An Open Letter To A Fellow Brother In Christ

I tried to post this on Facebook as a response to a fellow brother in Christ in the Facebook forum: Den of Christian Apologists. However due to technical issues, I was unable to do it, so instead I'll respond as an open letter to my fellow brother in Christ. So to protect his identity I'll simply refer to him as: Fellow Brother. 

*** 

Hi Fellow Brother,  

You said: 

"Any argument that supports the ban on gay marriage from Christ's point of view is an argument from silence or "inference" which is the same exact thing. ... Inference is still an argument that has nothing concrete, otherwise it would be fact."

In my previous discussion with you Fellow Brother I showed you an example of an argument from silence. Jesus does *not* need to talk about homosexuality in order to have his views on it shown. Matthew 19, is *not* an argument from silence, nor is it an argument from inference. It is a conclusion from a proper exegesis of Scripture. At worst, arguing against homosexuality from Matthew 19, is an “inductive argument” that is “the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning). When we hold John 8:58 and 17:5, that is he is God and 2 Timothy 2:13b, that is God cannot deny himself, to be true then God’s original design for sexuality and marriage leaves zero wiggle room. God is God; any compromise on his standard will compromise that and that is simply impossible for God to do, that is God cannot compromise on his nature; in sum God cannot decide not to be God. Therefore taking this into account, Jesus’ non-support of homosexuality is *fact*. The assumed inductive argument is really a deductive argument. That is linking “...premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning)  

Premise #1: God cannot deny his nature and he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good, (cf. Genesis 1:31).  

Premise #2: Jesus is God (cf. John 1:1) 

Conclusion: Jesus cannot deny his nature and since he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good: (cf. Genesis 1:31); and therefore *any* alternative sexual orientation, including but not exclusive to, homosexuality, violates his nature, i.e. is a sin. 

In sum: Jesus is against homosexuality and thus any behaviors that spins from it may it be sexual or political (i.e. legal marriage) is a no-go; and we as followers of Christ should likewise represent that. Just as an ambassador of a country represents the policies and values held by their country, we are ambassadors for Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20) and therefore we represent the policies and values held by Christ. 

And then just as I posted Part 1 of my response, because Facebook didn’t allow me to post my entire message in one shot forcing me to partition my response you (without waiting for the rest) responded as follows:  

"Jesus never said gay marriage is wrong and yet you assert He did. There is no difference, only selective reasoning and at the least blind ignorance."

Translation: Did not!  

This, Fellow Brother is not a valid argument. And then you advised me to not read “...Wiki for the record, that's a bit elementary.” Let’s translate that: “I’m not going to see what your ‘elementary’ recourses state, I am going to attack the medium of the message and not look at what the message is.” Again not a very good apologetic tactic.

You then wrote a big paragraph where you added within:  

”...we'll pick the laws of Leviticus that suit our needs and toss out the rest."

Some of the Levitical laws were exclusively for the OT Jewish people, i.e. eating shrimp; others were universal to everyone Jew or Gentile, such as homosexual behaviour. There are two Hebrew words that are translated into ‘abomination”: Sheqets (Shelfish - Lev. 11:12) & Tow`ebah (Homosexuality - Lev. 18:22). I didn't do an exhaustive search into which verses are declared 'Sheqets' while other are 'Tow`ebah', but considering that in the main stream eating selfish is often brought up when arguing for homosexuality I'll use Lev. 11:12. 

"Sheqets' means: “detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8263&t=NASB). Tow`ebah means, a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in a ritual and or ethical sense. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8441&t=NASB) So homosexual behavior according to Old Testament Scripture is a disgusting, ethic; or a disgusting ritual, or both: a disgusting unethical ritual. And the wrongness of this disgusting unethical ritual is reestablished by Paul, in the new covenant, via Christ’s authority (cf. Acts 9:15-16, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11).  

So as I said in my previous post: “By proxy of the authority given to Paul by Christ to speak Scripture, homosexuality is explained to be a bi-product of a corrupted original design, (cf. Romans 1:26-27). Of which again isn’t a new decree but an old one carried over from Moses.” The same Moses who spoke Scripture by authority of God, who is Christ. Moreover, Paul also reestablished God's decree that the requirement to keep “The Law” such as those pertaining to dietary laws was completed in Christ, (cf. Matthew 5:17, Acts 10:9-16, Galatians 2:16). I am sure that you won’t disagree that Paul declared, or mimicked Christ’s declaration that “...man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” - Galatians 2:16. Why then do you fight against his words, via his authority given to him by God himself to speak Scripture regarding homosexuality?  

You said: 

"I have a Degree in Religion and Masters in Divinity and Counseling."

So what? 

You said: 

"What about slaves in your home? Paul seems to think women shouldn't lead and having slaves is just."

You are guilty of a “bait & switch”. We are talking about homosexuality and you, in a defense of your view on this subject redirect the conversation to other and irrelevant subjects, (that is subjects that are irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality). This is a common tactic by many (but not all I’m sure) pro-gay activists; and all who present these arguments are guilty of ‘bait & switch’. 

But since you brought it up I’ll address only one of your side-topics, slavery, as the “women in leadership” issue is too complicated to discuss as a tag-line on a discussion on homosexuality. You asserted that Paul “...saw slavery as just.” This is simply not true; but lets pretend that he was pro-slavery; it doesn’t negate the morality of homosexuality. Someone can be in support for something that is not good and be correct regarding the ungodliness of another view; but as I said this is just to illustrate the point, as Paul was not pro-slavery.  

Moreover, you rehashed your fallacious type of argument, namely that Paul was pro-slavery whereas if he wasn’t “...he would have spoken against it...”. Just as Jesus doesn’t need to say the words “I am against homosexuality” for us to know that he is against it, Paul doesn’t need to say “I am against slavery” for us to know that he is against slavery. Another brother in Christ informed you that slavery was an institution in the first century that simply couldn’t have been abolished overnight. Paul had one topic on his heart, salvation for the lost and Christ as LORD in the lives of everyone. Our fellow Christian brother who I alluded to above asked you for references for your view that Paul supported slavery and you provided him: Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18 and Philemon. 

Paul is Gospel focused; when he instructed Christians who were slaves to not disrupt the flow of society it wasn't because he was in support of it. He wanted his readers to put Christ ahead of the social institution. In sum serve with great passion (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22-23) their ‘earthly master’ so to show Christ and his love, (Ephesians 6:6, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18). In sum serve your earthly master as a means of serving Christ. Paul’s concentration is to redirect the persons’ attention from considering themselves as an slave to an earthly master to as a slave to Christ. (Colossians 3:24) Paul also reiterates that wrongs will be taken care of by God (Colossians 3:25). Given the surrounding context Paul is suggesting that slavery is wrong and it will be dealt with. 

And with Philemon Paul states “[for] perhaps he [Onesimus] was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” - Philemon 1:15-16. Paul is arguing that Philemon’s former slave, Onesimus ran away and God used that situation to bring him to faith in Christ through Paul. Paul then says to Philemon to take Onesimus back, but as a brother in Christ, not as a slave.   

Paul had to pick his battles and establishing ones eternal salvation and representing Christ in every situation was the most important battle for him to fight. But he did seem to way in on the subject in Col. 3:25. And then you implied that the church should be involved in current slavery abolishment. Many are: https://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=482 (FYI, read the first line on this webpage.) I believe this ministry is a Christian ministry but even if they are not a “Christian ministry” the point is moot because many members of the “the church” I am sure are involved either in this ministry or others like it and or other ministries, which deal with yet equally important issues. 

Moreover, you asked are not gay people “...marginalized, oppressed, and cast out? Does that not make them the "least of us?” Unfortunately gay people have been marginalized due to their sexual orientation. In the context of Matthew 25:31-46, persons who have been beaten down either metaphorically and or physically would fall into the category of “the least”. And to a degree vs. 45 would in my view apply to many homosexual people.  

However as I stated in a previous discussion, regarding marriage everyone was equal under heterosexual marriage. If a gay man wanted to marry, he was within his full rights to find a woman who would be willing to engage into marriage with him; and visa-versa for the gay woman. Instead however what the LGBT group wants is not equal rights for marriage, but rather marriage reformation. Read what Matthew Vines states on his Reformation Project website:  

“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.” (http://www.reformationproject.org/about)  

Homosexual Christians are abel to participate in church life. The only stipulation that any orthodox Christian church would expect from its leadership would be repentance of sin - something that is expected for everyone, irregardless of sexual orientation and nature of sin. So a church can have a homosexual pastor, a pastor who is an addict and so on, just as long as he is not a practicing homosexual, or an active addict or whatever. In sum just as long as they are living according to Scripture. A church can have people who are homosexual, or addicts teaching children’s church or singing in the choir, or sitting on the board of directors, etc., just as long as they are not a practicing homosexual, or drunks or druggies, etc. Again, just as long as they are living according to Scripture. What Vines and yourself are supporting is what Vines states in the first line of the aforementioned paragraph:  

“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.” 

An affirmation of homosexuality, not just the people who are homosexual. What you want is Biblical support to sin. Persons who are unrepentant of a sin (homosexuality, heterosexual sexual immoralities, drunkenness, etc.) should not be permitted to take up any leadership role in a church, may it be from pastoring a congregation or handing out bulletins to church members on a Sunday morning.   

In Christ,

Ian  

Christians Are Not At War With Gay People and Women

My body-my choice, stay out of my uterus, separation of church and state, bigot, closed-minded, intolerant and hater. Do these slogans sound familiar? If you've ever attended a publicized pro-life event or an event that questioned the morality of homosexual marriage and or behaviour, they should. Many of these types of events have three types of people in attendance:

1. The group who is putting on the event, e.g. a university pro-life campus group and fellow pro-life advocates. 
2. Those who are apposed to the view held by the organizers of the event e.g. the university pro-choice campus group and fellow advocates, but who want to open a dialogue.
3. Those who likewise do not support the views held by the organizers of the event, e.g. the pro-choice campus group and fellow advocates, but who want to shut down any discussion in a vain attempt to keep their views coming under scrutiny. 

I take issue only with those in the third camp. These people simply do not want to discusses the issues because they don't want to have the morality of their positions questioned; but they will with obliviousness wipe over your views with one or two superficial quotes or name-callings, and then plant their flag of perceived victory. These people come in three forms:

1. Sign-bobbing and slogan chanting protestors. 
2. People who pridefully make it clear that, you are the close-minded, unintelligent, (and assuringly) religious bigot; and you are the one who can't be reasoned with, and so they won't even begin to try. 
3. Those who simply do not think about their argument before putting it forward. You could say to these people, "Jesus is against homosexuality" and they'll accuse you of three things: A) making an argument from silence. B) Unjustly declaring the falsity of every religious system until you have studied every one of them; and C) arguing that a person who has not experienced an unwanted pregnancy, or has not experienced same-sex attraction cannot speak on the morality of such issues.

However, despite the differences between these three camps, they all share a common denominator. All three camps believe to varying degrees that they are being victimized. In The Independent an Oxford student proudly advertises that she "...helped shut down an abortion debate between two men...".[i] Why? Because her "...uterus isn't up for their [discussion.]"[ii] Let me translate this or you: 'I helped shut down an attack on me.' Of course she wasn't implying that she felt physically threatened by a discussion on abortion, but rather a perceived threat of another human being taking control of her body. Consider what she says:

Access to abortion impacts the lives of women, trans and non-binary people every day, and the threat pro-life groups pose to our bodily autonomy is real, not rhetorical.[iii]

This again is merely her perception as it simply is not true. The pro-life advocate is not seeking to usurp control over anyone's body. Moreover in Bloomington, Indiana, Christian Pastor and Apologist, Douglas Wilson gave nearly a three hour lecture on homosexuality from the Biblical perspective. He was repeatedly interrupted with shouts, jeers, ad-homonym attacks and chants. At one point in the first section of his lecture entitled Creation Sexuality, some members of the audience stood up and loudly accused him of supporting slavery. They paralleled his non-support of homosexual marriage to marginalizing African people.[iv] Are pro-life and pro-natural marriage proponents attacking women and gay people with their relative messages? No. In the Christian Scriptures the Apostle Paul explains what the battle is truly over:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)

The pro-life and pro-natural-marriage proponents wrestle not against human beings but against leaders (principalities [GK. ἀρχή])[v] with an agenda, and its the agenda that we are fighting. We are battling against human choice (powers [GK. ἐξουσία])[vi], but a choice that is in the direction of unGodliness (wickedness [GK. πονηρία])[vii]; and it is the unGodliness that we are fighting. In sum we are fighting against the morals of the supreme unGodly ruler (rulers [GK. κοσμοκράτωρ])[viii]. The pro-life and pro-natural-marriage proponent is attacking the morality of the practices of homosexual behaviour, gay-marriages and abortion.

The ungodliness of abortion by demand, is the perceived right of divine authority that a women has over another human being.[*] This is the view that the pro-life advocate is fighting against. Even many of the chants that pro-choice advocates recite state this fact. Take for example, the slogan: My Body, My Choice. Every pro-life advocate should be 100% in agreement because this is the very message that the pro-life advocate supports. That is it is my body and therefore it is *not your* choice. The woman nor a man or a child has the moral right to take the life of another human being. Nobody, but God is God, and as such has the right to act as if they are.

People have the right to make choices for their own lives. If people want to be reckless and participate in dangerous sexual behaviour then they should feel free to go a head and do it; but it doesn't mean that their choice is wise and that others should support their choice. Of course nobody - gay or straight - are immune from STIs (sexually transmitted infections) like HIV, hepatitis or chlamydia; and there are many heterosexuals who have been stricken with these diseases for a variety of reasons of which sexual misbehaviour is just one. However take note of what the Canadian Aids Society reports regarding HIV among gay men:

Since the early 1980s, AIDS has had a direct impact on gay men. Men who have sex with men account for nearly 80% of all AIDS cases reported in Canada and 46.4% of the cases reported in 2001 affected that same population.[xi] 

In 2010 Health Canada wrote: 

Starting in 1979 and up to December 31, 2008, there had been 21,300 AIDS cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Since reporting began, the MSM [men who have sex with men] exposure category has accounted for the largest proportion of total AIDS cases among adults...[x] 

This is just one piece of the evidence that shows how, among many other acts (e.g. drunkenness and drug abuse) homosexual sex is dangerous. Regarding same-sex marriages, marriage is the connection of two things that go together, by not just choice but also by nature. The homosexual person will argue that a same-sex partner is by nature their natural partner. Men and women fit not just physically but metaphysically. Men and women are different but our differences is what makes us compatible. In sum two rights do not make a circle and neither does two lefts; you need one left and one right to make a complete circle. It is the morality of the legal recognition of homosexual unions that is being discussed.

A word to the pro-choice and the pro-gay advocate

The next time you are confronted with a pro-life advocate or a natural marriage-proponent don't take an offence to their message; they are merely addressing your claims. Try opening a dialogue and with pleasantness and maturity address their claims in return.

______________

[*] - This of course does not negate the fact that for a lot of women, the choice of abortion is spun from despair and fear. Many women will have, very understandable reasons for desiring to have an abortion, but that does not mean that their reasons justify killing someone. Irregardless the belief of a right to kill someone, may it be at the pre-born or post-born stage is a belief that they have that right; and nobody has that right but God. 

***

[i] - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[ii] - Ibid., - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[iii] -Ibid., - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[iv] - http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/ - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[v] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G746&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[vi] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[vii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4655&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014.
[viii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2888&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 

[ix] - http://www.cdnaids.ca/hivaidsandgaymen - accessed November 20, 2014

[x] - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/9-eng.php - accessed November 20, 2014

The Gay Christian Movement Is Putting Pleasure Before God

 

Today's culture can ... be characterized by Paul's words. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, Paul states that there "...will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." - 2 Timothy 3:1, 4. Of course both secular and religious systems that value pleasure before God have always existed since sin came on the scene, and they still exist today. However today there is an ideology running rampant within the walls of the Christian church that suggests that what God pronounces as sinful is good if the sin is something innate.[i]

The above quote is from an article I recently wrote that is entitled The Gay-Christian Movement Is Mixing God's Goodness With Evil. The 'evil' that the article discussed was the amalgamation of the sin of active homosexuality with one's identity as a Christian. Members of the Gay Christian Movement preach that someone can be both a practicing homosexual and a practicing Christian. I do not go into why that simply is impossible, but instead I went into why one should not tie their sin (e.g. homosexuality) with their Christian identity. However there is some ambiguity in the above citation. It begins to concentrate on: ones focus on their pleasure rather than on God; and then its focus changes to: homosexuality as something innate. In the aforementioned article I argued why the alleged innateness of homosexuality does not determine homosexuality being good but I didn't highlight how Paul's words in 2 Timothy 2:1 & 4 also apply to homosexuality. I am going to do that here. 

The relationship between homosexuality and Paul's words to Timothy is not homosexuality itself but rather the person, but not as a homosexual but as a sinful human being. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is something that is condemned as sinful. In Moses' time the homosexual act was declared evil (cf. Genesis 19) and declared a capitol crime (cf. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Paul reminds his readers that among many different choices of lifestyle people who chose the homosexual lifestyle will not inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). He also explains the origin of the sinful nature which gives birth to a variety of sexual immoralities of which homosexuality is merely one, (cf. Romans 1:18-32).

Unwrapping Romans 1:18-32

Although we as God's creation naturally know God we do not glorify him or recognize him as God (cf. Romans 1:21). What causes us to recognize God's existence but not give him glory or recognize him as God? We naturally suppress the truth of God, (cf. Romans 1:18-20) namely "God’s invisible qualities [such as] his eternal power and divine nature..." (cf. Romans 1:20). We reject God's omnipotence and its implication on reality and His nature that is the standard for moral choices, His divine wisdom, His divine will (His desires to have things done in a certain way) and so forth. This deliberate abandonment of God-focusness caused futile and foolish intentions on our part, (cf. Romans 1:21) resulting in foolish thinking and obliviousness to that very fact; in sum we claim to be wise, but our actions speak of a different story. Instead of being God-focused we turn and offer glory and divine recognition to the created order, (cf. Romans 1:22-23). 

How did God respond? He let us go. If we human beings want to abandon Him as our God and give worship to inanimate objects (cf. Romans 1:22), then so be it. God let us go to not just invent pseudo gods but serve ourselves as our own god. Our rebellion took us over to the degrading of ourselves; of which is evidence of foolish thinking and self-centeredness. The example Paul gives is shameful sexual desires, (cf. Romans 1:24-25), such as just as how many men exchange natural sexual relations [heterosexual] for sexual relationships with each other [homosexual] many women do the same. (cf. Romans 1:26-27).[ii] The last stretch in this fall from God-focusness is to not "think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave [us] over to a depraved mind, so that [we] do what ought not to be done." - Romans 1:28. 

By nature all of us - adult and child alike - naturally lean on our own way of thinking and look out for our own desires (cf. Romans 3:23), and homosexual people are no exception. This is what causes members of the Gay Christian Movement to attempt to reinterpret the portions of Scripture discussed above. The sinful nature is self-centered and so the Gay Christian Movement aims to make Scripture friendly to their desires instead of making themselves friendly to Scripture. In an informal debate between Dr. Michael Brown and gay activist, Matthew Vines, on the relationship between being a follower of Christ and a practicing homosexual, Vines asked Brown: 

...do you acknowledge that there are some people for whom life long celibacy is the consequence of an absolute rejection of a same-sex relationship...?[iii] 

Given the topic of the discussion Vines' question is clear:

'Do you acknowledge that the doctrine, that same-sex relationships are actively sinful necessarily requires the Christian who is irreversibly same-sex attracted to forsake spiritual, sexual and emotional intimacy?'

Listen to the podcast below to hear Brown's answer to that question and the discussion in its entirety; however if I was asked that question my answer would be simple: "Yes. For the true Christian whose sexual orientation has not changed and is something that they simply cannot overcome, life-long celibacy would be the natural consequence." I alluded to the true Christian because it would only be the true Christian who would be aiming to serve Christ in both devotion and deed. For the true Christian who is exclusively same-sex attracted and has not changed on that front, a sexual, emotional and spiritual intimacy would be the sacrifice that he or she would have to make.[iv] This of course does not negate the fact that that the gay man or woman still will desire to be with in an intimate relationship with someone who they are sexually, personally and emotionally attracted to; but ones desires do not likewise negate the consequences for rejecting truth of God's Wisdom and Will, (cf. Mathew 7:21-23).

To conclude picture in your mind a three step staircase with a landing extending from the top step and one protruding from the bottom step. The second and third steps is the stage described in Romans 1:22-28 and this is where society (from the macro perspective) is today; but we are very close to falling completely onto the third step (cf. Romans 1:24-28) - the stage of the complete rejection of the knowledge of God and the complete focus onto ourselves as the god of our own lives. As a society we no longer even try to daily recognize God as God, and give him glory and thanks, (cf. Romans 1:21). Paul's words in Timothy describes today's culture because we are loving pleasure - what we want - rather than God, namely what God wants.

However being on the third step in this staircase of morality is not irreversible. Every Christian, gay and straight ought to take a good look at themselves to determine where on that staircase they personally lie. The landing from the bottom of these three steps is the point of no return, as is the landing at the top of the first step; both these represent the crossing over to eternity were the bottom represents eternal damnation and the top eternal life (cf. Hebrews 9:27); but while any one is on the first, second or third step they are not out of God's reach. As Paul promises if you actively "...declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

_______________

[i] - http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-gay-christian-movement-is-mixing.html - accessed November 7, 2014

[ii] - It is important to note that homosexuality is not the only example one can give for wrong sexual practices; it is merely the example  Paul gave to illustrate his point.
[iii] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI - accessed November 7, 2014

[iv] - This of course does not include close friendships between persons of the same sex. It is very fortunate for someone if they can find that same-sex friend to whom they can develop an intimate friendship and bond with. There is a clear difference between close friends and lovers. The biggest dividing line between the two is sexual intimacy.

The Gay-Christian Movement Is Mixing God's Goodness With Evil

My name is Ian Murray. I am 36 years old and I have made some stupid choices in my life. There was a time when I could have identified with many characterizations described in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. I was a drunkard, or an alcoholic and drug addict as it would be classified today. I lived on the street as a panhandler. I was despicable, as I used my disability (I am in a wheelchair) to make people feel sorry for me and give me money for food; but I'll give you three guesses as to where their five, ten and twenty dollar bills really went, but you'll only need one - drugs and booze. This made me a swindler. I wasn't satisfied with 'just enough' to get me through the day, I wanted more than enough; this made me greedy. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 does shed some very unpleasant facets of my life. I am also very happy to pronounced though that today I can identify myself with the word located in verse 11, 'were'. I am no longer a drunk and a swindler. Today I am over 10 years sober from alcohol, drugs and cigarettes and I am the youth pastor for my church.

There is however another part to this story. When I was five years old I truly and wholeheartedly asked Jesus Christ, the son of the living God to come into my life and save me from the consequences of my sinful nature. All through my childhood, preteens and even into my early teens, I was used by God and I saw Christ in my life and many other people did too. However, even though this is the case there was a factor about me that played into my downfall with alcoholism. I had a serious rebellious streak. What does this mean? This means that through my rebellion and all my drug and alcohol use, I was a Christian.

Would it be correct then to say that during that time I was a drunkard-Christian? Or how about a rebellious-Christian, or a swindling-Christian or a greedy-Christian? Of course not. If I was to marry my drunkenness, dishonesty, greed or rebellion with my Christianity I would be saying that those acts are in the same category as my active Christianity, and this is simply not true. Am I cured from my past's transgressions? No. I don't get tempted to swindle people out of their money any more but that life style in all of its evil has left me with daily battles. I still do get tempted once in a while by a beer commercial on television and I can only spend so much time around friends who are enjoying a mere alcoholic beverage with dinner. I classify myself as a 'recovering alcoholic', however I don't classify myself as a recovering-alcoholic-Christian. So instead I state that I am a Christian who is: a recovering-alcoholic and a recovering-drug addict. You may think that I am playing with semantics, but there is a difference. The identity - recovering-alcoholic-Christian - forces me to share my sinful temptations with my Christianity, while the identity - a Christian who is a recovering addict - shows a separation between my Christianity and my temptations to sin. In the same way regarding my choice to begin my journey towards sobriety I don't classify myself as a smart-Christian because such a characterization robs Christ of the credit for the work he did in me through all those who helped me get me to where I am today. As such I am a Christian who eventually made some good choices.

Today's culture can also be characterized by Paul's words. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, Paul states that there "...will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." - 2 Timothy 3:1, 4. Of course both secular and religious systems that value pleasure before God have always existed since sin came on the scene, and they still exist today. However today there is an ideology running rampant within the walls of the Christian church that suggests that what God pronounces as sinful is good if the sin is something innate. The face of this ideology is the Gay-Christian Movement and their message is that homosexuality is innate and thus it is not a sin but something to be praised and promoted. This movement is tying together their homosexuality with their identity as a follower of Christ. Many gay activists in one way or another ascribe to the view that someone's sexual orientation is not a choice but something that is a part of the gay man or woman. Members of the Gay-Christian-Movement believe that God made the gay man or woman gay and therefore conclude that being gay must be good. Many disagree that homosexuality is innate, however even if they are wrong and it is a part of someone's being that doesn't mean that homosexuality is within itself good. In fact the alleged innate status of homosexuality advocates for the Scripture's teaching of the corruptness of creation. Scripture is clear that nature was affected by sin (cf. Romans 8:22) and so it stands to reason that one's sexuality (a very natural part of every human being) would also be affected by sin. Homosexuality is then just one form of a corrupted sexuality. As such the prophet Isaiah has a few words for subscribers of the view that homosexuality is good despite God's declaration of it being evil:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, - Isaiah 5:20

Jesus' disciple John states that "[if you] claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, [you] lie and do not live out the truth." - 1 John 1:6 Associating anything sinful with your Christian identity provides strong evidence that the light is off and you are milling around in the dark as you say "I am a Christian." It is however important to never deny your struggles! If you struggle with addiction to booze, drugs or pornography; or if you struggle with homosexuality or any other sexual sin, or pride, or anger, and so forth - come out! John warns that the truth of God is not in you if you do not admit that you are a sinner, (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10). So own your sin but then disown it. John promises us all including you that:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:9 

In sum if you are a Christian battle your sin; don't identify with it and certainly don't amalgamate your sin with your Christian identity.