GAY TRUTH

Last week Eugene Peterson , the author of “The Message” as well as several other pastoral books, said in an interview with Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service that he didn’t consider homosexuality wrong and would, if asked, officiate a same-sex “marriage.” “I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian,” Peterson said, “and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do.” The reaction was swift and immediate. After all, Peterson is no minor figure. His work has influenced the faith of millions, and predictably, liberal circles hailed him as the most prominent evangelical figure yet to “evolve” on same-sex relationships. But then on Thursday, Peterson released a statement retracting his earlier comments , saying, “To clarify, I affirm the biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.” I’m glad for this retraction, though his statements are still puzzling. Even more, they’re revealing First, they reveal the crisis of authority amo

In a recent article entitled, Eugene Peterson on Changing His Mind about Same-Sex Issues and Marriage , we see again how truth is crumbling under the sledge-hammer of political correctness. America cannot fall because she has already fallen. We are now picking up the pieces of a broken nation reflected in our laws, lives, families, and children. America's moral heartbeat has ceased because we cut off the source of life. We need resuscitation, renewal, and revival of the truth. The truth is often neglected, watered-down, or avoided altogether in the hope of not offending members and building a large audience. We want to build a church rather than break a heart; be politically correct rather than biblically correct; coddle and comfort rather than stir and convict. Pastors are to be pillars who support truth, not who oppose it. Truth is not "flexible" when it comes to absolutes—it’s solid and unyielding. I have nothing but compassion for those trapped in sexual sin. Thos

Authors Name Changed . Anytime I write about the ever-controversial topic of homosexuality, I anticipate and mentally prepare for some push back. Everybody seems to have a strong opinion on this issue, and many are not shy about expressing those opinions (as long as they can do so behind a computer screen). Most of the time, the arrows of criticism are launched from the bows of gay-affirming unbelievers or theologically liberal “ Christians ” who believe God blesses same-sex relationships. However, there are exceptions. Earlier this year, after one of my pieces was republished on the The Gospel Coalition’s website , most of the critical responses were composed by Bible -believing Christians who, like me, believe homosexual behavior is sinful. But, unlike me, they also believe merely experiencing same-sex attraction is a willful act of sin. A number of readers commended me for turning away from same-sex behaviors, but they also insisted that my ongoing struggle with same-sex attrac

What was Jesus ’ and the apostles’ attitude toward homosexuality? The Revisionist Answer Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we. The Biblical Answer Jesus did not mention the word homosexuality, but He referred to Sodom and its destruction more frequently than did anyone else ( Matt. 10:15; 11:23; Luke 17:26–37). In each context, Jesus assumes the divine judgment on Sodom, which He links to the Flood as an example of divine intervention. It becomes a portent of His own second coming. “Remember Lot’s wife,” he warns (Luke 17:32). He views the sin of Sodom as a serious matter. Jesus also upheld the monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage as a universal norm. He linked the outward deed to the inner thought or motive (for example, Matthew 5). He cited the heart, the inner being, as the origin of evil deeds (for example, Matthew 15). He warns against annulling even the least commandment, which He came to fulfill, not destroy.   Jesus perhaps hint

She smart, articulate, lovable but very wrong - even apostate. Jen Hatmaker uses a muddle of words below - but essentially without further clarification on point 3 - she appears to have moved from believing the Bible to liberation theology without even knowing it ....to promote homosexual sin as holy. Here is her wordy, flowery response. Hi, everyone. A couple of quick thoughts on all these tender things: 1. First, regardless of what you see from strangers on the internet, our real friends and ministry partners and colleagues and fellow pastors have been across the board, carte blanche, by the dozens and dozens and dozens...kind and good to Brandon and I this week. Every one of them. We can't even keep up with it. So know that regardless of headlines, we have very much experienced a faithful witness to Jesus through our friends in our real life this week. They give the church a beautiful name worthy of its source. 2. I'm not here to defend or explain right now

Christians who support same-sex marriage are not “abandoning the Bible ” the Archbishop of Wales has insisted, as he told leading Anglicans that sex in a committed gay or lesbian relationship is perfectly “proper”. Dr Barry Morgan used his final address to the governing body of the Church in Wales , ahead of his retirement, to urge members to rethink traditional beliefs about homosexual relationships as being sinful. Even Biblical texts often cited as condemning homosexuality, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, could be “interpreted in more than one way”, he said.  The 'hospitality argument' is a well known liberal failed tactic written by Bailey and used by the Metropolitan Gay Churches.  Morgan should not be seeking to confuse and divert people away from the correct teaching of scripture. Dr Morgan, a prominent liberal figure in the church, is stepping down in early 2017 after 14 years as Archbishop, the longest serving primate

I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” Most often I hear, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?” I don’t expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God ’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency. First, it’s not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matt

Painting by Rembrandt of Paul, one of the most notable of early Christian missionaries, who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, was very influential on the shift of Christianity to Gentile dominated movement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Romans 1:26–27. Perhaps no New Testament text has suffered more assaults than has Romans 1. Central to the revisionist approach to Romans 1 is the focus on new ways of understanding the meaning of nature (physis) in verses 26–27. The verses read (NIV), Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. The words for “natural relations” represent more literally “natural use” (physikēn chrēsin). Unnatural relations, the

Bible de Gutenberg Deuteronomy 6:16-7:16 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Prohomosexual interpreters take issue with other places where the translation “sodomy” has traditionally occurred. Boswell and others disapprove of the translation “sodomite” used twice in the KJV ( Deut. 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24). The Hebrew words refer to temple prostitutes in Deuteronomy, both female (qĕdēšāh) and male (qādēš).  Boswell argues that “sodomite” should not be the translation for the second term (qādēš) because there is “no reason to assume that such prostitutes serviced persons of their own sex,” whether based on the term itself or on history, where evidence is so little that inferences are “moot.”48 The passage of Deuteronomy 23:17–18 reads (NIV): (17) No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute . (18) You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute [Heb. lit.: “the hire of a female prostitute or the price of a dog”] into the house of the LORD