No Retreat but Much Surrender: Changing Christian Engagement on Homosexuality

by on June 7th, 2012

In two previous blog posts I examined the Christian engagement with the post-Christian culture. Those posts implied that the dominant paradigm of Evangelicals preserving our culture by “Taking back America” is wrong-headed. It is wrong-headed because it denies the moral strangeness that exists between Christianity and Secularism. In the next post I opined that the Christian efforts to preserve traditional marriage will fail. I was pretty pessimistic.

My prediction is that gay marriage is an inevitability. Eventually there will be a federal law.  I predict that same-sex couples will not settle for tolerance and being left alone with their right to marry. Instead many will demand non-discrimination from religious organizations. They will insist that churches rent out their fellowship halls to same-sex weddings if they are going to do weddings for any hetero-sexual couples and will sue if they are denied. . . To be clear I don’t think there is any amount of voting or lobbying or grass roots efforts that will change this.

Christians need to shift from the dominant paradigm to something else. In this last post I want to propose what that “something else” might be. As always these ideas are mine alone and do not necessarily represent Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc.

Rodney Clapp the author and former editor of Christianity Today says that in the dominant paradigm of engagement with culture the Church sees itself as the  “Sponsoring Chaplain” of society. When I first heard this phrase, my mind conjured up some memorable pastoral visits.  Its a tableau that gets played out all over the South especially. The pastor visits a church members who isn’t coming to church anymore. Ostensibly the visit is just to check to see if there is anything the congregation can do. But in reality, many times the pastor knows why they haven’t been coming to church. They are straying from the life of a devout believer in favor of something else be it, adultery, addiction, or just plain apathy.

The pastor sits down and makes clear that John is not living a life pleasing to God. “John, someone people tells me they saw you hanging out at the strip club on Madison. Does your wife know?” Come to find out John is estranged from his wife and is now living with his girlfriend–the 19 year-old stripper. John is respectful but has no intention of repenting. He’s happy and doesn’t see the big deal. He is even sure he is right because God wants him to be happy! Now the pastor makes it clear that the congregation loves John but what he is doing is wrong in the eyes of God. He appeals to John’s sense of Christian propriety and offers to pray with him. After this, the conversation goes one three of ways, repentance on the part of John, defiance, or far more likely, John suddenly remembers he has to do something across town.

This has been the attitude Bible-believing Christians have had towards the gay rights movement and many other fronts on the culture war. When we see gay people we feel compelled to let them know where they are wrong. When Target openly supports gay marriage, we want to let Target know that we disagree with its support of gay marriage through their sales of Gay Pride t-shirts. We often do this with that most public of weapons–the economic boycott. If we simply withhold our dollars, Target or network television or Marvel Comics will see the error of their ways or it will lose our business and somehow this will render justice or righteousness.

Sometimes we try to reason with the country. We talk about natural law and biology and the science of sexuality in order to engage without bringing up the Bible in order to make this about reason and not just sin. All the while, we are actively seeking to ban these practices with the force of law in order to preserve decency. Finally, when met with the defiance or apathy we ought to expect from those who don’t share our worldview but are being forced to consider it, we claim that our wayward country is at war with us and we must protect ourselves. We campaign and vote and protest to protect our vision of our country for no other reason than we have to live in it.

It should be obvious by now that I think this model is wrong-headed. It is not working. It is distracting for both the Church and its would-be seekers. It is also not the only way to engage our culture. I don’t know what to call what I am proposing but for the time being I’m calling it the “No Retreat but Much Surrender” proposal. The “No Retreat” is genuine. I do not want to suggest that we should retreat from the public debate about Gay rights, huddled in mega-church concert halls or our Bible colleges while the world burns. We did that from the 1930s to the 1970s with secularism and it has not served us well. The “Much Surrender” part is the ongoing reassessment and correction of the sponsoring chaplain model.

First, we should stop being preoccupied with the causes and cures of being gay in favor of making clear the reasons Christianity thinks homosexual practice is sexual sin on a par with adultery and fornication. Suppose the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Lady Gaga is right, gays really are born this way. This does not change one iota of the church’s doctrine on homosexual practice. Sodomy is still wrong along with lying, stealing, gossip and a whole list of sins Christians and non-Christians do. Yes, I know Leviticus says that lying with a man is an abomination. I’m open to exegetical correction, but “abomination” is not synonymous with “worst sin imaginable that should engender fear and revulsion” It is a descriptive term about physical malfunction not a comparative term about degrees of badness. Creating human animal hybrids and rape are both wrong but only the former is an “abomination.”

Furthermore, we should stop trying to convince gay people that they can easily become heterosexuals. It may be that some can but it may be that many cannot.  Let us surrender to the desire God has to bring the gospel to people struggling with same sex attraction. Let us focus on making clear the the incompatibility of homosexual practice (dating, cruising, marriage, adoption) with Christianity. Let us offer simply that gay practices, not “being gay”, is incompatible with Christian practice in the same way eating cheeseburgers is incompatible with Orthodox Judaism (cannot eat met and dairy at the same meal), but desiring a cheeseburger is not. And then let us offer hope.

Wesley Hill, professor of theology and a gay Christian who is celibate, asks will the church be the church for gays who want to be Christians? It does little good to tell honest seekers that “Gay” and ” Christian” are two mutually exclusive terms like “Pauly Shore” and “Oscar Winner”.  Their are Christians that have same-sex desires and they want to know how they can love God without sinning. Telling them their desires are wrong doesn’t help (for more on this see Don Veinot’s excellent post called “Brain Damage”). Tell them how they can please God. As Eve Tushnet at the  American Conservative says: “Right now gay teens hear a robust “Yes!” from the mainstream media and gay culture. From the Church, they hear only a “No.” And you can’t have a vocation of not-gay-marrying and not-having-sex. You can’t have a vocation of No.”

Gay Christians need to know that living a celibate life can be a vocation anointed by God. Our “yes” should be the same “yes “we give to struggling alcoholics or addicts. You are welcome here. We won’t buy you a drink  or applaud when you do but we desire to worship and walk with you. And on that note, Evangelicals should also encourage and support those Christians who identify as gay and celibate. As for me, I am committed to making friends with some gay Christians (and Non-Christians for that matter).  If you agree you might check out Wesley Hill’s blog and while you are at it, read his book Washed and Waiting Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. (I plan to do a book review of this book in later posts.)

Second, and this will really hurt, we should not retreat from the public square but surrender our pastoral impulse to save our society in favor of being a peculiar people dedicated to imparting the gospel not protecting our way of life. This is incredibly hard for me as a father. I want my son and daughter to be safe and flourish in society. However, that measure of safety that I might secure, though doubtful, by force of law is not my calling as a disciple. I have to surrender my fears about the future of the surrounding culture to the gospel and its priorities which are always counterculture and may get my son killed. Instead of trying to preserve society, I want to show my children that Christian community serves as God-blessed haven from society and its pluralism where they gain strength to live and love in the public square.

This means that I may have to surrender my preoccupation for political theater. It means I may have to reorient myself to the fact that my primary identity is not Christian American but resident alien enjoying the freedom for which the Republic stands.  But if that freedom dissolves slowly at the hands of fallen creatures seeking power and virtuous culture goes down in flames, my true citizenship is not affected.

This does not mean that we must withdraw from political discussion as some like John Howard Yoder have proposed. Contrary to popular opinion.  I do think Christians should fight for some legislation but the purpose of the legislation should not be to preserve culture but rather to preserve the freedom of the Christian community to say its peace, practice its worship, and refrain from participating in things contrary to the Gospel. To that end I suggest we give up the preoccupation passing new laws in favor of  defending some old ones like Free exercise of religion and Freedom of Speech. If Target wants to sell gay pride t-shirts this is incidental. I don’t think that in itself is a reason to publicly boycott as if to force Target to acknowledge our values without acknowledging their moral source. However, laws should be passed that protect churches from discrimination lawsuits on the basis of sexual preference. We should fight for laws that do not compel private businesses to accept contracts that would require them to compromise their Christian principles such the Healthcare law. Finally we should fight against laws that make merely speaking out against homosexual practices a hate crime. I believe we can more credibly occupy this moral high ground when we surrender our impulse to use force against moral strangers.

Lastly, we should not retreat from speaking the truth but we should surrender our pride. This means repenting to God for our wrong-headed pursuit of power in the name of winning the culture war. We should acknowledge that we have been fighting the wrong enemy with the wrong weapons. We war not against flesh a blood secularists but against evil forces in heavenly realms. Our weapons are not force but the truth of the Gospel reasoned daily with hearts of love and compassion.

We  also  need to apologize  to the gay community and say something like the following: “We have been hypocrites for being preoccupied with your sexual practices as though your very existence is an affront to God so awful that we must bring the force of law against it (as if fornication, adultery and frivolous divorce are not just as sinful but no one is willing to use the force of law against them.) We are guilty of treating you like parishioners who need to be corrected rather than individuals who do not share our worldview or our theology–individuals for whom we wish to win the right to give reasons for the hope that is within us out of no ulterior motive but love.”

As always, dear reader, I look forward to your thoughts and your criticisms.

 

 

 

10 responses to “No Retreat but Much Surrender: Changing Christian Engagement on Homosexuality ”

  1. Bob Waldrep says:

    A very well thought out piece that presents a much needed approach as we enter into the marketplace of cultural ideas in this new century. Whether the reader agrees with Mr. Miles conclusions, or not, they warrant consideration and discussion.

    Bob Waldrep, President
    Crosswinds Foundation for Faith and Culture

  2. Melody Luecke says:

    The above opinion, well tell that one to God when you stand before him. Homosexuality Promotes Death, as Abortion does. A Society that promotes both is sure to end. Inordinate affection as the bible calls it is unnatural! I do not believe science will ever discover anyone was born this way! Born sinners yes! circumstances and environment and the current beliefs of society have a hugh effect on the tolerance one will allow in ones own life if the Word of God has no place in the family, church or community. This is truely what we are seeing decribed in Romans Chapter 1 and in 2Timothy3:1-7, the last thing we need to do is apologize to a homosexual!!! what we need to do is PRACTISE THE TRUTH instead of trying to feel sorry for all the mental woes by labeling the ills with low self-esteem. I grew up in a family of drunkeness….the difference with drunkeness is that it is NOT A SIN to HAVE a DRINK…its a SIN to be DRUNK, lets try this with homosexuality??? is it okay to do dabble in???? oh lets go have some unnatural sex a little bit, just not all the way? THIS clearly does not fly! both are moral issues. Drunkeness can lead to Murder but is not on the same criminal level as Murder, Adultery, Kidnapping and Rape. All sin is not the same. Homosexaulity should never be tolerated in any form!! not mentally, physically, or in marriage….as I stated before it is Blasphemy!! P.S. have several Homo’s in my family….it does not matter how NICE you are!! I know from experience. I view the integragation of this practice as a Demonic Stronghold! how ever I do agree that Taking back America is a clear waste of precious time! its a clear formation of the Apostate Ecumenical Church. We are to Come out from her! and have nothing to do with her sins!!

  3. Jennifer Winters says:

    Wow. Where to begin? I think that the problem with having this discussion at all among Christians comes down to one fact: Some Christians think that homosexuality is a sin. Some feel that it is not. I fall in the latter school of thought.

    This causes problems, first and foremost, because each opinion can lead to incorrect blanket statements. For example, “Let us offer simply that gay practices, not “being gay”, is incompatible with Christian practice in the same way eating cheeseburgers is incompatible with Orthodox Judaism (cannot eat met and dairy at the same meal), but desiring a cheeseburger is not.” All Christians, whether orthodox or liberal or in-between, don’t feel this way.

    I have many gay friends, Christian and non, and I have to wonder at the term “gay practices”. My gay friends practice working at various careers, keeping their yards looking nice, taking their cars for oil changes, taking their kids to Scouts and Optimist soccer, hosting Bible studies- you get the idea. As far as their relationships, all of the couples I know are in monogamous relationships that have been going strong for 12-20+ years. Sexually, I have no idea what their “practices” are, and I hope they can say the same of mine. None of us like inside talk on the outside, as my mama would say.

    As for the supposed biblical condemnation of homosexuality, I’ll make it as clear as possible: I don’t believe it. I could go into details as to why I don’t believe in the “clobber passages”, but you probably have already looked into it yourself and we obviously have formed different opinions based on the research, translations, etc. (In case you do want to look at things from my side of the porch, this is a great article, http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/) I think that loveless, casual sex is wrong as is any sexual act that degrades or dehumanizes people. The stripper story that you included would fall into that category (I’ve dealt many times with students who are either addicted to strip clubs or are strippers themselves), but I certainly do not see it as a parallel to a monogamous gay couple whose life together is founded on love.

    Now, regarding lifelong celibacy for a person who is born gay. Really? God made you this way, so you have to live your life lonely, denying your innate need for love and companionship. It’s just not realistic. Maybe there are some gay people who feel the need to live a life of celibacy. Good for them. How many are truly successful? For that matter, how many heterosexual celibates are truly successful?

    Now for gay marriage. What is a biblically traditional marriage? Polygamy (wives and concubines?) Marriage of girls aged as young as 11? Wives as property? Widows instructed to marry their brothers-in-law until they can get pregnant? Don’t forget the commands against interracial marriage! I guess that means I’m condemned because I married outside my race, as are my children. Personally, I think that the ideal is lifelong monogamy, which marriage encourages. That goes for any couple.

    This post comes at an apropos time for me. Just this week I had this “discussion” with not one, but two friends of mine who feel that God wants gays to be punished here on earth by Christians for their horrible, evil lifestyles. Whenever I tried to state my case in both conversations, I was cut off again and again with “You are twisting God’s Word to suit your needs.” I kind of thought the other party was twisting scripture for that very purpose, but I didn’t come out and say it. When I asked them if they believed the other Levitical laws that instructed other things like, say, executing lazy children or marrying your daughter to a rapist. They said that all of those things were void under Grace, except homosexuality. Huh?

    I even tried to show them some research and writing that could support how I feel and they refused to read it because “It glorifies abomination” and might poison their minds. One of the women said, “Well, it’s obvious that I believe that the Bible is God’s Word and it’s obvious that you don’t.” We did the whole, “Yes I do.” “No you don’t for about 15 minutes.” The “conversations” ended with both of my friends telling me that I’m not really a Christian because I disagree on this issue and that if I die right now, I’ll spend an eternity in hell. I decided to hold off on telling them my opinion of hell. (Love Wins, anyone?)

    I have to break this off to go pick up my kids, but I’ll probably be back.

  4. Doug B says:

    I’m with you about 90%, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of letting our culture go. It might be good to stop trying to use legislation to turn some cultural issues around (and I think most of the ones you list fall into this category), but a blanket statement is too much. Culture affects people and can easily create many problems that otherwise would have been curtailed.

    In other words, it is not as though “problem X is going to happen either way” = “problem x will happen to the same degree either way.” How many school shootings were there in the 50′s? How many “cutters” were there in the 80′s? Yet now these problems are barely newsworthy.

    Something changed in the culture that made these problems more prevalent, and while it was not legislation, it was *something*. So for me I think the distinction between ceasing to try to force cultural change via legislation and striving for cultural change in some way needs to be stronger.

  5. Good article. I think too many times Christians come off looking like what some of the younger people say are “haters”. My daughter (22) calls it “drinking the haterade” (as opposed to drinking kool-aid). I don’t think it’s our job as Christians to bully pop culture and business by boycotting their stores and creating a public campaign to avoid this or that business because the business has decided to offer insurance benefits to same sex couples. I don’t think that Christians should refuse to shop at a department store or have massive campaigns against those business who depicts a same sex couple in their advertising either. Too many times, Christians come off looking like those who parade around with signs that say, “God hates fags” and that is very, very, wrong.

  6. Jeff Hill says:

    Jon, I feel the main flaw here…the same one many “Gay Christians” make…is that you are identifying people by their sin. I have anger issues. I can hold a grudge forever and a day. In fact the motto of Clan Graham, the clan of my Scottish anscestors (like most Americans, I’m a mutt. My anscestors were kicked out of some of the finest countries in Europe and one in Asia) is “N’Oublier”: Never Forget. But I do not identify myself as an “Angry Christian”. Instead, I call on God to help me combat my flesh, in this and other areas, rather than identifying myself with it. I think we have some agreement in this area, but we must avoid, and help others to avoid, labeling themselves by their sin. This can only serve to weaken its impact as sin and make it easier to rationalize. Furthermore, I disagree with your idea of surrendering on cultural issues. As Soldiers of God (referring to the Pauline example, not the jihadist model), we are not called on to win the war. We are called on to stand. Whether we triumph in this world is irrelevant. We must stand, and that includes areas of culture and society. We are called on to be salt and light, and we cannot do either if we refuse to fight. I would argue instead for flanking attacks as well direct confrontation (you should have expected military analogies from me, mon ami). Continue to stand, to protest, to boycott, to vote. But at the same time, pray for our nation and our society. Pray for revival, for wisdom for our leaders, and that God would grant them courage to do what is right. Pray for those revelling in sin, that God will convict them. And pray for God’s protection of our families and His Church. At the same time, show them compassion and the love of Christ. Calling them names, screeching at them, publicly calling for their death or incarceration…these are wrong, both spiritually and tactically. An example to follow is that of the church that offered financial aid to a local athiest. I disagree that homosexual marriage is inevitable. I fear that our current immorality as a nation, including this topic, has definitely placed America on the wrong path. But I’m not ready to give up. I will not go quietly into that dark night. Instead, I choose to fight. And may God defend the right.

  7. compugor says:

    Good article, imparting subtle wisdom that is spiritually discerned.

    An unbelieving man who instinctively looks at women with lust is an adulterer, but he does not even recognize that he is an adulterer. A born again Christian (especially one regenerated at age 52) may still have the same adulterous instinct, but knows that it is adultery, sinful and wrong. So he repents of it, struggles against it, and relies on the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to deliver him from it. He may continue to struggle with it for the rest of his life, but here’s the point – he is no longer an adulterer… he no longer practices that sin by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, and he now hates it because it is against God’s law (cf Matthew 5:27-28).

    Well its the same thing with homosexuality. That’s just another sin that a believer can repent of and be delivered from. But an unbeliever cannot just “decide” to repent and believe the Word; nor can he/she be intellectually convinced; it is only by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit that sinners are saved. So it all comes down to this: you must be born again.

    Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can be saved except through faith in Him. As it is written “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9)… “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8)… Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9b-10).

    The message has not changed, and it can’t be sugar-coated. it applies to homosexuality just the same as all sins. Christians should indiscriminately share the gospel message of faith, hope and yes, love. What a wondrous love is this, that the Lord of glory would die on a cross for the sins of His people! There is no darkness greater than the grace of Jesus. He not only saves from the damnation of hell but makes FREE from the condemning power of sin. Let us point to the thousands of ex-gays who have now “come out” of homosexuality to lead healthy, fulfilling lives:
    http://familypolicy.net/hope-for-homosexuals/living-proof

  8. Don Veinot says:

    Jennifer, I appreciate the time you took to respond to Jonathon’s piece. I don’t intend to make this response as long as a blog but did want to address a couple of points. I do understand that you do not want to think that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t. Both Jonathon and I have been careful to not speak of homosexuality as a worse sin than other sexual sin. In fact, is may not be as bad as some non-sexual sin such as gossip or slander, which many Christians seem to freely participate in.

    The Soulforce link you provided was interesting but as is often the case, sets up strawman arguments or leaves out important information which would discredit their position. For example, they write:

    Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.

    This gives the illusion that since Jesus didn’t specifically speak to this issue, that He wasn’t opposed to it. If that is the case than He wouldn’t be opposed to having sex with children for Jesus says nothing about having sex with children. Both homosexuality as well as pedophilia (and group sex as well) were all practiced in the first century Greco-Roman culture but was not practiced within the Jewish culture. Jesus was a Jewish Messiah, speaking to a Jewish culture about Jewish things. He did address the issue of marriage head on though in Matthew 19:3-5 (also Mark 10:3-8). He said,

    Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “ Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

    All of the basic elements of marriage are outlined and affirmed by Jesus. What we would consider to be, as you ask, a “a biblically traditional marriage.” Male, female, man (male) leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife (female). Sexual relations outside of these parameters is by definition, sin. Some may point to the O.T. and the instances of polygamy but I would mention that like divorce, God allowed it because of the hardness of men’s hearts. We find that by the time Jesus walked the earth, God’s chosen people are again monogamous and Paul reiterates this for those who want to be elders, “husband of one wife.”

    I find the claim, “God made you this way” to have an emotional appeal but does not follow. If our desires are given by God (the underlying premise of the claim), and in some cases individuals have sexual desires only or primarily for others of the same gender, than wouldn’t it be the case that those who have desires for sex with children were also made that way by God? Or someone who prefers having sex with animals, are they also made by God that way? If not, why not? After all, Jesus doesn’t speak to any of these issues directly.

    As far as the Levitical Laws, that is the very point, they were for the Nation of Israel, specifically to make them a set aside or “sanctified” people. The primary purpose of the Laws was, as Paul points out, to demonstrate that we are sinners and bring us to Christ.
    Like you, my wife and I have Gay friends. Like folks that we know who live together in fornication as unmarried male and female, they work “at various careers, keeping their yards looking nice, taking their cars for oil changes, taking their kids to Scouts.” But again, this does not prove homosexuality or fornication is not a sin any more than the fact that serial adulterers and pedophiles also, work “at various careers, keeping their yards looking nice, taking their cars for oil changes, taking their kids to Scouts.” All of the above are sexual sin. Our response as Christians is fairly straightforward. We are to judge sin within the church but not outside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

  9. John Hendrickson says:

    Thanks, Jeff Hill, for your response. You certainly articulated what I was going to say much better than I. It is a good point that we do not identify ourselves by including a particular besetting sin to modify what kind of Christian we are. I would dare say, it would have to include more than just one adjective.

    And thank you, Don Veinot, for your response to Jennifer. I know you used her rationale. Another typical argument in the marriage debate it to try to justify sodomy by pointing out that the two people “love” each other and ought to be allowed to solemnize it just as heterosexual couples do.

    I do find fault with the article’s when it says we should be “a peculiar people dedicated to imparting the gospel not protecting our way of life.” That, is a false antithesis. The Gospel message includes all that Jesus commands to be taught to all the nations. As human beings, we live in the context of social relationships, both public and private. The public aspect is what is being discussed here. There is no reason for us to stop being Christians when it comes to our participation in the public square. The demands of God’s Word apply everywhere. Thus we must resist that which is contrary to it everywhere.

    I believe the problem is that Christians make the mistaken assumption that they must approach unbelievers as if God’s Word about the nature of the world and man is legitimate. That is, that God is not who defines reality and the purpose of man. We must remember that God’s Truth is reality. If he says that we live in an ethically based Universe (there are actual consequences for both obedience and disobedience) then we should live and speak accordingly. We should not try to appease sinners who are in assault mode against God just to show them we are really nice people and that all we care about is their souls. This approach is indicated when the articles states we need to approach sodomites as those who “do not share our worldview or our theology.” In one sense that is true, but it also belies the idea that the Bible’s message is just one more idea to be put on the table. No, it is the truth and all other ideas do not belong on the table. We do not have a mere difference of opinion. There is only one opinion and that is God’s. We are merely his ambassadors of that.

  10. Esbee says:

    Wow!!! This is truly an emotionally charged issue!!!! I have wondered, prayed, read and researched a lot about the issue of homosexuality, especially gay christians. Mostly we are confronted with it is because it is on the front burner of the media and what they think will sell newpapers. Plus gays are a very vocal group which makes it kind of hard to ignore them.

    My take is that homosexuality acts are sin. Because God said so. It is in mentioned in line with other sins that God deems not so nice (that many of us wink at) the worst one being gossip which has torn up more churches.

    (Perhaps the fact that we as christians never dealt with gossip, adultery or fornication in the church is why homosexuality is at the forefront. We may have opened the door and look what came in!!!!)

    Now after a homo gets saved but still has those feelings, the issue is how to deal with it…. Paul had a problem so bad (never said what it was) that he prayed to God 3 times for it to be removed. God said he would not remove it, that His grace was sufficient. That may be how gays will have to deal with it.

    In a communist or Islamic country, christians who live there wake up every day to a regime that wants to kill them for being christian…they must face it daily, it does not change unless they move to another country, which they may not be able to do.

    A paralyzed christian wakes up to the fact every day they can not move their legs or arms…they have to face and cope and live with it every day. (google Joni Eareckson, what a testimony!!!)

    A blind or deaf christian wakes up to the fact every day they can not see or hear…..they have to face and live with it every day.

    In each of these instances God does not change their situation…the christian has to learn to live and grow within the situation. Perhaps that is the same way with a gay christian… God may not remove the urges but they will have to learn to deal with it.

    Ok that was my 2 cents worth…probably only worth 1/2 cent in today’s economy.

Leave a Reply

*