2012/08/16
JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR: AN UTTER BLASSPHEMY
2010/09/05
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE ATHEIST WRITER PHILIP PULLMAN
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE ATHEIST WRITER PHILIP PULLMAN
The very blasphemous and senseless novel " The Goood Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ"
Philip Pullman is atheist convinced, he declares Jesus was not the son of God, and Christianity was invented by Paul.
Now to give some basis to his raving ideas, he wrote a novel where he invents a kind of direction that
realize the Christianity and the Church. Pullman also claims that Jesus had a twin according to some apocryphal gospels,
he alludes to the Gnostic Coptic Gospel of Thomas, but in Thomas is not a carnal twin , but spiritual-gnostic twinning.
Here is a small summary of the tale.
Mary of Nazareth is a girl and lives with Joseph, to whom she was has entrusted by the priests of the temple,
this was copied from the apocryphal Gospel of James.
It happens, that one night an angel seduces and impregnates Mary.
Born twins, a healthy and strong, the other sickly and intriguing.
To the healthy twin will be given the name Jesus, to the sickly, the name of Christ,
the Greek translation of messiah. The birth takes place in Bethlehem.
There is also the visit of the shepherds ,who are visited by an bright angel, who announcing the birth of the Messiah.
The story continues with a blasphemous and ridiculous copy of the Gospels.
The twins grow up, we find Jesus at twelve in the temple, where he writes his name on walls with clay,
and priests want to punish him, the twin Christ defends Jesus.
Jesus adult goes around preaching the gospel and doing miracles. Christ follows the twin Jesus and record everything he does.
While Jesus is pure, the twin Christ is a sinner, so sinner to frequent the prostitutes.
A stranger without a name helps Christ to organize everything, to form a church with governmental structures and istitutions.
Then the evil twin Christ betrays Jesus, who is crucified and dies, while the twin Christ presents himself as the risen Jesus.
So Jesus was not son of God and he not risen, but the resurrection as well as miracles are false.
This is the story, this is one of the most blasphemous novels, senseless and imaginative writings against Jesus and the Christian faith.
Now, an atheist who writes this novel very blasphemous against God, against Jesus, against the Holy Ghost, against Holy Family, the Christian faith,
it can happen, but now, this gospel very blasphemous is promoted by the Anglican Church!
The Church of England Newspaper defines the Pullman'novel , a magnificent book that ignites the debate.
Pullman, was inspired to write this very blasphemous novel against the Lord Jesu Christ and His Holy Name
by a most surprising figure, the Archbishop of Canerbury Dr Rowan Williams, ( according to the telegraph.co.uk).
The Archbishop Rowan is a Pullman'fan, and about the novel " The Goood Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ",
Dr Rowan says " A voice of sincere spiritual authority", ( according to The Guardian).
Pullman does not believe in Jesus, and not wonder what Jesus thinks of his cruel and blasphemous novel,
but even the Archbishop of Canterbury, he does not ask himself what do think Jesus.
So really amazing things happen, like a novel so foolish, useless, offensive and blasphemous, is accepted by the Anglican Church remains a mystery.
How the devil 'apostasy is sweeping the Christian world!
This apostasy was foretold;
2 Timothy 4: 3-4
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,
will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
2 Peter 2:1
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you,
who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
***************************************************************
Here's another slap against Jesus who died for us sinners, ungrateful.
However, these blasphemous novels are useless rubbish, do not serve to the Christian believer nor to the atheist,
or the believer of another faith, in their place would be better to read the Gospels true, not only for religion but also for culture.
*************************************************
The Bible warns us about the dangers of blasphemous works.
All we will one day stand before the true Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of all the earth,
and not before a false Christ invented from the imagination of some atheist, agnostic, pagan or false Christian.
Our eternal destiny depends on the relationship we had with him the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the salvation we must believe in the Jesus Chist.
John 3: 35-36
The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.
John 8: 23-24
He said to them, "You belong to what is below, I belong to what is above. You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world.
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."
Matthew 10: 32-33
Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
Mark 8: 38
Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
Mark 16: 16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
******************************************************************
The Lord Jesus Christ warns us about the dangers of blasphemous works.
Matthew 12: 30-32
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
either in this age or in the age to come.
Matthew 12: 36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.
By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
*********************************************************
The Lord Jesus Christ will punish sinners.
Matthew 13: 40-43
Just as weeds are collected and burned (up) with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers.
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.
Matthew 16: 27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
*******************************************************
The Lord Jesus Christ warns of false Christians.
Matthrew 7: 21-23
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'
Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
*******************************************************
St. Paul warns those who make blasphemous works.
Galatians 1: 6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
*********************************************************
Biblical quotations: The New American Bible
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/Home/the-gospel-according-to-the-atheist-writer-philip-pullman
The very blasphemous and senseless novel " The Goood Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ"
Philip Pullman is atheist convinced, he declares Jesus was not the son of God, and Christianity was invented by Paul.
Now to give some basis to his raving ideas, he wrote a novel where he invents a kind of direction that
realize the Christianity and the Church. Pullman also claims that Jesus had a twin according to some apocryphal gospels,
he alludes to the Gnostic Coptic Gospel of Thomas, but in Thomas is not a carnal twin , but spiritual-gnostic twinning.
Here is a small summary of the tale.
Mary of Nazareth is a girl and lives with Joseph, to whom she was has entrusted by the priests of the temple,
this was copied from the apocryphal Gospel of James.
It happens, that one night an angel seduces and impregnates Mary.
Born twins, a healthy and strong, the other sickly and intriguing.
To the healthy twin will be given the name Jesus, to the sickly, the name of Christ,
the Greek translation of messiah. The birth takes place in Bethlehem.
There is also the visit of the shepherds ,who are visited by an bright angel, who announcing the birth of the Messiah.
The story continues with a blasphemous and ridiculous copy of the Gospels.
The twins grow up, we find Jesus at twelve in the temple, where he writes his name on walls with clay,
and priests want to punish him, the twin Christ defends Jesus.
Jesus adult goes around preaching the gospel and doing miracles. Christ follows the twin Jesus and record everything he does.
While Jesus is pure, the twin Christ is a sinner, so sinner to frequent the prostitutes.
A stranger without a name helps Christ to organize everything, to form a church with governmental structures and istitutions.
Then the evil twin Christ betrays Jesus, who is crucified and dies, while the twin Christ presents himself as the risen Jesus.
So Jesus was not son of God and he not risen, but the resurrection as well as miracles are false.
This is the story, this is one of the most blasphemous novels, senseless and imaginative writings against Jesus and the Christian faith.
Now, an atheist who writes this novel very blasphemous against God, against Jesus, against the Holy Ghost, against Holy Family, the Christian faith,
it can happen, but now, this gospel very blasphemous is promoted by the Anglican Church!
The Church of England Newspaper defines the Pullman'novel , a magnificent book that ignites the debate.
Pullman, was inspired to write this very blasphemous novel against the Lord Jesu Christ and His Holy Name
by a most surprising figure, the Archbishop of Canerbury Dr Rowan Williams, ( according to the telegraph.co.uk).
The Archbishop Rowan is a Pullman'fan, and about the novel " The Goood Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ",
Dr Rowan says " A voice of sincere spiritual authority", ( according to The Guardian).
Pullman does not believe in Jesus, and not wonder what Jesus thinks of his cruel and blasphemous novel,
but even the Archbishop of Canterbury, he does not ask himself what do think Jesus.
So really amazing things happen, like a novel so foolish, useless, offensive and blasphemous, is accepted by the Anglican Church remains a mystery.
How the devil 'apostasy is sweeping the Christian world!
This apostasy was foretold;
2 Timothy 4: 3-4
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,
will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
2 Peter 2:1
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you,
who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
***************************************************************
Here's another slap against Jesus who died for us sinners, ungrateful.
However, these blasphemous novels are useless rubbish, do not serve to the Christian believer nor to the atheist,
or the believer of another faith, in their place would be better to read the Gospels true, not only for religion but also for culture.
*************************************************
The Bible warns us about the dangers of blasphemous works.
All we will one day stand before the true Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of all the earth,
and not before a false Christ invented from the imagination of some atheist, agnostic, pagan or false Christian.
Our eternal destiny depends on the relationship we had with him the Lord Jesus Christ.
For the salvation we must believe in the Jesus Chist.
John 3: 35-36
The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.
John 8: 23-24
He said to them, "You belong to what is below, I belong to what is above. You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world.
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."
Matthew 10: 32-33
Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
Mark 8: 38
Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
Mark 16: 16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
******************************************************************
The Lord Jesus Christ warns us about the dangers of blasphemous works.
Matthew 12: 30-32
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
either in this age or in the age to come.
Matthew 12: 36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.
By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
*********************************************************
The Lord Jesus Christ will punish sinners.
Matthew 13: 40-43
Just as weeds are collected and burned (up) with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers.
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.
Matthew 16: 27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
*******************************************************
The Lord Jesus Christ warns of false Christians.
Matthrew 7: 21-23
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'
Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
*******************************************************
St. Paul warns those who make blasphemous works.
Galatians 1: 6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
*********************************************************
Biblical quotations: The New American Bible
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/
https://sites.google.com/site/antiblasphemycentral/Home/the-gospel-according-to-the-atheist-writer-philip-pullman
2010/05/04
The Audacity of Bishop Gene Robinson
The Audacity of Bishop Gene Robinson
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May 3, 2010
Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire has written an "open letter" to the Pope telling him in no uncertain terms that the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church is about pedophilia and that he has it all wrong about homosexuals. He accuses the Pope of being "misguided and [says it is]wrong for gay men to be scapegoated in this scandal."
Robinson wrote his letter as a part of his program as a part-time senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
He wrote, "As a gay man, I know the pain and the verbal and physical violence that can come from the thoroughly debunked myth connecting homosexuality and the abuse of children. In the media, representatives of and advocates for the Roman Catholic Church have laid blame for sexual abuse at the feet of gay priests. These people know, or should know, that every reputable scientific study shows that homosexuals are no more or less likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. Psychologically healthy homosexual men are no more drawn to little boys than psychologically healthy heterosexual men are drawn to little girls.
"Sexual activity with children or teenagers is child abuse, pure and simple. Meaningful consent is impossible, by definition, for the underaged. You will not rid your church of sexual abuse by throwing homosexuals out of your seminaries or out of the priesthood. Homosexual priests have faithfully and responsibly served God throughout Catholic history. To scapegoat them and deprive them of their pulpits is a tragedy for the people they serve and for the church. Yours is a problem of abuse, not sexual orientation."
Robinson has it all wrong.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexuality as "objectively disordered" http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm The writers of the catechism say this under the banner: Chastity and homosexuality
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
"Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence.
"At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of.
"As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood." http://tinyurl.com/4rsyc
As a result of Robinson's consecration, the Roman Catholic Church broke off ecumenical discussions with The Episcopal Church, as did the Russian Orthodox Church.
Truth be told, Robinson's consecration has cost TEC dearly with tens of thousands of people leaving The Episcopal Church including whole dioceses. A new Anglican Church has been formed in North America, which the Roman Catholic Church may yet recognize.
What sort of credibility does Robinson think he has with the pope? Bear in mind that he was once married to a woman, had two children, then announced after several years of marriage that he was a homosexual, divorced his wife, then met a man on a Caribbean Island, moved in with him and then "married" him according to the secular laws of the state of New Hampshire.
The truth is those group of priests who molest mostly young men ARE homosexuals or more accurately ephebophiliacs, adult men who have a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
The term "ephebophilia" was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the neologism of "chronophilia". Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old.
Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys. These Roman Catholic priests fall exactly into that category. They are not pedophiles as they did not go after small children...their sexual interests lay in seducing young adolescent boys whose sexuality had not been fully formed and who were open to manipulation by older men, including a number of priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
As Catholic League president Bill Donohue observed on the statistics of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, "As reported in 2004, between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male; in 2005, it stayed the same; in 2006, it dropped to 80 percent; in 2007, it climbed to 82 percent; in 2008, it jumped to 84 percent; and in 2009, it stayed at 84 percent. In other words, even though priests have less access to males, homosexual priests are molesting them at a higher rate [than females]. It's time to end the gay cover-up once and for all."
Not to put a too fine point on it, a gay Episcopal activist, Frank Lombard, a Duke University official was arrested in Raleigh, NC on pedophile charges he molested his own children. He claimed that he was a "fan of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson."
Or what about the case of the convicted pedophile Episcopal Priest Lynn C. Baumann who was allowed to host a spiritual retreats with Presiding Bishop's blessing!
In an exchange of correspondence with David Clohessy, National Director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Mrs. Jefferts Schori, through her Pastoral Development Officer Bishop F. Clayton Matthews, said Baumann that could function as a spiritual retreat master on the understanding that "Mr. Baumann's contact (is) to adults only".
One should point out to Robinson that despite all the fine talk about how high the standards are now for sexual abuse being spotted and dealt with in TEC, as recently as February of this year, an 82-year old Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Central New York was charged with multiple counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of a minor. He got away with it for years.
Stories VOL wrote at that time suggested a possible cover-up of the priest's sexual activities by Episcopal Bishop Gladstone (Skip) Adams. Why did we hear nothing from Robinson about these cases when they erupted in the press?
I wrote at the time, "The truth is the bishop (Adams) should be investigated by the national church. He should face the same charges brought against the now inhibited and deposed former Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison who was forced to step down following a trial and conviction on charges that he covered up his brother's sexual abuse of a female minor. The story began in 2006..."
The truth is Robinson's advice to the Pope is ill advised and his misinformation staggering. He should get his sexualities (LGBTQ) -- he says there are more -- better lined up before he proceeds to tell the leader of one billion Catholics worldwide what it is he would like us to believe about sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Roman Catholic leaders did a very poor job in getting rid of homosexuals. Many of the leaders were fooled. Homosexuals over ran their seminaries. In many cases, they took over parishes and fooled bishops and those higher up in the church. They became deeply entrenched as the "pink mafia". The Vatican finally sent a team of high-level persons to clean the homosexual infestations out of the seminaries.
The Roman Catholic Church has now said there will be no more cover-ups, no more peddling of sexually abusive priests around to different parishes. Every case will be turned over to the authorities immediately. We shall see. Institutional loyalty still reigns.
The difference of course between the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church is that TEC has rolled over to the culture and not stood up against it. TEC has caved while the RCC has not.
Robinson thinks that by giving vent to his sexual preferences and endorsing sodomy in the name of "justice" that this will resolve the problem and people will come flocking back to TEC in the name of inclusivity and diversity. He is dead wrong. It is not happening. TEC is slowly dying. The Roman Catholic Church grew in America last year, admittedly through immigration, despite the awful things a handful of their priests did.
The Roman Catholic Church has put in place higher standards for those applying to the priesthood. Homosexuals will be hard pressed to get past the battery of psychological tests they must now undergo.
It is not without its significance that leading British homosexual Peter Tatchell has advocated for the legal age of sexual consent to be lowered to 14 http://tinyurl.com/36hp463 and Stonewall, the chief gay campaigners in the United Kingdom, publicly advocates 16 as the legal age of consent for sexual activity with children http://tinyurl.com/337slhh Why would they do that if they didn't want fresh young vulnerable boys to seduce?
Most of those who abuse children (and 14 is a child, to my mind) are unmarried men who abuse boys rather than girls. The conclusion seems glaringly obvious to anyone. It is also becoming clearer, based on the best psychological evidence, that male predators are drawn and attracted to their victims because it seemingly fulfills a bottomless yearning for father-son bonding and nurturing that was denied the predator for whatever reason.
Perhaps, Mr. Robinson should take a long hard look in the mirror.
*****
The following is the letter Bishop Robinson wrote to Pope Benedict XVI.
Amid abuse scandal, advice from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to Pope Benedict
By Bishop V. Gene Robinson
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Your Holiness,
Though our churches differ in many ways, we believe in the same God. As your brother in Christ, it pains me to see Catholics struggle with your response to recent allegations of sex abuse by priests. Since my denomination has also battled these demons, I want to share with you what I have learned as a bishop of the Episcopal Church.
About 20 years ago, our church became aware of sex abuse by our clergy here in the United States. To our shame, we learned of it in lawsuits filed by victims alleging that some of our bishops had minimized the seriousness of the abuse and/or swept their claims under the rug. Some cases were related to the abuse of children; others involved male clergy who took advantage of their pastoral relationship with vulnerable women to manipulate them into sexual relationships. These men violated the sacred trust placed in clergy to focus on parishioners' needs and to separate those needs from their own. To prevent further such abuses of power, we moved quickly for the good of the victims and of our church.
Whether or not civil courts recognize a statute of limitations, the church must hold its clergy members accountable to their vows to be faithful shepherds of their people. In 1994, the Episcopal Church opened a two-year window of opportunity to hear complaints about priestly abuse of the pastoral relationship with adults. Just because an event occurred many years ago did not make it any less egregious, especially since perpetrators rarely have only one victim. We addressed all complaints through our canonical disciplinary process.
As for instances involving children, we have no statute of limitations on reporting abuse. Those suspected of committing child abuse are immediately reported to the civil authorities for investigation.
Rather than refusing to acknowledge our transgressions, we sought to change our church's culture -- an effort that took no small amount of courage. In my diocese in New Hampshire, and across the Episcopal Church, we perform a thorough background check on every bishop, priest or deacon who serves under my authority. We correspond with every employer the clergyperson has ever had and every bishop under whom the clergyperson has ever served to determine whether there is a history of complaints.
While procedures vary from diocese to diocese, we here in New Hampshire require six hours of abuse-prevention training for clergy, all other employees of the church (organists, parish administrators, maintenance workers), youth workers and elected parish leaders. A refresher course is required every five years. Events with and for children may never be conducted without two adults present and always in view of each other. This protects children from abusive behavior and protects adults who might be falsely charged. Many of our parishes have installed windows in the clergy office doors, so that no activity -- even private counseling -- may go unobserved.
We want many pairs of eyes watching for signs of abuse. We want everyone to know how to report suspected abuse of children and abuse of the pastoral relationship between clergy members and parishioners. We want to keep the issue before our church -- clergy and laity alike -- and to keep the conversation going.
But the thing victims most want to hear from the church, especially its leadership, is: "I am so sorry. This should never have happened to you, especially here. We are going to do everything in our power to see that nothing like this happens again." Victims live with their horrific experiences and know that their abuse can never be undone. And so they seek assurance that the church will change the system that allows abuse to go undetected and take action to hold perpetrators accountable. Child abusers do not deserve protection; they must be reported immediately to civil authorities and prosecuted.
The Christian church -- like any institution -- is as capable of sin as any individual. We have been wrong before, from the Inquisition and the Crusades down to our defense of slavery (using scripture) and our denigration of women. Over time, the church has repented for these sins and sought to change its ways. The discovery of sexual abuse by clergy is another situation that calls for the church's repentance and reform.
I would not presume to instruct you. That would be arrogant. Nor would I impose upon you advice you've not sought. But I do offer you the benefit of my experience as you seek to deal responsibly with these challenges to the integrity of your church. Your letter to the faithful in Ireland and your meeting in Malta with victims were a good start. I hope the future will bring more truth telling, which will make your church a better, safer place.
However, I believe it is misguided and wrong for gay men to be scapegoated in this scandal. As a gay man, I know the pain and the verbal and physical violence that can come from the thoroughly debunked myth connecting homosexuality and the abuse of children. In the media, representatives of and advocates for the Roman Catholic Church have laid blame for sexual abuse at the feet of gay priests. These people know, or should know, that every reputable scientific study shows that homosexuals are no more or less likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. Psychologically healthy homosexual men are no more drawn to little boys than psychologically healthy heterosexual men are drawn to little girls.
Sexual activity with children or teenagers is child abuse, pure and simple. Meaningful consent is impossible, by definition, for the underaged. You will not rid your church of sexual abuse by throwing homosexuals out of your seminaries or out of the priesthood. Homosexual priests have faithfully and responsibly served God throughout Catholic history. To scapegoat them and deprive them of their pulpits is a tragedy for the people they serve and for the church. Yours is a problem of abuse, not sexual orientation.
I will pray for your church and for you, as I hope you will pray for my church and for me. In Luke 12:2-3, Jesus tells us: "Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the rooftops."
And may God have mercy on our souls.
Your brother in Christ,
Gene Robinson
----V. Gene Robinson was elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He is also a part-time senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12510
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May 3, 2010
Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire has written an "open letter" to the Pope telling him in no uncertain terms that the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church is about pedophilia and that he has it all wrong about homosexuals. He accuses the Pope of being "misguided and [says it is]wrong for gay men to be scapegoated in this scandal."
Robinson wrote his letter as a part of his program as a part-time senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
He wrote, "As a gay man, I know the pain and the verbal and physical violence that can come from the thoroughly debunked myth connecting homosexuality and the abuse of children. In the media, representatives of and advocates for the Roman Catholic Church have laid blame for sexual abuse at the feet of gay priests. These people know, or should know, that every reputable scientific study shows that homosexuals are no more or less likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. Psychologically healthy homosexual men are no more drawn to little boys than psychologically healthy heterosexual men are drawn to little girls.
"Sexual activity with children or teenagers is child abuse, pure and simple. Meaningful consent is impossible, by definition, for the underaged. You will not rid your church of sexual abuse by throwing homosexuals out of your seminaries or out of the priesthood. Homosexual priests have faithfully and responsibly served God throughout Catholic history. To scapegoat them and deprive them of their pulpits is a tragedy for the people they serve and for the church. Yours is a problem of abuse, not sexual orientation."
Robinson has it all wrong.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexuality as "objectively disordered" http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm The writers of the catechism say this under the banner: Chastity and homosexuality
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
"Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence.
"At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of.
"As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood." http://tinyurl.com/4rsyc
As a result of Robinson's consecration, the Roman Catholic Church broke off ecumenical discussions with The Episcopal Church, as did the Russian Orthodox Church.
Truth be told, Robinson's consecration has cost TEC dearly with tens of thousands of people leaving The Episcopal Church including whole dioceses. A new Anglican Church has been formed in North America, which the Roman Catholic Church may yet recognize.
What sort of credibility does Robinson think he has with the pope? Bear in mind that he was once married to a woman, had two children, then announced after several years of marriage that he was a homosexual, divorced his wife, then met a man on a Caribbean Island, moved in with him and then "married" him according to the secular laws of the state of New Hampshire.
The truth is those group of priests who molest mostly young men ARE homosexuals or more accurately ephebophiliacs, adult men who have a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
The term "ephebophilia" was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the neologism of "chronophilia". Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old.
Some authors define ephebophilia as a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys. These Roman Catholic priests fall exactly into that category. They are not pedophiles as they did not go after small children...their sexual interests lay in seducing young adolescent boys whose sexuality had not been fully formed and who were open to manipulation by older men, including a number of priests in the Roman Catholic Church.
As Catholic League president Bill Donohue observed on the statistics of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, "As reported in 2004, between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male; in 2005, it stayed the same; in 2006, it dropped to 80 percent; in 2007, it climbed to 82 percent; in 2008, it jumped to 84 percent; and in 2009, it stayed at 84 percent. In other words, even though priests have less access to males, homosexual priests are molesting them at a higher rate [than females]. It's time to end the gay cover-up once and for all."
Not to put a too fine point on it, a gay Episcopal activist, Frank Lombard, a Duke University official was arrested in Raleigh, NC on pedophile charges he molested his own children. He claimed that he was a "fan of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson."
Or what about the case of the convicted pedophile Episcopal Priest Lynn C. Baumann who was allowed to host a spiritual retreats with Presiding Bishop's blessing!
In an exchange of correspondence with David Clohessy, National Director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Mrs. Jefferts Schori, through her Pastoral Development Officer Bishop F. Clayton Matthews, said Baumann that could function as a spiritual retreat master on the understanding that "Mr. Baumann's contact (is) to adults only".
One should point out to Robinson that despite all the fine talk about how high the standards are now for sexual abuse being spotted and dealt with in TEC, as recently as February of this year, an 82-year old Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Central New York was charged with multiple counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of a minor. He got away with it for years.
Stories VOL wrote at that time suggested a possible cover-up of the priest's sexual activities by Episcopal Bishop Gladstone (Skip) Adams. Why did we hear nothing from Robinson about these cases when they erupted in the press?
I wrote at the time, "The truth is the bishop (Adams) should be investigated by the national church. He should face the same charges brought against the now inhibited and deposed former Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison who was forced to step down following a trial and conviction on charges that he covered up his brother's sexual abuse of a female minor. The story began in 2006..."
The truth is Robinson's advice to the Pope is ill advised and his misinformation staggering. He should get his sexualities (LGBTQ) -- he says there are more -- better lined up before he proceeds to tell the leader of one billion Catholics worldwide what it is he would like us to believe about sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Roman Catholic leaders did a very poor job in getting rid of homosexuals. Many of the leaders were fooled. Homosexuals over ran their seminaries. In many cases, they took over parishes and fooled bishops and those higher up in the church. They became deeply entrenched as the "pink mafia". The Vatican finally sent a team of high-level persons to clean the homosexual infestations out of the seminaries.
The Roman Catholic Church has now said there will be no more cover-ups, no more peddling of sexually abusive priests around to different parishes. Every case will be turned over to the authorities immediately. We shall see. Institutional loyalty still reigns.
The difference of course between the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church is that TEC has rolled over to the culture and not stood up against it. TEC has caved while the RCC has not.
Robinson thinks that by giving vent to his sexual preferences and endorsing sodomy in the name of "justice" that this will resolve the problem and people will come flocking back to TEC in the name of inclusivity and diversity. He is dead wrong. It is not happening. TEC is slowly dying. The Roman Catholic Church grew in America last year, admittedly through immigration, despite the awful things a handful of their priests did.
The Roman Catholic Church has put in place higher standards for those applying to the priesthood. Homosexuals will be hard pressed to get past the battery of psychological tests they must now undergo.
It is not without its significance that leading British homosexual Peter Tatchell has advocated for the legal age of sexual consent to be lowered to 14 http://tinyurl.com/36hp463 and Stonewall, the chief gay campaigners in the United Kingdom, publicly advocates 16 as the legal age of consent for sexual activity with children http://tinyurl.com/337slhh Why would they do that if they didn't want fresh young vulnerable boys to seduce?
Most of those who abuse children (and 14 is a child, to my mind) are unmarried men who abuse boys rather than girls. The conclusion seems glaringly obvious to anyone. It is also becoming clearer, based on the best psychological evidence, that male predators are drawn and attracted to their victims because it seemingly fulfills a bottomless yearning for father-son bonding and nurturing that was denied the predator for whatever reason.
Perhaps, Mr. Robinson should take a long hard look in the mirror.
*****
The following is the letter Bishop Robinson wrote to Pope Benedict XVI.
Amid abuse scandal, advice from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to Pope Benedict
By Bishop V. Gene Robinson
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Your Holiness,
Though our churches differ in many ways, we believe in the same God. As your brother in Christ, it pains me to see Catholics struggle with your response to recent allegations of sex abuse by priests. Since my denomination has also battled these demons, I want to share with you what I have learned as a bishop of the Episcopal Church.
About 20 years ago, our church became aware of sex abuse by our clergy here in the United States. To our shame, we learned of it in lawsuits filed by victims alleging that some of our bishops had minimized the seriousness of the abuse and/or swept their claims under the rug. Some cases were related to the abuse of children; others involved male clergy who took advantage of their pastoral relationship with vulnerable women to manipulate them into sexual relationships. These men violated the sacred trust placed in clergy to focus on parishioners' needs and to separate those needs from their own. To prevent further such abuses of power, we moved quickly for the good of the victims and of our church.
Whether or not civil courts recognize a statute of limitations, the church must hold its clergy members accountable to their vows to be faithful shepherds of their people. In 1994, the Episcopal Church opened a two-year window of opportunity to hear complaints about priestly abuse of the pastoral relationship with adults. Just because an event occurred many years ago did not make it any less egregious, especially since perpetrators rarely have only one victim. We addressed all complaints through our canonical disciplinary process.
As for instances involving children, we have no statute of limitations on reporting abuse. Those suspected of committing child abuse are immediately reported to the civil authorities for investigation.
Rather than refusing to acknowledge our transgressions, we sought to change our church's culture -- an effort that took no small amount of courage. In my diocese in New Hampshire, and across the Episcopal Church, we perform a thorough background check on every bishop, priest or deacon who serves under my authority. We correspond with every employer the clergyperson has ever had and every bishop under whom the clergyperson has ever served to determine whether there is a history of complaints.
While procedures vary from diocese to diocese, we here in New Hampshire require six hours of abuse-prevention training for clergy, all other employees of the church (organists, parish administrators, maintenance workers), youth workers and elected parish leaders. A refresher course is required every five years. Events with and for children may never be conducted without two adults present and always in view of each other. This protects children from abusive behavior and protects adults who might be falsely charged. Many of our parishes have installed windows in the clergy office doors, so that no activity -- even private counseling -- may go unobserved.
We want many pairs of eyes watching for signs of abuse. We want everyone to know how to report suspected abuse of children and abuse of the pastoral relationship between clergy members and parishioners. We want to keep the issue before our church -- clergy and laity alike -- and to keep the conversation going.
But the thing victims most want to hear from the church, especially its leadership, is: "I am so sorry. This should never have happened to you, especially here. We are going to do everything in our power to see that nothing like this happens again." Victims live with their horrific experiences and know that their abuse can never be undone. And so they seek assurance that the church will change the system that allows abuse to go undetected and take action to hold perpetrators accountable. Child abusers do not deserve protection; they must be reported immediately to civil authorities and prosecuted.
The Christian church -- like any institution -- is as capable of sin as any individual. We have been wrong before, from the Inquisition and the Crusades down to our defense of slavery (using scripture) and our denigration of women. Over time, the church has repented for these sins and sought to change its ways. The discovery of sexual abuse by clergy is another situation that calls for the church's repentance and reform.
I would not presume to instruct you. That would be arrogant. Nor would I impose upon you advice you've not sought. But I do offer you the benefit of my experience as you seek to deal responsibly with these challenges to the integrity of your church. Your letter to the faithful in Ireland and your meeting in Malta with victims were a good start. I hope the future will bring more truth telling, which will make your church a better, safer place.
However, I believe it is misguided and wrong for gay men to be scapegoated in this scandal. As a gay man, I know the pain and the verbal and physical violence that can come from the thoroughly debunked myth connecting homosexuality and the abuse of children. In the media, representatives of and advocates for the Roman Catholic Church have laid blame for sexual abuse at the feet of gay priests. These people know, or should know, that every reputable scientific study shows that homosexuals are no more or less likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. Psychologically healthy homosexual men are no more drawn to little boys than psychologically healthy heterosexual men are drawn to little girls.
Sexual activity with children or teenagers is child abuse, pure and simple. Meaningful consent is impossible, by definition, for the underaged. You will not rid your church of sexual abuse by throwing homosexuals out of your seminaries or out of the priesthood. Homosexual priests have faithfully and responsibly served God throughout Catholic history. To scapegoat them and deprive them of their pulpits is a tragedy for the people they serve and for the church. Yours is a problem of abuse, not sexual orientation.
I will pray for your church and for you, as I hope you will pray for my church and for me. In Luke 12:2-3, Jesus tells us: "Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the rooftops."
And may God have mercy on our souls.
Your brother in Christ,
Gene Robinson
----V. Gene Robinson was elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He is also a part-time senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12510
2009/06/10
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church "host in the post"...... including atheists and even satanists-Apostasy
CHRISTIAN BIBLE STUDIES
AGAINST APOSTASY
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
**********************************
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church "host in the post"...... including atheists and even satanists
In recent years the communion wafer has been made available in a variety of forms - including patterned, wholemeal, crumb-proof and gluten-free - to satisfy the demands of modern life. Soon, altar bread will become even more convenient and accessible with the advent of the "host in the post".
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church, is aimed at people who either cannot attend Eucharist, through age or ill-health, or those who have drifted away from church, (including atheists and even satanists).
Jonathan Blake, the Open Episcopal Church bishop,he said the organisation was taking "care and concern" over appropriate packaging for the wafer, which is no more than a millimetre thick, to ensure it remained intact on arrival, before adding that anyone - including atheists and even satanists - could avail themselves of the service. "Jesus did not make these distinctions. He gave himself to anyone and everyone. It makes no difference, the body of Christ is redeeming."
06-09 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post
***********************************************************************************
Against Apostasy
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
1 Corinthians 11 ; 23-32
11,23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_11.htm
1 Corinthians 5 ; 9-13
5,9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_5.htm
2 Corinthians 6 ; 14-18
6,9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;
10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/2Cor/2cor_6.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it
AGAINST APOSTASY
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
By Martino Gerber and Giuliano Lattes
**********************************
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church "host in the post"...... including atheists and even satanists
In recent years the communion wafer has been made available in a variety of forms - including patterned, wholemeal, crumb-proof and gluten-free - to satisfy the demands of modern life. Soon, altar bread will become even more convenient and accessible with the advent of the "host in the post".
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church, is aimed at people who either cannot attend Eucharist, through age or ill-health, or those who have drifted away from church, (including atheists and even satanists).
Jonathan Blake, the Open Episcopal Church bishop,he said the organisation was taking "care and concern" over appropriate packaging for the wafer, which is no more than a millimetre thick, to ensure it remained intact on arrival, before adding that anyone - including atheists and even satanists - could avail themselves of the service. "Jesus did not make these distinctions. He gave himself to anyone and everyone. It makes no difference, the body of Christ is redeeming."
06-09 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post
***********************************************************************************
Against Apostasy
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
1 Corinthians 11 ; 23-32
11,23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_11.htm
1 Corinthians 5 ; 9-13
5,9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_5.htm
2 Corinthians 6 ; 14-18
6,9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;
10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/2Cor/2cor_6.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/christianbiblestudies?hl=it
Praise the Lord and post the Host: church's plan to woo worshippe
Praise the Lord and post the Host: church's plan to woo worshippe
Riazat Butt, Religious affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 9 June 2009
Article history
In recent years the communion wafer has been made available in a variety of forms - including patterned, wholemeal, crumb-proof and gluten-free - to satisfy the demands of modern life. Soon, altar bread will become even more convenient and accessible with the advent of the "host in the post".
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church, is aimed at people who either cannot attend Eucharist, through age or ill-health, or those who have drifted away from church.
Although the pre-consecrated wafer is free, there will be a charge for postage and packing. Receiving one host costs £2; receiving 500 costs £10.
Jonathan Blake, the Open Episcopal Church bishop who officiated at Jade Goody's wedding this year, said the initiative was also designed to reverse the way the church presented itself to people.
"The sense they have to go to places to worship is something their parents did. The churches we work with have got respect for the fact that we're taking the church to places it hasn't been before.
"It is a mistake to locate a church as those who gather in a building. There is a large population who have haemorrhaged away from church but regard themselves as committed Christians."
He said the organisation was taking "care and concern" over appropriate packaging for the wafer, which is no more than a millimetre thick, to ensure it remained intact on arrival, before adding that anyone - including atheists and even satanists - could avail themselves of the service. "Jesus did not make these distinctions. He gave himself to anyone and everyone. It makes no difference, the body of Christ is redeeming."
News of Blake's latest innovation did not elicit a response from the Church of England, which, as a rule, does not comment on the internal affairs of other churches.
One of his previous projects was a street mass using language more commonly associated with text messages: "JC said: 'I am the bread of life. Whoever eats this bread will live 4ever.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post
Riazat Butt, Religious affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 9 June 2009
Article history
In recent years the communion wafer has been made available in a variety of forms - including patterned, wholemeal, crumb-proof and gluten-free - to satisfy the demands of modern life. Soon, altar bread will become even more convenient and accessible with the advent of the "host in the post".
The new service, from the Open Episcopal Church, is aimed at people who either cannot attend Eucharist, through age or ill-health, or those who have drifted away from church.
Although the pre-consecrated wafer is free, there will be a charge for postage and packing. Receiving one host costs £2; receiving 500 costs £10.
Jonathan Blake, the Open Episcopal Church bishop who officiated at Jade Goody's wedding this year, said the initiative was also designed to reverse the way the church presented itself to people.
"The sense they have to go to places to worship is something their parents did. The churches we work with have got respect for the fact that we're taking the church to places it hasn't been before.
"It is a mistake to locate a church as those who gather in a building. There is a large population who have haemorrhaged away from church but regard themselves as committed Christians."
He said the organisation was taking "care and concern" over appropriate packaging for the wafer, which is no more than a millimetre thick, to ensure it remained intact on arrival, before adding that anyone - including atheists and even satanists - could avail themselves of the service. "Jesus did not make these distinctions. He gave himself to anyone and everyone. It makes no difference, the body of Christ is redeeming."
News of Blake's latest innovation did not elicit a response from the Church of England, which, as a rule, does not comment on the internal affairs of other churches.
One of his previous projects was a street mass using language more commonly associated with text messages: "JC said: 'I am the bread of life. Whoever eats this bread will live 4ever.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post
2009/05/29
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slick
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
******************
1. All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality
Christianity and Homosexuality
by Matt Slick
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.
In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.
The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.
What does the Bible say?
The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.
The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.
Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.) The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
http://www.carm.org:80/christianity/christian-issues/christianity-and-homosexuality
by Matt Slick
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
******************
1. All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality
Christianity and Homosexuality
by Matt Slick
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.
In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.
The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.
What does the Bible say?
The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.
The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.
Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.) The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
http://www.carm.org:80/christianity/christian-issues/christianity-and-homosexuality
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.
Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.
The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.
Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.
The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.
This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?
Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.
The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.
Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.
The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.
We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.
To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.
Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."
The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)
A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)
Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.
A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.
Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.
The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.
Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.
This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.
Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)
Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.
1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.
2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.
3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.
4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.
5. Ibid.
6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.
7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
9. Genesis 2:23.
10. Genesis 2:24-25.
11. Genesis 2:18.
12. Genesis 2:24.
13. Romans 3:9-20.
14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
http://www.albertmohler.com/article_print.php?cid=7 © 2009, All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.
Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.
The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.
Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.
The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.
This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?
Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.
The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.
Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.
The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.
We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.
To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.
Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."
The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)
A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)
Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.
A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.
Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.
The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.
Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.
This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.
Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)
Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.
1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.
2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.
3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.
4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.
5. Ibid.
6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.
7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
9. Genesis 2:23.
10. Genesis 2:24-25.
11. Genesis 2:18.
12. Genesis 2:24.
13. Romans 3:9-20.
14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
http://www.albertmohler.com/article_print.php?cid=7 © 2009, All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)