GAY TRUTH

Russell Moore 's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has posted a flawed "Evangelical Declaration on Marriage" entitled " Here We Stand ." While I appreciate the effort at getting evangelical leaders to declare affirmation of a male-female requirement for marriage, I think that every evangelical leader who signed this (and there are already quite a few) signed a statement that errs at some points and gives the wrong advice at others. This is not an attack on those who have already signed the document. Doubtless, many signed simply because it does contain a number of good statements. For example, the first paragraph states, "We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot"; and the second paragraph affirms strongly Jesus' own affirmation of marriage as a male-female union. Nor should my comments be construed as a personal attack on any formulators of the statement or an accusation of doctrinal heresy. Ho

Homosexuality as “Against Nature” in Romans 1 Is Paul making a blanket pronouncement that homosexuality is sin against God in Romans 1:26–27 when he speaks of a behavior (“men with men” and “women with women”) that is “against nature”? The Revisionist Answer It is not possible to read here a reference to a crime against nature or a so-called “natural law” because such a concept is Greek and was unknown to Paul. The Biblical Answe r Natural law was known to Philo and Josephus, contemporaries with the apostle Paul , and it is reflected in literature contemporary with, or antecedent to, Paul. For Jews , it represented creation and God’s law brought into harmony The Revisionist Claim In Romans 1, Paul condemns men and women who leave their natural state. He does not condemn those who are born homosexual, who have the homosexual condition, for that is their natural state. Ancient peoples did not know of the modern ideas of a mutual, permanent homosexual union and homosex

Our culture bombards us with sexualized images — Facebook ads, magazines, YouTube clips, television, catalogues, Netflix , and just about every other possible medium. That’s a truth so obvious you can’t miss it. But here’s a not-so-obvious truth: not only does our culture  show  us sex; it also  speaks  to us about sex. Right or wrong, our culture teaches us about sex. The media conducts sex education all the time. Two thousand years ago, the apostle Paul warned, “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [for example, sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” ( Ephesians 5:6). Apparently, the culture of Paul’s day was speaking deceitful words concerning sexual immorality, tantalizing and seductive words empty of truth, wisdom, and godliness. What Does the Box Say? What lies does our culture tell us about sex? I once conducted an informal experiment, watching ten random minutes of a

Adam and Eve (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Someone accused me on Facebook recently of "being quiet" on the issue of same-sex marriage. While that's not been the case, I have chosen not to engage in the vitriolic rants and raves between Christians and LGBTI people. It appears to me that some Christians are dug down in one trench and some LGBTI people in an opposite trench and they're just shooting at one another. I'd like to declare a ceasefire – shooting at each other is achieving nothing other than causing hatred and anger to be stirred up – and the Christians should stop firing first! I can't see anywhere in the Bible that teaches God sent His Son into the world to raise up a people to be the world's moral police. In fact, He sent His Son for just the opposite of that – to bring peace, forgiveness, salvation, redemption, grace and new beginnings. Firstly, let me clearly state my views on Biblical/Christian marriage. In Matthew 19 some religious lead

Portal of the Church of Pilgrims, in Washington, DC, with a LGBT banner. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It is the sin for which Sodom gains its reputation as ungodly, wicked, and deserving of divine judgment ( Genesis 18–19). Terms used in the Hebrew (yādaʿ) and the Greek (synginomai) meaning “to know” (Genesis 19:5) must have a sexual connotation and are among several euphemisms for sexual intercourse used in the Old Testament . Homosexuality is the sin or crime that the Benjaminites committed at Gibeah (Judges 19–20), which so enraged the rest of Israel that they almost eradicated the Benjaminites. None of the passages will sustain the view that the sin involved at Sodom or Gibeah was merely inhospitality or violence; none of the texts cites inhospitality. Revisionist attempts to use patristic interpretations fail. The church fathers simply do not support these arguments. The references in Deuteronomy and Kings refer mainly to male prostitutes used in religious settings. This mu

Sodom and Gomorrha, Alte Pinakothek, Room 23 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) To understand how the destruction of Sodom was interpreted later, we must turn to Ezekiel ’s reference. According to the revisionist view, Ezekiel 16 lists the sins of Sodom categorically and finds them less serious than the sexual sins of Jerusalem . Revisionists point to verses 48–49. There, they say, we find that Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, idleness, and neglect (or, according to Edwards, oppression) of the poor and needy.68 The passage does not mention homosexuality. However, Boswell and Bailey and others interpret these two verses incorrectly because they fail to consider their context, especially verse 50.69 In the passage, Ezekiel compares Jerusalem with her two sisters, the elder Samaria and the younger Sodom. He finds that Jerusalem, is worse than either of the others (note 16:47–52). Sodom obviously is a figurative term here, probably a reference to Judah as a whole.70 Ezekiel 16:2 sets forth

The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament . Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality. For example, Boswell ’s attitude appears in his statement, “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.”8 Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior . The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens , “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the beard.9  Thus, Boswe