Homosexuality:
Is one destined to Hell, or is God bigger than that?
All contents copyright © 2014 by M.L. Wilson.
All rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.
* * *
There is
little doubt that with this commentary, I feel as though I have just stepped on
a Claymore pressure trigger landmine. I’ve already heard the “click” and once I
move my foot, it’ll blow me to smithereens. Alas this is the topic I’ve decided
to take on as it has become something of a contentious issue of late. Not that this
subject hasn’t been addressed time and time again by much deeper thinkers than
I, but (if I may be so bold) it hasn’t been addressed from the perspective I’m
going to introduce to you. Does this unique perspective I offer really matter?
Well it might and it might not; that is up to the reader, but my goal is to
simply allow for some reasoning to be applied to the argument where thus far I
have seen only partisan bickering from a perspective of bias and bigotry. For
example, as a general rule those who are anti-religious generally tend to take
a pro-homosexual attitude. The converse is true for those who hold more religious
views. As one who has spent a great deal of time disassembling religion and its
attendant thought vis-à-vis the Bible, I thought it was time to weigh in on
this topic.
Suffice
to say no one is going to come away from my commentary completely happy with
what it is I’m going to say. Some in the religious community will only be
encouraged to sharpen the tines on their pitchforks all the more while some in the
secular community are going to call me a homophobe just as sure as the sun will
rise in the morning. I am aware of this, but the United States is still a free
country so until I’m bundled off and become part of the “disappeared,” I’ll
write what I know and believe. Hopefully it will be received as intended to the
benefit of all. Now on with the show.
Homosexuality
is an uncomfortable topic for many. It was and largely remains, “The love that
dare not speak its name” as poet Lord Alfred Douglas once opined. But why? When
all convention is stripped away, why are we as a people uncomfortable with a
homosexual union? This is an interesting question and one that has fascinated
me for decades. When one bores down on the “why” aspect, the “why” starts to
unravel. What we uncover really isn’t so much a legitimate reasoning, as much
as it is a bias. Such, to me, is fascinating all the more.
I like
debating contentious issues. I like asking somewhat leading questions because
in so doing, people reveal their true natures and thought (or lack thereof).
When I am discussing the nature of homosexuality with my religious friends,
invariably the mention of the prohibition by God comes up. Very quickly they
will cite God in Genesis chapter two.
That is
why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they
become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
– Genesis 2:24-25
This is
buttressed by further quotes from Leviticus which read:
Thou
shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
-
Leviticus 18:22
If a man
also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them.
- Leviticus 20:13
The quotes from Leviticus
are part of what is called the “Holy Code” due to the repeated use of the word Holy. This Holy Code is covered
primarily in Leviticus chapters 17 – 26. I do not want the reader to in any way
misconstrue my respect for the Bible or the Old Testament, but as readers of my
earlier commentary on Bible inerrancy are well away, I view scripture and the
Word of God differently than most of my fellow Christians. This is important to
understand while reading my rationale for the conclusions I reach. (That
commentary can be found here:
I’ll delve further into
the Old Testament reasoning later on, but first let us look at the converse
viewpoint. What is the reasoning by my secular friends who see no problem with
Homosexuality, or if they do, why they do so without their being any sort of
religious component.
I grew up in the San
Francisco Bay Area which even back in the day (1970s) was an eclectic mix of
people. In many ways we were far ahead of the rest of the country with respect
to the evolution of societal mores, placing us on a par with Europe. My friends
were decidedly irreligious, but I suppose no more than I. While I believed in
Jesus from my earliest memories, we were in and out of the church while I was
growing up and by my teens, the trend had been towards the Baptist faith. I
will admit that while much Baptist teaching seeped into my consciousness, I had
major problems with much of their doctrine. It is most likely the reason I look
for the rationale behind any religious teaching so closely today. It could
legitimately be said that the Baptist faith is the reason this commentary can
be written at all. God does work in mysterious ways…
I was well familiar with
the Homosexual community even if I didn’t completely understand the allure. My
friends all took a dim view of homosexuals and the typical epithets were
liberally sprinkled in their phraseology when the subject came up.
Interestingly enough as we all grew a little older from our early and mid-teens
and into our late teens, this bias began to fade. Soon enough, there were a few
homosexual men that were a part of the group. It is from this base that I draw
a great deal of my anecdotal experience.
There were two individuals
I remember quite clearly. One was a rather engaging individual who seemed to
take a perverse delight in making me as uncomfortable as possible. I as the
naïve “Christian boy” was a perfect foil for him. It was good natured teasing
and I actually didn’t mind. We had many, many in-depth conversations about a
host of subjects which I found valuable. He gave me an insight on his thought
process and I did my best to give him an insight into mine.
The other man was quite
the opposite. He clearly did not like me and the feeling quickly became mutual.
This had nothing to do with his sexual orientation, but rather had everything
to do with the fact that he was a straight up jerk. (It’s true, folks. Just
because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you can’t be just as unpleasant a person as
any heterosexual.)
After I left High School
and joined the military, I lost contact with this group. It was in the military
that I got my first real taste of predatory behavior from a homosexual male.
There were a couple of incidents when I was younger where older men had tried
to “get to know me better,” but I ignored them and moved on. This was different
as this man began to actually follow me. It gave me a very interesting insight
into how a woman must feel who is being stalked. It is interesting how
sometimes life can give you a glimpse into an area otherwise unknown.
My anecdotal take away is
that at its core, homosexuals are really no different than heterosexuals. One
group is attracted to the opposite sex while the other is attracted to their
own. Beyond that, I can see no difference personally. I’ve met stalkers of both
genders, I’ve met jerks of both genders and I’ve met great people of both
genders. So where does that leave us? We’re back to the “why” of the negative
feelings most of us by and large still have towards homosexuals. In can only
assume these feelings come from a perspective of the unknown.
Those who hold a hard
Biblical view will often go on to explain that the pairing of a man and a woman
is designed specifically for the propagation of the species; it is a natural
pairing therefore. Thus, two men or two women would be an unnatural pairing
because they cannot have children. Now to be completely fair to the logic of
that rationale, such thought would also negate the heterosexual pairing of
couples who are sterile, who desire NOT to have children, or are at a post-menopausal
state. In each example, the pairings are not designed for the propagation of
the species. Why should your seventy year old grandmother bother to marry her
seventy-five year old boyfriend if they aren’t planning on having children?
Similarly we are told that
such heterosexual pairings are a Holy institution before God Almighty. When a
homosexual couple comes together, it sullies the institution of marriage. I’ve
given this particular criticism a great deal of thought. I am of the belief
that the union of marriage from a faith standpoint is as an example for us
human beings. Jesus Christ uses such language when describing His relationship
to us as the church. He calls us His bride with He being the bridegroom. But he
also refers to us as His children and calls us joint heirs to the Kingdom of
Heaven. Are we engaging in a bit of incest here? No, these are analogies which
Christ employed so that we could understand the depth of the relationship
aspect from an empathetic point of view. Most of us have someone in our lives we
care about deeply be it a spouse or a child. The selfless care we show to those
people is what Christ wanted us to see in the marriage analogy. One will note
that neither analogy remains relevant once we enter into eternity with Him.
There is no marriage as the concept as we understand it as human beings is far
too remote and isolating. Our relationship with one another irrespective of
sexual orientation will be far more intimate. Our children here on earth will
then be our peers.
If one utilizes the Bible
to underscore the fact that Homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death,
then one must also acknowledge that Homosexuality is as old as the Bible. In
fact, homosexuality is as old as mankind. I’ll hasten to remind the reader that
the Bible is but one chronicle of one tribe of people in one part of the earth.
There are ancient chronicles of other peoples about the earth which gives us
insight as to their societal mores as well. Perhaps some history is in order.
When one looks at
homosexuality in Ancient Rome for example, one must acknowledge a different
relationship structure than the type enjoyed by the homosexuality community
which is predominant in today’s culture. Rome, like many societies before it,
engaged in a pattern of same-sex relationship based on age-dissonant sexual
dominance; an older man (not always very much older by the way) will take a
conventionally "male" role in a sexual relationship with a younger
male, but will not, in doing so, be regarded as any different from other
"male" men in general society.
Ancient Sparta was thought
to have encouraged older men to take young boys at about the age of twelve as
protégées. These two would enter into a relationship whereupon the older would
teach the younger. Sex was certainly a part of this instruction, but was not
the only reason behind the mentoring. Sparta was a military society and there
was a clear point and purpose to this relationship structure. These younger
boys were brought up to not only trust their mentors, but to also learn all
there was no known about how to navigate through life. To be certain, much of
what is known about Sparta is colored by the victors in history and allowances
have to be made for error, but that these male to male relationships existed
seems without a doubt.
Ancient Greece was
similarly accustomed to such male to male relationships, again owing to ritual
rites of passage under the umbrella of the military. In the 21st
Century we may be aghast at the union of an adult male taking a young boy for
sexual purposes, but ancient Athenian Law recognized no consent or age as
factors in regulating sexual behavior. In the ancient Grecian culture, pederasty
has been understood to be educative in nature. In this, it would appear to be
on par with the Spartan and Roman cultures.
Ancient Chinese culture
also shows evidence of the acceptance of homosexuality. Ruan Ji (210 – 263 AD),
the male lover of King Xi Kang was one of the most famous poets to apply his
brush to a homosexual theme. English historian Edward Gibbon (1737 – 1794)
observed that all but one of the first fourteen Roman Emperors were either
bisexual or exclusively homosexual. In like fashion, he found that for two
centuries at the height of the Han Dynasty, China was ruled by ten openly
bisexual emperors beginning in 206 BC. The names of the emperors, with their
acknowledged favorites were recorded in the official histories of the period by
Sima Qian and Ban Gu. It is also of note that in ancient China, there seems to
be no idea of a homosexual identity. Male bedmates of rulers were described
merely as men who received “chong” or
favor (which might be equally bestowed upon women) or, in Han texts, as “ning xing,” those who obtained love or favor through artful flattery.
So the history is firmly
established, but just because mankind is okay with homosexuality, doesn’t
necessarily mean that God is okay with homosexuality, correct? Mankind seems to
be okay with a great deal of that which God is not so favorably inclined. True
enough. The Chinese religious point of view is varied, but Taoism which is the
oldest of the religions seems less concerned about homosexuality than it does
with one’s purity; preaching a life of simplicity free from striving after
power and wealth. For the devout Chinese, sexuality was not an activity hedged
about by taboos or divine prohibitions, but a challenge to achieve well being
by proper management of what we might call physiological economy. (“Homosexuality and Civilization” by Louis Crompton)
Citing religious
understanding from other societies is of interest to me primarily because such
people were largely ignorant of the Torah or the subsequent New Testament
scriptures. All things being equal, how can one be held to a standard God
imposed if God had not given them the same information? Western religion is
quick to condemn, but they can do so from the comfort of having the needed
information at their disposal. Would they be so quick had they no such
information? I think the answer is obvious.
Native America Indians are
another mysterious group who had their own view of God which was quite
divergent from that of the ancient Hebrews. Native Americans believe something
similar to the ancient Greek Philosopher, Plato insofar as they believed that
God created three types of people; Male, female and Two-spirits. This from
Wikipedia:
"Two-spirited" or "two-spirit"
usually indicates a Native person who feels their body simultaneously manifests
both a masculine and a feminine spirit, or a different balance of masculine and
feminine characteristics than usually seen in masculine men and feminine women.
Two-spirit individuals are
viewed in some tribes as having two identities occupying one body. Their dress
is usually a mixture of traditionally male and traditionally female articles,
or they may dress as a man one day, and a woman on another. According to Sabine
Lang many tribes have distinct gender and social roles. Some specific roles
sometimes held by male-bodied two-spirits include:
·
Detail of Dance to the Berdashe, painted by
George Catlin
·
Healers or medicine persons
·
Conveyors of oral traditions and songs
(Yuki)
·
Foretellers of the future (Winnebago,
Oglala Lakota)
·
Conferrers of lucky names on children or
adults (Oglala Lakota, Tohono O'odham)
·
Nurses during war expeditions
·
Potters
(Zuni, Navajo, Tohono O'odham)
·
Matchmakers (Cheyenne, Omaha, Oglala
Lakota)
·
Makers of feather regalia for dances
(Maidu)
·
Special role players in the Sun Dance
(Crow, Hidatsa, Oglala Lakota)
To be certain, there are
other cultures about the world and their thoughts respecting homosexuality
going back to their origins, but such is for a more comprehensive look not
germane to this particular commentary. I endeavored only to give a broad
overview of the subject and how these “other gods” looked upon the topic. Based
upon the behavior of their people, these other gods either didn’t care, or
didn’t get around to addressing the issue.
Respecting the laws of the
Ancient near East and northern lands, the Codes of Urukagina (2375 BC),
Ur-Nammu (2100 BC), and of Hammurabi (1726 BC) don’t mention any specific
prohibition on homosexuality. The Hammurabic Code is of special note as it is
often seen as a model for the Mosaic Law. King Hammurabi was given his law from
his god in much the same way as was Moses. Many archeologists believe that
Moses’ story is a copy of that of King Hammurabi as the Mosaic Law was not
given until approximately 1586 BC; some one hundred, forty years before Sinai. This
brings me back to the Torah and then onto Christianity.
I had mentioned earlier
that it was important to remember that the Torah is but one chronicle of one
tribe of people. We must not forget that when we are looking at the history of
humanity. Too often we regard the Bible as a complete history of humanity, but
it is not. The Torah began as an oral history passed from one generation in one
family to the next. Like any family history, these stories were not concerned
with that which was not relevant to them. Thus, Genesis chapter one deals with
the creation of the entire universe and the entire earth and all the people
placed upon it. Beginning with chapter two, the story becomes more focused on
just the tribe of the people who would later become known as the Hebrews. The
“Others” about the whole of the world had their own stories and chronicles
which are largely ignored by the accounts in the Torah unless there was some
overlap. The Old Testament records no interactions with people of Nordic
ancestry or those of Native American ancestry for example. It is unlikely that
there are any interactions with those of Asian ancestry. It is clear that there
were interactions with those of black ancestry, but this seems to be later on
in the chronicle.
I mention this only
because it is very pertinent when one is looking at the breadth of human
history on this planet. In my commentary on the races, I delve into this topic
in greater detail. That commentary can
be found here:
Within the tribe of the
people who would become the Hebrews, it is important to remember that they are
ruled by their god. This is not God Almighty, but rather a mighty spiritual
entity referred to as a Celestial being by both the Apostle's Peter and Jude. (2nd
Peter 2:10 and Jude 8) The Celestial being who rules over the Hebrew people as
their god is named Helel. His name in Hebrew means, “Light Bearer” for his job
is to bring the Light of God Almighty to the Hebrew people. It is because this
Celestial being failed to bear the Light of God Almighty to the Hebrews that he
was cast down (Isaiah 14:12). Helel shone only his light to the Hebrew people
rather than God’s true Light. It was left up to Jesus Christ to be the true
Light to all humanity, not just the Hebrew people (or any other select group of
people on the earth).
Thus when the Old
Testament calls such specific acts as homosexuality into question (Leviticus 20:13), we
are reading the admonition of a Celestial being and not God Almighty. Why do I
say that? Well in addition to the information I have already outlined, let us
look at the character of the Celestial being, Helel and juxtapose that with the
character of Jesus Christ who is God Almighty.
In Deuteronomy 20:10 – 20,
we are given a listing of how Israel is supposed to comport themselves when
attacking an enemy in the Land of Canaan. These are not instructions specific
to one group of people who have already shown violence against the Hebrews;
these are generic instructions against any who would present resistance. Verse
14 states:
“As for
the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may
take these as plunder for yourselves.”
War
is rarely transcendent; it is vicious and cruel. The outlook for these women
and children taken by the Israelites was stark. Historically in war, rape of
women and children is common place. It had been perpetrated upon the Hebrews by
those who had conquered them in war, and it is clear the Hebrews returned the
favor with the blessing of their “god.” Rape was common place and knew no age
limit if such was given as plunder. Thus, many young children suffered
indignities they otherwise would not have at such a young age. It could be said
that the women and children as part of this particular battle strategy got off
easy as later on when the Celestial Helel ordered the annihilation of the
Amalakites as outlined in 1st Samuel 15:1 – 4, not even the women
and children were spared. Imagine justifying the killing of a small child
because “god” said so? Just believe me when I tell you no such order ever came
from the mouth of God Almighty. For proof of this, please note the character of
God Almighty as outlined by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:22:
But the fruit of
the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Further, God Almighty describes Himself as love. (1st
John 4:8) The Apostle Paul describes love in this manner:
Love is patient,
love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not
dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no
record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It
always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never
fails.
– 1st
Corinthians 13:4 - 8
This
is God’s true character. If one can reconcile the actions of the Old Testament
god with the character displayed in Galatians 5:22 and 1st Corinthians
13: 4 – 8, that would be a neat trick. My guess is one could only do so by
presuming that which is not mentioned in scripture. God is love. This is how He
describes Himself and how He wants us to know Him. He desires an intimate
relationship with all mankind, not just the Hebrews and not just those who have
had the ability to go to church and get “saved.” The parables of Christ with
respect to the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11 -32), and the parable of the Lost Sheep
(Luke 15:1 – 7) should give any Spirit-filled reader the understanding that
Christ is reaching out to all of us. The age of the Celestial rule over
humanity is done ... as is their exclusivity.
In
my commentary on Matthew 27:51 – 54, I outlined this spiritual structure and
the Celestial hierarchy. That commentary can be found here:
When
the curtain in the inner Holy of Holies was torn from the top down, it was a
signifier that humanity was no longer under the rule of the Celestial beings,
but now we were under the Grace of Christ. When my Christian brothers and
sisters refuse to acknowledge this paradigm shift, they not only diminish
Christ, but they relegate him to the back row. Thus when they become apologists
for the mass killings sanctioned throughout the Old Testament, they are siding
with the enemy rather than with the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross. This
is nothing to take lightly as a Christian. Our primary function on this earth
is to be a Light to others. When we spend our limited days in the flesh
spreading condemnation, how are we a light? Christ did not come to judge the
world and neither should we.
This
brings me around to the status of homosexuality in the Old Testament. It must
be understood that such admonitions are from the mind of this particular
Celestial being and not God Almighty. If that is understood, then we can
proceed to the New Covenant and see just how Christ viewed homosexuality. One
might be surprised at the conclusion.
In
Romans 1:26 – 28, Paul is discussing the hearts of those who have turned their
backs on God. He speaks on their depravity, explaining that the men and the
women have exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, abandoning the
natural desire for the opposite sex and instead opting for relations with the
same sex. We seem to focus on that part of the scripture and ignore the rest, however.
Context is everything and when one looks at the context of what Paul is talking
about, the picture becomes just a bit more clear.
Paul
was addressing the infant church in Rome. The Book of Romans was thought to
have been written by Paul while he was still in Corinth approximately 56 AD.
This was still early in Paul’s over-all ministry. (Paul thought to have been
martyred in Rome around 67 or 68 AD) This was also in the very early reign on
Nero, but prior to his more horrific acts against the Christians. This period
of time in Rome was better for a short while under Nero, but over-all Rome was
in a moral state of decay.
Prior
to Nero, Rome had been ruled by Claudius who had actually managed to steer the
ship of state out of the rut his nephew, Caligula had placed it. Scandal didn’t
miss his house as it is thought his death was caused by his wife, Agrippina the
Younger, so that her son from her relationship with Roman Consul, Gnaeus
Domitius Ahenobarbus, could ascend the throne.
Caligula
had reigned only a little over three years, but the Empire reeled under his
antics. He nearly bankrupted the Empire with his extravagance and his
debauchery seemingly knew no bounds. In 41 AD, Caligula was stabbed thirty
times by conspirators.
Prior
to Caligula, the Empire was ruled by his great uncle, Tiberius. Tiberius was a
great general conquering much of what is today England, Germany and France for
the Empire. But Tiberius was not well suited as an Emperor and soon retreated
to the tiny Island of Capri, never setting foot in Rome again. While on Capri,
Tiberius was able to give in to his lusts of pedophilia, having his swimming
pool filled with little children to swim with him naked and pleasure him
sexually.
This
was the atmosphere which Paul had waded into. These were the cultural norms
which he was addressing. When we fail to understand just what it is that Paul
had to put into context in his letter to the church at Rome, we do everyone a
disservice. Writing from Corinth, Paul
was already well familiar with that port city’s dark peculiarities. Rather than
focusing on the mere fact of homosexual relations between the men and the women
of Rome, Paul addressed all manner of evil. The entire Empire was corrupt and
it was this heartlessness which Paul was attempting to address.
Furthermore,
just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God
gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.
They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of
doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no
fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that
those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very
things but also approve of those who practice them.
-
Romans 1:28 – 32
Paul
essentially covers every aberrant deed known in this conclusion. Why is it that
we as the church seem to ignore that which is a part of our lives and instead
focus and that which is not? As a church, do we give more license (read grace)
to the adulterer than we do to the homosexual? Historically that is indeed the
case. It is almost looked upon as a certain fait
accompli that men cheat with women. The patriarchs did so and in fact, had
multiple wives all with God’s seeming blessing. (King David had multiple wives,
yet is described as a man after god’s own heart in 1st Samuel 13:14)
How is it that we can excuse this bastardization of the marital bed with the
Old Testament patriarchs, but then condemn a committed, monogamous homosexual
couple? We can do so because the Old Testament “god” tacitly approved of
adultery by a man and the multiplicity of wives while calling homosexuality an
abomination worthy of death.
Here
is what I see as the point Paul was making. Sexual immorality—ANY sexual
immorality—creates a barrier between the intimate relationship God wishes to
have with his creation and Himself. Sexual immorality can be found amongst the
heterosexual population just as well as the homosexual population. When a young
woman announces on the internet that she is going to set a record for having
sex with a thousand men in twelve hours, what is that saying about her ability
to allow room for God in her life? This woman, an X-Rated star named Lisa
Sparxxx nearly accomplished her goal in October 2004. She fell short by
eighty-one men. That is an extreme example, but the converse is also true. Men
parading about at Gay Pride Parades in almost nothing, waving their “parts” at
others are just as egregious.
Human
beings are not the sum total of their genitalia. Absent the body, we are
spirit. While we will retain our identities of our time in the flesh once we
transition to the spirit, the limitations of sexual identity will be gone. The intimacy which
will be experienced will make the sex act seem distant and remote under the
best of circumstances. Sex is a necessity to propagate the species as designed.
(Mitosis wouldn’t give us the individuality which makes our world so
interesting) I believe sexual pleasure was given in order to ensure that
propagation. Given the rudiments of the act, we either would proceed upon
instinct—which robs us of our individual free will, or we would find ourselves
enticed through reward. Absent either inducement, I would find it curious as to
why anyone would ever engage in the sex act. Deep intimacy with others can be
attained without sex. Such intimacy is of the spirit, not the body.
We
look upon our bodies with such disrespect that we think nothing of polluting
them with not only thoughts, but actions which are not at all good for us. As
the Apostle Paul had said, “All things
are permissible, but not all things are beneficial…” (1st
Corinthians 10:23) We are given charge over our fleshly shells for just a
little while; they are not eternal and will perish soon enough. However when we
take care of that which has been given us, it speaks much to the love and
respect for the one who gave them to us to begin with. You wouldn’t accept a
cherished gift from a friend and then proceed to smash it to bits before their
eyes if you loved them … and the gift given. The same holds true for the gift
of the bodies we’ve been given while here on this planet.
My
theology has led me to conclude that the Celestial Helel (once again, Lucifer as
outlined in Isaiah 14:12) is enraged over homosexuality because he constructed
our fleshly shells to operate in a specific manner and sees us as misusing them
for their intended purpose. Consider an engineer designing a car to run only on
paved roads, but the owner of the car LOVES off-road driving. Now off-road
driving isn’t necessarily wrong per se, but the designer is going to become
unhinged because the car wasn’t designed to operate that way and won’t enjoy
full efficiency.
The analogy isn’t perfect, but hopefully one will see what I
am trying to say. A homosexual couple—male or female—cannot propagate the
species in their desired pairing; the design doesn’t allow for that. Never the
less, the couple can have a relationship which for better or worse fulfills all
the other aspects of a traditional relationship. It must be understood by all
that this is not an argument as to whether or not homosexuality will keep one
from Heaven. God has already answered that question. If one believes that because
homosexuals engage in sexual intimacy God will damn them to hell, one doesn’t really understand the nature of Christ or what Paul was attempting to
explain to the Church at Rome. Again, it is not JUST about homosexuals; it is
about the position of the heart before Christ for all of us. How we as
Christians treat anyone—homosexuals included—speaks to the position of our
hearts before Christ.
God
created each and every one of us with purpose and seeks to have a relationship
with us; He loves all of us regardless our sexual orientation or identity. While
He utilized His Celestial agency to be His face to us in the Old Testament
times, He now uses US for that
purpose. For those of us—heterosexual or homosexual—who have experienced the
very worst of God’s human agency, one must not look towards such people to
establish a relationship with God. God does not want us to have a relationship
with Him through proxy; God wants a relationship with each one of us
individually; we must all come to Christ individually.
Don’t
be led astray from such a relationship because one of God’s ambassadors is
off-putting. I have been similarly consigned to the same fiery pit of hell by
these errant folks for the theology I propagate. I realized long ago they may
be well meaning, but they approach the situation from a point of fear and
ignorance. You see, God is as mysterious to them as he may be to you. God uses
others to be His face for a very specific reason; human beings learn to be more
like Him when we have to be His spokesman. This isn’t always going to lend
itself to a smooth ride. Christ told us that we need to count the cost of
becoming a disciple. (Luke 14:25 -34)
“Jesus
replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.’ This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the
second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ All the Law and the
Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
- Matthew
22:37 – 40
The
Hebrews have 613 Levitical Laws and the 10 Commandments. This comprises the breadth
of the Law. There are further instructives which permeate the teaching just as
with any denomination, yet Christ took all of those rules and regulations and
distilled them down to two … TWO. These two cover everything irrespective of
religious affiliation. When one denigrates Christ, is one approaching Christ
from a position of fear and ignorance? Did one enter into a relationship with
Christ through proxy, or is one entering into their own personal relationship?
There is the primary problem on earth today. We insult, denigrate, malign, and
hate that which we’ve never bothered to understand.
The
homosexual community feels attacked and desire to have the same freedom to
exercise their sexuality as any heterosexual couple. However they have cleaved
to examples to represent their interests which are as bad as the worst of
heterosexual smut peddlers. This may not be a popular opinion, but it is a
correct one: have self respect for who you are as a person. I’ll reiterate:
Human beings are not the sum total of their genitalia. Rather than behave as
adolescents with a new toy, the homosexual community needs to understand that
with freedom comes responsibility. To be taken seriously, the antics have to
cease. This is an admonition not only to the homosexual community, but to the
heterosexual community as well. The serial philandering, whoring about and
general disrespect for one’s sexuality irrespective of sexual orientation has
to stop. As the Apostle Paul once said:
When
I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a
child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
– 1st
Corinthians 13:11
A
Christian seeks a relationship with Christ and then to usher others into that
same intimate relationship. This is what it means to make disciples of all
nations. Once others enter into that relationship for themselves, the Spirit of
the Living God will work on their hearts and give them instruction. We cannot
SAVE anyone as that was the job only of Jesus Christ. Be the face of Jesus
Christ to your fellow man, help them to enter into that right, intimate
relationship, and then allow the Spirit to do the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment