Your Beliefs about Homosexuality Matter
by Candice Watters on 04/24/2009 at 3:45 PM
When I was twentysomething, I had big ideas, still do. It's just that when I was fresh from college, a mere 21-year-old, it was hard to get anyone to take my big ideas very seriously. Not enough life experience, not enough maturity, not enough gray hair. (For better or worse, that last one is no longer an issue.)
It seems young people's big ideas matter a lot right now. At least when it comes to homosexuality. So says Dr. Al Mohler in his Thursday blog post "No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth."
If you're reading this blog, and you're young, your beliefs matter. Maybe more than you know.
No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
If you identify yourself as a believer, it's worth asking yourself where your convictions come from on this issue. What's driving your perspective? Where do you go first? Newspapers? Blogs? TV? Church? Even that last one may not be reliable anymore. Dr. Mohler writes,
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?
Given that young self-described Christians are prone to favor and even applaud homosexuality, how should the church respond? With courage and compassion writes Mohler.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight. ...
Even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.
And what is it the church should be saying?
We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.
Yes, your beliefs matter. But not just as a matter of public opinion or even cultural trends. They matter to God. And eventually, ultimately, we'll all have to stand before Him and give an account for each and every one of those beliefs.
1. Trisha said the following at 3:58 PM on Apr 24:
As true Christians we are called to care about/impact/love the sinner and not the sin but some people in the homosexual lifestyle seem to think if we accept them....see them as Jesus sees them....that we accept their lifestyle/sin.
2. james said the following at 6:11 PM on Apr 24:
I think it's important to make a distinction between the general term homosexuality and the specific issues that involves. Now, the Bible condemns the action of gay sex, just like any other kind of sex outside of marriage. It is not the person that is at issue, but the physical action. I don't see an attraction as inherently sinful, it's what we choose to do physically with it. Also there is the matter of gay marriage, I believe your political vote can be different than personal feelings on most subjects, so this shouldn't factor into a conversation with someone about our faith.
3. Prefer to be anonymous for this one said the following at 6:43 PM on Apr 24:
Thank you for sharing this great, balanced article. I struggle with how to approach the homosexuality in my church. I think this sentence in Mohler's article answered my question: what is the appropriate way to handle SSA for the church?
We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples.
I'll be brutally honest, right now I find myself sinfully resenting the closeted homosexuals in my church. It's the dishonesty and the secretiveness that bothers me. If these men were willing to be honest with their struggles and how God is transforming them, I would like to think I would have compassion.
Although, what do you do when 15% of your church comes out and declares their testimony? Are you then becoming a "gay" church? I know some of your knee-jerk reactions would be "of course not"... but really think it through. What would that look like? Would it be appropriate to have a small group tailored for men with SSA where they get together and share their struggles?
You single women, would you want to marry an "ex-gay"? I'm honestly curious. I really struggle with what is the appropriate role of the church in this area.
4. Matthew said the following at 8:20 PM on Apr 24:
I am very much for taking a strong, Biblical stance on this issue in our churches and among our friends. Sin is sin, and it must be treated as such-- by preaching repentance of it at the foot of the Cross and rejoicing in the salvation we have by the blood of Jesus.
However, I think it would do us well to disengage this issue from all of its political baggage, as I feel like such tussles have not helped to advance the cause of Christ nor strengthen the God-given institution of marriage between a man and a woman. I do not see any point in the future when such a political fight would, and I think that continuing on distracts us from our ability to preach and teach boldly about this sin and the healing from it that we can find in the death & resurrection of Jesus.
5. Jessi C. said the following at 8:45 PM on Apr 24:
I loved this article and the Line post. My accountability group has shown both courage and compassion to me over the past year after I confessed I had struggled with same-sex attraction for eight years. They didn't show any condemnation toward me, but demonstrated the power of God to restore me to a healthy view of sexuality. I believe my life demonstrates that God can work through Christians who cling to His truth and desire to channel His love. I can't wait to share this article with my group! Thanks.
6. kaj said the following at 10:22 PM on Apr 24:
When some people encourage the idea of "legalizing" same-sex marriage, yet tell "straight" people like me to "just be happy being single," then we do have a problem...
7. DannieA said the following at 10:33 PM on Apr 24:
comment #3 said
"You single women, would you want to marry an "ex-gay"? I'm honestly curious."
Honestly?....yes. But that's because I feel that an ex-gay would be more understanding with a woman that has been sexually assaulted...
If one of my ex-boyfriends who is still one of my closest friends were to say that he has left the gay lifestyle and wanted to get married, I'd do it in a heartbeat....after all I know all about him and he knows all about me.
8. The G said the following at 12:51 AM on Apr 25:
Yeah, people's big ideas matter ...
Compare the ways the same story is told.
9. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 6:18 AM on Apr 25:
Prefer to be anonymous (#3),
Is it possible that the "closeted" homosexuals in your church are "secretive" because they have had bad, painful experiences with sharing their struggles in churches in the past? Sadly, I have heard many such stories from Christians who struggle with homosexual temptations.
Bible-believing churches are not always the most welcoming communities in which to share one's battles with homosexuality-- and I say that as a Bible-believing, straight man who affirms that active, practiced homosexuality is a sin.
10. Charlotte C. said the following at 9:24 AM on Apr 25:
This is exactly what was on my mind!
Yeah, I'm concerned too... I'm almost twenty (still nineteen) but I'm finding people my age favor homosexuality more than any other age group I've ever seen. It says in the Bible how a man must not lie with a man like he lies with a woman.. because it's detestable to the Lord and I take that pretty much seriously.
I do think the church's role is important. Jessi C. (#5) is really spot on. The church shouldn't condemn and chase them out but rather show them the love of Christ and help them restore a healthy view of sexuality. But the church should definately not just turn a blind eye to homosexuality and just live with it in the church because that's just not right.
Most guys I know who have become gay have watched a lot of porn. They start with soft-core then move to really gruesome porn that is just... really against the Lord's word like gay porn. They watch the gay porn and start thinking they must be gay because they enjoy that stuff. Then they go along with their 'internal desires'. But we know it's just.. an unhealthy love of themselves. It's kinda like a self-love, in my viewpoint.
Well, I don't condemn gays (but that doesn't mean I accept their view 100% so that I have to go along with them 100% as well. Of course not). To be honest I find it terribly uncomfortable to see society just readily accept homosexuals as if it's something natural.
Then society kinda turns on the ones that aren't homosexuals by blaming them that they aren't being 'accepting of gays'.
It's a very hard subject to approach but sometimes I feel like there's no more modest people out there that do the right thing.
11. katie said the following at 2:46 PM on Apr 25:
my old roommate married a man who used to be gay; his past included a string of sexual encounters with men from the time he was a teenager (and was abused by a neigbor). through counseling, support groups, prayer, and honesty, he now hasn't been in that place in many years. he was honest with my old roommate about his past, and about what could/did set him down that path in the past. they have an amazing relationship today and i could see them using their story to minister to others at some point in the future.
12. Leah said the following at 12:32 AM on Apr 26:
Prefer to be anonymous (3) - I think a church should be applauded if it decided to establish a small group aimed at assisting men (or women) to beat their battle with SSA. There are groups aimed at helping men kick porn habits and groups aimed at helping people kick alcoholic habits, so a church should be supported in helping anybody kick whichever sinful habit they may have.
I would also like to think it would be a good witness to homosexuals in the community. It might show that churches are willing to accept homosexuals but are still against homosexuality itself. Sure, this might make some homosexual activitists mad. You know, "the church should accept people as they are". But is it not better than people muttering about how much the church hates gay people and rejects them?
I would only say a church is becoming a "gay" church if it was embracing homosexuality, not people who are trying to beat homosexuality. So if their policy was basically "we love homosexual people as they are and won't try to change them", I'd be concerned. This is not what God wants us to do. He wants us to love them but we are NOT to encourage their sin; we are to encourage them to STOP sinning.
Dunno if I helped any :S
13. Jethro said the following at 4:31 AM on Apr 26:
1. Every Christian sins.
2. Every Christian sins intentionally.
Why focus so much on homosexuality (like a person's sexual preference is any of your business anyway. Why no lead the public outcry against covetousness, greed or the wearing of garments made with mixed fibers?
14. beatrice81 said the following at 10:13 AM on Apr 26:
I support full and equal civil rights for my gay and lesbian neighbors, just like I support full and equal civil rights for my Buddhist, Muslim and Jewish neighbors. Of course the Bible is just as condemning of non-Christian religions as it is of homosexual behavior.
So, how is it that Boundless continually calls on us to deny equal rights to gays, yet does not demand that we deny equal civil rights for Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, eaters of pork, enjoyers of shellfish, wearers of polyester (and all the other things condemned in the OT).
15. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:19 AM on Apr 26:
Now Jethro is continuing his dishonest Bible-mocking. It's not really too difficult to grasp that the law against mixing fibres was part of the Mosaic Law, given to the Messianic People to symbolize their separation from the surrounding nations until the Messiah came and broke down this wall. But the laws against homosexual behaviour are part of the Law of Christ as well. He explicitly stated that God right from the beginning of creation defined marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. (Mt. 19:3–6, citing Gen. 1:27 and 2:24). I've explained this and more in Response to ‘gay marriage’ article objections.
As for why not lead the outcry against greed, this is all we hear about at the moment (usually about Wall Street, not about Fannie and Freddie). However, as Thomas Sowell said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” As for covetousness, it's a universal failing, but part of official leftist policy. As P.J. O'Rourke said, lefties are “... envy coddling tax lice applauding themselves for giving away other people’s money.”
16. Pak said the following at 10:42 AM on Apr 26:
Why focus on homosexuality? You're right, it's none of "our business" per se, but as Christians, we're called to reach out to those who behave sinfully (homosexuality, addiction, etc.) or destructively. If you have loved ones who drink or smoke excessively, do you let them continue because it's "none of our business"? By the same token that we want our loved ones to NOT drink and drive or NOT get cancer from smoking, Christians want those who practice sinful behavior to NOT be separated from Christ in eternity.
17. Jeremy said the following at 12:02 PM on Apr 26:
beatrice81 (#14) -- "So, how is it that Boundless continually calls on us to deny equal rights to gays..."
I don't think Boundless or any (non-fringe) Christian group is calling for that. This article was mostly about individuals' views of homosexual behavior. The only current issue I could see being (mis)construed as an issue of "rights" is gay marriage, which is not an issue of rights, but of definition. What should the government recognize as marriage? Is it denying rights to homosexuals if marriage is only recognized as between one man and one woman? Is it denying rights to polygamists if marriage is only recognized as between two people? Is it denying rights to pedophiles if marriage is only recognized as between adults? Of course some of these seem ridiculous, but that is the point -- without a clear definition, the term can be applied arbitrarily.
For my own view, I really don't care what the government recognizes as marriage. The church should continue to recognize it as between one man and one woman, but the government can do whatever it wants. Remember, our goal should not be to force non-Christians to change their behavior without changing their hearts, but rather for them to become believers. I personally don't think harping about gay marriage (or certain other issues) furthers that aim, and it many cases it harms it.
Take as a case in point "Jethro", who often comments on this site. I think Jethro is a non-Christian (my apologies if I am mischaracterizing you). Does anyone honestly think the comments directed toward him are likely to encourage him to re-evaluate his beliefs or bring him closer to a relationship with God?
I fear that too often we Christians as a group come off as petty and politically motivated, as caring more about political ideologies than about individuals.
18. Jessi C. said the following at 3:26 PM on Apr 26:
beatrice81 (#14)--my gay and lesbian neighbors, as well as my former partner, are equal to anyone else in America with respect to rights. It's in following a prideful ideology that some are now agitating for new rights.
Boundless is calling us to live with integrity in every part of our lives. God desires to restore every person to an openness with Him--whether that person is hindered by hate against others, insecurity, greed, addiction, rage, loneliness, immoral relationships, or lust. It's sad when we say we follow Christ and then turn down opportunities to draw others closer to Him. It's not just about heaven--it's also about life lived in communion with God.
And as far Old/New Code is concerned--eating pork is no longer forbidden because CHristians are no longer living under the Old Code. THe Mosaic Code is abolished by the blood of Christ. Christians are now bound by the New Code (Law of Christ) which contains the same morality as the Old Code. Morality cannot change--if it does, then the character of God has changed.
19. twilley said the following at 6:03 PM on Apr 26:
Hey Beatrice!! Right on!!
I just wanted to say that as a happily gay Christian, I've gotten a really, really wide range of responses from other (non-MCC) Christians--from churches who have politely told me thanks, but no thanks--we'll never have you as anything but an outsider, to people who have outright condemned me, to people who have shut me out of their lives entirely.
Thankfully, most of my Southern Baptist family has passed through the angry rejection phase towards the "oh well, let's live with this" phase--and every time they eat lunch with my partner and I, or have us babysit their kids, or come over to our house to watch a movie, they soften up a little bit, get a little less uncomfortable. I understand it's tough for straight folks to understand us--I hardly understand you guys most of the time, myself ;o)
But I am thankful for every person who really listens to me--not that fake, "I'm listening to you but really just not speaking and waiting for my turn to talk because I already know all the answers about your life" thing, but who actually shows genuine concern for me, even though they think I'm "living a sinful lifestyle" and all that broken-record jazz. It would be even better if they would actually ask me what God's doing in my life lately--boy do I have stories to tell.
20. JB said the following at 6:03 PM on Apr 26:
Jessi #18,
You can certainly argue that gay and lesbian Americans ought to be denied the right to marry, but it is disingenuous to argue that they enjoy equal rights in the status quo. When the Supreme Court addressed antimiscegenation laws in Loving v Virginia, the state argued that there was no violation of equal rights in banning marriages between blacks and whites because the law applied to both races. The Court emphatically rejected this reasoning, writing, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The right in question is the right to marry the person of your choice, and when that right is pointlessly infringed upon by the state there is no equality.
21. twilley said the following at 6:06 PM on Apr 26:
Oh, and Jessi: #18) Let's not forget that until 2003, the police could barge into my bedroom and arrest me just for having sex with the partner I chose, another willing adult. We ain't so far down the road in this battle for civil rights, and we don't yet have all of the rights straight folk do. Can you be thrown out of your house or job just because of who you love? We can, perfectly legally. I don't call that having all the same rights.
22. Nicole said the following at 7:20 PM on Apr 26:
Sin is still sin! It does not matter the sin its still sin. A lie is a lie, stealing is stealing, idolatry is idolatry..... We just went through Lev. 18 today at church and here's the thing; God does not put sin on a scale, no sin is better or worse than another sin. So just like the homosexual I am sinner, no better or worse than them, I am just like them: a sinner.Our current sin that we struggle with is just as offending and an abomination to God as the rest of the sin in the world. But here's the catch... I am a sinner SAVED by GRACE!!!! and because He has saved me, I want to follow His ways... I am not calling for judgment but rather for love and for personal conviction from Christ. Without a judgmental attitude that ignores the fact that we ourselves have been saved from a certain death.
I AM THE LORD- I have called you to be a different people. I Cor. 6:9-11
23. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:49 PM on Apr 26:
Jeremy (#17): "I think Jethro is a non-Christian"
Oh, finally worked that out have you? What gave him away? His ardent faith in goo-to-you evolution and scoffing at biblical creation? Support for prenatal baby butchery? Or advocacy of judicial activism inventing new meanings to the Constitution and big government confiscating more of our money? Or maybe the above mocking of God's law?
Of course, the Bible tells us to demolish christophobic arguments (2 Cor. 10:4–5). In my ministry, I know of plenty of people who had been repulsed by compromise (pretending that the Bible doesn't teach recent creation and a global flood) and lovey-dovey approach that didn't challenge their worldview. But they grudgingly respected Christians who really believed their own book, and won over by firm answers to their unbelief.
Let's also not forget the onlookers. I know of many Christians who were oppressed by the aggressive christophobia of relatives, teachers etc. These Christians were strengthened in the faith when the atheopaths' arguments were neutralized. So it's a vital role for the apologist to defang the wolves so they can no longer harm the sheep, even if the wolves don't become sheep themselves. See for example The ‘Indoctrinator’.
The other approach has been a miserable failure. Look at Rick "40 days of pointless" Warren trying to reach out to the rabidly christophobic Obama. All that's happened is that Obama hasn't moved an inch, but was happy to win all the electoral votes of gullible evanjellyfish. But Warren has moved, so that he now pretends that he never opposed gay marriage.
Similarly, professing pro-life backers of Obama like Doug Kmiec and Joel Hunter have now become shills for Obama, pretending that he is not really an anti-life extremist.
24. Elizabeth Reid said the following at 7:58 PM on Apr 26:
Comment #3 said
"You single women, would you want to marry an "ex-gay"? I'm honestly curious."
Yes. If he were a strong, Christian man who wanted to serve the Lord with all his heart, I would not mind his being an "ex-gay" (although that term bothers me for some reason). I don't think it's any different than marrying, say, a recovering alcoholic or gambler, or someone who has committed various other sins (all sins being equal in the eyes of God, right?).
25. Kelly said the following at 10:47 PM on Apr 26:
#3 asked:
"You single women, would you want to marry an "ex-gay"? "
That's a tough question. At a church I used to attend, single males were in short supply. One of the few had watched his male partner die, returned to the church, and been transformed from his former life.
However, he still carried the scars of his past life and we all knew it. Having witnessed his struggle made me extremely reluctant to consider him a potential husband; I know I'd be personally haunted by his past even as God had led him into a brand new life.
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that I could look beyond it. But the reality is, I'm not sure. (In the same way that I'd like to be able to move past a straight man's past physical sins; there's just something about THAT kind of sin that is much more difficult to accept.)
---
Having thought about it a little more: it probably comes back to 'why was he gay'. Was he experimenting*? Or will living as a straight man be a struggle for him every single day of his life? The former would be much easier to marry.
* I have several friends who I've seen go through the experimentation phase; convinced they are gay, yet years later, have married someone of the opposite gender. I also know one or two who continue to date their own gender but this is a MUCH smaller proportion.
26. obewan said the following at 8:01 AM on Apr 27:
Gee, at my church, divorce seems to be the overwhelming moral problem the church faces.
Out of probably one thousand Christian singles I have met in the past 15 years, I have only encountered ONE person whose marriage was impacted or ended by the spouse being/turning gay.
It would help me a lot more as a single Boundless reader if there were more articles on dealing with and avoiding divorce.
27. Ted Slater said the following at 8:32 AM on Apr 27:
beatrice81 (#14) -- you write that "Boundless continually calls on us to deny equal rights to gays."
Nowhere have we called for that. Not once. To accuse us of such is a blatant lie. If you cannot engage in honest discussion here on The Line, perhaps you should go elsewhere.
twilley (#19) -- You are not a "happily gay Christian." There is no such thing. You cannot be engaging in extramarital homosexual activity and be at peace with Christ. Not possible. You *can* be a Christian who struggles with Same-Sex Attraction, and live a life characterized by joy; but one cannot be simultaneously hard-hearted toward sinful behavior and tender-hearted toward the Savior.
twilley -- you need to realize that *you* are not "an abomination." The homosexual *behavior* is what is labeled in Scripture "an abomination." *You* are loved; your *behavior* is hated by the Creator. May His grace toward you be felt powerfully today. May His kindness lead you to repentance.
28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:59 AM on Apr 27:
Nicole (#22)
"God does not put sin on a scale, no sin is better or worse than another sin."
Totally wrong. Jesus Himself spoke of an "unforgivable sin". Whatever this is, it must be worse than a forgivable sin. He also told Pilate that the one who delivered Him up had committed the "greater sin". John said there were some "sins that lead to death". For more, see Are all sins equal? by Rev Dr Peter Barnes.
29. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:38 AM on Apr 27:
Regardless of which side of fence you fall on in your position of "gay rights issues", I want to point out one fallacy that I've heard from both sides on the argument. The specific wording can take differnt forms, but the general idea is that the advancement or restriction of gay rights issues will not be impactful on the American church.
For example you might have heard, "So what if gays are allowed to marry? It won't have a profound effect on hetereosexual marriages, or freedom of religion. Churches will still be protected by free speech. It won't restrict what straight people can do, only expand it to include gays."
The problem with this though is that there will eventually be a natural clash of values which will then take center stage in different states, then inevitably at a national level. A look at some historical examples shows this to be true (Note: The focus of these examples should not be whether the particular decision was "right" or "wrong", but merely that in fact this collision of values spilled over into public policy. For the record, I am glad the below changes took place):
- Before the 13th Constitutional Amendment, slavery was largely regulated at the state level. But partly as a result of the Civil War, it didn't matter what your personal opinion of slavery was, it was deemed illegal throughout the US.
- Interracial marriage was also regulated at the state level, with a number of states making them illegal. However, the Supreme Court ruled it illegal. This issue of interracial marriage (and by extension dating) played itself out even into the private college realm where it was confirmed in Bob Jones University vs United States that BJU could not keep its tax exempt status because its policy banning interracial dating/marriage was contrary to public policy (Note that BJU revoked this policy in 2000).
- Roe v Wade. Don't need to say anything more.
So, given these examples, and a number of other issues (women's suffrage, abortion, etc.) what makes one think that the advancement of gay rights will not affect society, including the church? The very fact that there are still lingering concerns regarding abortion policy and a "doctor's conscience" confirm this.
I just wanted to clear that up so that people on both sides realize that a chance in such laws will inevitably have an effect on other parties.
30. JB said the following at 10:47 AM on Apr 27:
Dr. Sarfati,
It is striking that when the Council of Nicea sought to define orthodox Christianity, they spoke of the nature of the Trinity and the meaning of the Resurrection. When you seek to show that Jethro is not a Christian, you speak of theories of legal interpretation and tax policy. Your conflation of Christianity and conservative politics takes you dangerously close to heresy. As a fellow Christian, I would ask you to be very careful not to fall into that error.
31. Texas Craig said the following at 12:26 PM on Apr 27:
I would propose that gay people have equal rights under the law. If marriage is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman, then that is the definition. A gay person can choose to marry a person of another gender. That is their right. If they want to try to change the definition of "marriage" from being a union between a man and a woman, then that is a different issue. That is where the problem comes in. It is not a question of equal rights, it is a question of societal definitions and laws based upon those definitions.
Ted, you made the following comment:
"You cannot be engaging in extramarital homosexual activity and be at peace with Christ. Not possible. You *can* be a Christian who struggles with Same-Sex Attraction, and live a life characterized by joy; but one cannot be simultaneously hard-hearted toward sinful behavior and tender-hearted toward the Savior."
I am not so sure of that. I know of many Christians who have ongoing sin in their lives who even you would probably call tender-hearted toward God. For example, I know a person who has issues of materialism and pride, but who also desires to serve God and is used by God in many other areas of their life. I know Christians who are brand new believers who have ongoing sin in their lives who also exhibit the work of the Spirit in them.
The problem with your statement is that it fails to recognize that all of us have some ongoing sin in our lives. In fact, any time you think of a good thing to do and do not do it you are committing sin according to scripture. And, unless you are genuinely superspiritual, my guess is you have blind spots in your life of unrepentant sin. Samson, David, Solomon, etc. all had struggles with sin, yet it appears from scripture that God was still pleased with their lives on the whole.
Our peace with Christ is not based upon whether we have ongoing sin in our lives, but totally upon the shed blood of Christ and our receipt of the gift of grace through salvation.
Having said that, I also feel strongly that we run a serious risk of losing our "saltiness" and growing hard-hearted toward God the longer we allow sin to be knowingly manifested in our lives. And, Hebrews 10 gives us a serious warning about continuing with sin, and Romans 8 tells us not to continue in sin. Arguably, Hebrews 10 could make our salvation entirely dependent upon our not deliberately sinning after we have become Christians. But, if that is true, then I know of no one personally who will inherit eternal life.
32. IMO said the following at 12:40 PM on Apr 27:
Texas,
My pastor JUST did a sermon on Samson this past Sunday...so I am pretty confident when I say that God was NOT pleased with Samson's life as a whole.
Go back and read Judges 14-16. Samson was born to be a Nazarite (sp?). He was set apart from God. His WHOLE life was lived for himself. God still used the wrongs from Samson's life to accomplish God's purposes.
Or you can just listen to the sermon here and make up your own mind.
http://www.harvestbible.org/Content.aspx?content_id=40&site_id=4
33. Tara said the following at 12:59 PM on Apr 27:
Texas Craig,
I love reading your posts and I see real evidence of the Holy Spirit speaking through you. I agree with the point you made about all of us having ongoing sin and that it's Christ's blood that saves us, not on how well we do in elimating sin from our lives. And we do have blind spots to our own sins but that is why we, as the Body, are to hold one another accountible. Being forgiven each time we fail never makes that failure "OK". I just think we need to make that distinction--which is much, much tougher to do than say. For myself, I often waver between the extremes of wanting to be "loving" and just accept the sins of my fellow Christians to the other extreme of being judging and question whether or not they even belong to Him.
My main concern is with the Christians who practice homosexuality and try to convince themselves and others that it is acceptable behaviour. But then, a Christian who can plug their ears to God's word has bigger problems then just their homosexuality (or any other sin they may be living in).
34. Ian said the following at 3:10 PM on Apr 27:
#33, Tara:
I suspect most of us "plug [our] ears" some, if not most, of the time regarding one thing or another. None of us is completely "in tune" with God, the Holy Spirit in us or Christ before us. I take it that this phenomenon helps account for the wide variety of Christian opinion; we can't all be right and disagree as much as we do. Someone has to be wrong...Or do they?
There are probably several issues at stake when considering homosexuality, today, and shifting social mores. My inclination is that things tend toward complexity rather than simplicity.
35. JB said the following at 3:34 PM on Apr 27:
Texas Craig,
Formal equality that doesn't take into account relevant differences between people does not create meaningful equality. For example, poll taxes and educational requirements to vote, while formally applying equally to all races, were in practice violations of equal voting rights as they ended up disenfranchising the poor and racial minorities. Similarly, while laws which limit marriage to heterosexual relationships are formally equal, in practice they limit the ability of gays and lesbians to practice one of the "basic rights of man" by infringing on their right to marry the person of their choice.
36. Jethro said the following at 4:52 PM on Apr 27:
Dr Sarfati (#23),
Oh, finally worked that out have you? What gave him away? His ardent faith in goo-to-you evolution and scoffing at biblical creation? Support for prenatal baby butchery? Or advocacy of judicial activism inventing new meanings to the Constitution and big government confiscating more of our money? Or maybe the above mocking of God's law?
Of course, the Bible tells us to demolish christophobic arguments (2 Cor. 10:4–5).
As always, much to work with. I don’t have faith in evolution anymore than I have faith in gravity or the speed of light. What I do have is a reasoned belief that the overwhelming evidence supports the theory of evolution moreso than the theory of creation. You are welcome to disagree, but you do your position no end of harm when you admit, as you surely must, that no amount of evidence could dissuade you from a belief that you ultimately hold on the basis of faith alone. Can you honestly tell me different?
I don’t support prenatal baby butchery. That’s really all there is to that and I don’t like you saying that I do. No doubt in your usual supercilious way you will defend that statement, but trust me on this one, I know me quite well. I don’t support ‘judicial activism’ – whatever that even means. I do support a proper understanding of the roles of Judges within the common law system. Out of interest, can you point me to a Biblical verse that requires all Christians to believe in the ‘strict constructionist’ approach to legal interpretation? After all, sola scriptura right?
I don’t support big government ‘confiscating our money’. I support a balanced approach to the provision of services by the government. I am not, like you, beholden to a black or white, all or nothing, worldview. I see a role for government and I see a role for business. They are not mutually exclusive.
It’s the same old story Dr Sarfati. You are misrepresenting the positions of those who disagree with you to score cheap points in an online argument. Some people might buy into it, but the intelligent ones here will not.
Oh, and you haven’t demolished anything in my book. Except your credibility of course.
37. Jethro said the following at 5:00 PM on Apr 27:
On a general note, my issue with opposition to gay marriage is simply this: society is not explicitly religious and it should not take its definition of marriage from any one religion.
I cannot see how a Christian can advocate that the Christian understanding of marriage should be enacted into law, but that adultery should not also be a crime. I cannot see how you rally against homosexual marriage but not advocate laws to prevent unmarried couples living together. Surely that ‘harms’ marriage just as much? Why should Mormon’s also not be allowed to have plural marriage on the basis of their religious beliefs?
At the end of the day, my position is simply that homosexuals should entitled to marry each other if they so desire. I don’t believe any church should be forced to perform homosexual marriage if it against their teachings and I don’t believe any church should be required to employ homosexuals if it is against their teaching.
I am quite sure that God, in his own sovereign way, is more than capable of deciding what marriages he will or will not recognize. That is a matter for him and him alone. In a secular and pluralistic State however, God’s opinion is not in issue. Equal rights is.
38. Jethro said the following at 5:10 PM on Apr 27:
Jeremy (#17)
“Take as a case in point "Jethro", who often comments on this site. I think Jethro is a non-Christian (my apologies if I am mischaracterizing you). Does anyone honestly think the comments directed toward him are likely to encourage him to re-evaluate his beliefs or bring him closer to a relationship with God?”
You know, honestly, when I started visiting Boundless I was probably in the ‘undecided’ category. Over time, as I have read the postings here from Ted and others, and more recently from Dr Sarfati, I have been turned further and further away from Christianity.
I genuinely struggle to see how I could in good conscience self identify with people who hold such a dichotomous and, frankly, offensive opinions on things. To my mind one of the great strengths of the secular mind is its openness to change and its willingness to admit shortcomings. Case in point, in my discussions with Dr Sarfati in another thread I have happily conceded that there are good arguments counter to mine, but there are a range of rational reasons as to why I believe what I do. Dr Sarfati however, has failed to admit that there could even be a legitimate disagreement over an issue like Judicial philosophy. To my mind that characterizes the rigid and divisive nature of the conservative Christian approach. Ditto Ted’s stance on global warming.
So, am I a non-Christian. Right now I would have to say yes. Will I always be? I really don’t know – show me evidence, reason with logic and subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny you do others, and I might well be convinced.
39. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:36 PM on Apr 27:
JB: the Creeds were basically negative statements, responding to a heresy. The Nicene Creed is vital because it responded to the vile Arian heresy, hence its clear statement:
“I believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
Yet Jethro clearly denies the part about things being made by Christ, given that he's a fanatical materialistic evolutionist.
I never said, and don't believe, that holding conservative politics was essential for Christianity. Any sort of "Christianity plus" is dangerous as C.S. Lewis pointed out, whether it's "plus social justice" or "plus free market". But I fail to see why objecting to killing babies in the womb, Bible mocking, gay "marriage" is necessarily "conservative politics".
40. Chris said the following at 8:31 PM on Apr 27:
Texas Craig writes:
I would propose that gay people have equal rights under the law. If marriage is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman, then that is the definition. A gay person can choose to marry a person of another gender. That is their right.
Let's all jump in our time machines:
I would propose that blacks and whites have equal rights under the law. If marriage is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman of the same race, then that is the definition. A black person can choose to marry a person of the same race. That is their right.
41. JB said the following at 8:36 PM on Apr 27:
Jethro,
Reading your comments here, I've come to respect you as a genuinely thoughtful person, even when I find myself disagreeing with you. While I'm sorry to hear that your experience at this blog has driven you farther from Christianity, I can't say I'm particularly surprised. May I suggest you take a look at www.streetprophets.com? It's an explicitly political community like Boundless (though liberal this time) but there is a sufficient diversity of voices that I think you may find something worthwhile as you explore your relationship to Christianity.
42. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:19 PM on Apr 27:
Chris (#40): here's the obvious difference: God defined marriage as man and woman. So it's no accident that all cultures around the world have held this definition. Different "races" came long after this, and don't feature into the definition of marriage. Laws against "inter-racial" marriage were a legacy of American slavery and an aberration.
43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:58 PM on Apr 27:
JB (#41): Jethro reminds me of an article, ‘With a Little Help from Your Friends’, by Dr J. Budziszewski, professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin and author of How to Stay Christian in College, where he relates the following:
…
After a long time of timidity, Christian students and faculty are beginning to point out the holes in the secularist armament. They are rediscovering the intellectual traditions of their faith, and becoming more aggressive in exploring and defending them. I have been privileged to see this movement grow in vitality. What it shows is that if young Christians are attracted to non-Christian worldviews, it can’t be for purely intellectual reasons. And it isn’t. All too often intellect is merely called in to rationalize decisions already made by the will.
…
I will never forget a young woman who told me during office hours that she felt she was losing her faith. Her radical feminist teachers could see nothing in Christianity but “patriarchy,” and she couldn’t find Christian replies. It didn’t take long to discover why she couldn’t find them. She wasn’t looking. And it seemed to me that she wasn’t so terribly attracted to radical feminism either. She pictured herself as struggling to hold on to her faith despite superior arguments against it. The truth was that she was looking for an excuse to lose her faith, exposing herself exclusively to the most anti-Christian influences she could find.
It reminded me of how I had used various ideologies to rationalize my own flight from faith at her age. I was so sure that I was intellectually convinced by the case against Christ, but the reasons that convinced me had little to do with the intellect.
The reasons students find it difficult to keep faith in college are much the same as the reasons other Christians have found it difficult to keep faith in other times and places. These temptations are endemic to a fallen world, and the university is no exception.
…
44. Jeremy said the following at 10:06 PM on Apr 27:
Jethro (#38) -- "I genuinely struggle to see how I could in good conscience self identify with people who hold such a dichotomous and, frankly, offensive opinions on things. To my mind one of the great strengths of the secular mind is its openness to change and its willingness to admit shortcomings."
That is an insightful observation, but I think you might be unfairly limiting it to Christians -- I think most people have difficulty remaining open to change and persuasion, regardless of beliefs. I am lucky enough to be friends with a number of Christians who are intellectually honest and consistently willing to question their own notions. I am sure you realize, but I would like to underscore anyway, that not all Christians are like Dr. Sarfati, whose condescension and vitriol towards you I find infuriating, and I hope negative experiences with specific Christians will not make you unwilling to honestly consider the claims of Christianity.
45. Texas Craig said the following at 10:28 PM on Apr 27:
IMO: My comments on Samson are based upon Hebrews 11, where Samson is listed in the "hall of faith" as someone who demonstrated great faith. To me, the names of people listed there are intended to be admired and an inspiration to us. Since I believe all scripture is produced originally through God's working, I believe that Samson's inclusion in Hebrews 11 is a general affirmation by God of his life. Of course, he also had much sin, which was my point.
AS for those who have criticized my comments about homosexual equality, I understand the issues. Certainly, there are laws that have a disparate impact. But, again it comes back to definitions. For example, poll taxes were facially neutral, but they had a disparate impact and a general goal of denying the actual votes of a minority. Thus, the goal was to deny a class an actual right (i.e., the right to vote).
If marriage is scietally understood and legally defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, then no action is actually denying homosexuals "the right," because homosexuals actually want the right to something else, but want to call it marriage. In essence, it is like men saying they want the right to give birth to children. But because the societal understanding of "give birth" makes it impossible for men to do so, they try to change the definition of "give birth" to simply "being a parent." If you want to do that, fine. But understand it is not an equality issue, but a definitional issue. There may be legal benefits/rights that go with giving birth that men are excluded from simply because they do not actually "give birth" to a child. But, if you want to address that, then change the laws regarding those benefits - don't try to change the definition! That's my view on marriage, and why I believe the proper route is for states to create civil unions if they want to address the issue.
As for interracial marriage, that is different because marriage was never defined or understood as only being between people of the same race. That is why laws were created to prohibit it - because the definition itself did not include such a prohibition! I understand the arguments made by homosexuals, but I strongly disagree with the logical reasoning and arguments behind their goals -- which are often quite fallacious and intended to strike emotional chords, rather than truly logical ones.
46. Texas Craig said the following at 10:46 PM on Apr 27:
Jethro wrote:
"I genuinely struggle to see how I could in good conscience self identify with people who hold such a dichotomous and, frankly, offensive opinions on things."
Now I know, from reading your posts on here, that you are more intelligent than to actually believe this statement. You are well-reasoned, and you present very good responses to some of the more vitriolic stuff from Dr. Sarfati. So, I trust you to be a very sensible person.
So, what's the problem with your statement? Well, in the vast realm of people who call themselves Christian, atheist, etc., there is a wide swath of views, personalities, and levels of intelligence and reasoning. Certainly you do not believe that the voices on here that you dislike are representative of all Christians any more than I could say that the 9/11 bombers represent all Muslims, or the crackpots on my local public airwaves that host a late night atheist program represent all people who do not believe in God. Such generalizations are not only unfair, but also logically invalid. If you are going to reject the gospel of Jesus, then go work with some Christian aid workers in Africa or International Justice Mission in India and see the hands and feet of Christ lived out in that way before you simply reject the good news of Jesus.
To be honest, I also dislike many things I read on here. But, I know Him in whom I have believed. Thus, the actions of people on here cannot change that - even those who claim to do things in His name. Scripture tells us that many will say "Lord, Lord, didn't we perform miracles in your name" on the day of judgment and He will say "depart from me for I never knew you." So do not make the mistake of deciding whether the gospel is real based upon the acts of people today. Rather, study the scriptures and seek to follow Jesus by your life. Then, you will see whether He really does offer "life to the full" as He claimed. Personally, I am utterly convinced that following Jesus is THE BEST way to live, and I have seen that He really is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Sadly, though, that often gets lost among "religion" today.
47. Jo said the following at 12:19 AM on Apr 28:
Jethro:
Keep in mind though that (American) conservative Christianity is not the only type of Christianity. After reading Boundless for quite a while I still find the political polarisation bizarre. Some things (abortion etc) I believe to be moral issues, but things like tax, universal healthcare and global warming - these issues have no definitive Christian viewpoint, whatever some may say.
I'm not trying to convince you, but just try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
48. Mike Theemling said the following at 1:28 AM on Apr 28:
Need to make an important correction to my above comments.
I originally stated that I "agreed" with the changes in the above three examples listed (emancipation, interracial marriage, abortion).
The fact is that I actually only agree with the first two changes, and disagree with Roe v Wade (i.e. I am not in favor of the outcome).
I added the Roe v. Wade example after I wrote the original draft. I can see how it may have caused some eyebrows to raise, especially those who have read my past postings.
The idea though was simply that one cannot expect such an issue to not have an eventual effect on the nation.
49. IMO said the following at 9:06 AM on Apr 28:
#45
Ok but then you should have clarified.
In your previous comment you wrote:
"Samson, David, Solomon, etc. all had struggles with sin, yet it appears from scripture that God was still pleased with their lives on the whole."
1st, I strongly disagree that Samson 'struggled' with sin for most of his life. And Hebrews 11 doesn't mention that. And maybe you should say that God was still pleased with the *faith* demonstrated by Samson at the end of his life.
Sorry, not trying to be completely nit-picky...maybe we are seeing two different sides of the coin...
I just don't think what you wrote about Samson is accurate.
50. IMO said the following at 9:07 AM on Apr 28:
Just to clarify, when I wrote that Samson didn't 'struggle' with sin, I mean to say that Samson lived sinfully and enjoyed it, rather than struggle against it.