Christians have historically opposed giving rights to homosexuals--rights such as marriage, adoption, and service in the military. However, there is a new group rising up out of Christian circles that are calling for more rights to be given to homosexuals. They cite the command from Jesus to love their neighbor as they love themselves, and what better way to show love to a homosexual than by allowing them to get married and adopt children?
The first thing to point out is that all groups who believe the Bible is the Word of God should believe that homosexuality is a sin (Levitcus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-32; I Corinthians 6:9) . But to what extent are we to show love to them, or to any sinner for that matter?
In our culture if a pastor says that a homosexual needs to repent it is considered to be hate speech, and if a politician promises the right of marriage it is considered to be an act of love. We must realize how backwards that is. As a pastor, if I try to show a homosexual love by saying, "Get married, adopt children, be happy", what I am really saying is "Have fun in hell." To push for more rights and not tell them about their sin is the ultimate hate speech. This is the same as a doctor not telling his patient that he has cancer because he doesn't want to offend him. Ignorance is not bliss; it is certain death.
If you want to show true love to a homosexual explain to him the consequences of dying without having surrendered his life to Christ--you never even have to mention homosexuality! He must deny himself, repent of all sin, and follow Christ as his Lord. The same is true of heterosexuals living in sin. All sin leads to death and hell, and must be repented of.
One final thought: just because we want to show love to someone in blatant sin does not mean we take steps to condone what they do. Why don't we show love to axe murders and serial rapists by letting them live among society, own axes, and work in day cares? Jesus showed sinners love by demanding repentance and warning of their impending doom if they failed to do so. Where does the post modern crowd get the idea that Jesus went around high-fiving sinners and laughing at their dirty jokes?
Instead, every recorded exchange between Jesus and those who opposed Him shows that He was forceful, not friendly, to them. He called them vipers, snakes, hypocrites, sinners, and children of the devil. He used sarcasm, blunt language, and twice used a whip. Today a person preaching like that would be decried as extreme, a legalist, or flat out crazy. Jesus would not support homosexual marriage (just ask the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrahoh; oh wait; you cant); we need more preachers standing up today in opposition to sin, not accepting it as part of our culture.
So if you know a homosexual then show them love today. Do not do this by telling them God loves them, because this just gives them a false sense of security ("If God loves me then why do I need to change?"). Tell them of the reality of hell, and as Jude said, pull them out of the fire. They might get upset, but if you never have the conversation, they will be upset with you for all eternity, wishing you would have really shown them love.
**Also note: Romans 1 closes by saying that those who condone homosexuality are as guilty as those who practice it, and Paul says both groups are deserving of death.
(Read Should Christians Vote for Gay Rights?)
(Read Should Christians Vote for Gay Rights?)
17 comments:
First of all, as any non-liberal Christian must, I agree with the first half of this post. We cannot in good conscience not tell the truth to everyone who needs to hear about the effects of their sin. But as I will get to in a moment, this is not just to the lost sinners, but to the self-righeous saints as well.
My issues comes up in the second half of your post. First, I feel like you are pushing for a renewed christendom where we get to rule the empire, and make laws that will enforce religious moralism. While you cannot let an axe murderer live free to go on killing, imprisoning him does not equal salvation for him. In the same way, not giving rights to homosexuals legally is not a viable means of showing God's grace. 1. Because they will do it anyway, that is what depravity means, and 2. Because in the same way, government legislation on morality does not equate to salvation in Christ. Now, we do live in a democracy, and I believe we Christians should vote according to our beliefs and values, which would mean no on gay marriage. But to assume that that vote demonstrates the gospel is wrong.
Secondly, you are using scriptures out of context when you imply that Jesus would condemn homosexuals as "vipers, snakes, hypocrites, sinners, and children of the devil" and not be friendly to them. Jesus reserved those names for the religious people who opposed the gospel in their hatred of everyone outside of their religiosity. Jesus loved sinners, ate with sinners, drank with sinners, and died for sinners at the hands of the religious. Government enforced morality killed Jesus! When He came with the message "go and sin no more," it was never told to a single sinner tauntingly. The taunts were saved for the times when he was calling the religious people to repent of their self-righteousness. We pastors are no better than the homosexuals, axe murderers or rapists. It is the same Gospel that saves us from ourselves too. God help us, lest we forget that.
A few things, Scott. 1. I am not a self-righteous saint; I am humbled that God would save a wretch like me, and my heart breaks for all who are dying in their sin (including homosexuals), which is why I want to see them saved, not happily married.
2. I took no Scripture out of context. I never said Jesus called homosexuals those names; you inferred that incorrectly. Those criticisms were aimed at all who opposed Jesus. Jesus did, however, say the self-righteous were as evil as that wicked city Sodom--a reference to the sin of homosexuality. (Also, read 2 Peter 2:5-6).
3. You must think this was a defense of the Uganda Bill. It was not. I am not trying to legislate morality or push for a renewed christendom. This is not political. My goal is to expose the evil of condoning unrighteousness at any level. (Romans 1:32)
4. Jesus did eat and drink with sinners. Praise God! But He did not pal around with them. He drew a line in the sand and demanded a life change. He spent time with them for the sole purpose of showing them that the Messiah had come. Consider the woman at the well: He exposed her sin and offered her a better life, and she accepted it (He didn't try to give her more rights for her immoral lifestyle). The rich young ruler was not willing to surrender 100%, so he went away sad. Jesus didn't chase him down and have a meal with him after that.(read 2 John 1:10)
Finally, I think you have missed my entire point, which is simple, but has been complicated by the postmodern crowd. All sin is wrong, must be exposed, and must be repented from. Paul admitted that he would not have been saved if his sin had not been revealed to him. I am not picking on homosexuals; they are savable, but not if we condone their sin. I want them to change, but they wont know they need to if we don't expose their sin.
First off, I apologize for my misunderstandings. I was not saying that you were being self-righteous in this post, I know you better than that, but living in the heart of the Bible belt, I am quick to speak against legalism, religiosity, and the idea that America is a 'Christian Nation'. I also know that many of our mutual 'friends' who might read this blog, would read the same as I did, again, why I am on a quick defense.
Secondly, I was not thinking about the Uganda thing. I was thinking in American terms because of the 'Christian nation' myth, which I believe has hurt the cause of Christ more than helped in recent history. This is where mixing politics and Christianity gets confusing. We live in a nation where the majority rules, therefore, if homosexual marriage is approved, it is not the downfall of Christianity, and my position has not changed. If it is denied, then it proves that more people than just Christians see it as a disgusting act and should be banned. (I don't believe there is a Christian majority in the U.S.) Either way, our job remains the same, legal or not. Now, we must vote with our conscience, but just because we denying them rights doesn't mean we are one step closer to drawing them to Christ. (Not that you'd say that, but again that is what many fundies, including many in my congregation, would read here...)
My personal issue is bigger than your blog alone. All over TV and the internet, homosexual marriage is the new abortion in America. It is the one political issue that many believe determines your commitment to Christianity, not just to a political party, yet we ignore many other blatant sins of pastors and political leaders because they champion the cause against the gays. We buy the lie that homosexuality is more sinful than pride, gossip, and gluttony. Now, what we both agree on is that Christianity MUST have a bold voice in this nation, but my point is that it needs to be a consistent call for ALL to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not just be based on the new taboo political agenda.
Sorry if I offended you. I value you as a friend and it was unintentional.
yeah
First off, let me say that I am glad you took the time to blog on this subject. Gay marriage and gay rights has become a huge issue within Christendom, and in an age where the church is known more for what it is against than for what it is for, it is necessary for us as Christ-followers to make sure that a people who feel alienated from the church know that God does, in fact, still love them.
There are a few points, though, that I would like to raise for consideration. First, you say that "We need more preachers today standing up against sin, not accepting it as part of our culture". The problem with this is that the sins of the culture, to which you refer, are most likely things like drug use, promiscuous sex, homosexuality, abortion, etc. While these choices and lifestyles are certainly out of line with God's dreams, it has never been the church's job to be the moral guardian of culture. As believers, we need to be moving OURSELVES and EACH OTHER toward sanctification, not trying to change the sinful behaviors of non-believers. The people engaging in the aforementioned cultural sins are typically outside the church and outside the faith, and therefore should be EXPECTED to act like sinners. It can seem at times like the church is more concerned with forcing non-believers or compelling them to act like Christians, and thereby redeem culture, than with teaching believers how to genuinely love and serve those outside it's walls- compelling sinners by our love, just like Jesus did, to join us on our journey in following Christ.
I did appreciate what you said about the best way to show love to homosexuals being to explain to them their spiritual need. ("If you want to show true love to a homosexual explain to him the consequences of dying without having surrendered his life to Christ") My only problem with this is that it seems like you are advocating, though I may be wrong, a sort of soap-box evangelism where you tell a homosexual that his sin will send him to hell, with no intention of forming a real, lasting relationship with him, vowing to pray with him and for him, promising to love him the best you can, and still valuing and serving him as Jesus would even if he is never compelled to come to faith. Theological grenade-launching is always easier than rolling up our sleeves and committing to getting our hands dirty with the real life, flesh-and-blood issues of brokenness in the lives of people we have come to love. True love can never be shown just by sharing information, but by laying down one's life (service, self-sacrifice) for a friend.
You say not to simply tell a homosexual that God loves him, because this would give him a false sense of security, and I agree 100%! We should take it a step further to tell them that God is so madly in love with them and so desperate to connect with them that He chose to sacrifice his own Son just to remove the brokenness that keeps them apart. We should be ready and willing to promise them that if they have a desire to seek after God, that we will make sure they have a safe place, a community of friends to help lead them toward a life of repentance.
You also mentioned that Jesus used phrases such as "hypocrites" and "vipers", etc against the people that opposed him, and that He would today be labeled a legalist. Jesus, however, only used such language against the legalists of HIS day, the Pharisees, who ironically believed that it was God's will to root out the sin found OUTSIDE their religious culture, while keeping others from God until they had changed to act like them. (Sound familiar?) We need to be sure we are always willing to surround and support those who are curious about following Jesus but who don't know yet if they will be loved, embraced, and accepted by His people.
Thank you for this article, Tommy. You've inspired me to think critically and stretch myself. I hope you didnt take anything I wrote as "preachy". Love ya
Bobby, thanks for your comments. When I wrote that we need preachers standing up against and not accepting at part of our culture, I was not referring to homosexuality, but to Christians accepting homosexuality. I know we can't change culture's behavior until they get saved, but I don't agree with supporting gay marriage as a means to "love thy neighbor."
I do not know any Christians who think it is their role to change culture. You referred to Jesus using language like vipers and snakes; my point was never WHO is used that language towards, but just that He used it. I get tired of people talking as if Jesus chuckles at sin, or that He has no opinion on right and wrong. Christians are constantly merging bwhat is black and white into gray. Jesus became so angry by the sin of the Pharisees that He often lashed out at them. I believe He gets just as angry over sin today.
Good talk.
I can think of millions of Christians who think it is their role to change culture. Organizations like the moral majority are in place to do just that. Jerry Falwell wasn't using the Moral Majority to bring people to Christ, but to influence American politics to align secular culture with Christian morality. Not all of this is bad, like using politics to protect the unborn, but not all of this is good, either, like trying to outlaw gay marriage - the issue doesnt in any way affect the church. We can (and should) teach that it is out of sync with God's plan, but when the church or Christian organizations try to enforce God's standards for His people on those outside the faith, people get confused, thinking that the gospel of Jesus has to do with right-wing politics and reforming a country.
I don't know anyone in the "postmodern crowd" who thinks that Jesus chuckled at sin. We know and teach that Jesus HATED sin because he saw the brokenness and heartache that comes from living selfish lives without proper love of God and others. He did, however, hang out with sinners, and they were drawn to Him. Their only experience with God was with what they had learned from the Pharisees, which was that God did not love them because they werent good enough. It probably seemed inconceivable to them that someone claiming to be from God would genuinely love them and not condemn them for their sin, but rather invite them to leave their selfish life behind and join the God of love on a mission to restore and heal His people. They couldn't believe that the one who claimed to be the Messiah would want the poor, the drunks, the prostitutes, adulterers, the tax collectors, heck, maybe even a few homosexuals to be the inaugural citizens of His new Kingdom instead of the religious Pharisees who thought the Messiah could not come until society had been reformed. (This is why both Scott and I talked about the "hypocrites and vipers" thing...Jesus never used this kind of talk with sinners, but with the "saints" responsible for alienating these people and keeping them from God. It is interesting to note that we don't see Jesus hanging out with the Pharisees like he did with the marginalized. He dealt with the two groups very differently.
As you concluded your response, I believe you were very right in saying that Jesus was so angry with the Pharisees that he often lashed out at them, and probably gets just as angry today. The sins we see Jesus being angry about were the sins of the Pharisees: exclusion and self-righteousness. The Ones we see him heartbroken and compassionate about, willing to do whatever it takes to draw that perpetrator of that sin into relationship with Himself, were the ones relegated to second-class status by the religious leaders.
Good point on that!
If the post modern crowd really believe that Jesus HATES all sin, then why is there no effort to abstain from it? If Jesus HATES sexual immorality, then how can we watch a TV show and laugh at its filthy humor? If Jesus HATES taking God's Name in vain, then how can we enjoy a sitcom that will committ blasphemy 15 times in half an hour? The same is true of music and movies that use profanity, makes light of homosexuality, glorifies drunkeness and drug use, belittles Christians, etc. If Jesus HATES these things then we should abstain from them, not plan our evenings around them. Jesus doesnt just hate the sin of the self-righteous; He hates it all.
I guess we disagree on Jesus hanging out with sinners. I don't think being in a room with someone constitutes hanging out with them. Jesus was on a mission, demanding repentance. He put the ball in their court and kept moving. It was the ones who accepted Him and turned from their lifestyle that He hung out with (He hung out with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus at their house, not with the rich young ruler). Jesus didn't condemn anybody, because as John 3 points, the world is already condemned. Jesus just offered people hope. If Jesus was hanging ot with sinners then I don't know why Paul and John said to not have a meal with or invite into your house the ones who refuse to repent.
My goal is to live a holy life, as Jesus commanded many times to do, and to tell people about Jesus, which Jesus commanded people to do. These are the messages that I have not heard from the post modern crowd. It seems that all I have heard out of them are messages about recycling, managing your money, and how to be happy (I'm sure some are preaching the Bible, but I havent seen it yet). Feeding the poor is important, but if a poor man dies and goes to hell with a full stomach, what good have we done for him? John the Baptist and Jesus both began their ministry with the word Repent, and I think that should be our message too. It seems that the sermons of our time are, God loves you, Nobody is perfect, Just do your best, etc. I fear that these "pastors" are too worried about offending anybody so they preach powder-puff sermons. It takes guts to preach about repentance, but that is what Jesus did, and I think we should too.
When the pharisees accused Jesus of "hanging out" with sinners His response was
“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17
Jesus' intent was to reveal their sin and bring them to repentance and a life lived for Him. He gave them a choice and they either accepted or did not. And he did this with love and compassion. There. I summed up both sides :) ha ha
Other scripture tells us, if they don't hear then move on!
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.” ( Mark 6:11).
Love 'em, witness to 'em, and let them decide! My way sounds the easiest!
On another note... i think preachers need to preach more repentance in the church. I think the major problem today is compromise in what is right and what is wrong. I think (as good 'ol Johnny Hunt puts it) people are trying to see how much hell they can have on their way to heaven! Are we really living holy, set apart lives? Let us all examine ourselves! Myself included. Daily. yeehaw. That's all.
Do you have the Scripture references for Paul and John instructing believers to not eat with or befriend non-believers?
I didn't say they said not to befriend non-believers. Paul said not to associate with people who claim to be believers but do not act like it. John said not to support or condone their lifestyle. This goes back to my original point that if we condone homosexual marriage we are "partakers in their evil deeds."
1 Corinthians 5:11-13 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
2 John 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [of Jesus Christ], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Ha ha...Let me try this again for the third time... I think in the Corinthian passage Paul is talking about not eating the Lord's Supper with this un-repentant brother, for in v6-8 he says to remove the "old leaven" so that the bread(passover, Lord's Supper)may be pure, and the rite can now be taken in sincerity and truth. Interesting to note that Paul ends the chapter reminding the Corinthian church to focus their efforts of sanctification on the people within their community, and leave it to God to judge the outside world.
The passage in 2John is written again to the church so that it retains it purity, this time against deceivers bringing false doctrine into the church (maybe messages about recycling?) ;) John is saying that if a "preacher" comes teaching that Jesus never came in the flesh v7,(possibly a reference to the Gnostics, who taught that Jesus did not rise bodily?) then they should not receive him into their house. - remember the church met in houses at the time, and this letter was written to the church - not to an individual.
While I don't know that either of these passages advocate a general distancing from non-believers, I think they do reinforce the importance of protecting the purity of the church, its doctrine, and its sacred rituals - which does, by nature, include a certain set-apartedness from those who would wish it harm.
Wow! Quite a long conversation we've created here!
Have to amend my last response... I just learned earlier tonight at H2O Seminary that 2John was written in response to the heresy of the Cerinthians, who taught pretty much the same as the Gnostics, only they pre-dated them by about 50 years. I was close though.
I'm still right though :)
Post a Comment