You're sure to have heard by now of the Revoice conference to be held in a St. Louis PCA church later this month. The stated aim is "Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality." It's called "a new conversation." Now, I would like to think that the way we support, encourage, and empower Christians who suffer from sinful attractions so they can "flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality" would be ... you know ... to support, encourage, and empower them to repent of their sinful attractions and pursue obedience ... you know ... like historic Christianity suggests. I think it's quite clear that this won't happen at the Revoice conference. The aim is to, well, make them feel better. What are their unique contributions to the church? How can they mortify their desire while embracing who they are? Repent and turn? No, no, that's not in view here.
Why is this so hard to see? Try this from another direction. In what other mode of sin does this work? "I'm a Pedophile Christian, but I'm mortifying my desires. I know the practice is sinful, so I don't practice it. There's nothing wrong with the desire as long as I don't actually act on it. I just need to feel welcomed and embraced in my orientation as a Pedophile Christian." That makes no sense. That flies in the face of Scripture in general and Jesus's teachings in particular. Nowhere do we find instructions to do anything like, "Embrace the sexually immoral believer who embraces his sexual immorality but is not practicing it" or "Welcome the Racist Christian who works hard at not being racist." We are commanded to "put to death the deeds of the body" (Rom 8:13), to "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you" (Col 3:5) -- a list which includes "sexual immorality," "passion," and "evil desire". This is nothing like what's being suggested in the Revoice conference.
How does this happen? How does what is ostensibly a good church (The PCA is generally a good denomination.) end up hoping to encourage "evil desires" while (hopefully) hoping they won't act on them? How do we get to that from "die to self"? We get there by buying a worldly worldview and then feeding it back into our doctrines. We get there by "feeling warmly toward" people in need like they truly are without considering the biblical commands about it. We get there by allowing the world to dictate the language we use, like "LGBT Christians", as if Christians can be identified by their sinful predilections. Without a solid footing and a solid relationship with Christ, this is where we end up -- a depraved mind in a Christian suit. This is what "conformed to this world" rather than "transformed by the renewing of the mind" (Rom 12:2) looks like.
8 comments:
I am a little confused; if i say that i embrace my desire, but claim that i do not practice it. then am i not creating a contradiction? it begs the question, why do i not practice that which i desire? why the exception? the statement implies that i already know that it is immoral to have such desires. abstaining from the practice does nothing to diminish the desire. Jesus said that if i were to even look upon a woman and lust after her, i have committed adultery in my heart. that would be called sin. so in light of this, it is our desire that must be destroyed. and when the desire is destroyed the practice dies with it. to embrace the desire to sin is counter to all that Christ taught. if your eye causes you to sin, PLUCK IT OUT, it better to enter heaven with one eye, then to go to hell with both.
if your desire causes you to sin, kill it. just saying...
You're a little confused? You're doing better than me. The whole thing is a contradiction.
However, they hold that it is not immoral to have such desires; it is immoral to ACT on them. And, you're right. Jesus said something else entirely.
Is it slicing things too fine to say that having sinful desires or temptations is a normal part of being fallen, sinful people?
Too fine? Not at all. It is absolutely true. The question is should we embrace fallen sinful desires as, say, "born that way", or should we seek to put them to death (the desires, not the fallen sinful people ... like us). They say embrace it; I think Scripture says otherwise.
That’s what I thought, I just wanted to clarify.
Satan accuses the brethren day and night. It's a pathetic sight when the brethren listen to him more than God. You make an excellent point. Why homosexuality? But here's another question. Will they do the same for the next fad sin? And the next? And the next? My guess is, yes they will. Because they'd rather try to prove Satan wrong than God right.
I recall of my Roman Catholic upbringing the concept of "renouncing Satan" and in general, all sinful desire. To embrace sinful desire is totally counter to that concept. Can one ever be free of what one embraces? I may never be able to escape the lure of sinful desires that plague me, but I can see no hope of it when I embrace them. It's senselessness.
Exactly.
I read an interesting piece on the problem of the phrase "same-sex attraction." We use it interchangeably with "same-sex desire", but they aren't interchangeable. Attraction is something that happens to you; desire is something you produce. "Same-sex attraction" makes it out to be "something I can't help; it just happens to me." It makes it out to be beyond my capacity to address or manage. It ... excuses the desire.
Post a Comment