The latest Al Mohler Blog is an interesting and perhaps difficult read for those battling the Left in the "Culture Wars". He writes about the effects of the legalization of marriage for homosexuals in the People's Republic of Massachusetts has had on the homosexual community and the common culture as a whole.Much of what he has to say may perhaps be a little scary at how our culture has perverted the created order, but his conclusion has me wondering. He writes,
"Denizet-Lewis's article raises at least one final thought. If the legalization of same-sex marriage is changing homosexual culture, is it also changing heterosexual marriage? We can only wonder how long it will take for some heterosexual couples to decide that "emotional fidelity" and "sexual fidelity" can be separated."
The idea that heterosexual couples are being affected by the homosexual couples' philosophy of "What is fidelity?" seems to me to be backwards (60s & 70s anyone?). I have no doubt that we are in a spiral and therefore one affects the other. I just don't buy the whole-sale corruption from the homosexual side.
For a long time, the idea that homosexuality is the unpardonable sin and the root of all sexual evil has just bugged me. Perhaps I am being counter-intuitive. Yet, when I read the Bible, the homosexual argument, that the Bible has little to say about it, is correct. The actual reason (as opposed to what homosexuals argue) this is so is because it is so clear in its teaching and clear that it perverts the basic created order. What need of mentioning it is there?
There is another reason I think this may be so. The Bible spends a huge amount of time condemning adultery. Why? Because adultery seems to pervert the natural order only slightly and yet does huge amounts of damage that hurts society. It is especially children that receive the results of our sexual sinfulness. Anyone that studies the subject or has anecdotally experienced (either directly or indirectly) divorce knows this to be true.
I have often told close friends of mine. If we want to see culture reformed from within, first the Gospel must be preached to those lost in sin. If we want to see culture restrained from without and by the force of law, then society must reject the "free-love" mentality among heterosexuals. Please note that I am stressing heterosexuals.
Perhaps I am being counter-intuitive. I truly think the homosexual issue would disappear if society allowed God to define what true love is and make their laws according to God's created order. This means heterosexuals must be held accountable by law. The idea of consentual sex must be rejected. Then and only then, can any further deviations from what is right be reformed.
So if I hear one more sermon about homosexuality, I think I am going to puke. Christian preachers must preach what the Bible spends its time telling us about. If homosexuality is 1% of the text, then to preach 50% of our messages on that topic is clearly imbalanced. It causes Christians to be self righteous in their own sin while condemning others. We must seek God's wisdom and allow all of God's revelation to speak, especially within the house of God.
2 comments:
believe what you must but the words of scripture never said homosexuality was a sin.
not from the prohibitions( not all the prohibitions were of themselves sins) of lev, the gang rape of gen, the shamebased lust of romans and the "malebed" of 1tim and 1cor
homosexuality........... human bonding(of the same sex) out of mutual love, respect,attraction,devotion and trust, for a committed shared life together the same as with heterosexuals.
feet,
I must ask, you are not an American speaking person...right? I will take a guess at what you mean and respond as kindly as I can.
1) "believe what you must but the words of scripture never said homosexuality was a sin."(
a) To say this is to empty words of their meaning. Language becomes impossible.
(b) To make this statement assumes that God isn't able to speak clearly, especially on human sexuality.
(c) This assumes that we can't really be certain of truth.
(d) While being uncertain of truth, your position maintains this uncertainty with absolute certainty. Therefore, it is a contradictory and incoherent presupposition.
2) "not from the prohibitions( not all the prohibitions were of themselves sins) of lev"
This sentence is really difficult to follow. Of course not all prohibitions under the Old Covenant remain under the New. However, I am a Reformed Baptist and not a Dispensationalist. Therefore your position isn't even able to address my position Biblically at all.
There is continuity between the Old and New Covenants. Unless the New Covenant abrogates the sexual practices that were considered by God an abomination, there is no reason to think God has changed His mind. Dietary Laws are certainly not in the same category as sexual immorality. It is true that some laws were unique to National Israel. Sexual immorality laws would have not only been commanded for National Israel, but the same arguments that are used for "gang rape" would apply to homosexuality and adultery and the Ten Commandments as a whole against the pagan nations.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not just because they were not nice people, but because they were also degraded sexually. There was no written law that was needed to destroy those cities. how much more for us who have God's Law in written form!
3) "human bonding(of the same sex) out of mutual love, respect,attraction,devotion and trust, for a committed shared life together the same as with heterosexuals."
Sir, you must understand that love has a Biblical meaning. You must throw out the Biblical definition of Love and put in your own. When you do this, you trump God's revelation to define what is proper love and God's ability to define human sexuality.
Post a Comment