That there is a special class of human being known as "homosexual." Through all history, it seems, there have been people who, at one time or another, chose to relieve their sexual"tensions" on the bodies of others of their own sex (how we abuse that word!). For the ancient Greeks such behaviour was customary, even for a teacher to so abuse his student as part of the orientation program. Does this mean that all the Greeks were "gay" in the modern sense? If there really is a "gay gene" that makes people "that way," some pretend, then wouldn't this mean that all people of Greek descent are particularly predisposed to homosexuality? More practically, with the current conditions in the jails and prisons, do we see the paroles and releases from those overcrowded facilities packing the "gay" clubs and districts? (In prison parlance, the "soft" ones who stroll the cell blocks in makeshift lingerie are the ones known as "homosexual.") Obviously not, because the convicts did what they felt they needed to do at the time, and then left it behind once there were women in the "equation!" Modern Freudian thought, with its obsession with sex as the key to all behaviour, seems to have begun this current labelling in the 20th century by classifying "homosexuality" as a clinical disorder, and so created a special category for persons so "afflicted." As this was accepted into Western society, then those who thought to indulge themselves such a way were labeled, labeled themselves, as being aberrant in such a way. Until that time, it was recognised as a matter of choice. A person who does this or that is known as one who does- whether the deed is theft or heroism. Old Solomon is quoted to say that even a child is known by his doings, whether they be right, and until the 20th century "homosexuality" was seen as a deed- not a "condition," or a "lifestyle," and surely not a "class."
Is this just a matter of definitions for a biology or sociology class? Hardly! That homosexuality is a chosen behaviour de-demonises those who are or have been involved in it. They are not "weird," "flawed," or "perverted" any more than others who might indulge in, say, drunkenness, gluttony, or shady politics (and how much isn't?). People are people, and the same Gospel is for all people. The kingdom of God is, indeed, closed to "buggars and buggarees [I Corin. 6:9]" in just the same way as it is closed to drunks, adulterers, and murderers, but no informed Christian is going to demand that (merely) leaving a "lifestyle" of any sin is sufficient for anything or, for that matter, even, in itself, an option. The Church is not about demanding morality, but proclaiming holiness. Human beings can produce only a flawed and hypocritical type of morality, but Christ, according to His Gospel, can give us a holiness far above any mundane temptations which shows itself in a love and a joy that surpasses the imagination and, consequently, eternal life.
Human beings can produce only a flawed and hypocritical type of morality, but Christ, according to His Gospel, can give us a holiness far above any mundane temptations which shows
ReplyDeleteYes, and homosexuality is but one way that human corruption manifests itself.
Christ is the answer for all types of human sin.
Now here's the sticking spot: Do we believe that Christ died for our sins, or just for our forgiveness? To put it another way for the next person passing through, is God "enough" to make me a new creature, free from the sins of the old, or do I keep struggling and failing until He "puts me out of my misery" at death? If we can expect, from our own, Spirit-led, reading of the Bible, of the testimony of those who have gone before us in the Faith, and from our own experience of applying the promises of God to our own lives, that God's promises to deliver us from sin are valid, then we can expect people to leave that "lifestyle" by the grace of God. Otherwise, we might as well get used to accepting all kinds of blatant sinners into all aspects of Church life. My money's on Jesus.
ReplyDeleteHey pal,
ReplyDeleteWe have been over the issue of sanctification before more than once. You are coming from a Wesleyan view, and I am coming from a Reformed view. I do not wish to go in circles on your blog, and I know you keep coming back to the topic as a focus of the blog. My former pastor had our church associated with a Nazarene church and he stated the debate becomes a waste of time after there is no more movement, and I agree. The same can be said for my free will and determinism topic! I told Jim (Arminian) we were going in circles. Once I think I have stated a better case and the other person thinks they have done the same, and there is no movement, discussion largely becomes pointless.
For this post: I reason in Christ we are justified legally and sanctified, and sanctification is a process (verses can be found in your archives, Romans 7, 1 John and others...lol).
Also:
Without significant prayer, study, and Christian fellowship the Christian is basically depending on the miraculous for spiritual growth.
I reason many Christians are living the Christian life without these things significantly and God is willingly allowing it for whatever purposes.
Good blog, Robert.:)
Russ
Funny photo again!
ReplyDeleteSo, just for a more open-ended head scratcher, we would say that these folks are living by grace but not taking hold of any means of grace.
ReplyDeletePhil Keaggy did a great song, "Sunday School."
Look on the sidebar for the player!
I wrote this as a comment in Ruth Gledhill's blog:
ReplyDeleteFrancis Collins, the famous genetic scientist puts the percentage of innate nature of homosexuality of around 20% or less. The inheritability of alcoholism is probably much higher.
The following quote from Scientific American about alcoholism would be extremely politically incorrect if said about homosexuality:
---
"Genetics is never destiny, however. Genes may interact with specific toxic environments, such as abuse or neglect, to result in problems for some gene carriers but not for others. And if half of alcoholism risk is heritable, the other half must derive from other sources. NOBODY GETS TO BE ALCOHOL-DEPEDENT WITHOUT MAKING SOME POOR CHOICES, but clearly some people are more sensitive to alcohol than others in the same set of circumstances, and scientists are working to identify the sources of that vulnerability."
---
The inclusionists are shown to be hypocritical until they start a letter writing campaign against Scientific American, labeling the author of the article as "dipso-phobe." (I find the term dipso-phobe very droll, if I do say so myself.) God doesn't make mistakes! Full inclusion! What's next? Homosexual alcoholic bishops? (Don't answer that.)
There was a statistic that 70% of women who, in their late teens/early twenties, identified themselves as lesbian, when hit their thirties, then identified themselves as heterosexual.
Oh, I like this article! Excellent points!
ReplyDeleteYou did lose me with the "buggars and buggarees," however.
Good point when you said, "...no informed Christian is going to demand that (merely) leaving a "lifestyle" of any sin is sufficient for anything..."
I'm going to email the link to your article to everyone on my email list. People need to learn that homosexuality is not 'the way you're born.' If it were, then why are there ex-homosexuals? And how, then, could there be bi-sexuals? Also, if some are born as homosexuals, are also some born as (uggh...) 'beastialians' or pedophiles? Our society generally accepts homosexuality, yet is repulsed by pedophilia. However, I've read that most pedophiles, statistically, are homosexuals. Basically, its like drugs: when one thing gets tiring, you move on to something 'stronger' (or, in the case of sex, more perverted). Of course, that doesn't explain all homosexuals. Some, I think, were told by our society that they act like the opposite sex, so, because of the idea of some being born that way being taught in schools, they come to believe that maybe they are that way. The other week, I saw where a little child had a sex change! Unbelievable. It seems that perversion knows no limits.
Every Christian that I have ever heard of that got saved after they had been in any extreme sin (homosexuality, heroin addiction, murder, etc.), were completely and totally delivered from those sins when they got saved, and all desire for those sins left them. There may have been one or two cases where they tried to go back right after they got saved, but they found they had no more desire for those things. Now, other sins, such as pride, lust, greed, etc., we will likely struggle with for the rest of our earthly lives. Once we leave this corrupted flesh, however, those who are saved will be transformed. We have been sanctified legally through Christ's paying for our sins and His attributing His holy nature to us, legally. God sees us as holy and perfect through the blood of Christ. The indwelling Holy Spirit is working on us, and making us more Christ-like. It's a partnership, however, and we must do our part to spend time in His Word and in prayer, in order to be strengthened to be able to obey Him. Finally, when we go to Heaven as believers, we will be perfected, and God will finish the process, since we have to be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND FLAWLESS when we get to Heaven. We can never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be morally perfect and flawless in our thoughts, words and actions, here on this earth.
ReplyDeleteRobroy! Good to hear from ya! Great info/insight from SA- pretty far out stuff, Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff, I actually did struggle with that terminology, but just could not find another way of putting it that, if anything, was even more distasteful.
As for moral perfection, as you put it, on the one hand I would never say that anyone reaches a point where they stop growing in grace, but passages like the "be ye also perfect" commands and Hebrews' warning that without holiness no-one shall see the Lord don't leave a lot of room for the current idea that we're all slaves to sin until the Last Enemy redeems us. A very messy proposition to really take hold of, but one we all need to get ahold of- a lot, in that way, like the Incarnation?
You did lose me with the "buggars and buggarees," however.
ReplyDeleteJeff you always did have an affinity for those words but I regress. We are all sinners before the Lord we are all guilty of death, the wages of sin is death.
We run around searching for ways to escape the coming judgment "how will you escape you are blind" Would a loving God leave us in the dark, I think not, knowing our condition irreversable he sent his Son to pay those wages for us. Or like most of the stubborn people I know they would rather take care of business their way, the choice is ours.
"Would a loving God leave us in the dark?" Great question, that! So "our condition" is not irreversible or else we've got something too hard for God, haven't we? Or, another view, was God speaking only about groceries when He told Peter, "What God has cleansed, call thou not unclean?"
ReplyDeleteStyles do change, though the confusion stays the same: Three hundred years ago it was commonly thought the height of arrogance for someone to say they were sure of their salvation. Now everyone is cocksure of their salvation, but then boasts, it seems, not of Christ's saving power but of their own "incurable" wretchedness! Can we be saved from sin without being saved from sin?