As has been aptly stated many times, “There are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who don’t know what’s happened.”
In 1992, the news media began bombarding the public in behalf of the homosexual cause. With scarcely a lull since that time, the attack has continued unabated. In fact, the proponents of this sin go to such great lengths in keeping their ideas before the public that a person could write a rebuttal to them about once a week. Following are a few of the controversies that have occurred thus far this year.
First of all, there was the Baptist Church who refused to allow a “gay” choir to perform. One of Dallas’ local columnists took them to task as being un-Christian and incorrectly cited, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Readers reminded the uninformed columnist that Jesus also said to the woman, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:7, 11). They also pointed out that the “choir” had no intention of repenting of their sins, which is the crux of the problem. The goal of the homosexual movement has ever been public acceptance of their sin, even “Christian” acceptance.
The second controversy occurred in February when a Dallas Episcopal Bishop brought up another bishop on charges of heresy for ordaining homosexuals as deacons in 1990. The Dallas Morning News on March 6th allowed articles both supporting and denying the charge of heresy.
The bishop who did the ordaining defended his actions on the basis of culture. “The church has to stay alert and alive to what’s happening in the culture” (19A). [Is he friends with Randy Mayeux?] When Bible teaching on this subject was called to his attention, he replied, “We do not worship the Bible. We use it for interpretation–we don’t take it literally” (19A).
God never used culture as the index for determining His laws. At the very time that Moses was on the mount receiving the ten commandments, the people broke out in revelry, insisting upon and getting a golden calf. God didn’t say, “I see the culture has already rejected these first three commandments; I’ll use “Liquid Rock” on those and send you down with the other seven. And when Israel violated the remaining commandments, what else could God do but sigh and say to Himself, “I’ll see if I can find ten more”?
The “bishop” is correct when he states that we don’t worship the Bible, but the Bible does tell us how to worship God correctly, as well as how to live properly. The Bible also defines sin, and most of the terms (murder, stealing, adultery) are fairly easy to comprehend without a great deal of “interpretation.” Of course, if someone refuses to admit that most parts of the Bible are to be taken literally (and, in fact, refuses to take any part literally), then it may as well be discarded entirely.
In defending the ordination of “gays,” Mark Johnson writes that it would be un-Christian to deny them. “If the church is to welcome and celebrate the body of Christ, it can’t exclude gays and lesbians any more than it can exclude women, people of color and people with disabilities. All of us are part of the creation” (19A).
As long as homosexual sympathizers are going to make this inaccurate comparison, Christians will need to respond. [If the battle against this sin can be won, it will have to be fought by Christians. If a victory could be achieved on purely practical considerations, the specter of AIDS would have already accomplished it]. The fallacy of this comparison is that we come into this world as male or female; we are born with or without color; we may have some disability at birth (or obtain one along the way due to a number of reasons); but NOBODY IS BORN A HOMOSEXUAL. Proof? The fact that many have changed (even those convinced they were born that way) destroys this argument.
“Second, the church will continue to lose many good and talented people as both clergy and lay people. They will be dissuaded from joining a church that won’t recognize them and respect them for all they are” (19A). [Is this guy friends with Randy Mayeux?]
Why not just say it more accurately: “Many good and talented people will be lost to the church that won’t legitimize their sin”? Aren’t there any talented adulterers? So a man left his wife and four children; he still should be allowed to use his talents and abilities for God. So he embezzled several hundred thousand dollars from his company; shall these souls be denied a place in the church? Even John Gacy painted a number of pictures. Who knows what other talents murderers might possess? This line of reasoning is absurd. It is used in the absence of any Scriptural argument to get homosexuals accepted in their sins.
A New Forum: The Internet
This past week Southwest held their annual lectureship. Johnie Skaggs made a copy for me of what he had just pulled off the Internet. It’s a defense of homosexuality based on the Scriptures in that the author attempts to explain away those passages which condemn the sin.
Such is not the first attempt to do so. Books have been published in vain attempts to find Biblical support for homosexuality. But this new avenue of expression may find more readers than any other–even more than the usual flurry of editorial letters published almost daily in various newspapers. Following is a response to these “perversions” of the Scriptures.
Genesis 19:1-25
The audacity of whoever has produced this document is seen in the opening lines. “What was the sin of Sodom? Some ‘televangelists’ carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of ‘homosexuality.’ Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture corrects such ignorance.”
Notice that the publishers of this document first try to prejudice their case. Knowing that “televangelists” are currently held in low esteem, they want all who disagree with their viewpoint to be associated with people who have been discredited. Furthermore, those who disagree with them make “careless” proclamations. And notice that only “some” theologians have held to the homosexual explanation. The best evaluation of these comments that could be made is that they are dishonest and misleading.
The fact is that every major commentary (Pulpit , Clarke’s , Barnes’ , etc.) recognizes the facts and truth of Genesis 19 (and none of them were televangelists). If there are any “theologians” whatsoever who hold a different view, they must be quite modern. Furthermore, they would be wrong if they did hold such a view.
The rest of their “explanation” of Genesis 19 will be considered next week, along with an appropriate refutation of their perversions of the Word of God.