God Takes Pleasure in His People!

For the LORD takes pleasure in His people;
He will beautify the afflicted ones with salvation.
Psalm 149:4

It still amazes me when I stop to consider how much God cares for His own. As I read this passage this morning, I could not help but think of myself as a leprous wretch and how God in His glorious mercy comes in and makes us beautiful. And all the while, He takes pleasure in the work. I know for me, I would shy away from such filthy work. I would not want to work in the cesspool of wickedness if I were pure ... I would not want to get my hands dirty. Yet God comes down and cleanses us, makes us pure and sanctifies our heart.

A Reasoned Response to “For the Bible Tells Me So” Film

By Daniel Lee
December 1, 2007,
Updated December 11, 2007

The First Congregational Church of South Portland presented a film entitled “For the Bible Tells Me So” on November 30, 2007. The Film is a pseudo-documentary describing how several families from Christian backgrounds came to accept homosexuality. The vast majority of the film dealt with the interpersonal relationships of individuals who disclosed their sexual orientation to their family and to their respective churches.

A smaller portion of the film dealt with the scripture passages that address homosexuality and offered reasoning of why these scriptures do not apply to modern day homosexuality – at least in the opinion of those producing the movie. Part of the movie also dealt with promoting the idea that Christ universally accepts everyone and does not condemn genuine loving relationships even if they are between two men or two women.

The format of the film presentation did not allow for any question and answer time, or room for public debate. Pastor John McCall did graciously offer the opportunity to talk among ourselves either in our pews or in the fellowship hall following the movie. Since my wife works third shift I did not take Pastor John McCall up on the offer, nor do I think it would have been profitable to do so even if I had the time to remain and engage others in conversation. I would much rather take time to think through their arguments and to give a reasoned response to what we heard.

Attending with me were four other men from our local church. Before leaving our church to attend the movie, we prayed for God’s wisdom, guidance and protection.

A Summary of the movie

The first Biblical passage addressed by the producers is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The producers dealt with these two passages in two ways. First the context of the two verses is contained in a book filled with ritualistic laws that we no longer observe. They pointed out that we no longer observe laws concerning eating things like shrimp and other ‘unclean’ things. Second, these verses primarily address the issue of procreation since it is essential to building a nation.

Another Biblical passage addressed is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In their discussion of this passage they reasoned that God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not due to sexual perversion but because of inhospitality, of not being a loving and accepting environment. Part of the premise rests in a few ideas. First, culturally, it was acceptable for people to welcome strangers into their homes, similar to what Abraham had done when the two angels appeared to him. Not to open your home was considered bad. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were wealthy. Because of that wealth they had become increasingly suspicious of foreigners entering their city gates as they could be spies sent in to prepare for an attack on the city to plunder their wealth. This led to them closing their doors to strangers for fear of spies coming in to plan an attack. When the men of the city came to Lot’s house and asked to let the men out they were only interested in questioning the men to see if they were spies. At the very most, if they believed these men to be spies, one of the ways to humiliate the enemy was to rape the enemy.

Another argument presented by a few in the film is that what the Bible reads is not what it says. What it says deals with interpretation; therefore its meaning is more than what the words actually read. They also claim that ‘Biblical Literalism’ is a 20^th century invention and several times during the movie they placed heavy emphasis that the Bible mentions homosexuality only six to seven times.

Another argument presented was scientific research indicating that homosexuality is genetic and it is not a choice. Several concepts were presented, two of which were studies among twins show that 70% of twins who are homosexual that the corresponding twin is also homosexual. They argue that this percentage is statistically too high to not be a genetic development. The second argument was that in families with several boys that the youngest boy tends to be homosexual. The reason presented for this is that while in the womb the body considers a male fetus to be a foreign body and attacks it with antigens. After having several boys the mother’s body becomes increasingly more adept at ‘fighting’ the foreign body. I believe they presented another scientific reason as well, but I cannot recall the particulars of that reason.

They next dealt with Romans 1:26. They argued here that Paul is not addressing homosexuality but returning to worshipping the Roman deities, some of whose practice involved homosexuality. They also argue that Paul is not using the word “natural” to mean abnormal, but to mean what is the “customary” practice of society in that day.

The producers spent some time directing their attention toward Dr James Dobson who they regard as one who continues to stir up the evangelical right against homosexuality. In one of their statements they pointed out that Dr Dobson speaks about spiritual issues even though he has no theological training, suggesting that he is not qualified to speak of these theological issues. One family stated that Dobson’s anti-gay rhetoric is a danger to himself and to others.

They also addressed the “Love one out” program and explained that this is not a “cure” but merely suppression and made jokes that the person forced through the program is still a homosexual. They then argued that suppressing these natural desires results in severe emotional issues. They also claim that the “cure” is not highly effective either although I do not recall them offering any hard facts to back up the claim.

The film also noted that homosexuals have a suicide rate that is three to seven times higher than others in their age group.

Some of their arguments stated that those who are against homosexuality are so because of fear. For men they are afraid of being known as a woman, and that men equate homosexuality with effeminate behavior. They showed several scenes from well known films such as The Titans where the coach in a locker room pep rally calls his players a bunch of girls in an effort to make them perform better.

They also stated that teaching against homosexuality and the fear of homosexuality bring a sense of legitimacy of violence toward homosexuals.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu made the claim that all loving relationships are honored by God. Others further explained that God’s world is always inclusive.

Rabbi Steven Greenberg stated that just because it is written in the Bible does not mean that is what we do today. My understanding of what he was saying is that messages in the Bible were written for a specific time to address specific cultural influences and do not have direct bearing on our conduct today.

Many short outtakes of various preachers were scattered throughout the film, ranging from Billy Sunday to early messages from Billy Graham, from Jerry Falwell to Jimmy Swaggart preaching against homosexuality. The general tone that the producers portrayed was one of hostility and anger toward homosexuals from these preachers. I personally groaned when I heard Jimmy Swaggart state that he would kill a homosexual if they ever looked at him ‘that way’. To be fair they did portray Beverly LaHaye well and she clearly stated that she loves the homosexuals even though she does not condone their behavior.

The film also presented several impromptu sidewalk interviews with well meaning Christians. These people tried to express why they believe homosexuality is wrong, however, the interviews included in the film always portrayed the believers as awkward and unsure of what the Bible really teaches. Statements like “I am sure it [teaching against homosexuality] is in there [the Bible] somewhere” were repeated a few times.

These are some of the major arguments presented in the film. After some consideration and a good night sleep I would like to offer the following in an effort to clarify many misconceptions in the homosexual community. If you are part of that community I do pray that you would carefully consider these words, and that the eyes of your understanding would be opened.

A reasoned response to the movie

Leviticus 18 & 20

As an evangelical Christian I do stand firmly on the principle that we should always consider the context in which a verse is written and evaluate its meaning based on the context. Where the context is still obscure we then compare scripture with scripture, based on the foundational thought that God cannot contradict himself. One of the accusations against the evangelical community is that we pull scriptures out of context to fit our pre-defined theologies regarding homosexuality. While this accusation may be true of some well meaning believers, I disagree that it describes the evangelical community as a whole.

In fact I would counter that their rationalization of the passages completely ignores the immediate context of both verses. For the entirety of chapters 18 and 20 principally deal with sexual behavior in society. Consider the immediate context of chapter 18:22.

“Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” (Leviticus 18:19-23 NASB)

I agree that the book of Leviticus does contain many social and cultural laws that we are not required to observe today. I disagree that because we do not practice cultural and ritualistic laws of Leviticus that we are absolved from having to observe any of the law. The producers failed to make any distinction between moral, social, ritualistic or cultural laws. Rather, they argued that since the book contains some social, cultural, and ritualistic laws that we no longer practice that we also do not need to practice the moral law.

However, if that premise is applied to the rest of chapters 18 and 20 then they would have to conclude that incestuous relationships, bestiality, fornication, adultery, and even child sacrifice is acceptable too. The one involved in these types of acts could always argue that they have genuine love one for another and that God is always inclusive of all loving relationships. When we apply their logic to these chapters their arguments falls apart to the point of being absurd and clearly shows the weakness of the argument.

The second claim in the movie is that these laws were given primarily to preserve the need for procreation and to help establish a nation. This claim however is only based on imaginative thinking rather than any scriptural exposition. In fact God explains why He is giving these moral laws to the people in Leviticus 18:24 – 30.

Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:24-25, NASB)

The remainder of the passage through the end of the chapter goes on to emphasize these two verses again and again. The reiteration is important in that it indicates that this message is very important and there is no quibbling on the need to observe the law and the consequences they would suffer if they did not observe the moral law; they too would be spewed out of the land.

Note that God states the reason he wants them to observe these moral laws is because the people in the land practiced such immorality before them. Their immorality is why God is bringing punishment upon the people of the land in the first place. Nowhere in this context or any immediate context does God ever mention this being given to preserve procreation or to help establish a nation. Rather He is explicit in stating that it is for the sake of moral purity. Also, note that God states that the nations before them practiced these immoral customs and yet they had no problem with procreation and building nations.

Genesis 18 & 19 The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

God gives us the account of His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in these two chapters. In Chapter 18 He tells of the meeting of two angels with Abraham.

It is important to note that in Genesis 18 that the Lord appears to Abraham along with two angels. Following his meeting with Abraham it appears that the Lord leaves (18:33) and the two angles travel (19:1) themselves to Sodom and Gomorrah where they meet Lot at the gate of the city. I am not sure who was speaking in the film, but one person incorrectly stated that just angels met with Abraham. They also incorrectly stated that Abraham led the two angels directly to Lot’s house in Sodom. They seemed to imply that the reason for meeting with Abraham is so that he could take them to Sodom.

Following the announcement to Abraham of the birth of Isaac the three men rose and (18:16) and looked down toward Sodom. Abraham did walk with them a little way to see them off. However 18:33 reveals that Abraham returned to his tent before they arrived at the city. During this walk the Lord reveals to Abraham that He is about to destroy the city. This revelation prompts Abraham to intercede on behalf of the people of the city asking that if the Lord finds just 10 righteous people in that city that he spare the city. The Lord graciously accepts Abraham’s request.

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. (Genesis 19:1, NASB)

At this point only the two angels are present. Abraham has returned to his tent, the Lord has left the work to the two angels.

Note that Lot is already sitting at the gate. The mention of a gate indicates that this is a walled city. Obviously the city was concerned about defense, and it would be logical to state that they most likely had some form of civil protection; at least they would have posted guards at the gate. Also, one can logically state that if the city government was concerned about spies coming to prepare for invasion that they would not have allowed Lot to linger at the gates or to let him invite the angels into his home.

Later after the two angels have enjoyed a gracious meal provided by Lot and his family the men of the city come knocking.

Before they [the angels & lot’s family] lay down, the men of the city, the men of sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight; Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them. (Genesis 19:4-5, NASB).

The producers showed one artist representation of this scene with a single soldier and four or five men knocking at the door. This is in contrast to the scriptures where it states that “All the people from every quarter” came knocking. This was not a simple military check to prevent spies from preparing to start a battle, this is a mob pressing in such numbers that they surround the house. Later when Lot tries to persuade them not to act wickedly the people pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door (19:9). There are so many people present that they threaten to crush Lot against the door and break the door in. The implication is that if the angels had not intervened that they would have been successful.

Note also that Lot had no question as to what the men of the city intended to do with the ‘foreigners’ in his house. He knew that their intent was sexual in nature. This is evidenced by the fact that Lot offers the men two virgin daughters. Now, I strongly disagree with the offer Lot made; his offer is sinful and not honoring of his family. Yet his offer is evidence that he was trying to appease their sexual appetite. The argument that the men at the door just wanted to investigate to see if these foreigners were spies does not coincide with God’s report of the scene.

The second argument that the men of the city were just there to humiliate their enemy does not reflect the teaching of scripture or the context of the verses here. While their claim may be true of military excursions throughout human history, this event is not a military action. Every man was present; the scriptures state that young and old were there. A military action would not have required the entire city to be present. Nor would the military have included the very old.

Another theological teacher, and I forget his name, in the movie makes a point that the word “relations” as translated in the New American Standard Bible is also translated “know” in other translations. He then extrapolated that the men of the city were simply there to get ‘acquainted’ with the foreigners. The scripture is very clear here based on Lot’s response, based on the immediate context of the scriptures, that this is no social visit. They are there to have their way with the foreigners. The passage emphasizes the depth of their moral debauchery and the extent to which even Lot and his family was affected by their debauchery. It also gives clear reason why God was going to destroy this city.

As I type this response, I am struck by a thought; how many righteous people did the two angels deliver from Sodom & Gomorrah? One might be tempted to say that the angels delivered Lot and his immediate family because they were righteous. However, Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters to the men of the city indicates that Lot was far from righteous. The actions of his daughter recorded in the next chapter indicate they are far from righteous. No, they were not delivered because of any righteousness on their part, but because of the grace and mercy of God. The angels did not find one righteous person in the city.

The other thought is that none of us are righteous. The scripture is clear that none are righteous, no not one. The mother Teresa’s, the apostle Paul’s the most endearing person we can think of is not righteous. Oh, some may behave better than others on the outside, but we are all guilty of violating the law of God. None of us deserve to be saved from destruction, but the mercy of God is expressed when he pulls us from the pit of destruction. Why does he pull us from that pit? Just as Lot is saved due to his relationship to Abraham and God graciously honoring that relationship; we too are saved not because of our behavior, but because of our relationship with Christ. This is true of anyone.

He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:12-13 NKJV)

Christ came to die and to give his life a ransom for many because God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance. This includes the most winsome person we can imagine, it also includes the most abhorrent person we can imagine. It includes the sexually pure as well as the sexually impure. It includes the heterosexual as well as the homosexual. It includes you. It includes me.

A final quick thought concerning Sodom and Gomorrah is that it is interesting that the announcement of the birth of Isaac is tied to the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah. For in the birth of Isaac comes the promise of a savior, Christ, who delivers us from the coming judgment. The name of Isaac means “laughter” and when the angels heralded the birth of Christ they announced it with great joy.

Is “Biblical Literalism” a 20^th century invention?

I have never heard of the term ‘Biblical Literalism’ prior to this movie, but I think the term does accurately state my position. But before I go into this too deeply let me define what I mean by ‘Literalism’.

I believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally in the tense in which it was written. What this means is that poetical expressions in the Bible are interpreted in light of the rules of poetry. Historical passages are interpreted differently than poetical passages, and poetical passages are interpreted differently from prophetic passages. So my understanding of the term ‘Biblical Literalism’ may be different from the concept presented in the movie, thus my response is based on my understanding of the term.

“Biblical Literalism” has been around since before sin entered the world. What did Satan ask Eve in the Garden of Eden?

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1, NKJV)

Satan’s first attack in human history is to question the literal meaning of God’s law. Satan’s tactics have not changed after all these centuries; even today he still asks “Has God indeed said …” I cringed when I heard time after time the same words falling from the lips of several theologians who outright stated that “What the Bible reads is not what it says.” While I would agree that the application of scripture is fluid and changes with customs and cultures, Biblical interpretation is not fluid. There is only one interpretation of scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and when God communicated his message He had one singular interpretation of the scripture.

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21, NKJV)

The idea of a hidden message in scripture is nothing new. This concept was argued against in the first century and is a false teaching known as Gnosticism. One of the tenets of Gnosticism is that there is a higher level of knowledge to be discovered in God and in the Bible. Paul was absolutely against this and wrote several times against it. The book of Colossians is a classic example where he constantly emphasizes that the believer can and should be filled with the knowledge of God.

Christ practiced ‘Biblical Literalism’ when tempted by Satan, when confronted by the misuse of the temple as a marketplace of profits, and when answering the religious leaders’ questions.

When tempted by Satan Christ used ‘Biblical Literalism’.

³And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.”

⁴But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’” [ref. Deuteronomy 8:3]

⁵Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. ⁶And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. ⁷Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”

⁸And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” [Ref. Deuteronomy 3:16]

⁹Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. ¹⁰For it is written:

‘He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you,’

¹¹and,
‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’” [Ref. Psalm 91:11, 12]

¹²And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” [Ref. Deuteronomy 6:16]

¹³Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.
(Luke 4:3-13, NKJV)

Notice that it was Satan who did not practice ‘Biblical Literalism’, but Christ’s response was always in the literal sense of the scriptures.

Christ also said ‘it is written that my house shall be a house of prayer’ when He overthrew the tables and merchants seeking to make a profit in the temple courtyard.

¹²And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. ¹³And He said* to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; [Ref. Isaiah 56:7] but you are making it a robbers’ den.” (Matthew 21:12, 13; GW)

I could go on to show how Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, etc all used Biblical Literalism. The Bible itself proves that Biblical Literalism is not a 20^th century invention but is a practice as long as human history.

Scientific research proves that homosexuality is genetic

I am not going to say much here because I am not a geneticist, nor do I have extensive knowledge into this arena. However, I will make a couple of observations.

1. The film did not give any references for the claim that 70% of families with at least one twin who is a homosexual that the other twin is also homosexual. I could not find any verification of this statistic online using a Google search.

2. No context was given for this study. They never mentioned how many families were screened, how the families were selected, what methods of measurement were employed, and if family context was ever evaluated as part of the study. Was there something in their family environment that could be considered a constant other than being twins.

3. Let’s say for the sake of argument that homosexuality is genetic. I am not saying I agree with this; but if I did, then I would also argue that just because I am genetically predisposed to something that God calls a sin, does not give me permission to participate in the sin. For instance God forbids adultery. Now I could argue that I am genetically attracted to other women and that it is perfectly ‘natural’ and therefore I must act on what I am genetically hard wired to do. However, to do so would be a violation of God’s law.

4. A cursory internet search of “homosexual genetic research” revealed many links. As one doctor stated:

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.
NARTH, N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D.

5. Some sites to consider:
   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309724/
   http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
   http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm (a pro-genetic influence link)
   http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/thegaygene.htm
   http://www.dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm
   http://www.ccv.org/is_homosexuality_genetic.aspx

Homosexuality in Roman’s 1:26

The central argument proposed for this verse is that Paul here is not addressing sexuality directly, but is addressing behavior known to lead to pagan worship of Roman deities. I must admit, I can see how some would argue this based on the fact that the passage talks about how man has “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds and four footed animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:23, NASB) However, Paul’s central idea in this passage is not pagan idolatry. The central idea is God’s righteousness compared to man’s unrighteousness.

¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. ¹⁷For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” ¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (Romans 1:16-18, NKJV – emphasis mine)

The verses that follow give an example of the depravity of man’s heart. Yes, this list includes examples of men worshiping the creation rather than the Creator, and how that man likes to remake God into his own image. God goes on to explain that man basically does whatever feels good at the moment without regard to consequences. Some of the examples he gives of this depravity also include sexual immorality, wickedness, maliciousness; etc. Also included in this list are the following verses:

²⁶For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26-27, NKJV)

If you argue that God includes these verses because it is behavior associated with pagan worship, then you also have to argue the same for the verses that follow.

²⁸And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; ²⁹being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, ³⁰backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, ³¹undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; ³²who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:28-32)

Again we can see that if we apply the same logic of application to the entire context that the argument of pagan worship falls apart. For no one would argue that covetousness, maliciousness, parental disobedience, etc. are practices associated with pagan worship. However, we would all agree that it is a practice that describes the central idea – the unrighteousness of man.

Paul clearly includes homosexuality as one example of many describing the unrighteousness of man.

Dr James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and the gay community

A good portion of the film, perhaps 10 minutes, was devoted specifically toward speaking out against Dr James Dobson and focus on the family. While I can understand their penchant for anger toward someone who has such a broad forum, I must say that I disagree that he is the focal point responsible for rallying the conservative Christians. My faith and the faith of those around me is not built on Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family broadcasts. To say that his program is what is driving the church to continue to stand against accepting homosexuality would be the same as saying that Al Franken is the cause of the liberal left and must be silenced. Is Dr. Dobson a voice speaking out against gay activism? Yes, he is; but so are many others in our country. Many pastors teach the principles I have outlined above and from other passages of scripture.

Can a person be ‘cured’ from homosexuality?

One of the points presented in the film was that there are several programs designed to "cure" the homosexuality from their 'disease'. The producers here did not interview people directly but instead used an animated scene of an assembly line where homosexuals are put through this large 'heterosexual' machine with the intent of transforming the homosexual to heterosexual. After one of the animated girls goes through the machine she turns and wispers to the audience 'pssst ... don't tell anyone that we are still homosexual'. Most of the 250+ people viewing the film laughed at this scene.

So the premise presented in the film is that homosexuality cannot be cured. And I would agree with this premise in the sense of their definition of 'cured'.

Homosexuality is a sin. I struggle with sin, everyone I know struggles with sin. The homosexual will struggle with sin; and the evil one, Satan, will always hit at our weak spots. While I believe that a person can develop skills to deal with sin, I know that the temptation to sin will remain with us until we are transformed by the power of God. So if the term 'cure' means to have all temptation for homosexual relations removed .. the answer is no, the temptation may remain with the person for the rest of their life. Even very godly believers struggle with sexual sins. Some are tempted by the titilating images of pornography, some by lustful desires, some by homosexual desires. These temptations are by no means a license to indulge in the desire, to feed the desire. The temptation in itself is not a sin, but the action upon the temptation is a sin.

Now don’t misunderstand what I am about to say. My next statement is not an attempt to say that homosexuality is an addiction; it is only to serve as an illustration. However, I know that having to deal with sexual temptation is a lifelong process and like treatment for drugs and alcohol, the process will not be without effort.

Did Jesus accept everyone?

The concept of God universally accepting everyone was emphasized a few times, although not always in those same words. In one instance it was stated ‘God’s world is always inclusive’. Another time Archbishop Desmond Tutu made the claim ‘All loving relationships are honored by God’. The concept here was that if two people genuinely love each other then God accepts that love unconditionally.

I must agree that Christ was accepting of the sinner in the New Testament, and He demonstrated what it means to genuinely love and accept others. Below is the classic case of acceptance.

⁷So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” (John 8:1-11, NKJV)

Christ forgives the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Note the following observations:

1. Christ asked the one without sin to cast the first stone.

2. After a few minutes only Christ and the woman remain.

3. Christ asks where the accusers are, ‘has no one condemned you?’

4. The woman responds, ‘No one Lord’.

5. Christ answers ‘Neither do I’ a clear indication that he had the right to condemn her.

6. Christ while he forgives her sin clearly tells her to go and sin no more, indicating that she should not continue in the sin of adultery.
   
   SUMMARY: While Christ did accept this woman caught in adultery, He did not accept her sin. He recognized sin for what it is - sin. This passage is one of the passages I would use to illustrate how Christ loved the sinner but did not love the sin.

There are other examples of Christ accepting others. I think of Zacchaeus who was a tax collector, Matthew who also was a tax collector, the Roman Centurion who asked Christ to heal his daughter, the thief on the cross who asked to be remembered when Christ comes into His kingdom. I could go on and on with examples. It is true that Christ was accepting of others, but at no point was he ever accepting of their sin. Not one account in the Bible can be shown where Christ accepted sin.

Rather, Christ came down hard on sin. He was blunt with the religious leaders and called them a brood of vipers, white-washed graves. He spoke about the Pharisee who looked down on the man beating his breast and with great pride said, I am glad I am not like this sinner over there. He even called Peter to task when he resisted him and said ‘get thee behind me Satan’.

What about the idea that God accepts all loving relationships? Well in that case Ezra the priest got it wrong in the Old Testament. Ezra 9 and 10 gives the account where Ezra is made aware that many have intermarried with foreigners. What is Ezra’s reaction? Is it to say, oh, that is ok as long as they are in a loving relationship! Does he excuse their behavior because of their love for each other? No, instead he weeps before God. After much prayer and fasting a solution was proposed. The solution was that the Israelites would get rid of the foreign wives and the children they had by them. It was a solution that was to lead to purity. Now was this an easy decision for those that had to give up their wives and children? I would think not, it was not natural for them to do so. One could argue that these families all loved each other deeply and therefore God would accept them!

The teaching that God accepts all loving relationships is also countered in the New Testament when Paul tells the church at Corinth that they need to exercise church discipline because a man had married his father’s wife. Paul called it sin, sexual immorality. At no time did he say this is ok if they love each other. No, it was something that needed to be dealt with immediately. They needed to take decisive action.

¹It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! ²And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. ³For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed.

The believers in Corinth were proud of how ‘loving’ a congregation they had become. They were puffed up Paul says. Later he tells them not to glory in their ‘acceptance’. Rather he tells them they should mourn.

I now speak sarcastically. “Boy where does Paul get off butting in on what is going on between two consenting adults! What goes on in the bedroom is their business. Doesn’t Paul know that all loving relationships are honored by God and that God’s world is always inclusive?”

Seriously, notice that Paul is not even a member of the Corinthian church. He is just an outside spectator. Yet Paul comes in and says, this sexual immorality is wrong, cease and desist … NOW!

Now, please note that Paul’s harshness does not mean he hates the people involved. Instead his actions are loving. For in discipline is love demonstrated. Later in 2 Corinthians Paul encourages the believers to restore the repentant believer to fellowship.

While it might sound good to say that God accepts all loving relationships, the fact of the matter is that the Bible clearly shows that he does not. This is evidenced in both the Old Testament, in the New Testament and in how Jesus dealt with people of his day.

A final thought

I realize this is a long document, but it is long of necessity to provide an answer for the many topics raised during this movie.

I do not hate the gay or lesbian person. If anything there is a passion for you, an ache to provide a soothing balm for your lives. There is a passion that you could experience the power of Christ in your life and realize that it is possible to deal with sin through that power. Your struggle with sin and my struggle with sin are the same. So we must stand together in dealing with sin and encourage each other to overcome sin.

In this response I have sought to be fair and to avoid caustic type of rhetoric. The reason for this is that I think that sometimes well meaning Christians do get caught up in the passion of ‘defending the faith’ that they lose sight of what is important. I don’t want my passions to become a distraction from the true message of God’s word.

Finally, Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so … This familiar line has echoed the love of Christ for a few generations now. Yet the singular line here does not tell all about the love of Christ. Christ’s loved us in that he gave himself willingly as a sacrifice for many, that as many as receive him to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on His name.

Hello World

Every computer science class begins with the creation of a simple program called 'Hello World'. It is a basic construct that allows the user to see how basic input and output operates within the syntax of the given computer language.

Since this is my first blog post, and I am just testing the waters for now, I figure I would start with the same premise - Hello World!

So there will be much more to come and I will be filling in details later such as who am I, why am I creating a "Spiritual Reflections" site and much more.