with them, served them baked good on birthdays and other non-wedding events...opted out of baking for a gay wedding, she got sued.

She was hating the sin, while embracing the sinner.  That didn't work.

Christians will increasingly face this challenge, and will increasingly find ways to comply with the law, while remaining true to their convictions...or will buckle to the state, giving up on living out their faith through their businesses.

The same is true for Christians getting married.

When the state gives you permission to marry, but what they're permitting no longer resembles "marriage" - how do Christians respond?

Do they get a "gender neutral" marriage certificate?  Do they opt out of statism?

"Everyday Prayers:

Though your kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18: 36 NIV), your kingdom has broken into this world and one day will utterly transform this world. Because this is true, Jesus, I need you to free me from both extremes of naive passivity and fear-mongering aggression. Very practically, show me what “obeying God and not men” looks like when the claims of your kingdom clash with the values of this world. How do I submit to the authorities for your sake while primarily only bowing my knee and heart to you as my King? (page 96)

I don't know what this will look like.  Will the state allow people of faith to enter into marriage covenants, outside of the state's approval?

In Michigan, a pastor who officiates at a wedding that does not have the state's approval, commits a misdemeanor.  Do we see "civil disobedience" in view here?  Can we see going outside the state's system as "obeying God rather than man?"

it all remains to be seen.

• 1 Comment

•

I'm not a fan of the show, but I do (did) watch shows on A&E. The internet is flooded with articles...pro- and con-

So...I'm weighing in, not so much of what Phil did and said, but on how he's now being treated.

The ungodly scream that he's wrong about gays (actually, vile and hateful.) So evangelicals pile on and say, "And he was wrong about African-Americans too!" - IOW - shooting our wounded.

Jared Wilson wrote "Duck Dynasty”: Let’s Deal in Real Reality

point by point...

1. It will be difficult to prove a case of censorship, marginalization, or oppression when you can’t walk into a mall, grocery store, Wal-Mart, or sporting goods store without running beard-deep into the Robertson clan’s gigantic faces and assorted “Duck Dynasty”-branded trinkets and googaws.

Question: if the Robertson family gives up the show, do they give up rights to the merchandise franchise? Unless or until you can answer that question, you should not be making the above statement.

Bottom line: It assumes that the discrimination will end with the removal of Phil from the show and that has yet to be seen.

2. We ought to remember that the first amendment does not guarantee anyone’s right to have a show on cable television.

True. But if discrimination can take place by an employer based on race, sex, religion, and the government has an interest in protecting those classes of people, why not here?

Bottom Line: Robertson articulated his religious beliefs in the public square and was disciplined for it.

3. What Phil Robertson said about homosexuality to Gentleman’s Quarterly magazine is something nearly all so-called “gentlemen” used to believe, including the part where he said black people were happy before the Civil Rights movement and he never saw racism in Louisiana growing up.

Yes, he said that.

Actually, no. He did NOT say that.

He said the Blacks HE KNEW...

I grew up on a farm in the rural "Thumb" of Michigan. Blacks were not the minority I grew up with.

Looking back at my life growing up, I would have said that the minorities that I rubbed shoulders with were happy, and that I saw no racism.

Now I know better, because somebody who wasn't there, didn't live my life, and may not have a clue about how I (OR Robertson) grew up...will tell me that I'm wrong, or need to deal with reality or some such thing.

Bottom line: if you weren't there, you might be wrong.

(part of #5 - Wilson skipped #4, a misprint, I'm sure.) The firing of a millionaire reality show participant isn’t just a first world problem — it’s a one-percenter problem

This made me really, really angry.

1) Is discrimination okay, as long as the one discriminated against is wealthy?

James 2:2-4 ESV For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Is the opposite also true?

If you deem a wealthy man unworthy of protection against discrimination because "that's a one-percenter problem" - "have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

2) one-percenter...really? Does not Wilson understand that to a lot of the world, if you know where your next meal is coming from...you're wealthy! Do you have a car? Television? You can turn on your computer and get instant access to the world?

Bottom line: You, Jared Wilson, are part of the 1%

Now...my views...

I believe that the political gay lobby has the goal to marginalize people of faith who disagree with them. Make them afraid to speak out. Silence them. Take away their jobs, their livelihoods, their careers, their businesses.

I've blogged here about bakers, caterers, photographers, doctors, who chose to not participate in gay celebrations through providing services. Who chose to not participate in gay celebrations and have been successfully sued.

If Phil Robertson, one of the largest cash cows on television, can lose his job for voicing his Christian beliefs about gay behavior, how much more so the single-proprietor photographer or baker?

The agenda - to normalize gay behavior and to make those who disagree silent and marginalized, and to fore those who disagree to act against their religious beliefs.

This is another step and we should recognize that this is not about Phil Robertson, how rich he is, who he grew up with, or how much money he makes A&E. It's about GLAAD and where they are steering our country.

• 2 Comments

•

(With the name removed to make things interesting...but those who know...know)

"...is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible when he takes Paul's 2,000-year-old words as proof for all time that the Supreme Being --!(#%&#)@*$(&%--.

"It's the same process of logic that leads to supporting slavery," -$*@$&%- said, noting that the apostle of Jesus also did not oppose slavery.

"It's important for people to understand that the holy scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding,"

Not applicable for all time, same process that leads us to supporting slavery.

Question: is this an egalitarian supporting women in the pulpit? Or an Anglican supporting homosexual marriage?

• 4 Comments

•

Yes, I know that McLaren and Driscoll are on "Out of Ur" but that's not what I'm writing about.

I firmly believe that homosexualty actions are wrong - sin. Of course, so are a lot of other things that are right out in the open at church. How homosexuals should be treated should very much depend on whether or not they are in the church (professing Christians).

Wherever they are at, whatever they are doing, our motive should be love.

But on to the real topic.
...and my struggle with gentleness...I'm going to be writing a letter to the editor and need to focus on gentleness and respect. My first letter "went away" when somebody rebooted the computer before I saved it and I think God's hand was in that.

I got my February copy of "The Banner" and read a couple of things that kind of mystified me.

The First Christian Reformed Church in Toronto, Ontario announced three years ago that it would allow its members living in committed gay and lesbian relationships to be nominated as elders and deacons.

In December 2005, after being on the brink of being disaffiliated, "The Council of First Christian Reformed Church, Toronto...resolved[s] to acknowledge the CRC guidelines with respect to homosexuality and agrees to tailor its ministry accordingly."

So far so good. Next up: First CRC plans ask the synod to revisit the CRC's position on homosexuality. So, they're going to go through the normal channels to get gays and lesbians into the formal leadership of their church. (Here's where I start to lose the "gentleness" thing.

I'm not mystified by this; I'm glad that the denomination's structure brought enough pressure to bring the church into line. The structure did its job.

What mystifies me is another article on "General and Special Revelation in Conversation" by Dr. Donald Oppewal at Calvin College (words from the article in blue. Special revelation is the Bible and general revelation is:
- an embodiment of the divine thought in the phenomona of nature;
- the general composition of the human mind and
- the facts of experience or history.

Oppewal maintains that special revelation alone is inadequate; the two sources are interdependent and...that general revelation promotes a proper understanding of special revelation."

(This is where I really start to lose my gentleness - not with sinners, but with the denomination)

Oppewal's final paragraph reads: "The Spirit moves most surely among us when Christians read the "facts of experience or history" as well as when we read the Bible. Christian thinkers in the vaeious disciplines, including theology, can give us counsel as we try to walk together toward that day when we shall all see more clearly the will of God for our communal lives, both in church and in society."

(Here's where I have to work to stay focused on gentleness)

Apply that final paragraph to Oppewal's final point.

"It remains to be seen how the question of homosexuality as a lifestyle comports with a Christian view of sexuality. But we can hope that the church will examine the evidence from general revelation just as seriously as it does the evidence from special revelation.

"Without also considering the evidence from biology concerning how sexuality is shaped, and without turning to the actual sociological evidence about same-sex relations, we'll end up doing only half our homework as Reformed Christians."

What Oppewal appears to be saying is that we have to look at God's Word through the lens of "sociological evidence" - not the other way around.

My desire is (with gentleness and respect) state clearly that we should be looking at the world through God's lens - not looking at God's Word through the lens of the world.