If you would, I would like to ask you to bear with one more update on The Gospel Coalition issue I posted on twice yesterday, here and here.
Denny Burk has written helpfully here on the whole thing, and I heartily commend his piece. Denny has read the entire book the article was excerpted from, and I have not. From what he says, it seems to me that TGC would have been much better served if they had chosen a different chapter. But even with that acknowledged, the chapter they posted is in drastic need of editorial review and modification. Outside context helps, but internal context (and definition) is still needed in this case. With those qualifiers, I am happy to defer to Denny’s take on it.
Tim Challies, who wrote a positive review of the book (linked in my second piece), said this yesterday on Twitter — “Yeah, I don’t think that excerpt works very well outside the wider context of the book.” I believe that this is self-evidently the case.
The Gospel Coalition includes a number of very fine men. But the sexual revolution, were it a basketball team, is currently running a full court press on us. If we don’t break that press it won’t matter how many good players we had on our team.
Same sex attraction is an attraction to sin. If we lose that understanding, we have lost everything. This is not a trifle.
Amen, and Amen.
pity the same is not said about feminism
you know the precursor to same sex attraction…
TGC thinks husbands should support their wives ministry in the same way wives support Pastors, see- everything is gender neutral and equal, sex is irrelevant, male and female are interchangeable- this is in itself a same sex marriage.
do not be surprised the same organisation is now wimping out on the issue itself…
Burk writes Homosexual persons often report experiencing two realities: (1) the presence of same-sex attraction and (2) the absence of heterosexual attraction. Reparative therapy treats both of these as problems. But the Bible only treats number one as a problem. In fact, I believe that I could make the case (as I did at ETS two weeks ago) that the Bible sometimes treats number two as a gift (e.g., Matt. 19:11; 1 Cor. 7:7). Yes, but…. The problem I have is that same sex-attraction for men is sexualised. The gay community (in the main) is hyper-promiscuous. So while contentment with… Read more »
and the heterosexual community is not promiscuous?!
Where did I say that?
u implied
as many christian heterosexual individuals do…
What specifically did I write that implies that many heterosexuals are not promiscuous
Saying “A” does not imply “not B.”
time and again it has to be repeated
The Gospel Coalition has caved to feminism and the flow on effect is slow and eventual caving to same sex marriage
step by step
I mean look at their articles that tell women to make their husbands look after the home and kids so that they can do and do ministry…
The Devil is sneaky and subtle
We humans are stupid…
Doug,
Is not same sex attraction an attraction to someone of the same sex?
Are you equating same sex attraction with an unlawful desire (i.e., willful, sinful lust)? If so, same sex attraction is not an attraction to sin. It *is* sin.