Ted Haggard and Homosexuality
64 comments | Permalink
I suspect that a large number of new readers have found this blog through a search on "Ted Haggard." A number of them have left comments with the basic message of "do not judge." Some of them are by evangelical Christians who recognize that homosexuality is wrong but, by God's grace, recognize it as contrary to the moral will of God and are fighting for purity. Some have come by simply to mock Christians as hateful hypocrites. And a larger number have explained that they are gay Christians and that Haggard's only sin was that he wasn't true to himself and deceived others.
For my gay readers:
Please know that you are welcome here. I wish we could sit down and talk, rather than communicate through this blogging medium--which is great for quick information but not necessarily conducive for meaningful dialogue and loving expression of concern.
I would encourage you to consider read this testimony by Joe Hallet. (Joe died from AIDS in 1997.) I'd also encourage you to consider visiting Exodus International. It is a place where many have found hope and healing.
I thought it might be helpful to provide an extended quote from Al Mohler, first addressing homosexuals, and then addressing the church. (You can listen to or watch this message online.)
And here is one of his words to the church:
For my gay readers:
Please know that you are welcome here. I wish we could sit down and talk, rather than communicate through this blogging medium--which is great for quick information but not necessarily conducive for meaningful dialogue and loving expression of concern.
I would encourage you to consider read this testimony by Joe Hallet. (Joe died from AIDS in 1997.) I'd also encourage you to consider visiting Exodus International. It is a place where many have found hope and healing.
I thought it might be helpful to provide an extended quote from Al Mohler, first addressing homosexuals, and then addressing the church. (You can listen to or watch this message online.)
We must also admit that sin has enduring consequences, even in this life. An analogy might be useful at this point. Consider a man who has sinned by driving under the influence of alcohol. One night, sinfully drunk and recklessly irresponsible, this man gets into his car and drives it right into a wall at high speed. His body is broken, but his life is saved as he is taken to the hospital and receives emergency treatment. He recovers from the accident, but he will forever walk with a limp. Throughout his life, he will drag an injured leg, which can heal to a point, but will never be fully restored.
Let us follow this man as he comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He becomes a wonderful trophy of God’s grace, as the grace of God transforms him, reordering his affections right down to the fact that he gains victory over alcoholism. Regeneration has produced a new man, even as sanctification is demonstrated in his growth in grace. Old things have passed away and behold all things have become new (2 Cor. 5:17)—but he still walks with a limp.
The work of the Holy Spirit in his life is evident, even as his limp continues as a part of his experience. He will limp all the way to the grave. He has become what only God could make him as a demonstration of God’s glory in the salvation of a sinner. But until the day of his glorification, this man will limp.
That limp does not become a disqualification for this man’s ability to display the glory of God. As a matter of fact, he may begin to see his limp as a way of explaining to people, “I want to tell you who I was in order to tell you who I now am by the grace of God. You see, this limp is a part of my story. I do not exult in this limp, but this limp is an important part of telling my story about how I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ and how he changed my life.”
In reality, every one of us limps. Throughout our lives until the day of our glorification, every one of us will limp. We must look to the moment of our glorification as the moment of our release from every limp. On that day, every tear will be wiped away, every injury will be fully restored, everything will be made right, and everything will be made whole. Everything and every redeemed person will then perfectly display the glory of God. We are the people with the theology adequate to explain this, and thus, we can offer the only genuine means of personal transformation.
We know better than to say that people cannot change. We also know better than to believe that people can change themselves. As Jonathan Edwards made clear, we sin in our affections, and we do not even understand ourselves in terms of why we love the things we love and desire the things we desire. This is why we are so dependent upon the work of Christ in our lives and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in reordering our affections. This is no easy process, but it is real and it is enduring.
Is our purpose to make homosexuals into heterosexuals? The answer to that question must be both yes and no. We must urgently urge all sinners to repent and abandon their sin, but convincing homosexuals to think of themselves as heterosexuals is not tantamount to salvation. We must be honest about the sinfulness of homosexuality in order that we can show homosexuals their need for salvation and the transforming power of Jesus Christ in their lives. We can promise that this power of transformation will, by the grace of God, lead to a reordering of their lives and require a turning away from the sins of their past. As Christians, coming for whatever our individual background in sin may be—we come under mutual accountability to the Word of God and his command in all things—including our sexuality.
I want to speak honestly to those who are struggling with homosexual affection. You must know that this is sin, and you must recognize that your affections are corrupted by sin. Even in your own heart, you can probably never even separate your desires and impulses in terms of inner motivation and affection. Like all of us, you are a sinner in the midst of a sinful world, but don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t change. Becoming heterosexual is not salvation, but the miracle of regeneration and sanctification will produce, by God’s grace, the right affections in your heart and desire. Knowing what God has declared to be objectively right and objectively wrong, we must direct ourselves—whether our sinful sexual profile be heterosexual or homosexual—toward the objective glory of God as revealed in his Word. We must claim the promises of God and seek God’s glory in every dimension of our being.
Do we want homosexuals to find heterosexuality? Yes, as much as we want liars to become tellers of the truth and adulterers to be faithful; as much as we want the disobedient to become obedient to parents and the proud to be humble. God’s glory is in seeing that God’s command is accompanied by God’s provision so that we, by his grace, can be transformed so that we will even desire what he wills for us to desire.
This is what the church is all about. We are the people who gather together to exalt in the grace of God and to proclaim the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ as the answer to human sinfulness. We come together to hold each other accountable to the Word of God and to rejoice in what God is doing in us until the very day that we die. We come together in the assurance of the resurrection that is to come and the glorification that will be God’s gift. Like the apostle Paul, we are convinced that “he who began a good work in [us] will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).
And here is one of his words to the church:
We must be the people who love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality. This is a tough challenge. We have to be the people who, because we are possessed by a passion to see God’s glory in his creation, love homosexuals more than they love their sin. This means that our love has to be a tenacious love. This will also require that we come to know and establish relationships with those struggling with homosexuality. Armed with an awareness of both the problem and God’s provision, we have no right to consider that homosexuals are beyond the grace of God or that any individual is beyond the hope of redemption and transformation. Compassionate truth-telling is deeply rooted in Christian love, and this means that we must love homosexuals more than homosexuals love homosexuality.
Every sinner loves his sin, but the church must love sinners more than sinners love their sinfulness. This is precisely how Christ has loved us, and we must love other sinners even as Christ has loved us.
We cannot allow a homosexual to reduce his identity to being a homosexual. This is a tough message, but we live in an age of identity politics when people say, “What I do in my sex life is who I am—period!” We are the people who know that this is nonsense. Sex is a part of who we are—a vitally important and powerful part—but it is only a part of the total human being. Our sexual desires and sexual practices are genuine pointers to our inner reality and our relationship to God, but sexuality is not the end of the story.
Christians must be the people who refuse to put the period at the end of the sexual sentence. We cannot allow homosexuals to be isolated as a class of persons who are beyond the grace of God and exist in some special category of human sinfulness. We must be the people who say to homosexuals, “I am going to love you even more than you love your sin, because in this same way I was loved until I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. Someone loved me more than I loved my sin, and this is how I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.”
Our doctrine of salvation must be accompanied by a strong doctrine of the church. The ecclesia—the purchased people of God—are a covenanted community gathered in mutual accountability to the Word of God. In the bonds of Christ, we are to love each other even more than we love ourselves. Even in the process of church discipline, our purpose is not only to protect the integrity of the people of God, but to love persons into obedience and conformity with the Word of God. The common life of the church is really all about this mutual accountability, mutual encouragement, and exhorting each other to faithfulness unto the authority of the Word of God. The church sins when we deal with these issues wrongly, unscripturally, and superficially.
It is easy to detect a sense of fatigue setting in among Christians in America who are tired of arguing, debating, and speaking the truth about homosexuality in the midst of a fallen and rebellious culture. This fatigue is evidence of sin, even as it is an understandable response to the difficulty of our task. We are now coming to a point of cultural crisis, and the church is called to faithfulness as we must declare God’s truth with a boldness never summoned before. The church must demonstrate even more candor, more courage, and more truth-telling. We must demonstrate more genuine compassion, even as we reach out to a civilization that is literally falling from within. Even as civilization falls, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ must stand as the People of God, determined to keep its wits even as it shows the love of God and seeks the glory of Jesus Christ, in season and out of season.



64 Comments:
Hey Justin, maybe you could point us to some verses that you think might be support for the anti-gay agenda. Preemptively, I'd like to offer this essay as a refutation of Romans 1 anti-gay interpretation.
This is such an awesome post - full of grace and truth.
These certainly seem like wise words. Our Lord did not cast stones at the adulteress. Thanks, Justin, for giving us such good food for thought.
In the analogy of the man with the limp, how do pastors come in? He was saying that this could be used to more strongly show the grace of God. Paul said that grace was more apparent in him, because he was once a great sinner, but then God purposed him to preach the gospel.
How does this square with those who were once divorced and remarried, and have repented, but are "disqualified" from the ministry for not being the "husband of one wife?" I know there are as many explainations as there are people.
Justin . . .
This is absolutely one of the best articles I have ever read on this subject. That we must love the homosexual more than he/she loves their homosexuality brings incredible clarity to the issue. Not to just "love the sinner, but hate the sin" type cliche, but to love the sinner MORE than they love their sin, is a call to us as Christians not often heard, and one we surely must heed.
Excellent post. Thank you for the words of wisdom.
Two good resources on the issue:
1) Robert Gagnon's book The Bible and Homosexuality is the best and most exhaustive book on the issue. Anyone who wants a serious study on the issue should read this book. Further, he argues reasonably and forcefully why an interptretation of Romans 1 as linked to above is not consistent with Paul's argument in Romans and the rest of his letters.
2) A book we (Matthias Media) published a few years back called What Some of You Once Were. It is contains first-hand stories of Christians struggling with homosexuality. Reading through peoples' struggles gives perspective to those who don't and encouragement to those who do.
Sorry, but as a gay man who has been with life-partner 14 years, I find this post wildly ridiculous and patronizing.
What you all should be learning from the Haggard scandal is what happens when you deny people their true natures.
"What you all should be learning from the Haggard scandal is what happens when you deny people their true natures."
I think there is always confusion over this issue. Whether you are a gay sinner or a straight sinner (and that covers everyone), your nature is the problem. Ephesians 2 says that we are all by nature children of wrath. The result for every human being who act on their nature is destruction. Whatever sins we struggle with to say "I was born this way" does not excuse any of us (including me!). It simply demonstrates that the Bible is accurate in depicting human nature as needing a Savior. I don't say this because I hate homosexuals, I say this because I want to see them in heaven and that will not happen apart from repentance of sin and trust in Christ and Christ alone.
Justin,
Thanks for the great quote from Dr. Mohler. I have been a student at SBTS for three years, and do not cease to marvel at the man's ability to speak with clarity and wisdom about so many difficult issues. As a man who has battled against same-sex attraction all of his adult life (I have been happily married for 2 1/2 years), I am impressed with comments like these from someone who has such a wide audience. My prayer is that God will continue to make his ministry at Southern and elsewhere fruitful. Thanks again.
-Nate Collins
Rick and Gary ... Applause to you for your well written statement. Congratulations on your 14 year relationship. God has blessed you in a wonderful way. By the way ... since the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals use the buzz phrase "Sanctity of Marriage" so often, I decided one day to check on the internet for "divorce rates by state" ... Would it surprise you to know that the highest rates of divorce and multiple marriages as well as child abuse .. are found in The Bible Belt. I'm not making this up .. it's there for all to see. I'm sorry but the more I know about Fundamentalists and Evangelicals (in spite of being one for 41 years up until 5 years ago), the more I am disgusted and realize that they are simply not people of integrity.
Annette, I'm sorry but your tritisms and your calling God's LGBT people "The homosexual" as if we are some sort of an alien race, makes me want to vomit. I find your trite and trivial world to truly be disgusting. I suppose that I should think more kindly of "The Scorpio Female", at least as much as I do the fine women I know who would never make such a stupid statement.
Rev. Scott,
Since it is clear that your entrance to heaven is based on your sex life, I would love to sit down with you sometime and share God's AWESOME gospel message. He has replaced your "gospel" of living according to your knowledge of good and evil, with His Spirit .. that Spirit which gives LIFE .. the very life of Christ. Your salvation (and mine) is not based on our sex lives, Scott .. and I am so sorry to think that you preach that puke to your congrgation rather than the truth of the Christian Gospel.
Will, Rick and Gary, glad you stopped by. I'd be interested to hear more interaction with Justin's article. Would you agree that you have a sinful nature? And what do you think of the testimonies--the ones at exodus and the one Justin linked to?
"What you all should be learning from the Haggard scandal is what happens when you deny people their true natures."
One other question--I have a friend who was in a lesbian relationship and is now finding that she is attracted to guys. No one pressured her out of the relationship. Do you think she's denying her true nature or do you think she'll go back to being attracted to girls?
wow, lots of evangelical sunniness here, as well as the usual two-dimensional banter (or should i say pokes) between those who simply want to make homosexuality a valid sexual expression and those who want to offer up an equally simplistic doctrine of restorationism.
to the restorationists who think everyone is born straight: my daughter's catechism asks, "how sinful are you"? anseer: "no part of my life is free from sin." should it instead read, "no part of my life--except my sexuality--is free from sin. i was most surely born straight"? what gives in this idea that sin affects everything but sexuality? you all seem to think that if you concede that persons can be born gay that you will be forced into accepting its validity as a sexual expression. i don't get that. i don't think homosexuals can be restored any easier than autistic kids can be made un-autistic.
restoriationists must by definition have a low view of sin. they believe that everyone is born straight. how is sexulaity hermetically sealed off from the rest of human experience?
my view doesn't make friends with most. it is an invalid sexual expression, yet i don't offer up bright, sunny and optimistic false hopes that people can be made "whole." both sides of this topic seem to just want everything to work out as best as possible--whether we dismantle the larger societal problems (validate it) or restore individuals. it's all just effort to chase self-fulfillment and personal happiness. maybe life is hard, folks. maybe it's messy? maybe it's too complicated to simply offer up easy solutions?
i didn't grow up in religious circles, so i don't have a natural template for all the discomfort and relative homophobia. i am not uncomfortable with the fact that i have to actually share the world with homosexuals. i think the restorationist doctrines are fueled by many things, but one seems to be the need to make the adherents comfortable that gays actually exists as long as we can push them through "make 'em straight" factories and have them come out the other end just like us.
'love them more than they love their sin.' huh. sounds oh, so sickly sweet. typically evangelical.
any restorationsists ever think of the fact that perhaps homosexuals just plain have to live with it, that the purpose of this life is not necessarily to be happy?
zrim
Zrim, you won't find many of JT's regular readers saying that life is all about being happy. The end of the Al Mohler quote shows this: that good life "shows the love of God and seeks the glory of Jesus".
I would mostly agree with your assessment about sin and how we cannot view sexuality as uncorrupted by it, and I think JT and Mohler would too, evidenced by JT quoting Mohler about the 'limp'. The one place I differ with you is that you seem to have no hope that Jesus has the power to help us conquer sin, in fact you didn't mention Jesus at all--why was that?
Bill .... Because of the fact that I don't believe anyone changes his/her sexual oriention, I would say that about 98 % of the Exodus stories re Bull Poop. I say that also with around 35 years of close inspection into ogranizations like Exocus, and the realization that having known at least 100 (probably more) people to hve gone through their programs (including the founders of Exodus themselves, as well as the founding members of Love in Action)and not ONE of them is anything other than gay. Now .. if a person has had gay sexual encounters in their formative years ... it felt good ... and they mistake the "feel good" for a gay sexual orientation, I might give you some slack. Otherwise, as I said "ex gay" is pure Bull Poop. All the Fundamentlist wishful thinking in the world won't make it one iota different.
Sorry about the pathetic spelling in that last post .. Im rushing here during lunch hour.
Bill .. as for your Lesbian friend who says she is now attracted to men, I say stick around for the next chapter. There is no such thing as a formerly gay person any more than there is such a thing as a former straight straight person. Or to use Annette's stupid term "The Homosexual" does not become "The Straight", no matter how many Fundamentalists wish it were so. Only the most myopic mind would think that there is.
Will i would have to disagree with you I have a couple friends who were homosexual and now live lives in a heterosexual relationship.
Shuwo ... Take a careful look at what you have written .. a careful, thoughtful look. I stand firmly by what I have said. I also know gay people who are living in heterosexual relationships. While I dont know Ted Haggard, the gay minister who has prompted all this discussion, he is a gay man living in a heterosexual relationship as well. So what is your point?
bill,
"The one place I differ with you is that you seem to have no hope that Jesus has the power to help us conquer sin, in fact you didn't mention Jesus at all--why was that?"
yep. i always say my piece on this tipic knowing that my view will be asked that question. but as much as you seem to think you agree with me, i wonder if you really do. that is, the question asked is, "what hope do you offer folks?" what solution do i hold out? i will say it again, maybe there isn't a nice, sunny solution to every problem. have you conquered your sins, bill? if not, i wonder just how feasible the 'jesus solves every problem' formula evangelicals serve up is true and just how much they simply like the idea.
i don't have a solution, bill. that was my point: maybe homosexuals just have to live with it in the same way i live with my tendencies to lust after women other than my wife. i hate it and wish i didn't have to deal with it...but that's life. jesus didn't come to set us up in a sealed off bubble and avoid our sins. sounds nice to say we conquer our sins, but i always hear a dressed of therapy behind such sentiments. i live with sin every day, don't you? is it that our straigt sins are ok, but heaven forbid another man actually wants to kiss another man? i don't get that need at all, but i don't run to a doctrine that says that desire can be wiped out completely. conquer sin? i guess that means it's posisble to be perfect in this life, eh? i can see you rolling your proverbial eyes, but you suggestion that we can overcome sin can only lead to the doctrine of perfectionism. you an di both know we will live with greed until we die and somehow that's ok with straight, white males...but that a gay guy exists somewhere is so disturbing we concoct the doctrine of "overcome and stomp out completely."
i am not a transformationalist. jesus doesn't make your life better...he reconciles you to God and justifies you. that doesn't mean you will 'find victory' for your pet sins. i find transformationalists hold out pat solutions to problems they find particulalry troublesome (like those pesky gays), while a lot of other sins listed in the bible get winked at...very convenient.
didn't mention jesus? why was that? i guess i don't understand...is that the idea that until i make a nominal nod toward a perceived religiosity that i have no valid point? until i quote a verse then what i say is of no use?
BTW, when you say you know former gays who are now straight: you seem to assume that once they landed on straight they landed correctly. How do you know they are not faking it? how do you know they are not acting against their nature?
zrim
ZRIM ... I trust that you wont mind me commenting on your very last statement in your posting to Bill: "BTW, when you say you know former gays who are now straight: you seem to assume that once they landed on straight they landed correctly. How do you know they are not faking it? how do you know they are not acting against their nature?" I have known so very many people who have gone through those "ex gay" programs, enough to tell you that they are NOT straight or formerly gay. They are doing whatever they feel is necessary to be accepted among their peers in the Fundamentalist community. Ted Haggard did that .. and perhaps still is, even after his being "outed". How very sad for everyone involved. I have enough decades of experience with the "ex gay" movement to say firmly that there is simply no such thing as a former or "ex" gay.
Will, thanks for your responses. You know a lot of folks that have gone through Exodus? Can you share more specifics about what you’ve seen?
I did have another q that you didn’t answer—would you agree that humans have a sinful nature? If you’ve watched Exodus, how have you seen an understanding of sin and a discussion of ‘victory’ or ‘conquering’ applied to the folks in the program? Would you say it was wishy washy (like zrim seems to be saying) or was it discussed in light of something like justification/being reconciled with God (zrim mentioned this too)?
Zrim, thanks for the response. Do you read JT’s or Mohler’s blogs much? (I’m not asking this sarcastically). Because they really would agree with you about justification being primary. I would too.
Don’t you think that reconciliation with God will bear fruit? How could we continue in sin? I would agree that I will likely have to battle lust all my life, and this can absolutely be the experience of someone who lusts after the same sex. And I don’t think that it’s a worse kind of lust. But, I do think that transformation can happen, because transformation doesn’t mean perfection. Words like ‘overcome’ and ‘conquer’ certainly bear the connotation of perfection, but I don’t think that they necessarily mean that—I think they can mean that my battles with lust are isolated and not a pattern, and that I live with an orientation towards serving others even if that is something that has to be continually fought for.
With a qualification like that, I would say that it is important to preach Jesus and His power over temptation, because how can we still live in sin? (that said, I really do value your perspective on the reality of sin and importance of reconciliation/justification, honestly, and I’m not rolling my eyes—you’re right about those things).
thanks, episcowill. that's exactly my point, although i don't have your sort of experience, which lends at least some measure of credibility to the point. my BIL is gay and my in-law family is fundamental-evangelical. that's about the extent of my experience. but i just have never been able to swallow the idea that these folks are some how changed...seems like a lot of wishful thinking.
and i just don't buy the idea that jesus came to seal us off from our lives no matter how distasteful. i call this notion the 'grace as magic' error which seems itself informed by the cult of the therapeutic and a nice dose of discomfort at the idea that gays actually inahbit the same world we do: make 'em straight and we can sleep at night knowing we don't have to worry about our kids being gobbled up by those nasty gays.
it's so, so temmpting to embrace it because it means we don't have to be pilgrims. it seems to suggest that, at best, we can live in a bubble and have our problems muted and never have to touch the icky, icky world or deal with it. as a later-in-life christian who was not reared in the faith, i know that my life and world are complicated and that i live with a relative amount of pain, happiness and monotony. seems like a theoogy made in america that we can be relentlessly happy, healthy and whole. guess i am just a real second class christian.
i say all that i do still believing that homosexuality is not a valid sexual expression. but what these evangelicals offer up is more two-dimensional perpsectives that seem so transparently designed to make THEM more comfortable with their world and also make them look sympathetic. i don't claim to have the answers to these really hard questions, like they seem to here, but theirs seem to typically and unrealistically bright and sunny.
i might recommend the web site called musingson.com to some here. some readers might be familiar with lee irons, a conservative reformed figure who contends for the two-kingdom view in the tradition of kline. misty is his wife. interesting site.
zrim
hey, bill.
"Do you read JT’s or Mohler’s blogs much?"
no, just surf a bit. FYI: i am a former evangelical turned confessional reformed through the work of folks like horton and whi, just to give you some perspective for what it's worth. i find folks like mohler still too tied to evangelicalism, thus sort of weak-kneed, not strong enough, not condicive to good reformed confessionalism. they still want to be considered evangelical but that means paring the teeth and watering things down way too much. they don't go far enough.
"Don’t you think that reconciliation with God will bear fruit? How could we continue in sin?"
yes, i do. i am different from my unbelieving days (not reared in faith, but i follow a theology of the Cross, not glory. th eflesh understands power words (glory) like "transform", "overcome", "conquer" and "change", etc. this is a whole different theology than the biblical one. i don't susbscribe to the therapeutic ideas in evangelical theology. when folks hear those words they think they can live a life that transcends reality and evangelicals do nothing to correct this; they let these fleshly ideas go their way and people actually become christians because they think they can be bubbled off from their lives. evangelicals teach this in many ways even when they don't know it. and simply refuting it because it sounds bad is no defense.
how can we still live in sin? again, you need to clarify this sort of idea, bill. on the one hand, i am of the persuasion that we are too weak-kneed when it comes to, say, the third mark of the church--church discipline. "grace, grace, all is grace!" i really get seared by this mentality. i would like to see more excommunications happening, to be blunt, but for the sake of reconciliation not shunning. we like to tell the world how to live yet we just baptized in our church the third child out of wedlock to the third daddy. what hypocrisy. so until evangelical christians stop this sort of duplicity i can't take them seriously. we ought not to be living in sin. on the other hand, bill, this doesn't mean we can live above our reality. it's a nuance, don't you think? i say to gays that you will likely always be gay but you just have to deal with it. sure, easy for a straight happily married and fully sexual male to say, i know. but what else is there? hey, you can fit in just like me? no, i don't think so. i don't envy your lot, but that's life.
no, bill, it just isn't that easy. being transformed by God is not a 'grace as magic' thing. it is not as the world understands such things. embracing christ by faith is a complete work of God, but that does not easily translate into the sort of transformationalism i see all over this blog. you might just have to gimp your way to the finish line, falling down a lot. that's my experience. and in the meantime you might also get used to the idea that God will not make it any easier. paul had a thorn in his side...why do we think we can be any more exempt?
zrim
Bill, the gace as magic doctrines don’t understand the nature of our justification. We are regarded by God as saints but we are not made into saints. This is the confusion the flesah makes and it carroes over into this particular topic. It’s like if I said I regard you as a woman, even though you are not a woman. I will treat you as a woman even though the realoity is that you are a man. Ours is a forensic faith, bill. God doesn’t transform us in the way the world understands these idea. the flesh understands power words and ideas, but the biblical faith is one that undersatands that we are saints in a forensic way. We await this to become a reality. In the meantime we are still in our old nature and must contend with the nautral and supernatural infighting. We have been given faith, and that is all. all we have is faith with which to contend in our fallen natures. As a christian I am no smater, more creative, stronger or anything beyond my unbelieving neighbor. I have nothing over him but faith. That sounds weak and very unattractive, does it not? That is the Cross for you. there is nothing attractive about it. th etheology of glory implored Christ come down from it because that would have been very cool. I think we must seriously examine what power words like change, transform, conquer mean and how they may be informed by a theology of glory and bot the Cross. When people think they can transcend the very same reality their neighbors experience they have gone seriously off the rails. Watch christian TV and listen to christian radio. Very attractive and alluring messages there.: you don’t have to be poor, you don’t have to be gay, you don’t have to be weak, you don’t have to be dim-witted, you don’t have to be anything you don’t want to be. here is the idol called jesus…just rub it and he will set the captives free, AMEN?! What a load of crap. If that’s christianity you can keep it. for my part, I will continue in word and sacrament and in weak hope in the age to come through faith in christ alone. I will continue in meeting with fellow believers to pray and worship God as a pilgrim who is not more untethered from this life than any other with only faith that one day I will be. I am no super-saint who goes about faking it an di would never ask any other sinner to do the same, including a homosexual. Instead, come to the communion rail with me and be nourished. Then we will both exit back into our hard realities, you to your gay trials and me to my straight ones.
zrim, thanks for the long responses (will, don't think I've forgotten you--please write back if you have time).
I think theres a couple things to note. I think you're missing something if you think that because Mohler/JT or me think that sin can be overcome (in the sense that I stated it--did you agree with my approach there?) it means we are guilty of saying something akin to "here is the idol called jesus…just rub it and he will set the captives free" or that people "can transcend the very same reality their neighbors experience". Now maybe you're letting of some steam at folks who do approach things that way, but if not, maybe you could interact with some specifics in Mohler's statements or something.
Another thing thats maybe more a concrete difference (and it depends on what you think about what I said about what overcoming sin really means), is what you said about
"the biblical faith is one that understands that we are saints in a forensic way. We await this to become a reality. In the meantime we are still in our old nature and must contend with the nautral and supernatural infighting."
Two things with this: one, do you not think that the kingdom is something that is already and not yet? Only already in a forensic sense?
two, what about
--Paul saying he was being renewed inwardly day by day
--James making a case that faith without works is dead (if grace is only effecaious (spel?) in a forensic sense then there can be faith without works)
--all over romans 6--we should walk in newness of life, our old man was crucified, we should no longer be slaves to sin, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, etc. These kind of things can't be reconciled to a perspective that views ourselves as merely plodding along. I don't deny the reality of my sin now, but you seem to be denying the reality of grace now.
Again, I'm NOT arguing the main postion that you seem to be arguing against--grace as your best life now magic--but I would say that in a sense, grace is a justifying magic AND a sanctifying magic.
Bill, We live according the whatever nature we choose. Paul, in Galatians 2:20 and also in the 7th chapter of Romans indicates that while sin is living in us as a princiciple, our nature is Christ.
Although I seriously question your motives, I will briefly touch on what I have seen of the "ex gay" movement. The guys and women I have known all were exceptional people. They were/are Committed Christians who really want to do the right thing, and without exception they are gay, not "ex gay". Without exception, those who have attempted to stick with the "ex gay" way of life are angry, defensive, very harsh toward those who they seem to think are getting away with something, yet if I was walking in their shoes I would be exactly the same. If I were living in a pretend lifestyle, I would be extremely frustrated and angry. Sadly, those who are a part of that world seem to base their salvation on what they do or dont do in bed, not on the finished work of Christ. Though it's a challenge to look at it with objectivity, I have to honestly tell you that I have yet (after these many years) to meet an "ex-gay" person who I felt was genuine. Somehow when we are trying to pretend to be something that we arent .. people just know.
Episcowil, thanks for the response. This will probably be long, and you will probably disagree with my categories, but please hear me out and help me out by responding.
You say: "Romans indicates that while sin is living in us as a princiciple, our nature is Christ." thats actually kind of the point I'm trying to make with zrim--that Christ is our nature and that affects us now (albeit not perfectly).
I don't know any sensible christian who would say that conquering sin means an end to temptation. A sensible christian can make the mistake in not applying that to homosexual temptation, but I hope I'm not. If my friend who was in a lesbian relationship never had lesbian sex again, I would say that she conquered the sin of fornication no matter how tempted she was to give into it. And if she only glanced at women lustfully in isolated moments and repented quickly, I would probably say that she had conquered her lust. I believe in that kind of victory, and I believe that that kind of victory is more than possible by God's grace.
Something you say that I don't understand: "those who have attempted to stick with the "ex gay" way of life are angry, defensive, very harsh toward those who they seem to think are getting away with something"?
You say: "I have to honestly tell you that I have yet (after these many years) to meet an "ex-gay" person who I felt was genuine". I think this is where our categories differ. If 'gay' is defined as someone tempted to look at someone of the same sex with lust, then I can't see that God has a problem with that any more than he would knowing that I'm tempted and Jesus was tempted. But you seem to imply that for someone to be 'genuine', that person has to live out their desires. I can't see how this is any different than a man committing adultery with his secretary. Unless you believe that adultery isn't sin?
I think that someone can most certainly be a genuine 'ex-gay' if that means that despite their temptation, they don't give in. Maybe it should be called 'ex-adultery'. Even if we're tempted, there is a way out. But I wouldn't put it beyond God to be able to end temptation. Typically he allows temptation, to show His strength in our weakness. But lets not limit His power.
Bill ... huh? Do you even think things through before you write them?
We must be the people who love heterosexuals more than heterosexuals love heterosexuality. This is a tough challenge. We have to be the people who, because we are possessed by a passion to see God’s glory in his creation, love heterosexuals more than they love their sin. This means that our love has to be a tenacious love. This will also require that we come to know and establish relationships with those struggling with heterosexuality. Armed with an awareness of both the problem and God’s provision, we have no right to consider that heterosexuals are beyond the grace of God or that any individual is beyond the hope of redemption and transformation. Compassionate truth-telling is deeply rooted in Christian love, and this means that we must love heterosexuals more than heterosexuals love heterosexuality.
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynn Lavin
Thanks, Lynn. Oh, and this is beyond beautiful: comments on the love between David and Jonathan, and the comments not from 'homosexuals' but heterosexuals:
"Samuel 1:25-26 clearly states male-male love is greater than that of a women.
"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me; THY LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN." - King James
or, Revised English " Jonathan lies slain on your heights. I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you are most dear to me; YOUR LOVE FOR ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN." Is the same in all modern English versions.
The speaker is King David. David was Jonathan s brother-in-law While some may not like the FACT that this is what the scripture says it does clearly state that the love between two men can be greater than between a man and a women. Many Christians are homophobic. They should try really loving homosexuals and they might find the fact homosexuals can deeply love each other not so difficult to grasp and accept."
Find these people here.
Sadly, if we could see beneath the words of the original post, we would find someone caught up in Romans 2, pointing the finger at the 'reprobates' but doing so with the sensitivity of a modern-day pharisee in the company of like minds, even striving for compassion in the delusion about sexuality and especially homosexuality, of which you must have at some time partaken sufficiently enough to therefore understand it, or you judge from the outside as an observer.
Homosexuality is not the opposite of heterosexuality as a lie is from the truth, that in and of itself is a lie. Where does that put bisexuals, transgendered, hermaphrodites (existing of both sexes from birth), or even celibates? Even conservative theologians today contend that orientation is not the problem, it is acting out, no matter what the sexual orientation, and it is doing so with selfish motives to gratify oneself at the expense of another human being who deserves better than that. All of God's laws are designed to protect us through our obedience, not condemn us into practice.
Let me say something here. God redeemed me while I was living a primarily homosexual lifestyle back in 1982. He didn't save me out of homosexuality as so many clueless pharisees want to have happen, he saved me out of sin including pride, drunkenness, and a self-destructive lifestyle, of which my loose sexuality was only a small part.
We would benefit from reading Tony Compolo and his Hot Potatoes that Christians don't want or know how to handle. He at least understands true compassion for those who are aligning their sexuality with God's desires as what is best for them, and he doesn't do it in any of the patronizing ways that the clueless, pretentious,self-righteous plea of this original blog does.
Actually, you have a lot of nerve wanting me to be heterosexual when it is none of your freaking business, and God assures me that He is fine with me just as I am. Perhaps you should just mind your own business, which apparently, needs a lot more work than I need at this end. My conscience is clear before God and I do what John said to do and keep myself in the love of God. And I seek to do what Micah was told: to do justly, to love kindness and to walk humbly with my God.
You are not the rescuer of the homosexuals. God is. You all should tend to your own houses and don't worry about 'loving' us in your twisted ways. You will never win over people you condemn in your hearts, despite the outward appearances.
I've been through Exodus. I've been there every week while the married men come in and tell how they 'fell' during the week. every week. Exodus doesn't stop homosexual behavior, it provides community for likeminded sufferers. It does attempt to hold its members accountable, but it doesn't make homosexuals straight any more than Ted Haggard can be made straight.
It is sad to see all this patting on the back and failure to recognize derision, from opinionated people who know nothing about the subject. It's like the wait staff all telling a chef that he needs to wear an apron because otherwise he might be mistaken for a rocket scientist. That's right, it's totally senseless.
Fix your own lives, God didn't put you in charge of the lives of homosexuals any more than heterosexuals, and he obviously did not place you in the role of the evangelist towards gays, seeing that you lack a sufficient understanding of them, despite your 'well-meaning' intentions. Leave that to the Tony Comopolos of the world, and maybe try your luck at gamblers, or hypocrites, or maybe the pride of the person in the pew next to you, if you feel you have to meddle with the sins of others besides yourself.
Bill,
I was thinking some more about these things last night. And you are right; I do have a considerable amount of steam to let off. I should not have called someone like Mohler weak-kneed. However, I do have problems with his (and others’) evident need to remain in the Evangelical camp when there is so much wrong with it and while they correctly criticize. I simply don’t understand how they can see so much wrong and how Evangelicals have highjacked the faith yet still want to be included in it. I find Evangelicalism as bankrupt as Liberalism and want nothing to do with it.
I think we probably have a lot in common. I am not sure what else to say to your questions. I hold to the already/not yet dichtotomy in conventionally Reformed understandings, yes. But over against the Evangelical model which is amore Gnostic dualism that sees the antithesis between spirit and material, I hold to a eschatological dualism that makes the antithesis between this age and the age to come, the one I read in Paul. The Gnostic dualism is prone to thinking that one can overcome problems in this age, that God’s grace is the power by which this can be done. The material we live with can be transcended and cordoned off if we just pray enough or otherwise exercise some sort of spiritual discipline, tapping into God’s grace and wheedle it out of His hand. But grace is sovereign and cannot be forced from God. His grace is that of faith which holds us until the next age is inaugurated. This is what H has promised us. Faith is what gives us hope for the next age. In the meantime, we must contend in grace with those things everybody else has to who doesn’t have God-given faith. An eschatological dualism makes no promises that any trial will be removed from us. I certainly don’t bind God’s hands in this thinking—He can remove whatever He wants to. But in the ordinary course of things He just doesn’t. And that any evil is avoided or good is done by anyone, believing or not, is pure grace. But we don’t as Christians have access to any special measure of grace to do or not do certain things. The special grace we have is that which grants mere faith in the midst of these things. We as Christians are called to live the life that is worthy of Christ’s work in light of His grace. You suggest that I underemphasize grace, which is odd. I used to be an Evangelical where grace was a polite and nice word but wasn’t seen as something that had much to do with authentic faith: the sinner drums faith up himself. As an Augustinian-Calvinist I hold that grace is a complete work of God and that we can do nothing without it. It is not a polite offer by God to believe. When I speak of grace, bill, I speak of it in the category of faith and nothing more. Grace does not transform anything but our ability to believe because faith is our only connection to God. I speak of salvific grace to connect us to the age to come through Christ alone. The “grace” I have been given not to actually steal a candy bar from a store is also given to my unbelieving neighbor. The “grace” given me to be hetero is Los given to my unbelieving father. Yes, there is common grace given to all, believing and non-. But I find Evangelicals tempted to make too much out of special grace to believe and want it to spill over into their creational lives, enabling them to be hedged in from the real world.
And that does mean avoiding homosexualism if that happens to be our lot. That’s a tough one to say the least. But I don’t want to offer up false hope to homosexual Christians that there is some magic reservoir to tap into so that they can do it. I at least have not found that reservoir. All I know is that I am kept in faith, in the hope that the new age is coming. That’s what pilgrimage is.
I think we agree on much, bill. But what I always hear seeping through in your comments is the grace as magic view. I hear a lot of the therapeutic behind your suggestions and I think that is because Evangelicals have embraced the cult of therapy in spades and have very little understanding of that. They have linked up God’s grace with therapy. Is it any wonder they are so enamored with popular psychology and counseling that ends up looking like just regular therapy with a lot of Bible verses and Jesus-speak thrown is to make them feel better about doing therapy? It’s very tempting to embrace such ideas, very optimistic and very inspiring to believe that we don’t have to live the same life as our unbelieving neighbors. But it’s a falsehood. Are Christians called to live a different life? Yes, very much so. But is only faith born of God that compels us to do so. We don’t have special powers. I know you would agree to that statement, but then you say things that really suggest otherwise. Instead of special power on lend from God, we have others around us to help us in our problems. That sounds rather ordinary and weak but it is the way God works. When my girls are afraid of the dark and thunderstorms I don’t tell them to pray to Jesus and act like the dark and storm aren’t there, I tell them to come into our room and lay beside us. That may sound like an odd analogy. But the point is that Jesus never takes the dark and the storm away no matter how much we might like to think that would make Him look good and us feel better. The fact is that He doesn’t remove the blights of this world in the here and now. He gives us two things: faith that this world, as good as it is yet given to great pain and suffering, will pass and the next is on the way, and He gives us each other.
zrim
Mr. Honesty .. EXCELLENT post. You should be a preacher man :-) You mentioned Tony Campolo several times and I wonder if you have ever heard the excellent dialogue between Tony and his wife Peggy that they did for, I believe, Evangelicals Concerned a few years ago. If you are interested I have it and I would be happy to email you the files. Peggy is 900% supportive of her LGBT brothers and sisters, and so is Tony, except that he hasn't quite come as far as Peggy (he may have by now because he was certainly headed in that direction.) If you are interested click on my name and you will be taken to my blog and you can email me directly from there. Peace, Will
Interesting Bill .. if I didnt know better I would probably view heterosexuals as those who look at the opposite sex with lust .. Does that sound as stupid to you as your comment that you view gays as those who look at someone of the same gender with lust? Perhaps like Annette's simplistic statement, I should learn to love The Heterosexual more than he or she loves his or her Heterosexuality, but then that seems just as STUPID to me as a gay person being defined by his or her lust for someone of the same gender. Honestly , Bill .. I have to wonder if any of you people even THINK. It really doesn't seem to me that you do.
EpiscoWill, thanks for the link. I am going to post it here, trusting that God has someone interested in bringing her/his heart in line with sensibility on the subject. I'm guessing that, like my conservative students, due to pastoral pressures and peer remarks. these people cut themselves off from the brilliance of the love factor in Brokeback Mountain, yet at least one will wander over to hear Dr. Campolo and his wife speak.
These messages are absolutely brilliant, coming from one of the leading conservative evangelical theologians of today, I see him on Fox News all the time as well, and him being "at odds" with his wife on the issue makes it even more dynamic, balanced and relevant. Thank you for providing this:
Dr. and Mrs. Tony Campolo on Homosexuality and the Church.
I downloaded their messages to my mp3 player so that I can even play them while on the road. Nice!!!
Listened to the messages and still don't get it or maybe even dislike these messages? Christ offers to lead you through His love in the way of all truth if you will only believe in surrender to His call. Remember, He loves you just as you are, and you have nothing to lose but a garbage world of lies, and everthing to gain in this world and the next.
Hey zrim and episcowil, thanks for responses. Weekends are tough for me so I'll try and respond soon.
But quick--episcowil, I'm sorry you're offended, I don't really understand what exactly I'm not thinking through. You mention my comment "that [I] view gays as those who look at someone of the same gender with lust".
Not necessarily. Sorry if it sounded bad but I don't think lust necessarily happens no matter who you're attracted to. Attraction doesn't equal sin, but lusting after anyone not your spouse is. If a gay person is attracted to the same sex but doesn't lust after them, thats great. Hope that clears up my point.
Mr. Honestly, its cool to read through what you posted. I have a couple questions--you mention conservative theologians and their understanding that acting out is the problem. I would take that view too. Do you see acting out as ever a problem? (I wasn't sure what you thought because I went to the link, and it supports same sex marriage, and I didn't know if that was your view too).
Also, with bible verses, do you think that David and Jonathan's love was erotic or platonic? And you also mentioned exodus a little but what do you think specifically of the verses that mention homosexuality? And also (tying in with my first q I guess) what do you think about marriage as only a man and woman in the bible (bible only, politics is another beast that I'm not interested in right now)?
Thanks I look forward to seeing your view.
Mr. Honesty .. YAY!! I'm so glad that you took the time to listen to the Tony and Peggy Campolo dialogue. I did the same thing as you .. well, burned them to a cd so I could listen to them when I am driving. Like I said, I got pretty emotional at a couple of the stories .. you know which ones. Thank God for people like them who are willing to stand up and tell the truth, in spite of the fact that it has cost Tony a lot (he is referred to as a heretic by a lot of fundies, but thankfully still highly esteemed in the evangelical world.) God bless you for sharing the link with the people here. Perhaps someone will listen and have their eyes and hearts opened.
God Bless you,
Will
Bill .. Do you have any idea what fornication is? It's pretty silly to equate it with a committed homosexual or heterosexual relationship. I guess for some of you it's a catch all word that is easy enough to fling around .. especially if you aren't the one who is marginalized by having a piece of mud slung at you such as that.
Further, Bill .. you DID equate same sex attraction with lust. Is it because of your lust for women that you project such thoughts onto gay people?
I looked at your blog, and notice that you are quite young. Perhaps you are still trying to figure out a lot of things, yourself .. that is the only reason I can think of that you would ask such ... questions as you ask.
Will
Buck, I just took a look at the link you provided .. indeed Romans 1 isnt about God being anti gay at all ... and I appreciate your sharing the link here. I noticed that one of your favorite films is Dead Men Walking. I attended a lecture by Sr. Helen a few months ago. NEAT woman who is as committed as I am to the abolition of the death penalty.
God Bless you,
Will
Will, thanks again.
Bill, I personally believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. Having said that, I believe the institution is corrupt due to rampant divorce and infidelity, and overall lack of respect for it by people in it.
With that in mind, I think gays should consider civil unions or something 'more noble' than marriage as it stands today. I don't think gays should seek marriage to each other, and I don't believe that married people should have special privileges (instituted initially by primarily white [married] males) such as tax breaks, housing, or hospital visitation rights that are not extended to the rest of society, especially other committed couples who believe themselves to be one in the eyes of God, whether society has provided a sheet of paper to prove it or not.
I also believe that sex outside of a lifetime commitment is wrong, or sinful, so, yes I see acting out as a problem, though that leads to the question of what is sex?
I believe there is room for intimacy between people who care about each other and seek to truly express their love for each other, intimacy as David and Jonathan definitely had, they hugged and kissed, one of them stripped down for the other (supposedly to relinquish authority to the crown) and David "exceeded" (supposedly with grief, though we aren't sure) when he realized that he and Jonathan were to be separated because of Saul's desire to kill him.
Also, their souls were knit one with the other, it doesn't say their spirits, but their souls. That makes a huge difference when considering David's words upon Jonathan's death, that the love Jonathan had for him was "greater than the love of a man for a woman," because preachers want to make that agape love, they have no other way to explain it, if it can't be same-sex love such as gay men are capable of having, or it blows their beliefs out of the water. And Saul did call Jonathan an embarrasment to his mother's womb because of his affection for David, implying that others could see that Jonathan was attracted to David in more than a platonic way.
Let's not forget that God considers David above all others as the man after His heart, and He never condemns the bonding or intimacy between these two men, but their souls being knit together is recognized as one of the most beautiful passages in scripture.
And Jesus, of course, never spoke a word about same sex affections, but as Tony Campolo says, Jesus spoke his greatest admonitions repeatedly against the most popular religious leaders of the day who put the people to task for things that they themselves violated in their hearts.
I don't understand your question about Exodus. It does what I said it does, as far as hope goes, there are more than enough people out there who did not find heterosexual tendencies or partners in or after going through the program, so if the implication is that, except for the very few outliers, statistically speaking, who found opposite sex mates, the rest may have found a peace with their celibacy and being in community, and may find that their desires therefore have waned some, though desires occur within and among the group members for each other as well.
God gives grace for us to not have to participate in the temptations of this world, but let us not forget that Jesus was "tempted in all ways like as we are," which means he was tempted to commit sexual sins with members of both sexes -- but He didn't. And he was very intimate with both sexes, allowing his feet to be washed with the hair of Mary, Lazarus' sister, and allowing John to rest on his bosom, as just two examples where love expressed as touch by either sex toward him as a man was welcomed and desired.
Episcowil, thanks again. I don't equate same sex attraction with lust in my head. Sorry if it looked that way in print.
I would define fornication as sexual interaction outside/before marriage. I don't know the greek for it (do you?) so i can't argue what it technically means. But it seems that the way that Paul uses the word fornication (often in combination with a list of other terms/phrases) that he intends to cover every area of possible sexual immorality/sex outside marriage. I certainly don't want to fling the word around lightly, much less to throw around at my gay friends/acquaintances.
Do you agree with Mr. Honestly that acting out is a problem/sinful? If so, how exactly do you differ with Mohler's or JT's perspective?
Mr. Honestly, thanks for the reply. I do have more questions though.
Why do you think that marriage is between a man and woman? Because the bible says so or something else? If because of the bible, don't you think God instituted marriage? So how could it be corrupted as a whole? I'm guessing that you value the bible's words because you say marriage is a man and a woman, and that acting out is a problem.
By saying that acting out is a problem, I'm not sure how you are fundamentally different in perspective than Mohler or JT.
With David and Jonathan, do you think that their affections were platonic or erotic? A combo?
I definitely think that there is room for intimacy that is platonic (hugs were a staple with my college buddies). Nothing done by John and Jesus or David and Jonathan is necessarily erotic and more than platonic. If you think those relationships had an erotic heart, it seems that God would have wanted them to have that erotic heart, so why would God give them the heart but not the permission to extend that physically? I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding you somewhere.
Thanks again for the conversation.
Bill,
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman because that is the word for the union between a man and a woman. I also believe God made the two one flesh in the garden, which has little to do with a religious ceremony or piece of paper or any of the vast number of reasons heterosexuals have for obtaining marriage. None of the possible reasons are ever lined up with Adam and Eve's blessed union, since the wife isn't an actual bone structure created from the husband.
Acting out by me is used for any sexual activity outside of a lifetime commitment. Again, there are lines between motive, practice, persons involved, etc. that must be taken into consideration before I would call it that. I'm not a 12-stepper in that regard.
I don't know this Mohler guy but from what I read in the original post, I don't think like him at all, or to be better put, I don't have that 'ethos' in my conversation. If you believe we are the same just because we may both be saying that acting out is wrong, there is nothing profound there, that's traditional Christian thinking, and has to be, seeing that God condemns sexual immorality, if that is what Mohler is condemning, but I think he is saying more than that, if that.
Where we would also probably disagree is WHY God condemns it, and I would contend that it is to protect us as we strive toward holiness, it is not in our best interests. I'm tempted to believe that Mohler would say it is because God is holy, but I can't really speak for him.
I don't think David and Jonathan had the kind of hug or 'love' you experience with your 'buddies' and think reducing it to that is scary.
If your buddy died tonight, would you be crying out in extreme distress -- out of everything you could possibly say about him in eulogy -- that his love for you was greater than the love of a man for a woman? What would your friends think? Your family?
Your comments about erotic hearts and extending them physically are confusing. I don't reduce the romantic or love states of people into eros and then seek for some sort of physical justification to that. But I don't consider things like arousal sin, necessarily, either, so I am not working from the premise you appear to be constructing. I certainly would not consider an attraction or an arousal acting out.
To sum up what I am saying, the physical connection with the love connection must be in line with the conscience, the edict as it might best be understood in protecting the individual, and the respective, permissive will of God.
You seem to imply that there are erotic hearts and God forbids them to act out. Again, I find that problematic for a number of reasons as mentioned above. I simply don't think that has anything to do with anything.
Mr. Honestly, thanks for the reply. Its funny, but with every post you make, you seem to be closer to what I think and what I bet Mohler thinks too. I'm confident he would say what you said about why gays shouldn't act out, as well as what you guessed he would say.
In your previous comment, you said that gays should consider civil unions. I assume you think those civil unions should be sexless? That they should live together, cuddle together, and share finances but not do anything sexual?
Do you think David and Jonathan would be accurately described as homosexual? I don't think it was at all. Kissing is something men do all over the world (italy, russia etc.) and its not erotic. With the reference that their love surpassed that of a woman, I think its not a principle for all people (I sensed you implied this in an earlier comment), but an incidental/particular statement that David had never loved a woman as he loved Jonathan, which could say something about David's deficiency in not loving his wife (wives) as himself.
Actually, if we apply the golden rule, we will and should love our neighbors as David loved Jonathan. If thats true, then they are an example of neighbor-love, and have nothing to do with the modern concept of homosexuality as a sexual attraction.
Scripture definitely doesn't come out and say you need to do xyz to be married, but I don't think that what is done and required right now for marriage is unbiblical or bad at all, though there is often a lack of things (like pastors not doing premarital or knowing the sins of the couple) that should be done. It would be nice to read a good book about defining marriage as food for thought.
I hope we're understanding each other more. Looking forward to your reply.
Also, I admit that sometimes I do differ with/dislike Mohler's approach at certain times to certain subjects, but he's definitely not trying to sling mud around with what he said.