“For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds” (Heb. 12:3).
Comes now the Ninth Short-Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding legislation in California that bans licensed counselors from helping young people who want to deal biblically with same-sex attraction. The law bans counseling that seeks to steer young people away from gender confusion. Confusion. It’s not just a good idea. It’s the law.
And this reveals, in high relief, the ratcheting techniques used by the forces of totalitolerance. A howl was set up against reparative therapy, causing even some stalwart Christian leaders to back away from it, and now, since we have ceded that ground, they are proceeding to take it. It is now against the law in California for a godly pastor to urge a teenagers to mortify his perverse desires, and how did we get here?
Incidentally, taking a stand for reparative counseling does not obligate you to endorse anything and everything someone might do in the name of reparative therapy, any more than a stand for free speech means that you agree with every stupid op-ed piece ever written. There could be hucksters out there running Acme Reparative Clinics, and I don’t care because this was supposed to be a free country. Because not only is Acme out there giving us a bad name, but the apostle Paul is out there too.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9–11).
Some of you used to be gay, he says, but you called on the Lord, and prayed it away. Notice the tense of the verbs. Such were some of you. But you are washed. This does not mean that various temptations to lust just vanish, presto. But it does mean that it is no more permissible for Christians to claim a gay celibate identity than it is for them to claim an identity of celibate pedophilia, or the identity of being an incorrigible celibate flirt.
So what would we think of a celibate flirt? Suppose we were talking to a man who said he was maintaining the biblical standard of fidelity in marriage, but who said that he was also committed to the innocent recreation of flirting his head off with numerous women. All that matters, says he, is that the illicit and prohibited coitus does not in fact occur. That being excluded, all he ever does is tell a few inappropriate jokes, lower his voice confidentially, exchange a few knowing glances, and so on. Is he sinning?
Some of you might be wondering . . . is this a trick question? Of course he is sinning. What is the set up here? If it is sin to get somewhere, it is a sin to act like you are going there. We need not have much patience with those who acknowledge that the Bible says that it is a sin to catch a trout, but who go on to argue that it never says that it is a sin to stand by a trout stream with a fishing rod casting lures.
I want to argue that homosexual acts are indeed sinful, as anyone who knows his Bible can also tell you. But that is not the only sin related to all of this. I also want to argue that to embrace the gay identity, independent of whether any sexual relations occur, is also sinful. The gay vibe is a sinful one. That vibe is one of effeminacy. In the passage above, it is a sin to be effeminate (1 Cor. 6:9-11)—the word is malakoi, soft. It is not just a sin to play the soft one in bed; it is sinful to conduct yourself throughout the day as one who could play the soft one in bed.
This is a problem that the church really needs to work through. I am going to sketch a cartoon here, not because I accept the universal applicability of the cartoon, but because I need to make a point about how we define sin.
Suppose we are dealing with someone who has bought into the “gay but celibate” proposal. On the one hand, he really is celibate, and he is not in any problematic friendships. In other words, he is not in any sexual relationships, and he is not teetering on the edge of one. But on the other hand, let us also say that he is a walking, talking stereotype of someone who is light in the loafers. He talks with a lisp, he is limp-wristed, he walks like Liberace in a pair of skinny jeans, he is really into fabric design, and so on. In other words, sex aside, sexual activity aside, everything about him screams gay. Without any sex at all, and without any sexual activity on the horizon, he is being effeminate. And that is a sin.
As soon as something like this is openly stated, the water around us fills up with squid ink. Someone will immediately produce a gay activist who used to be a Navy Seal, one who has multiple decorations, who can do more one-handed push-ups than his Christian critics could do with two hands 40 years ago, and ask why I am calling him soft. But of course I wasn’t calling him soft. Engaging in homosexual sexual practices is one sin. Being soft is another sin. Not every person is guilty of every sin. A man can be a thief, and not be a murderer.
In ancient Rome, as long as a man limited his penetrative activity to his wife, his slaves of either sex, or prostitutes of either sex, he was considered entirely normal. If he accepted the degradation of being the passive partner, then that was disgraceful. In that era, their definition of masculinity was very important to them. It was all screwed up, but it was still important to them. The masculine one was the one who penetrated, and the penetrated could be either male or female. Rome didn’t care about the identity of the recipient.
But Scripture does. If a tough, hard-bitten Roman soldier called a slave boy to his bed, the Bible condemns his particular homosexual act. The act need not be “effeminate” to be sinful. Something can be an abomination without being girly. But if the slave boy cultivated a persona that was common back then, that of being a dainty boy (puer delicatus), then that was a separate sin.
There is much more than can be said about all of this, and which needs to be said. The problem we have is that our leadership is fighting an ongoing rearguard action against the sexual revolution, and each incremental defeat sets us up for the next round. And the rounds are shorter these days. The waves are coming in more quickly now.
So to end with a test question, a little thought experiment. When a righteous California pastor (who is a licensed counselor) defies this wicked law, and provides scriptural guidance to a teen that he baptized, and who grew up in his church, and the inevitable howl goes up, and all the respectable Christian leaders pull their skirts away from that man, what will you do?
“But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Heb. 5:14, ESV).
Thinking aloud here. I’ve never seen (nor am I likely ever to see) the Kevin Kline movie, “In and Out.” But I’ve seen the clip where this homosexual man is working through some series teaching manly behavior. It’s played for laughs, because of course you don’t make a man not-homosexual by teaching him to stop lisping and walk like a man, etc. That said: Would you think that there could be a place for such personal work for a repentant, believing ex-homosexual, IN THE SAME WAY THAT a new convert with a sexually-loose past might get some lessons on dressing… Read more »
Dan, I completely agree. You wash the inside of the cup in the first instance. That does not make the outside of the cup irrelevant.
It’s hard to not wash the outside if you really wash the inside. I notice this every time I do dishes.
You mean, “… every time I watch my wife wash dishes”, right? ;)
Rob–that is…just excellent. Quote-worthy, even.
But then, there’s the other reply below… ha! (o:
Yeah, well I never said I do it often :)
Hmm,very interesting. I suspect a great deal of what makes up sin is idolatry, as in I-dentity. As Christians we shouldn’t really be I-dentifying as anything beyond being in Christ. All these other labels we adopt can either be simple, identifying worldly characteristics, or they can become the idol we worship. As to the ban on reparative therapy, that is sad. In my state,we have legalized marjuana, abortion, and homosexuality, but not just legal,encouraged and desired, as in it is now socially unacceptable to even mention how those things could ever have drawbacks to them, in any context what so… Read more »
Piffle. The supremacy of our union with Christ over every other facet of our lives does not erase them, but glorifies them. Our identity in Christ does not destroy the value of calling ourselves “man”, “woman”, “husband”, “wife”, “parent”, “American”, “Chinese”, “writer”, “builder”, etc., but instead gives them a place in the kingdom of an infinitely creative God. Yes, these things can be idolatrously misplaced in our affections, but what can’t?
“The supremacy of our union with Christ over every other facet of our lives does not erase them, but glorifies them.”
We as people so seldom place the supremacy of our relationship with Christ over all those other things. So that is why we have white nationalists and black lives matter, and the gay prius driving vegans and an entire world searching for some superficial worldy identity that announces who we are, completely outside the context of Christ.
Having various facets to our lives is not the same as finding our identity in them, however.
The noose is getting tighter around the statist churchies
http://mtv.mtvnimages.com/onair/beavisandbutthead/season_9/images/video/episodes/902/seg1_281x211.jpg?height=211
Uh, huh-huh. “Rearguard”
I know a couple (lesbians) who love each other beyond measure. One Is masculine and the other feminine. They consider themselves Christians and would not think of missing church, ever. This is a post on FB from one to the other, “You know you’re extremely blessed when you realize all the great things in life you’ve received were while seeking God. Thank you ——— for promising to seek Him with me forever. I love you so much!” I like them both very much but have no idea how to talk to them about this. They are so in love and… Read more »
They should read Romans 1 together.
Someone said…”Jesus would hang out with gay people.” And I agree. but I am not Jesus and don’t have any idea how to love them. Also, somewhere the Bible says not to even eat lunch with someone claiming to be a brother or sister in Christ, then lists who not to hang out with. See my confusion?
No. I don’t question that you are sincere, I’m just not sure what part of the whole is causing the confusion.
I do, and I feel for you. I remember a pastor who had to address the sins of a nephew who had left his wife for another woman. He always welcomed his nephew to come visit, but would not allow him in his house or eat with him. They would sit on the front porch and visit. Whatever the conversation, the pastor always turned it back to what is and what is not pleasing to God. In this way he was able to show his love for his nephew in a biblical way. For some reason that honest combination of… Read more »
I think they probably would have wanted to see Him again, because I think that genuine holiness is very forceful even without words. When I think of my own sins, I was never pushed back into the right path by someone calling me wicked. But when I met genuinely holy people, I wanted to be like them. Even without their saying a word.
I think it’s important to recognize the context of most of Jesus’ teaching. He spoke to and interacted almost exclusively with people that knew the Law much better than even the average American church-goer today, and I can’t think of a single instance where Jesus interacted with anyone that openly and directly disputed the rightness of the Law. So I think there’s the potential to mislead ourselves by thinking that Jesus didn’t tell people what they were doing was sinful/wicked. The people Jesus interacted with already knew it, at least in the most superficial sense. But even then Jesus certainly… Read more »
Jesus hung out with sinners, but he didn’t accept their lifestyle. He shared the truth with them and told them to repent and leave their sinful lifestyles. The other verses you allude to are telling Christians not to follow along with unbelievers in such a way as to imply that we’re accepting of their sin. So, to do what Jesus did would be to spend time with your lesbian friends but to share the gospel and the truth about who God really is with them, and to tell them they need to repent.
But, Kevin, do we do this with every other sin? It seems we are hyper-focused on homosexual sin. Almost everyone I know needs to repent of something (myself at the top of the list), and some of those things will cast a soul into hell as surely as unrepentant sexual misconduct. But do we spend time with our proud friends in order to tell them they need to repent? Do we castigate our uncharitable friends and tell them they’re risking damnation? I don’t think we would have much of a social life if we did!
“But do we spend time with our proud friends in order to tell them they need to repent? Do we castigate our uncharitable friends and tell them they’re risking damnation? I don’t think we would have much of a social life if we did!” Considering: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. – James 5:16 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;… Read more »
I agree with you, for those who are already in the faith. But for those who are not, I do believe that love and the witness of a godly life have more power than telling people that God finds their sex life repulsive. I have read posts on other boards that seem to suggest the average gay has no idea that Christian teaching condemns homosexual acts. I find this most unlikely. If telling gays “God loves you but you’re going to hell” was remotely effective, there would be a lot fewer gays acting on their temptations. I think that the… Read more »
Jilly, your vision of evangelizing isn’t what I get from the examples in the Bible that I can think of. The first example that comes to mind is Peter’s first preaching after Pentecost. The Bible describes his preaching as “cutting”. Peter directly accused the people (in the second person: “you”) of murdering Jesus”… “and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” Stephen’s preaching that led to his immediate stoning is even more extreme in his repudiation. Jesus’ teaching was likewise full of calling out people’s sins. Do you see the biblical examples differently?
No, I don’t, and I think there is a place for both. I think, however, that we sometimes focus too much on only rebuke. I have often wished that we knew what our Lord actually said to Zaccheus. Maybe He didn’t say anything. Maybe Zaccheus, in the presence of holiness, realized that he didn’t like how he felt about ripping people off. Maybe just being with Jesus made him want to be more like Him. But, if I were Zaccheus, being told “You can be better than this. You don’t have to be what you are today. The honesty you… Read more »
I think we should place more weight on the examples that the Bible actually gives us and very little to no weight on speculations about things (like Zaccheus) that the Bible doesn’t tell us. That said, the Bible does record what were presumably Jesus’ first words to Zaccheus, the words to which Zaccheus responded. Jesus said: “Zaccheus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” Of course, Jesus’ reputation preceded him, which is why Zaccheus was in the tree in the first place, but in any case, Zaccheus was already responding before Jesus said anything like what you… Read more »
“I do believe that love and the witness of a godly life have more power than telling people that God finds their sex life repulsive.”
Agreed.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1 Corinthians 13:1
| “It seems we are hyper-focused on homosexual sin.” Well, kinda: There are degrees of sinfulness. God clearly counts this one as being worse than most, though not as bad as the Jews rejecting their messiah when he appeared. Also, the focus has to do with proportionality. What other sin is embraced and even celebrated as is homosexuality? Very few try to defend greed, pride, lust, theft, rape, sloth, murder, etc. as a beautiful way of life. But today, the godless not only do what is shameful in God’s sight, but they encourage others to do it. Some sin is… Read more »
I think our society celebrates most sexual sins. Adulterers don’t hold parades, but there is little public shame attached to the sin. And I do think that it is equally hateful to God.
Jilly you said three things there and I don’t think any of them are completely true. Our society ignores or snickers at most sexual sins, and the snickering is a tacit acknowledgment of impropriety, and laughing at something is not the same as celebrating it. There is yet some degree of public shame attached to adultery, no one in a prominent position, the entertainment industry maybe excepted, wants to be exposed, and there are sometimes still practical consequences. Adultery is sure enough hateful to God, equally as much as homosexual sin I do not know for sure, there may be… Read more »
Kevin, you don’t seem to differentiate at all between “people of this world” and “anyone who calls himself a brother,” as Paul does in 1 Cor 5:19-11. Surely Paul/the Bible makes that distinction because it matters.
That is a good point; I was not overly familiar with that particular passage (which I believe you meant to say was v. 9-11). Based on that, perhaps the best advice for Brenda would be to avoid those people, though I wonder if it would still be wrong if she were to post contradictory comments to things she reads from them on FB. It is painful to see God misrepresented so badly like that.
If Doug doesn’t mind my sharing, Brenda, I wrote a piece titled “Of leprechauns, mermaids, and ‘loving homosexual couples,'” that I hope might help: http://bit.ly/2bPhWYO.
Niggler alert!
Straw man walking!
His article is based on the blatantly false premise that sexual attraction isn’t love.
He needs to read his Bible.
Yes, in the Bible, sexual attraction, even lust, is called love.
[citation needed]
If a man can love a woman so much that he rapes her, two homos can certainly love each other. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+13 1And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her. 3 But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David’s brother: and Jonadab was… Read more »
By “citation needed”, I meant chapter and verse. Do you mean Tamar? Dinah? Or someone else? We are somewhat hampered in English by using one word for a variety of meanings; we need to be careful of equivocation. Just because an English Bible uses the word “love”, that’s not the end of the story. Also, as DC Talk remind us, “Love is a verb”. It’s something you do. It’s not the name of a feeling. So perhaps a better question is: “are two gay people in the act of intercourse being loving to one another”? And I think Dan’s article… Read more »
“If a man can love a woman so much that he rapes her..” Ah, the many and vast perversions of so called “love.” That is not biblical at all, 40 acres. No more biblical than a woman stabbing some guy 15 times because, “I just loved him so, so much.” There are many different kinds of passion,they don’t all equal love. Love tends to have a sacrificial nature to it. Men, the charming ones, the old fashioned gentlemen, used to grasp this concept well. One would restrain oneself, sacrifice one’s passion for a lady’s protection. That’s an act of love,… Read more »
“Love tends to have a self sacrificial nature to it”
FTFY, but only because doing wrong to another “because you love them so so much” could also be read as “sacrificial”.
Y’know, in the Aztek sense.
LOL! Well, our ability to rationalize just about anything is pretty amazing. Doesn’t make it true, however.
Ah, the many and vast perversions of so called “love.” That is not biblical at all, 40 acres.
The Bible explicitly states that Amnon loved Tamar.
So the Bible isn’t biblical?
Fascinating!
Nuances of translation, .40. What’s the Hebrew?
We’re way past this discussion.
But did you know the Hebrew for Moloch is MLK?
Is it sinful for me to reflect that quite a few of the OT characters are the last people I would want to meet in real life?
Is it sinful for me to think that, under the right circumstances, I wouldn’t mind meeting Bathsheba?
Is it sinful for me to know that WE already are the people in the old testament?
Not so very . As long as you are single and as long as you don’t send her husband off to certain death.
I would never do that.
And even if I did, I would still stand for the National Anthem.
Thank you Dan.
Loved your article!
“Eros, turned upside down, blackened, distorted, and filthy, still bore the traces of his divinity.” C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy.
That’s a wonderful quote Ian, thanks.
“A perversion was the only chink left through which something spontaneous and uncalculating could creep in. Plato was right after all. Eros, turned upside down, blackened, distorted, and filthy, still bore the traces of his divinity.” — C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy In my understanding, Lewis is only saying that homosexuality, as awful as it is, is not the worst sin. What do you wish the reader to understand from that quote? As far as I can find, Lewis regarded homosexuality as a perversion and a terrible problem, and believed physical satisfaction of homosexual desire to be sin. Letter from… Read more »
I would agree, both in my own judgment, and in my understanding of Lewis’s moral understanding, that homosexuality is a sin. However, I think that while there is certainly a great temptation in the liberal wing of the church to normalize homosexuality, there is a tendency in the conservative wing of the church to deny the charity mixed with the eros of homosexual relationships. I do not wish to encourage homosexual behavior, but I do want to be honest in seeing the love of a Samaritan for another. However, I do think the meaning of the quote was pretty clear… Read more »
He also said somewhere that he was not inclined to be uncharitable towards those with sinful temptations he had never experienced. What I see far too seldom here is any sense that, there but for the grace of God, it could be you or me who is saddled with such a burden. Do we ever thank God for the blessing of a normal sexuality, or do we think we achieved that all on our own? I liked what you said about charity mixed with eros. Gays have told me how unpleasant they find the heterosexual assumption that a monogamous gay… Read more »
“No one assumes that a married couple is held together only by sexual passion.”
That used to be true — I am not so sure that it is any longer.
But I take the point, and agree.
Joyce Meier once said that she wasn’t tempted to rob the Zippy Mart each time she drove by. But when visiting a prison, she learned, that some people mentally case a Zippy Mart every time they go by one. Most of us here probably don’t have larcenous habits like some folks do. Every sin has a heart, mind and action component.
“He also said somewhere that he was not inclined to be uncharitable towards those with sinful temptations he had never experienced.”
I would think that charity should be equal toward all sinners regardless of the sin. However, this charity towards homosexual sin does not seem to be extended toward other sins, for example, child abusers and spouse abusers. This suggests that sins are being categorized to determine which sinners should receive more charity. Is that our prerogative, or should that be God’s domain?
I think yours is an excellent question, and if I answer it candidly, I see that I have some prejudices I had not recognized. My first reaction was to say, “Yes, but the child abuser has a helpless and innocent victim who is being harmed. The guy who agrees to have sex with another guy is not.” Then I reflected that the truth is that I see child abuse as a much worse sin than consensual gay sex. To this extent, I have bought in to the judgments of the secular society. Then I went on to reflect that while… Read more »
jillybean, Thank you for your candidness, especially when your insight recognizes your prejudices. I believe you are a rarity, at least in that regard. It is difficult to avoid societal perspectives, especially when they are regularly and strongly stated. I think all of us are prejudiced to some degree, but we seldom recognize it. Although prejudice is usually considered to be opposed to something, it can be sympathizing with something. For example, it seems that homosexuality is no longer prejudiced against, but prejudiced for. Excusing is defined as seeking to justify a fault. Sin can never be excused (humanly justified).… Read more »
For myself, not an expert on literature, I had to research to have any idea how the quote fit into the discussion. So, honestly, I wanted to know what you intended by it.
Ian, this is unrelated to anything but I listened to this podcast on P&P and thought of you! https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/circe-institute-podcast-network/id577192220?mt=2&i=375491126
Haha, thanks! I shall check it out! :)
Checked out the first episode, and it’s quite nice! I’m very curious to see where they go with it. They went on quite a rant about how analyzing literature ruins it, which confused me, since they’re making a podcast based on it. :)
Presumably she experienced some kind of parse-it-till-its-dead literary analysis, but I’d like to know exactly what she means by it too. I might look for an email address and ask!
Oooh, excellent point! They did mention an email – I should do exactly that! :)
I just now posted (in disqus) below the podcast on their website.
Haha, I saw that! I’m composing my add-on comment now. :)
I think I’d edit that and remove the person’s name.
I am so sorry….how do I get back to my post and edit it?
Below your comment, you should see “Edit” beside the “Reply” link. Just hit it and you can edit the post.
Thank you Wesley, done!
The concept of penetration relating to sex in Rome and the Mosaic Law is distinct from the modern position. The Law assumed penetration and defined unacceptable relationships, specifically incest, homosexual, bestiality. So while girl with girl behaviour is not specified and neither is male to male passionate kissing. While sinful, the laws are covering penetrative acts (which are often the outcome of less intensive sexual behaviour). This is why I think that the Romans comment on women exchanging natural relations does not address lesbianism contra all the articles I have read about this passage. Because the issue of sexual law… Read more »
I don’t know. The way Romans 1: 26-27 reads would seem to me to indicate the more traditional interpretation. Paul starts out in v. 26 with the women exchanging the natural function (NASB) for that which is unnatural, then in v. 27 “…in the same way also” followed by “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman” – and what instead? – “..burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts..” When men leave the nature function (or “use” in KJV) of the woman they leave it to lust after and commit indecent acts with… Read more »
I do know a little about British and Canadian law on this. Under their jurisprudence, sodomy involved penetration and could be punished by life imprisonment (after it stopped being a capital offense sometime in the nineteenth century). Oral sex between men was charged as “gross indecency.” Sex of any kind between women was perfectly legal. I don’t know when Britain decriminalized homosexual conduct, but Canada did in 1968 or 1969.
“Sex of any kind between women was perfectly legal.” But there isn’t sex of any kind, there really is only sex of one kind, and it cannot occur between two males or between two females. Neither is sex oral. Or any of those other things. Counterfeits of any kind are perverted, laws not withstanding.
I am not saying that I think it is normal or good. I misunderstood your comment, and thought you were inquiring about the law.
Without looking back at the specifics, it seems that every condemned act is intrinsically penetrative. Man to male is prohibited but not female with female. Bestiality is condemned for men doing the act and for women receiving the act. All the incest examples are men lying with women. So there is implied penetration in all the laws and no clear laws (from memory) that are just erotically defined without penetration. Therefore I think that penetration, while described, should also be somewhat assumed. Thus to your first question, given Moses, Paul is more likely to be addressing penetrative acts. Romans specifically… Read more »
I think we should be cautious about drawing too much from Moses’ silence. The instructions of the law did not focus on actions and responsibilities of women primarily. Of course where women are mentioned it is as receiving the act – what else would they do. We know what sex is and we know what normal sexual desire is, and I believe Moses and Paul did too. If my focus is equally on the male/female parallel it is because that is where wording draws my focus.
I realise my interpretation is the new one so reasonable for me to give a defence. I think there are plenty of laws that relate to women: vows, chastity, inheritance,… And the sexual laws talk of both parties such as a man and his aunt. Further, there is no law against 2 men passionately kissing but this is clearly wrong; all the sexual laws relate to penetration. So this is the background to my thinking. Paul comes to Romans with a Mosiac knowledge which he uses proficiently elsewhere. In Romans we read that unbelievers are idolaters and God gives them… Read more »
I was thinking “new to me isn’t necessarily the same as novel, I wonder who else”, but you are honest and acknowledge “my interpretation is the new one”. Thanks. Hopefully you also realize (with a z, spell check sez) ;) it is reasonable that people are skeptical. If we are going to argue from silence, no where does Paul specify penetration, either in reference to women or in reference to men. I would still insist the wording points to women with women. In the OT references, given the specific acts mentioned, yes for women we could assume the women is… Read more »
Thanks. I haven’t changed my position yet but you are helping me clarify things. You need to be careful about saying that I am arguing from silence and your position is based on the wording. We are both arguing from what we think is implied. Paul does not say women with women even though he does say man with man. If your interpretation is correct I would argue that it is odd that Paul mentions the woman first. Implication normally carries forward not backward. I would add however, that Paul could talk about woman with woman (just like he said… Read more »
As we’ve both noted, you’re interpretation is a new one. I’m curious, when did you begin to arrive at this position? Even from your own explanation it seems to me that it takes rather more effort to get there than it does to arrive at the understanding of Romans 1 that, as far as I know, Christians have always held. Less effort doesn’t prove the case, but it should bias us in that direction. I think also what we can observe of human behavior would do the same. It does occur to me that, then and now, the kind of… Read more »
Probably in the last couple of years. Is my position more effort? Perhaps. But then previously when I subscribed to the lesbian view I was also influenced by what people said the passage meant (other’s interpretation) and I may have read Paul’s comment on men with men back to the prior sentence? Also, my thoughts on penetration came after my perspective on Romans (possibly through some interaction with Timothy on this) but it seemed to confirm my perspective on Romans; ie. ideas external to Romans (Mosaic Law) seemed to confirm what I had come to think of Romans. I am… Read more »
It is now against the law in California for a godly pastor to urge a teenagers to mortify his perverse desires, and how did we get here? I have read the ruling carefully, and this is actually not the case. “[Judge] Graber reiterated in Tuesday’s opinion that the law does not apply to members of the clergy acting in a ministerial capacity, but only to those who simultaneously hold themselves out as {state] licensed therapists… The law regulates the conduct of state-licensed mental health providers only; the conduct of all other persons, such as religious leaders not acting as state-licensed… Read more »
True, but that isn’t the situation Doug describes at the end of his post where he writes, “…a righteous California pastor (who is a licensed counselor)”.
It doesn’t matter though, even with the clergy exception (and how long do you think the exception will last anyway?) this is still bad law.
I think the clergy exception would probably be upheld by SCOTUS. The righteous pastor can still tell his parishioner that homosexual conduct is sinful. But when he applies to be licensed by the state, he agrees to conform to the state’s standards of conventional care. He has the option to forego the state licensing while still being able to do Biblical counseling in his office. Suppose a Christian pastor who is also a psychiatrist decided that there is no such thing as delusional psychosis, relying on the Biblical idea that insanity is actually diabolic possession. The state would not allow… Read more »
I think you have waaaaaaaaay too much faith in the SCOTUS. Especially when Hillary nominates Sith-Lord number 5 and their absolute power is firmly established.
I am not saying that the court wouldn’t want to do this. But if SCOTUS should rule that pastors cannot tell their parishioners that a particular act is sinful, it wouldn’t apply just to gays. It would affect every faith in the country. Are they willing to forbid Catholic priests from saying the remarriage after divorce is wrong? I don’t think they would want to go that far.
“I don’t think they would want to go that far.”
Sadly, this falls under the category of “famous last words”.
I think they will go much further than you think. They just “discovered” that to deny dudes from marrying each other was a violation of the constitution.
“I realize that there is a very great difference between the two situations. But when you accept a license from the state, you are also agreeing to abide by its rules.” That seems to be begging the question a bit. Isn’t there some limit on what rules a state can justly impose as a license to do some particular thing? Does the licensor/licensee relationship completely dispense with the state’s obligation to respect constitutional limits? For example, would it be just for the state to impose a rule saying licensed professional counselors cannot wear blue pants? I should hardly think so.… Read more »
A restriction on practice has to be a restriction on actual practice. It can’t be a restriction on the color of the walls or something irrelevant.
So, that’s a place to draw the line, then. That’s my point. You are simply agreeing with my larger point that there are legitimate and illegitimate things to require as a condition of licensure. We likely disagree, however, on where the line should be drawn.
Can governments not find superficially legitimate pretexts for anything they would ever want to do that would burden a Christian’s conscience? Can you think of any counter-examples?
Yes, but I am talking about how we think about what is right for the government to do in absolute terms, not merely what the government might try to get away with and justify.
I have been thinking about your comment. So far as I understand it, the opposition to gay conversion therapy is based on three positions: (1) homosexual orientation is not a mental disorder in need of treatment; (2) conversion therapy is ineffective; and (3) it can sometimes be harmful. I think that the first is a religious/ethical/philosophical belief that should be outside the state’s purview. If I were struggling with promiscuous sexual behavior (a truly mind-boggling thought), it is not up to the state (or to my therapist) to tell me that my belief in its sinfulness is wrong. I think… Read more »
I agree and disagree and I’ll explain with an example. I am a licensed engineer. If the engineering board made a rule that had the effect of forcing me to violate my conscience I wouldn’t “abide by its rules”. I would work to change those rules and in the interim I would not do anything to violate my conscience.
I think you make a good point here, Jilly, one that didn’t seem consistent with what Wilson seemed to be implying. It’s one thing to say that Christians will have to find a way to make a living without being counselors or bakers or florists (just to name the most prominent examples, not necessarily the professions that are actually the most troubling); it’s quite another to say that Christians can’t be Christians regardless of remaining professional choices and regardless of whether they want to make a living or not.
Isn’t this sort of besides the point? I mean to grant an exception for clergy (in certain circumstances) is very nice of our overlords but shouldn’t the fact that the rest of the “free” world is not allowed to do something that is righteous and good disturb us all? And how long before that ‘allowance’ for the clergy is gone? I am guessing it is gone within a year of President Hillary.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think the left is quite ready to attack Christians that directly yet. And I’m not sure they’ll ever really see the need. So long as Christians give up the right to make a living as Christians and so long as Christians keep their Christianity entirely within the doors of their churches, and so long as parental rights take a back seat to the state’s interest in “protecting” and “educating” children, I think the left is pretty happy.
I think you are quite wrong. They have been doing a direct attack for quite a while now.
Where I would differentiate between more and less direct attacks is when Christians are outright forbidden from doing something and when it’s allowed so long as it’s limited and marginalized. For example, I would say that it’s a less direct attack to say that you can oppose homo marriage so long as you forfeit for the right to do business with the public. A more direct attack would require affirming homo marriage whether the Christian wanted to engage in any kind of trade or business or not.
Saying you cannot be a business owner and against homo marriage is pretty direct in my mind.
I read the actual opinion and it is reasonable. The original bill seems less reasonable, appearing to rely entirely on anecdotal evidence collected by an APA task force regarding the harmfulness of “SOCE” methods. However it isn’t the job of the courts to overturn bad laws.
John 6 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not… Read more »
“When a righteous California pastor (who is a licensed counselor) defies this wicked law, and provides scriptural guidance to a teen that he baptized, and who grew up in his church, and the inevitable howl goes up, and all the respectable Christian leaders pull their skirts away from that man, what will you do?”
LOL! Well, right off the bat, I would simply avoid all the “respectable Christian leaders” and follow the disreputable Christians instead. I jest here, but there is some truth in that.
Doesn’t a great deal depend on how we define effeminacy, and isn’t that definition driven by culture? I see nothing innately sinful about a man who has a gift for fabric design or women’s fashion or figure skating or choreography or writing lyrics for Broadway plays. Our world would be poorer without such gifts. Not every man was designed to be John Wayne. I know gays who spent their entire teen years on their knees trying to pray away the gay. Sometimes God grants gays the blessing of normal heterosexual desires. And sometimes He doesn’t. I think it is raising… Read more »
It is not necessarily every act or demeanor in itself, these are partially culturally conditioned.
So hairdressing, or stewarding flights, or designing clothes are perfectly acceptable occupations. And if you can do them with plenty of masculinity then fine.
But drop all the soft features that our culture adds to these “gay” occupations. You might have a more feminine voice but if you don’t, don’t emulate one.
(And if you struggle with these things, consider whether this is the best place for you to work.)
I think there has been a confusion between what it means to be a biblical man or woman and what it means to be masculine or feminine in the secular world. For women it is exaggerated into whorishess, and for men it is Rambo. If a gay man worked to move into his correct role of authority in Christ, then many of the effeminate qualities would diminish. This means giving up the delicious repartee and sassy wit, the coyness and backbiting. Most importantly it means giving up the prejudices that come from self-identifying with gay culture. These are not proper… Read more »
Either whorishness or fluffy brainlessness. When I was a child, I knew a neighbor whose Christian name was Manly. It was the occasion of humor now and then because he was a gentle soul with a naturally high pitched voice. He was slender and cerebral. But he was an excellent, God-fearing father, heterosexual husband, neighbor, and employee. I find detestable the kind of thinking that says he somehow was deficient in God’s eyes because nature and genetics didn’t make him John Wayne.
And you’re saying that’s what you get from Wilson’s post?
Just based on the post, I think Doug might have considered my neighbor Manly deficient–possibly sinfully deficient–in masculinity. I realize my perception might be unfair. But my point was that a man can have what we consider “feminine” traits–natural timidity, a naturally high-pitched voice, gentle mannerisms–while possessing the qualities of courage, endurance in adversity, and dutifulness in discharging his responsibilities. A woman can be a dutiful wife and a tender mother while still scoring relatively low on a conventional femininity scale.
I think that there is a difference between a biblical man and the warped secular understanding of masculinity. Your neighbor sounds like he was a biblical man because he fulfilled his position in God’s order. I couldn’t care less if he met the worldly definition of masculine. I have had many gay and lesbian friends. The culture in the gay community values acerbic wit, backbiting, gossiping, self-hating /shaming and several other ungodly behaviors that have no place in a biblical man’s character. I’m not saying that these qualities are exclusive to gay culture, but I am saying that as we… Read more »
JL, aren’t there also cultural rules that Christians should respect, though? Is the commandment in Deut 22:5, for example, not culturally relative?
Absolutely, ourdemascam.
At its very core, this is a clash of cultures. The problem as I see it is that the Christian body has given in to the worldly culture’s definitions of masculine and feminine.
But aren’t some biblical commands supposed to be understood according to a meaning determined (at least in part) by worldly cultural definitions? Deut 22:4, for example?
Deuteronomy 22:4 “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down by the way, and withhold your help from them: you shall surely help him to lift them up again.”
I’m not following you with regard to this verse.
From what I can see in Scripture, all references by God and Christ to the world culture start with, “Don’t be like …” Is that what you’re referring to?
I’m sorry. I meant 22:5 (“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man women’s clothing…”), not 22:4. What men’s and women’s clothing is is subject to change with time and from place to place, right? But the Bible calls us to follow those changes, no?
That’s an interesting viewpoint!
I don’t see the Bible actually calling us to follow “those changes”. You’d have to be a bit more clear on that or give an example from Scripture.
By the way, I think that verse is talking about a whole lot more than dress codes, although I think it covers that as well. It is also addressing the role of men and women in society and also, I believe, cross dressing!
I don’t know if it’s possible to give an example from Scripture about specifics that go beyond Scripture. However, I think we can rightly differentiate in applying verses like Deut 22:5 between, for example, traditional Scottish men wearing kilts and a modern American man wearing a skirt. Neither a skirt nor a kilt (if there’s any difference) is inherently men’s or women’s clothing; only the cultural context makes them men’s or women’s clothing, but given that context, it’s sinful to cross-dress (to deal with only the simplest and most direct application of that verse.)
I see what you mean now, and it’s an excellent point. Going back to your question: “But aren’t some biblical commands supposed to be understood according to a meaning determined (at least in part) by worldly cultural definitions? ” I think in the context of culture there is a difference between worldly style and Christian style. Worldly style will always be arbitrary, but Christian style will always be based on the same things: modesty, functionality, authority level, etc. But you bring up a good question, if I understand you correctly. Is it wrong for Christian style to follow worldly style?… Read more »
I once heard a preacher say that the desire for modesty can sometimes be undermined by a desire to go around in costumes all day. I don’t think he meant people like the Amish or nuns, but I could see his point. If I were to wear a Victorian-era dress and a poke bonnet, I would have to suspect myself of a desire to seek attention. Which I have in spades anyway, even while wearing normal clothing!
I agree with you that all those things are bad. If a person’s talent is inclined toward wit, it is all the more important that it be tempered with kindness.
Sorry, I meant to add that backbiting is wrong no matter who does it. But wit and repartee are not exclusively gay qualities. I would have been sorry to see P.G. Wodehouse give up writing because his wittiness might suggest a lack of masculinity.
So, on Doug’s reasoning, the celibate hyper-masculine gay guy–the kind that joins biker gangs–is less sinful than his artsy, sensitive celibate counterpart?
I think it would depend on how gay the art was.
Do you disagree?
I’m pretty sure Jilly is picturing the leather clad pervert from the Village People, who’s persona is far more “gay” than it is “biker.”
I understood that. I meant to ask what about Wilson’s position she found disagreeable insofar as her summary accurately represented Wilson’s position.
I don’t believe Wilson is speaking of things in such literal terms. The hyper masculine biker is wearing a costume, a persona. I suspect Wilson is speaking of “soft” as the condition of one’s gumption, perseverance, willingness to stand up for the faith. So in this piece he is drawing some parallels between those who lay down and comply with the culture and the word malakoi.
ME, you don’t think Wilson is objecting to men wearing a soft persona?
“Wearing a soft persona,” in this case is not a reference to clothing or the pitch of one’s voice. It has to do with being passive, with refusing to stand up, with responding in fear rather than courage. To be soft in this context is to be on the receiving end, to go along to get along, to submit. In that context, I don’t believe anyone should be wearing a soft persona, men or women. In the bible there’s a reference to being lukewarm. To be soft in this context strikes me as being more along the lines of lukewarm.… Read more »
Wilson’s post is clearly about the sin of effeminacy, right? Are you saying effeminacy can be a failing of women just as much as men? That doesn’t seem to make sense.
Well that’s what I mean about people trying to make this about superficial things. Soft in this context means timid, compliant,weak. While women may submit to husbands, we do not submit to the whole world. Having a peaceful spirit that does not give way to fear ain’t for the soft.
Passivity is, I think, an excellent word for what I was trying to define as sinful effeminacy.
Yes. I don’t think that effeminacy, if defined as being gentle, sensitive, artsy, and having a leaning toward poetry rather than football, is innately sinful. I think Doug’s reasoning leads to a position suggesting that caricaturized hyper-masculinity is morally neutral while a less than robust masculinity is wicked. Doug lost me when he threw in a fondness for fabric design as suggestive of sinful effeminacy. If we flip that around, would we suggest that a woman whose natural talents and interests are for calculus rather than cooking is sinfully deficient in femininity? I think that God requires celibacy of those… Read more »
How then do you define effeminacy as innately sinful? Or do you define it as sinful at all? Do you completely disagree with Wilson’s basic assertion that effeminacy and homosexuality are sins that can sometimes be completely separate?
I think that you are far too focused on what modern fashions define as masculine and feminine occupations (by which I mean “any task which occupies one’s time” not “employment”). You’re like the modesty bloggers who jump straight from “adorned with a gentle and quiet spirit” to “No skirts that show the knees! No collars lower than the collar bones! No makeup! No perms!” Quiet your spirit and work to understand the concept, before you ask for exact rules on what harmonic frequency range defines “an effeminate voice” or how it’s acceptable for men to embroider on leather but not… Read more »
I think you are right, and it is an issue that troubles me so much that I can stop being entirely reasonable.
I believe that God can completely deliver people from their sins, their weaknesses, and every wrong propensity. I think God will do this, but He does not always do it at once or even in our lifetime. The penitent adulterer may struggle for his or her whole life with sexual temptation. I have known people who were delivered from every trace of a particular sinful habit or addiction, but these instances have been fewer than those in which people still struggle with sin. Our Lord told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more, but He never promised her… Read more »
Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence that reparative therapy actually works?
Define “reparative therapy.” Jesus certainly delivers people through the ministry of His word, yes. How “reparative therapy” plays into that is less clear.
I just spent some time on google. Unlike ex-alcoholics, drug users, and promiscuous heterosexuals, I did not find much evidence of gays in any real numbers having their lives permanently changed by the Gospel. Hard numbers seem difficult to come by, but this claim of Jesus saving people from homosexuality seems more an evangelical legend than an actual reality. For every Rosaria Butterfield, there are legions who tried and were unable to make it work and went back to being gay. Which is why I’m asking: I know that by your theology reparative therapy ought to work, but I’m not… Read more »
Krychek_2, I think you have a valid point. I would instead make the case that indeed, most gays would not be willing to repent and would instead seek to either legitimize their existence as so called gay Christians or force the Christian body to acknowledge them as morally legitimate. Surely what you are describing is in keeping with Scripture in Romans 1 when it says “God gave them over to a depraved mind”. Sexual perversion is a stated outcome of denying the Creator of the universe. They have become slaves to unrighteousness, and it is only repentance and faith that… Read more »
Well, except for Rosaria Butterfield and those like her. I don’t quite understand why the cases that are real, don’t count. Nobody’s claiming there’s a quick fix method with a high percentage rate. I’m just raising the fact that people are converted and redeemed from homosexual behavior.
I think the evidence both ways is inconclusive. Much of it stems from therapies undertaken in the 1950s and 1960s where the subjects were receiving court-ordered treatment to avoid prison. This in itself casts doubt on reliability. There are not many longitudinal studies that show substantial change over time. If we define success as refraining from homosexual conduct for six months, we will get very different results than if we define the period as twenty years. And both success and failure rates are based on self-reports. Its being ineffective does not, in itself, disqualify it as long as it does… Read more »
K2, the answer is Jesus. Therapy of any sort only works with a solid commitment to Jesus and to obeying God’s laws. Murders, thieves, homosexuals, embezzlers and others have been completely changed with salvation through Jesus Christ. The legions who tried but returned to homosexuality have excuses but the real problem is not completely accepting the saving grace. Those addicted to various drugs or alcohol require years to shake that indulgence and it is the same with homosexuality. It is a hard road especially today with so many homosexual or bisexual pushes by our decadent society. No one works their… Read more »
What’s the difference between “partially accepting” the saving grace and “completely accepting” the saving grace?
That just sounds like wordplay to talk about a different kind of work.
Jonathan, those who partially accept Christ were sometimes called Sunday children. On Sunday they were saints and the rest of the week they disregarded the Bible completely. It is not word play and is different from the temptations within and without that Christians face every day. I don’t overcome obstacles and temptations by myself instead I have to rely on Christ to strengthen me. One is for show while the other is lifestyle for eternity.
If the “Sunday children” you are speaking of are the only ones who fail to be converted in this sense, then I think this conversation would never happen because the fruit would be obvious.
From the accounts that I’ve read by Christian authors (on both sides of the debate), there are many people who try to follow the Bible with fear and trembling every day of the week and yet who still struggle profoundly in their attempt to lose their homosexual orientation.
Jonathan, the fruit is sometimes obvious but is not always obvious. One of my buddies was married for over 20 years to a gal who claimed to be a Christian. One Sunday morning his wife went forward and said that she had play acted all those years and that the first time she claimed she was a Christian was because she was the only one in her age group who had not declared for Christ. For years she agonized over that discrepancy and then finally admitted that she could no longer live the lie. That is how many are and… Read more »
I agree that in rare cases, someone can be “play-acting” for many years. In the accounts of gay Christians that I’ve read (2nd-hand accounts by Phillip Yancey and Richard Hays, 1st-hand account by Mel White), it seems really, really unlikely that the men involved were play-acting. Does that mean they were perfect? That they chose the right path, or the right means, of dealing with their issue? I’m not saying that at all. But they certainly appear to be sincere about their faith and about wanting to conform to God’s hopes for them. And yet they still continued to struggle… Read more »
Jonathan, didn’t Paul struggle for a life time?
Of course! I completely agree, and that’s in large part exactly what I’m saying. Why are you replying to me with that statement, rather than Pastor Wilson or any of the other conversation partners here?
Because I answered your first question is why I am answering. Also, since life and work are not overwhelming me, I have the time to answer right now.
I think that everyone who strives to be virtuous is play-acting a lot of the time. Every time I bite back a sarcastic retort, I am play-acting a charitable person who doesn’t go for the cheap laugh at the expense of other people’s feelings. It would be lovely if, this side of the grave, the act became totally real.
Jilly girl:
Proverbs 16:1 “To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue.”
Some times the “proper answer of the tonge” is silence. If you are even weakly attempting to be less sarcastic, to someone who may not need the goad, that sounds like the kind of godly struggle people should have with themselves. In any case, keep it up Jilly! ; – )
But on the other hand, let us also say that he is a walking, talking stereotype of someone who is light in the loafers. He talks with a lisp, he is limp-wristed, he walks like Liberace in a pair of skinny jeans, he is really into fabric design, and so on. In other words, sex aside, sexual activity aside, everything about him screams gay. Without any sex at all, and without any sexual activity on the horizon, he is being effeminate. Really, Doug? I certainly agree, but what biblical grounds do you have for calling him effeminate? Where does the… Read more »
FAAAK, it appears that you don’t agree with the Bible and use that disagreement to pound Doug who is tough on homosexuality. Yes it is wrong to be effeminate. Yes, fabric design, hair styling, clothing design and other similar fields are overrun with homosexuals so that is a good comparison. Yes, there is a definite effeminate dress style, manner of speaking and body language that homosexuals use in the workplace to show their homosexuality to others. Yes, without doubt that is effeminate. Proverbs tells us that he who finds a wife finds a good thing. That is true. Scripture also… Read more »
Yes, there is a definite effeminate dress style, manner of speaking and body language that homosexuals use in the workplace to show their homosexuality to others. Yes, without doubt that is effeminate. Maybe you should learn to read more carefully before arguing with people on the internet. If you’d actually read my post, you would see that I stipulated that. Yes, some behaviors in men are effeminate. I didn’t argue that. My point is that Doug claims we can’t make rules on how people should behave that aren’t in the Bible. Doug says that the Bible doesn’t say white people… Read more »
“Doug says that the Bible doesn’t say a man who has molested a dozen infants and toddlers shouldn’t be allowed to marry, so we can’t say it either.”
A converted man. 40, do you believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to remove sinful tendencies from a person, such that a man who once lusted after women could become a dedicated monogamous man in thought and deed?
A converted man. Really? Wasn’t Sitler a student at New Saint Andrews College, which requires a credible profession of faith, backed up by testimony from others? And didn’t Doug tell the judge that he believes that at the time Sitler didn’t know it was wrong to sexually assault infants and toddlers? So how does an unconverted man who doesn’t know sexually assaulting children is wrong get admitted to NSA? do you believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to remove sinful tendencies from a person, such that a man who once lusted after women could become a dedicated monogamous… Read more »
There seems to me to be a very clear difference between restraining a natural, normal impulse and restraining an utterly depraved impulse. We all must learn to do the first; I am not sure that anyone has much success in doing the second. There was a man riding a Greyhound bus in Canada who, for no reason anyone can tell, chopped off the head of his seatmate. He was sent to a mental hospital and is now a free man. This, to me, is utter insanity, and I’m not referring to the homicidal lunatic. A normal bad temper can and… Read more »
There seems to me to be a very clear difference between restraining a natural, normal impulse and restraining an utterly depraved impulse. We all must learn to do the first; I am not sure that anyone has much success in doing the second.
Exactly.
I’m going to take that as no, you don’t believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.
You said earlier that
“Yet, in this case, you have no trouble understanding that some things are even more foundational than the Bible.”
What things exactly do you believe are more foundational than the Bible?
Sex and race for two.
…
Maybe you missed the whole thing, but Doug has listed several behaviors for men that are sinful, because they’re effeminate. But nowhere does the Bible say these things are effeminate. It says it’s a sin for a man to be effeminate, but it doesn’t say lisping or prancing or playing with Barbies are effeminate behaviors. So, yeah, some things are more foundational than the Bible. I don’t need the Bible to tell me that it’s disgusting for a man to run around in women’s clothes, or that God didn’t put white people on earth to mate with non-whites, or that… Read more »
40, we are all sinners, every one. Every one of us deserves eternal punishment because of our sin against the Creator God. Yet, in his mercy, he sent his son, born of a woman, to die and rise again from the dead, so that we might die to sin and be raised with him to life everlasting. If you will repent of your sins and believe in Christ and the promises he gives to his people, your sins will be forgiven, and you can enter into those promises. I hope you will consider this, 40. I don’t know you, but… Read more »
Thanks, but no need for concern.
I’ve been to Jesus for the cleansing power, and I’m washed in the blood of the Lamb.
40, you have already said that you do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit nor is Scripture your ultimate authority. I must henceforth treat you as an unbeliever, and I beg you to repent.
40, you have already said that you do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit
LMAO
I’ve said no such thing.
And you’re kicking me out of your church? I’m no longer part of the Bride of Jim Jones? I won’t be there when the roll is called
up yonderat the New People’s Temple Agricultural Project? I won’t get to partake when Father Jim turns the water into Kool Aid?That’s fine. I’m glad to be anathema. Maranatha.
Of course, 40. Now that I see you clearly, I expect you to react just as you did. When you have become weary of hating God, I hope you will remember my words and humble yourself and repent.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Cultural context is partially key here. If the same men who love their wifey sex, Bible study, battles, and many other godly stuff were the same dudes who happend to skip while thinking about musicals, then perhaps musicals and skipping would be just groovy. In our culture the tight leg crosser is often the fella who is buggering his neighbor’s husband.
“Avoid even the appearance of evil”
Why does Paul not appeal to Scripture in 1 Corinthians 11:14?
I believe that he does. In fact, I would say that everything Paul teaches to the churches is based directly on his interpretation of Scripture. The difference between us and Paul is one of interpretation style. Today, we are cherry picking theologians. We look for verses to prove our point, and then we display them in isolation, rarely considering how they fit in with what the totality of what Scripture is showing us. Because of this, we miss the rich symbolism, themes and shadows throughout Scripture. This is why we have hacked up the Book of the Revelation of Jesus… Read more »
Apparently my point was unclear. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul says “nature” teaches something. Why does Paul appeal to the teaching of nature rather than Scripture for this principle?
Sorry, I totally missed your point. I read 11:4.
He points to nature because nature also is a revelation of God. It is not however above or even equal with the Word. It is the difference between a general revelation (nature) and a specific revelation (Christ).
I don’t know that I’d use 40 Acres’ term “more foundational”, but it’s clear that it’s possible to know stuff from the natural world not explicitly revealed in Scripture, yet consistent with it — and that we have to understand at least some of it to be able to understand the Bible.
That may be true in general, but I would hesitate to use nature for specific doctrine.
For example, around here people have to guard their house cats otherwise a bobcat or mountain lion might take them. If we looked to nature for specifics, we might conclude that cannabalism is okay.
Don’t forget too that when man fell, he took nature with him. To what level, I don’t know.
Troll on. Just troll on.
FAAAK, please show me scripture where boys should play with Barbie, or men should wear dresses or where it is OK for men to act as women. You can’t and your argument falls to the dust. Scripture does tell us that men shouldn’t wear women’s clothing: “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 22:5 Again, your argument falls to dust. Scripture does condemn homosexuality and that also means acting like a woman to attract homosexual attention. You… Read more »
So just to be clear, are you taking the position that there’s a theological impediment to someone who has molested children getting married? Or you just think it’s a bad idea?
It’s hilarious – the same people who are on here denouncing femininity in men think this is just dandy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJmfNEFen-o&t=3m50s
I thought I’d never have to see that again.
It certainly isn’t pleasant to watch or listen to.
Do you not like this rendition of Queen’s Barracuda or do you not like rock and roll music or do you think the ladies are not acting appropriately or do you not like the fact that the ladies aren’t dressed in Prairie Muffin outfits? Or do you prefer to watch naked men dance around?
You have posted the link before but you never really pointed out what you disliked and instead attempt to use it as a bully platform to bolster your thoughts.
Or do you prefer to watch naked men dance around? No. I’m thoroughly heterosexual. But just because I’m not interested, don’t feel like you need to find a new hobby. It’s a free country. Break a leg! Do you not like this rendition of Queen’s Barracuda Hmm…. The song was performed by Heart, a rock group fronted by two sisters. Yet for some reason you have Queen, a band led by a flaming homosexual, on your mind. In the same post where you, apropos of nothing, bring up naked men dancing. Paging Dr. Freud! Say, maybe you and St Lee… Read more »
No, that’s my mistake in mixing Queen and Heart. I am not much on remembering Rock and Roll bands because I’m not just a singer in a rock and roll band.
You still don’t answer questions put to you gently. So, what’s really your beef or do you prefer to just complain?
You still don’t answer questions put to you gently.
I don’t answer anybody who, apropos of nothing, brings up naked men dancing.
Beat it, perv.
Now your position is clear. You are here to just stir up the water without using scripture or facts to discuss the topic of the thread. I have noted the tendency in the past on other threads that when you are cornered you immediately attack with ad hominem or ridicule.
Thank you for clearing things up so that we all know you are not serious but only trolling.
One more time.
I don’t answer anybody who, apropos of nothing, brings up naked men dancing.
Beat it, perv.
Thank you again for proving that you are just a troll stirring up what discontent he can.
Turn your sound up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBFZeW-MxZY
Oh, man, that’s hilarious!
1:36 is my favorite spot.
Good point.
My hunch was correct. Scott Sauls is the PCA pastor who ordained a “celibate” homosexual into the ministry. I was 80/20 on him or Tim Keller. But I figured Keller is going to let several other preachers get out in front on this one before he starts publicly coming around.
http://scottsauls.com/2016/09/06/open-letter-to-a-public-critic/
And in the comments, notice that he simply refuses to say on what grounds a person taking his position could refuse to ordain a “celibate” pedophile.