Standing against the Pro-Gay Agenda and its Taunts

Recently, a pro-gay [PG] “evangelical” took issue with my stance that homosexual behavior is a sin. I challenged him to provide just one verse justifying homosexuality. Of course, he couldn’t. Instead, he argued that Christians are hypocrites for judging homosexuality because we don’t judge other sins that the Bible also deems as sinful:

• I'm demonstrating a parallel between homosexuality and women uncovering their heads while praying or prophesying. Both these behaviors are seemingly condemned by scripture. What I can't understand is why you pick and choose only those verses from scripture that address one of these issues while you let people do whatever the heck they want on the other one. You are inconsistent. You select only those scriptures that support your pre-existing prejudice [homophobia]. Why don't you write blog posts telling slaves to obey their masters? That is also clearly advocated in scripture, after all. I don't see why you get to demand that I cite just one verse on your pet issue of homosexuality when you can't cite one verse allowing women to uncover their heads while praying or prophesying… Admittedly there are gray areas in scriptures, but you haven't provided one reason to prove that women uncovering their heads covered while praying or prophesying is a gray area.

First of all, it should be clear that Christians do/should not judge people with SSA (same-sex attraction). We all have sinful impulses! Instead, we must judge behaviors and words as the Bible judges and as Jesus has judged.

Secondly, the issue of women covering their heads is a difficult one. For one thing, it is only found in one set of verses. For another, it’s hard to know what Paul meant by a woman covering her “head” (1 Cor. 11:2- ). Is it with a veil or her own hair? Then Paul further stirs the kettle. First, he claims that the wife is under her husband as Christ is under the Father and the husband is under Christ, but then he adds another element. Although the woman was created for the man, now, the man comes forth from the woman. Frankly, I am perplexed.

Meanwhile, there is no ambiguity regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. It is never given a green-light! Although the PG is correct that we mustn’t discriminate according to our own preferences regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, his charge that the church is guilty of exercising a “pre-existing prejudice” is unsustainable.

However, even if we are using Scripture in a prejudicial/homophobic way, this might discredit us, but it doesn’t discredit Scripture, which is clear regarding its condemnation of homosexuality!

If we are picking-and-choosing among the teachings of Scripture, we have to correct ourselves. We have to also speak against adultery, pornography, prostitution, and even trial marriages.

The PG indicts me for focusing on my “pet issue of homosexuality.” Admittedly, I do speak more against homosexuality than against trial marriages, but there are reasons for this:

1. This is an area where churches are compromising.
2. This issue is incessantly being pushed by the courts, university, and media. Response is therefore imperative!
3. It is a deadly sin. According to the stats, homosexual men’s lifespans are on the average of 20 years less.
4. Christian youth are not receiving necessary teaching to combat the many voices that are claiming that the church is homophobic.
5. The PG agenda has been threatening our freedoms of speech and religion.
6. As a result, many have lost their jobs and businesses for expressing themselves in favor of traditional marriage. Others have experienced vandalism and threats. These need advocates!

Even in this discussion, an “evangelical” PG has used personal attacks to shame and silence. In defense, we must recall that we are required to be a light to the world.

Chambers’ Big Mistake: Only the Repentant can Come to God

Alan Manning Chambers, President of the now defunct Exodus International, made a much-publicized apology to the gay community. Some of his apology was well-directed. He apologized for his vulgar language and deception. He had denied the fact that he continued to struggle against same-sex attraction.

However, some aspects of his apology were troubling and scripturally off-center. Citing Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son, Chambers insinuated that the church is supposed to receive everyone into fellowship, even the unrepentant. Chambers calls this “love unhindered” by any judgment or consideration:

• “From a Judeo-Christian perspective, gay, straight or otherwise, we’re all prodigal sons and daughters. Exodus International is the prodigal’s older brother, trying to impose its will on God’s promises, and make judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom. God is calling us to be the Father – to welcome everyone, to love unhindered.”  

In this parable, the prodigal son had proved himself entirely unworthy of his father. He demanded his inheritance from his father, went away, and spent his entire inheritance on all the wrong things. Subsequently, he suffered greatly, was humbled by his foolishness, and returned repentantly to his father:

• "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.'” (Luke 15:17-19) 

Clearly, the prodigal son was repentant. His father was so overjoyed that he decided to throw him a lavish party. However, his older brother was enraged by the father’s mercy. He thought the prodigal entirely unworthy of all that his father was lavishing upon him.

While, it is true that the prodigal was unworthy, he had returned repentantly to the father – the very thing that Israel’s Prophets demanded of Israel. However, the older brother understood nothing of mercy, convinced that he never needed an ounce of it:

• He answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. (Luke 15:29) 

We all sin and have fallen short of God’s standards (Rom. 3:23). However, self-righteousness often blinds us to our sins. If we are self-righteous, like the older son, it is inevitable that we will judge and disdain others, thinking ourselves better and more deserving than they.

Chambers is correct that we are “all the prodigal sons.” He also claims that Exodus International had played the older brother, making “judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom,” as if some of us are worthy.

Chambers knows Exodus better than I, and so I will not contest his evaluation of his organization. However, he also insinuates that the church, in requiring gays to come repentantly to Christ, is also the older brother.

However, it seems that Jesus Himself requires repentance of any who come to Him. Let’s look at this parable. It is already clear that the prodigal had returned repentantly. This is what it means to return to God. Returning is always a matter of repenting, as the Prophet Samuel required of Israel:

• And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the Lord with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines." (1 Samuel 7:3)

Returning to God without a repentant heart is scripturally unthinkable. It was also unthinkable for Jesus. In this context, Jesus was criticized by the religious leadership for receiving sinners. He responded with three parables, the last of which was the parable of the Prodigal Son. The first also involved something lost:

• "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:4-7)

The “rejoicing” requires “one sinner who repents!” There is absolutely no indication of any rejoicing over a sinner who doesn’t repent. Jesus is responding to the religious leadership to justify the fact that He is associating with sinners who are repentant – something they should all endorse according to Scripture. Had they not been repentant, the leadership could have easily appealed to Psalm 1:

• Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. (Psalm 1:1)

However, since these sinners were repentant, they dared not raise an objection. The next parable relies on a lost coin:

• "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:8-10) 

Once again, the angelic rejoicing depends upon “one sinner who repents.” Consequently, we can’t celebrate when a gay person enters the church professing a faith but refusing to repent. Instead, the church has every reason to call the sinner to repentance before baptism or fellowship can be offered. To do otherwise is absurd. It would mean receiving the unrepentant as a brother but then bringing church disciplinary charges against him.

The final parable Jesus uses to justify his association with repentant sinners is the parable of the Prodigal Son. Instead of using the analogy of a lost sheep or a lost coin, Jesus brings His argumentation closer to home with a lost son. Instead of rejoicing with the father over the repentant son who has returned home, the leadership are scoffing along with the older brother.

We fail to love the gay person as we ought, if we receive them into fellowship, through baptism, without requiring repentance – the willingness and determination to turn from sin. Instead, we are giving them a false hope. We are enabling them to live the life of destruction. We are telling them the very thing that the false prophets had told Israel, the very thing that destroyed them.

The Prophet Jeremiah proclaimed that the true prophet exposed sin and its dangers in hope of healing:

• The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The oracles they gave you were false and misleading. (Lament. 2:14)

Instead, the false prophets proclaimed, “Peace, peace!” We cannot remain indulgent about sin. If we fail to expose it, we bear part of the guilt. God had warned His prophet about this:

• "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. (Ezekiel 33:7-8)

We are all “watchmen.” We are all our brothers’ keepers, and we all have His Word. Therefore, we are all accountable.

Contrary to Chambers’ claim of “unhindered love,” sin and rebellion does hinder God’s love and those we love need to be aware of this.

“Unconstitutional!” - Striking Down Proposition 8

Proposition 8 was passed by 52% of the California voters to limit marriage to one male and one female. The 9th Circuit Court just declared it “unconstitutional,” demonstrating that the highly debatable interpretation of a couple of judges carries more weight than the democratic vote. The Court concluded:

• “Proposition 8 serves no purpose … other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

If this was the case, as a Christian I would have to agree with the 9^th Circuit Court. Scripture informs me that we are all precious – created in the image of God – and have inestimable worth. In addition to this, we have all been perverted by the effects of sin. I must admit that I am humbled daily by the ongoing reality of sin in my own life. This leaves me little room – no room – to look down on others. When we truly understand that every good thing that we have is a product of the undeserved grace of God (James 1:17), the option of arrogance must be soundly rejected.

However, this doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t vote in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Likewise, I would vote against polygamy – not because I want to “lessen the status and human dignity” of polygamists but because I don’t think that this institution has a salutary effect on society.

Instead, is it not the Court’s demeaning language which “lessen[s our] status and human dignity,” merely because we vote against same-sex mariage? It is troubling to read that the 9^th Circuit Court pejoratively labels us as “bigoted”:

• Denying marriage to gay people is obviously bigoted because “under California statutory law [governing civil unions], same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples.” http://committeeforjustice.blogspot.com/2012/02/9th-circuits-gay-marriage-decision.html?utm_source=Gay+Marriage%3A+What+9th+Circuit+was+Really+Thinking&utm_campaign=CFJ+on+Prop+8+decision&utm_medium=email

However, the laws of this land also deny marriage of fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters. Is this also bigoted? If not, why not? Why isn’t our nation bigoted for denying the right of marriage to these adults? Are we also bigoted for imposing an “age of consent,” thereby denying adult rights to juveniles?

Perhaps it is the 9^th Circuit Court which is bigoted against those who would vote for a Proposition 8. It claims:

• “The People may not employ the [ballot] initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment.”

But isn’t this what every law does. It inevitably discriminates against certain behaviors – tax evaders, speeders, thieves and even jaywalkers. Are we bigoted when we pass such laws? Certainly not! Do we “single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment?”  Instead, by extending social sanction to a behavior/institution that has proven detrimental effects on its practitioners, we are morally complicit.

Prop 8 does not discriminate against same-sex attraction (SSA) or the individuals who have it but against same-sex marriage (SSM). We are all orientated to an assortment of sins. Although I might be tempted towards theft, it doesn’t make me a thief. Nor should I be punished or stigmatized as such.  

Sexual orientation should not define the person. We are far more than our orientations. When Governor Jim McGreavey disclosed that he was a “gay American,” I was surprised. Why did he define himself by his SSA? He had many other identifies to choose from. He was a father, a husband, and the governor of the state of New Jersey. Why then did he define himself by SSA at the expense of his other identities? Why did he identify with what our conscience has universally indicted as sin – the homosexual lifestyle - in favor of his family?

Was he living a lie being married to a woman while his prime attraction was men? Certainly not! There is nothing that says that you have to be more attracted to your wife than to others – male or female! The conflict only arises when one equates acting out one’s sexual desire with truth and authenticity. I may feel like insulting someone, but truth and authenticity doesn’t require that I do so. I am not a hypocrite if I decide to identify with my faith and convictions rather than my sinful feelings.

When we vote for a Proposition 8, we are not voting against SSA or the people who struggle with it. We are not demonizing a certain group of people, as the 9^th Circuit Court alleges, but instead the institution of SSM. Rather, it is the courts that have demonized us as “bigots.”