Of course, it doesn't take a genius to see that times have changed. In 2008, California believed that marriage was the union of a man and a woman and overwhelming had voted that definition into law. The courts threw it out and, by judicial fiat, passed a law that demanded same-sex mirage1. Later that year, California sought to remedy that problem by voting again to make it the legal definition in California by voting it into the California constitution. Again, the courts threw it out. The most stunning part of that sequence, though, is not the courts or the vote; it's the fact that California in just a few short years became the leading state in all things LGBTxxxx. So the world has shifted radically in an incredibly brief time, as illustrated by California then and now, and Christendom -- that which represents Christian beliefs of the time -- has shifted radically from an unbroken history of one side to a sudden shift to the other. Why? What forces have to be at work to cause such a monumental change?
The real question isn't the "California shift" -- the change we saw in California that is reflected in all of our culture today and much of the world. The real question is in the Christian shift. The majority of the world is sinful people walking according to the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), and to expect more of them would be silly. But we have the Word and the Spirit and the mind of Christ. What would cause Christians to shift from the Word like that? Certainly not the Spirit. He would have arranged that a long time ago. So what has caused this change in the church? Some point to a change in understanding of the Scriptures. As I suggested, that makes little sense. Jesus left us with the Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). In fact, the truth we are supposed to defend is "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). It can't be "new truth." It can be expanded or clarified, but it cannot be contradicted, certainly not this late in the game, or the Spirit is incredibly weak and incompetent.
No, it's not a question of Scripture. It is something else. Certainly those who have made this shift (That's not accurate, is it? "This sea change" might be better.) did so before they got to revisiting Scripture. Oh, they definitely needed to revise the Word to keep on that path, but they didn't start there. It was more like, "Oh, I see ... this is true. Well, if this is true, then that (like the biblical texts on homosexual behavior as sin) cannot be. Well, let's see how we can align those with this." So what is "this"? In 2014, David Gushee wrote a book entitled, Changing Our Mind. It was his explanation about why he changed his mind about LGBTxxxx matters. Regardless of the explanation, the title alone tells how he had to change his mind because prior to that he had a different opinion. Gushee, mind you, is "an ethicist, pastor, author, and advocate." He is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University. He's not "small potatoes." What changed his mind? According to him, "Reason 1: I came to know and love LGBTQ Christians." That and his collision with culture. In his explanation, he doesn't begin addressing Scripture until "Reason 6" and rejects Scripture where it doesn't integrate with "what we know of sexual and gender diversity through science, life experience, and relationships." David Gushee told The Reformation Project conference, a gathering of "pro-LGBT Christians," "I will seek to stand in solidarity with you who have suffered the lash of countless Christian rejections." That's it, isn't it? That's the sequence. It is not an initial problem with Scripture; it is an initial problem with experience. "My experience (the people I know, the people I care about, the culture I live in, the science I respect, etc.) does not align with Scripture, therefore, I have to realign Scripture to my experience." When worlds collide like that, it is necessary to make one align with the other, and it is generally accomplished by annihilating one in favor of the other. "Pro-LGBT Christians" do not start with "Scripture is right" and go from there. They start with "I feel bad about this" and go from there. Maybe "I feel bad" because they're opposed to culture or "I feel bad" because they know that it causes discomfort to people that they know and love, but always it is from a misplaced sense of love and concern that says, "If it makes someone feel bad, it must be bad."
That's bad ... bad logic. We give our children injections to save them from potentially fatal diseases and it feels bad, but we know there is a higher good. To fail to protect a child that could have been safely protected simply because you didn't want them to feel bad would be evil. God said that "men who practice homosexuality" will not "inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). That's bad. That's really bad. To avoid telling the truth because they experience pain in the telling is to seek to damn them to try to avoid hurting them. What could be more evil?
I know. You may disagree with the clear, longstanding, unambiguous reading of these texts. You may not find Scripture authoritative. You may believe that God's Word needs to be re-read and analyzed according to the standards of culture and feelings. But that's the same as "Scripture is not authoritative." Or, at least, "Scripture is not reliable." No one in all of time has ever read the texts of the Bible that forbid homosexual sex and concluded "That's not what it means" without first having an extrabiblical reason for doing so. Therefore, those other reasons are the motivation, the higher source, the greater authority, the more reliable "Scripture." When those two worlds collide -- the world versus God's Word -- it takes a confidence in God and His Word to not annihilate God's Word. In that, then, we get a sense of one's priorities by one's response here. And it's not looking good for God and His Word. When we decide to rewrite God's Word because it goes contrary to our world and our feelings, it puts more than His Word in jeopardy. It suggests that God Himself is not reliable, that God's truth changes with time, and that God is lucky to have us along to straighten things out for him. (Note the lowercase "him." It wasn't a typo.)
________
1 I am not trying to be unkind with the use of the term "same-sex mirage". I need to continually point out that there is a fundamental difference between "marriage" and what we are calling "marriage" when we put the term "same-sex", "homosexual", or "gay" in front of it. I don't do it because it's immoral; I am objecting because they're not the same thing, and I use "mirage" in its place to call that to your attention.
4 comments:
I think the step before experience was accepting their definition of sensuality. I find myself falling into that mistake. They are not "homosexuals" because they are attracted to the same sex, they are homosexuals when they have sex with the same sex. You hear of these "homosexual Christians" that don't participate in same sex activity. That's a misnomer because we've accepted the identification of homosexual rather than the act. From there it's simple to accept experience over Scripture.
It is interesting how "homosexual" once meant "the sexual acts they do" until the late '60's when they smuggled in "the same gender you're attracted to" and then we bought it. You can see the process in translations of 1 Cor 6:9-10 which goes from "homosexuals" to "commit homosexual behavior" more recently because "homosexuals" used to mean the same thing and doesn't anymore. The shift from activity to identity is subtle.
and is it not true David and Stan, that Jesus had said that anger is the same as murder, lust is the same as sexual immorality and so forth. So if I harbor same sex attraction its still homosexuality right? One CANNOT be in a relationship with the same sex but obstain from sexual relations, for it would still be homosexuality. Society/Satan has deluded so many... I fell down that hole just because I needed to be justified in my actions.
I think that's where the problem is I was talking about. While fantasizing about same gendered sex would be homosexual, it doesn't mean you ARE homosexual. The way you're describing, at least how I'm reading it, is an identity, not an action/thought. We've gotten so muddled on the concept of homosexual as an identity, we're having trouble separating it from the act it originally described.
I would question the reason for being in an intimate relationship with someone (as we've redefined relationships today) and not being sexually involved. To be in some sort of "monogamous relationship" with someone, but not have sex with them would mean you're not in that kind of relationship and it wouldn't be homosexual, since sex is kind of in the word. If you had sexual thoughts about that person, that would be a time to reconsider the relationship.
Post a Comment