Friday, January 16, 2015

The Importance of Right Belief

I have heard it said that “what you believe does not matter, but that it is what you do that does. After all, when I go to heaven, will Jesus ask me whether I believed in the atonement and other doctrines?” At first glance, this statement appears to have some credence. However, this cannot be farther from the truth. Rather than our beliefs being irrelevant to what we do, what we do is determined by what we believe. Our actions demonstrate what we believe! Whether or not we believe in the atonement of Christ will be evident in what we do. These doctrines are not somehow detached as this person implies. Belief (pisteuĆ³ in biblical Greek) can also be translated as commit or entrust. The authors of the Bible understood that if one believes in something, that they would also show it in their actions. Jesus’ commandment for us to “believe” echoes this. Therefore, for example, to believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour would mean that you would also live out that truth, and not contrary to it. Improper belief, therefore, would lead necessarily to improper action.

To put it simply, thoughts in our minds, whether emotive, instinctual, externally influenced, or consciously synthesized, come before an action. Even what is sub-conscious comes as a result of what we think. If I were to pick up a cup, I would first have to decide to pick up the cup. I do not simply pick up the cup first, then decide to do so afterwards. Rather, our thoughts, if brought to fruition, are the “cause”, and what we do is the “effect” (relatively speaking). Even in this simple act I must have some belief. In this case I would believe that I am capable of picking up the cup. I would believe that, if I reach my arm out towards the cup that I would have the necessary strength to lift it up. I would trust in the physical constants around me, that they would not simply change at random. This may be all well and good, but how does this relate to proper beliefs being important and not merely the effect?  What I have established here is that regardless of what we do, our actions are grounded in specific beliefs. We cannot do anything without it first being conceived in the mind, and what we conceive in our minds are determined by what we believe to be true. I believe that I can pick up the cup, I visualize how to do it specifically, and then I pick it up (regardless of how fast or slow the process may be). We can then deduce that certain beliefs are required before I can pick up the cup (other instances would be involuntary and, quite likely, meaningless).

When we extrapolate the concepts of belief, thought and action to a worldview, it quickly becomes clear that certain constants emerge. If, for example, one believes that pre-born babies are sub-human, they will be more likely to support abortion. If one believes that they are human, they will be less likely. In the cases where they do not follow-through with those beliefs would be when others override them in importance or immediacy. What we believe in a specific instance, inclines us to a certain action. What we believe as a worldview (the culmination of our beliefs) determines how we will respond. In other words, if one believes that unborn babies were human and still advocated an abortion, then, in the greater context of their worldview, something else took precedence over the life of that baby. The worldview as a whole has priorities, which determine which particular belief will win over another when they come into conflict in a particular instance.

Where do we go from here? Is not belief meaningless so long as a desired result is attained? To answer those questions one must ask: How is that “desired result” determined, and how has that belief come to be meaningful and all of the others meaningless? This notion is self-refuting. To have a desired result demonstrates a certain belief; a belief that holds certain action over other action. However, for that action to be an end in itself, irrespective of belief, one must ascribe to the meaninglessness of all belief. In other words, they are asserting, in effect, that there is no such thing as objective truth, and that the person who determined the desired result has a preference. To believe that belief is irrelevant so long as the desired result is attained is largely synonymous with being only preferential with regard to vision, goals and direction because there is no objective standard through which that desired action can be determined. This kind of thinking can only be human in orientation and only show one person’s preference over another’s. By making that statement, one has demonstrated that the source of their beliefs is human. If this is true, then how can such a statement be Christian? Such a statement denies God as its source.


What About Particular Doctrines?

There are three points that need to be hammered about proper belief:
1. Belief gives a context for relationship
2. Belief is a covenant
3. Belief is a guide and anchor

Belief gives a context for relationship. Think about it. Christians believe that God is holy. That holiness (separateness from evil) entails certain requirements for reconciliation with Him. The same is true of God being loving. If God is loving, we can know that God is interested in our lives. And the list of beliefs continue until they give us a context for knowing God, much the same as a wife learning about her husband. If I never believed anything about my wife or if I can believe anything that I want about her, do you think that we would have much of a relationship? Our relationship would be non-existent. Rather, I learn about her likes and dislikes. I learn about her life, what matters to her, and seek to get to know her for who she is. The same is true of our beliefs about God. There are right and wrong beliefs with God as there are with my wife. What I believe, whether right or wrong, about my wife sets the precedent for our relationship, as it does also with God. Belief makes relationships possible, proper belief enables them to thrive.

Belief is a covenant. Belief is like a contract between individuals. While not all beliefs require covenant/contracts, one cannot have authentic agreements or contracts without proper belief. My wife and I have made a covenant of marriage. Remember that proper belief entails living it out. My wife and I believe specifically in that covenant that we have become one, that we are to be married for as long as we both shall live, and that we possess each other in loyalty. Without these beliefs, our marriage could not happen. I could not simply believe anything that I want about our marriage and expect that to make no difference to it. The same is true of God and any legally binding document. When we give our lives to Him, we do just that. When we say that we will follow and abide in Christ (sanctification), as He enables, when we are converted, we make a covenant with God. As with any covenant or contract, there are very specific conditions; conditions, especially with God, that remain the same irrespective of our belief. To have improper belief here, as it would entail action, would be the same as breaking the contract or covenant. Specifics matter.

Belief is a guide and anchor. As with any set of believed instructions or framework for understanding reality, what we believe guides and grounds us. Belief helps ensure proper action, provides the context for that action, and offers direction, goals and a vision. Proper belief as a guide and anchor enables proper discernment to be possible. After all, without truth there can be no discernment between truth and error (i.e. no way to tell if one is deviating from the destination on a map). Improper beliefs are either aimless or lead into another direction that is not of the truth. If Jesus is the Saviour and Lord of our lives, then His Lordship will be our guide, and our most fundamental beliefs will be grounded in Him. Christ gives us specific vision, direction, instructions, and a framework for understanding reality. Anything else would be a deviation from Christ, regardless of one’s intentions. To its contrary, should we advocate a Christianity that is directionless, goalless and visionless? A Christianity that is bereft of any objective input from God? Shall we then be God’s arbiter? God forbid! This would be a denial of everything that makes Christianity Christian. To forsake Christ and His Word as our guide and anchor is no different from suggesting that we maintain an “uncertainty” in regards to His words. What a useful guide that would be! Indeed, this is a false humility. The Apostle Paul called people like this “children” when he instructed, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15). The Hebrews also fell victim to this and were instructed, “For when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Hebrews 5:12). This is where that false humility leads. Indeed, no one can say that the disciples and early apostles found “humility” in lacking certain conviction of Christian truths. Quite the opposite. They taught them with utmost conviction and certainty. That is not to say that we can never be wrong, but that we always refine and reform our beliefs to the Bible that reflects our guide and anchor. The Bible is plain, and our assurance is clear. Therefore, “study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

In summary, our actions demonstrate what we believe. Improper belief leads to improper action, and proper belief leads to proper action. What we conceive in our minds to do is determined by what we believe to be true. What we believe in a specific instance inclines us to a certain action. What we believe as a worldview (the culmination of our beliefs) determines how we will respond. To hold that belief is meaningless so long as a desired result is attained denies God as its source and is self-refuting. Belief makes relationships possible, proper belief enables them to thrive. Belief is a covenant and, much the same as any legal document, is very specific. Belief is a guide and anchor, with which one derives their meaning, purpose, vision, and where discernment becomes possible. We are either going the right way or the wrong way. Proper belief enables proper action. We cannot follow God without it, we cannot know Him without it, we cannot hear Him without it, we cannot obey Him without it, and we cannot discern truth from error without it. In this, we must agree with Christ and the Apostles that doctrine matters and what we believe matters with an utmost importance. May we never downplay this.


As a final word, let us echo Christ when He said “to those Jews which believed on him, if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Disillusionment and Heresy in the Church

          I am deeply disillusioned with the majority of the professing church (those who call themselves Christians by name) of the West. Much of it relates to the rampant and often uncontested heresy (a word I do not use loosely) that so easily finds its way in through subtlety. Heresy is a rejection of the main historical doctrines of the Bible in the Church; doctrines that if removed have a ripple effect to diminish or make its very premise devoid. No heresy, then, can be Christian, but becomes something else entirely. It can range as diversely as removing the need of the atonement by removing sin, to worshipping an esoteric "Christ consciousness" that resides within every person. Yet, these errors are not difficult to discern if one only reads the Bible and allows that book to interpret itself, rather than imposing our own ideas on the text. In other words, while the Bible was written in particular cultures, its principles and truth are entirely transcultural. Our cultural understanding of love, for example, “an intense feeling of deep affection”, is very different from God’s unconditional love which incorporates commitment, judgement, suffering, and other elements that we may not immediately consider to be loving acts. The Bible is a book that speaks for itself and interprets itself. Superimpositions are, therefore, falsifiable and demonstrably so from that book in a very plain way. That, however, hits at the root of the problem in the West.

          Biblical literacy is at a ridiculously low level here. The church has largely become a free for all where every religious system and personal inclination has found its focal point emphasized rather than that of Christ, of whom resides the very purpose of the church. Do you fancy homosexuality? Omit or eisegete the passages that condemn it. Do you want an emotion driven spirituality that capitalizes on mystical experiences? Don’t read your Bible. You won’t find mysticism there. How about a God whose only aim is to please you?  Same deal. As I have been studying different religious systems and church trends, I have found many heart-wrenching errors. Some of the heresies that I have personally encountered include: the Contemplative Movement, Spiritual Formation Movement, the pagan cult of Romanism (Roman Catholicism), Wide Ecumenism, the Emergent Church, Prosperity Gospel, Christian “Spirituality” (New Age), New Monasticism, Monasticism, Asceticism, Social Gospel, Antinomianism, the New Apostolic Reformation, Toronto Blessing, many offshoots of Azusa Street, the gateway drug of Egalitarianism, Incarnational Ministry, Missional Theology, Dominionism and its worldly kingdom-now theology, the Triune Dance and its accompanying missiology,  Gnosticism, the Eucharistic Christ and the New Evangelization, Mary as Co-Redemptrix with Christ, Jesus Seminar, Process Theology, Existentialism, Universalism, anti-intellectualism, Experientialism, "Christened" homosexuality, syncretisms and over-"contextualized" indiginization, privatized Christianity, mysticism, Open Theism, Red Letter Christians, and the list goes on and on. The greatest source of my disillusionment comes from the fact that, dare I say, most professing Christians in the West walk around like their heads have been chopped off, as if our minds and biblical discernment are merely tools of the enemy to cause “disunity” and discord. Yet the latter is not a biblical idea at all, but one that, when held, indicates a lack of substance, maturity, and quite demonstrably, truth.

          Here is a notion that is still a mystery to me: How can one who confesses to love God hate truth? Can I love my wife if I care to know nothing about her? Would what I love then be my wife or something else? It surely cannot be my wife but either myself (hearing merely my preconceived notions echoed back at me or worse) or some other illusory thing entirely. The same is true of God. Everyone, therefore, who abhors truth and knowledge of God, as revealed in Scripture, does, in fact, hate God, just as if I hated or ignored the truth of my wife. These are not two way relationships but one way (with oneself). Commitment to heresy can only be a result of hatred of the one true God, ignorance, or both. If your beliefs were listed, which are you? Talk to me if you need help or just have questions, for, as Jesus said, “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:6-8) God is the source of truth, and that truth is contained in His Word. John 15:10 says, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” “Walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave unto him (Deuteronomy 13:4). Let His Word be your medium and your judge.

          It is not that my disillusionment is caused by disdain, but rather, an unrelenting sense of desire to see spiritual renewal: a reinstatement of the Reformation, if you will. What was the centrepiece of the Reformation? It was the Bible of course! It was to create biblical literacy and to put Bibles into the hands of common people. The irony of our current situation is that people have easy access to Bibles, yet, at its core, the problem is the same. People are searching inward for a hidden esoteric truth and superimposing their experiences there over the truth of the Bible. The Bible is viewed often as a smorgasbord for one to pick and choose what they want to believe. However, despite the appearance of tolerance in many of the listed movements, there is often a common disdain for biblical truth, as it exposes heresy for what it is. As Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” It is with this standard that the falsity and trueness of professing Christians will be judged.

          As Christians, while it may be necessary to jump ship at times to another church, it is important to not neglect and leave those sinking ships to face their otherwise impending oblivion. If we see something pulling the Church away from reconciliation, then it is our responsibility to expose that error in truth and love. If, however, that church persists in its heresy, and there is little or no hope for the truth there, especially if one may lose one’s self in the heresy, then it is likely advisable to move to a Christian church and to start viewing the former as a mission field. Eternity is incomparable to the temporal, and so are its consequences. Silence, therefore, in the face of heresy is the most hateful thing one Christian can do to another person.

          Peter, the leader of the 12 disciples, echoes Jesus’ words about current and present corruption in the Christian Church. They had very harsh words for those who promoted and partook in heresies, some of which has been listed above. 2 Peter 2 is a loving warning from a mature and knowledgeable man in the Scriptures who loves the church and the lost. In closing, notice the gravity of his words. They should prompt some serious reflection.


2 Peter 2:
"False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. 14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, 16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: 'The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.'"

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Praise God in Spirit and in Truth! Everyone with Breath, Praise the Lord!

              Today I have the topic of worship on my mind. I just listened to a sermon at my local church on the topic of worship. Essentially, it was based on Psalms 150 and the message that was given from it was that one must simply praise God harder and with more enthusiasm, without mention of the content of that worship. The implication appeared to be that any song, regardless of the content, will do. This was kind of disturbing for me because of the passage that says, “God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). In other words, we can muster up all the emotions and hand-waving we want, but if we are not worshipping God in truth, we are not true worshippers of Him. Another element struck me. Namely that pure emotionalism or experientialism in worship appeared to be the primary emphasis. By this, I mean that we could be, frankly, screaming one word over and over at the top of our lungs and call it worship. This is not worship. A big reason for this is that much worship today has lost all (or much) semblance of intelligence and depth. At best, in this case, we are often simply repeating the basic principles of the faith over and over, and at worst, praising ourselves or some other god. The Bible says, “For everyone that uses milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:13-14). I understand that this is not often attributed to worship; however, as in my last post on the topic, worship is to take place in every part of life. My point here is that those who view praise as simply singing anything to or about God (with the proper application of emotion and expression), cannot be more than “babes” in the faith, who lack understanding of what worship truly is. They are spiritually immature. To them, often, the more intense the feeling, the more they are convinced that they have truly “worshipped.” For this group, there is often a correlation made between heightened “feelings” and God’s presence, which is used as justification for this trend. However, this idea is very foreign to the biblical authors. There is no biblical backing for this whatsoever. The pursuit of this “presence” in the form of emotional-excitement, is, in fact, a form of idolatry. It has no connection to God, and one can believe whatever they like about God (even substituting another religious system) with no consequence to their felt “presence.” The Christian God is a God of truth, who does not change (Deut. 32:4; Malachi 3:6). If the truth of God is not in the music, then what is being worshipped cannot be God.

              One facet of worship is praise (singing, dancing etc.). There are no specific limitations to what styles or genres of praise one chooses (apart from endorsing paganism). In other words, it is possible to praise God through old hymns, contemporary gospel music, and even rock. The main aspect that I am discussing is the content of worship. Here is another verse to illustrate my point: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16). Notice that the “Word of Christ” (Bible), “teaching,” and “admonishing in all wisdom” is needed for right worship. These are not separate ideas, but one seamless thought. Worship then, is not and cannot be anti-intellectual! It must be wedded with truth, thanksgiving, exhortation, teaching, and application of Christ’s Word. In the past, theologians would be the people who wrote the worship music. Today, however, it seems that anyone who fancies poetry or tune feels qualified to write. Yet, this is not about qualifications, but content; a content that teaches, exhorts, challenges, and brings the worshippers closer to God in spirit and in truth, as He ought to always be the object of that worship. Macarthur wrote, concerning the recent-historical shift in worship music:

“[In the mid-nineteenth century and earlier Christian music was] composed with a deliberate, self-conscious, didactic purpose. They were written to teach and reinforce biblical and doctrinal concepts in the context of worship directed to God. In other words, the kind of worship they embodied made demands on the human intellect. [It] aimed to praise God by extolling and proclaiming His truth in a way that enhanced the worshiper’s comprehension of the truth. They set a standard of worship that was as cerebral as it was emotional. And that was perfectly biblical. After all, the first and great commandment teaches us to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Matt 22:37). It would never have occurred to our spiritual ancestors that worship was something to be done with a subdued intellect. The worship God seeks is worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24).
But over the past century and a half, the popular concept of worship has changed as radically as the forms of music we sing. These days worship is often characterized as something that happens quite outside the realm of the intellect. This destructive notion has given rise to several dangerous movements in the contemporary church. It may have reached its pinnacle in the phenomenon known as the Toronto Blessing, where mindless laughter and other raw emotions were thought to constitute the purest form of worship and a visible proof of divine blessing.
As I have argued in several of my published works, I believe this modern notion of worship as a mindless exercise has taken a heavy toll in churches. It has led to a decreasing emphasis on preaching and teaching and an increasing emphasis on entertaining the congregation and making them feel good. All of this leaves the Christian in the pew untrained and unable to discern, and often blithely ignorant of the dangers all around.
Such anti-intellectualism has infected our music too. Or perhaps trite and frivolous music is what spawned so much anti-intellectualism in the first place. Indeed, it may be the case that modern church music has done more than anything else to pave the way for the sort of superficial, flippant, content-starved preaching that is rife today” (p. 116-117, italics added).
(Macarthur, J. (2005). Fool’s gold: Discerning truth in an age of error. Wheaton, Illinois: Good News Publishers)

              When I see the music up on the projector, I often find it important to first analyze the content of the praise music. One can often be surprised at what is actually being sung and on whom we are giving praise. I cannot sing by good conscience that which does not praise and whose object is not God. One example, among many is the following:

All Who are Thirsty
All who are thirsty
All who are weak
Come to the fountain
Dip your heart in the stream of life
Let the pain and the sorrow
Be washed away
In the waves of his mercy
As deep cries out to deep
(we sing)

Come Lord Jesus come (3x)
Holy Spirit come (3x)
As deep cries out to deep (2x)

              This is often sung over and over to give those singing an emotional high. It is not really saying anything, but rather, focuses on the emotion of repetitiously invoking a divine name to fall on the audience. Frankly, this song has more in common with Shamanism than it does Christianity. In Shamanism, the name is considered to be very powerful, and to invoke power from a person or entity, as in the preceding song, one simply invokes their name over and over. This often relates to communing with those invoked spirits by getting into an altered state of consciousness through repetition and focusing inward. When we look at this song theologically, we notice that there is little or no theological truth in this song. As Christians, for example, we already have the Holy Spirit and Christ dwelling in us. We do not need to call Him in when He is already indwelling us. What we would get in this instance, is something other than Christ and the Holy Spirit. Also notice in the first half of the song just how vague the details are. What is the stream of life? Can anyone just drink of it just because? Is there some further commitment? Frankly, I could replace the word’s “Christ” and “Holy Spirit” with almost anything else and it would make little or no difference to the meaningfulness of that song. Also, notice the self-centric emphasis. It is only about what God can do for us, rather than our worship of Him. Once again, there are many, many songs that fall under this anti-intellectual and truth-less camp, and they are discernable on the basis on its content.

              The bottom line to this post is that, as Christians, we need to worship God in spirit and in truth. We cannot please God through purely emotional and shallow music that does not have God as its object. Rather, it must be biblically and theologically rich, and call us closer to God. It is not simply saying “God is good” over and over again. What good? Our good? What is good? We have to make sure that what we are worshipping is God in truth, and not some emotional high (which we may mistake as God’s “presence”). If you truly want great examples of what biblical worship looks like, take a look at the psalms. All of them are great examples, yet, in them, you will not find even a hint of anti-intellectualism, meaningless repetition, or a lack of theology. Rather, they are all theologically rich, God-centric, and consequentially from the former, emotional. This is worship that is theologically intelligent, and utilizes our heart, mind, soul, and if lived out, strength, to love and praise God (The greatest commandment—Mark 12:30). I challenge everyone reading this post to compare what you read in the Psalms with the contemporary music you often sing in Church. Take special note of the truth claims, emphasis, object, direction, and conclusions that the authors make. It may surprise you.

              There is much more that can be said on the subject, and with that, I will leave you with some quotes from John Macarthur on the importance of the content in praise music:

“Preaching is properly seen as an aspect of our worship. And conversely, music is properly seen as an aspect of the ministry of the Word, just like preaching. Therefore the songwriter ought to be as skilled in Scripture and as concerned for theological precision as the preacher. Even more so, because the songs he writes are likely to be sung again and again (unlike a sermon that is preached only once)” 121
“Like it or not, today’s songwriters are teachers too. Many of the lyrics they are writing will soon be far more deeply and permanently ingrained in the minds of Christians than anything they hear their pastors teach from the pulpit. How many songwriters are skilled enough in theology and Scripture to qualify for such a vital role in the catechesis of our people? The question is answered by the paucity of expression found in many of today’s praise choruses – especially when compared to some of the classic hymns. Although not true in every case, the theological depth that generally characterizes contemporary praise choruses is not as profound and not as precise. In fact, for some songs it might be appropriate to ask if the contemporary church is collectively guilty of dishonoring God with our faint praise.” 123

So the next time you are singing at church, take note of the content and remember just how important this topic is. And lastly, don’t forget about my challenge!

Sunday, June 1, 2014

A Christian Response and Assessment of Homosexuality


            Here is a major paper that I did for my capstone class. I really enjoyed writing on this topic because so few people know much on the subject. I love people that are caught in homosexuality. I have had friends who are actively in the lifestyle. We are called to love these people. When you read this paper, try to keep it in mind that these are people who need the love of Christ just as much as anyone else, and that we are called to minister and preach the Word to them in love. 


A Christian Response and Assessment of Homosexuality
            This paper will address basic homosexual claims, give an overview of the consequences of homosexual marriage in both its secular and Christian forms on the Church, and then formulate a Christian response on the preceding basis.
            The basic views of homosexual activists and traditionalists on homosexuality can be summarized using a “bio-psycho-social” model (Satinover, 1996, p. 19). The homosexual activists believe that homosexuality is genetically determined and innate (biology), irreversible, and its denial attributed to higher degrees of homosexual mental problems (psychology), and is considered “normal” and akin to race (sociology) (p. 19). In contrast, traditionalists view homosexuality as a choice (biology), reversible (psychology), and as abnormal (sociology); an illness (p. 20). Core to these conclusions is the assertion that homosexuality is either entirely genetic, or choice. Part one of this paper will demonstrate that whether homosexuality is genetic or choice is a false dichotomy, assess the potential harm of homosexuality, and whether or not it’s activity is sinful biblically. The conclusions from part one can set a precedent for evaluating homosexual marriage in both its secular and “Christian” forms in part two. In part three will be Christian responses to homosexuality in and outside the church as it relates to marriage (both directly and peripherally). Yet, it must be noted that for this paper, the focus will be on homosexual men rather than on homosexual women because of their prominence.

Part 1: Genetics, Harm and Sin
            Homosexuality and Genetics. While the scope of this paper prevents discussion of the corrupt politics that forced the American Psychiatric Association to change its views of homosexuality in 1973 (Bayer, 1981, p. 104-105), it can discuss some of the results of various studies that have been used as “evidence” of homosexuality’s basis in genetics.
            Satinover, a psychiatrist from Harvard, cites Michael Bailey, Richard Pillard, Michael King, Elizabeth McDonald, and others who worked with identical twins to demonstrate the genetic basis of homosexuality (p. 85-87). In order for homosexuality to be entirely genetic, there would have to be a 100% concordance rate between the identical twins (p. 83). In other words, one identical twin will never be homosexual, while the other is heterosexual. This is because if homosexuality is fully genetic, then there can be no other factors that can influence one’s homosexuality. Also in an experiment by Bailey and Pillard and another by King and McDonald, are some non-identical twins and sibling groups whose concordance rates are measured separately. If homosexuality is genetic, then the concordance rates between the two latter groups should be very similar. This is not what was found in those studies (p. 85, 89). Rather, what were found were average concordance rates under 50% in identical twins growing up in the same families (rather than separately), non-identical twins were 22 & 25%, and non-twin brothers were 9.2 & 12% (p. 87, 89). The conclusions from those popularly regarded studies demonstrate that non-genetic factors have a great influence in determining one’s homosexuality. Non-identical twins are generally closer relationally and do more together when compared to regular sibling groups; however, since the difference in concordance was more than twice that of regular sibling groups, environment clearly had a factor in the results (including the less than 50% concordance rates in identical twins). Genetics experts Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith agree when they said, referring to this data,
“The data in fact provide[s] strong evidence for the influence of the environment. On average, both non-identical twins and non-twin siblings share 50% of their genes. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, the pairs in these groups should be homosexual a similar percentage of the time. They certainly should [both] be homosexual [if one is] more often than adopted siblings. But Bailey and Pillard’s data do not fit those predictions” (1993, p. 60).
King and McDonald also concluded that “discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs [identical twins] confirmed that genetic factors are an insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation” (1992). As well, William Byne and Bruce Parsons, Columbia University researchers, who wrote a summative review of research on homosexuality, wrote:
“What is most intriguing about the studies of Bailey and Pillard and of King and McDonald is the large proportion of monozygotic twins who were discordant for homosexuality despite sharing not only their genes but also their prenatal and familial environments. The large proportion of discordant pairs underscores our ignorance of the factors that are involved, and the manner in which they interact, in the emergence of sexual orientation” (1993).
            Another point that is commonly made is that the brains of homosexuals are built differently than non-homosexuals, to demonstrate a difference in genetics. However, as Satinover states, “the brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences” (p. 79). Therefore, a blind person who reads brail will have the part of their brain that controls their finger larger (p. 79). This is because “the brain’s software is its hardware” (p. 80), and repetitive behaviour (software) changes the physical makeup of the brain (hardware).
            When a trait is behavioural, genetics are rarely directly connected (p. 94). In other words, genetics often incline people towards a particular behaviour, rather than determine it. Behaviour is not akin to the genetic determination of eye-colour. To better illustrate this point, is the example of a basketball player. There are no genes that determine a person to be a basketball player; however, there are genes that “code” for athleticism, height, strength, metabolism and so on (p. 94). Because of the person’s aforementioned genes, they are more likely to become a basketball player. They are not forced or determined genetically to become such. Satinover suggests that if basketball playing was made subject to the same tests that were done for homosexuality, they would find some “genetic” component for that in much the same way (p. 94). The same is true for predispositions to alcoholism, drug use and other addictions and behaviours (p. 96).
            On the other side of the spectrum are non-genetic factors that “influence the development of behaviour patterns” (p. 97). Broadly stated, they are: Intrauterine (prenatal and subject to that stage’s hormones), extrauterine (postnatal) regarding trauma and viruses, extrauterine (symbolic) regarding education and family interactions, extrauterine (experience) reinforcement and repetition of behaviours, and personal choice (p. 97). Regarding the concordance rates with the identical twins mentioned before, the environmental factors could not have been limited to the intrauterine stage of development. This is because both of the twins would have been made subject to the same hormonal milieu and changed identically as a result. More than 50% of the concordance rates overall, therefore, must be attributed to non-genetic factors), and the intrauterine factor must be accounted for in the concordance rates themselves (p. 97). The actual concordance for just genetics in homosexuality may be, as a result, much lower than 45%.
            As well, the intrauterine phase of development sometimes does not work in alignment with the genes of the baby because of the hormonal milieu (p. 99). A transgender and asexual, therefore, would not be so because of genetics, as one either has to be coded with an XY to be male, or an XX to be female, but because of hormonal changes that occurred in the womb (p. 101). Furthermore, there is no evidence that suggests the “feminization” of homosexual brains, but rather, it remains masculine (p. 101). Meyer-Bahlburg (1984) says that “No hormonal difference has ever been discovered between homosexuals and heterosexuals (as is dramatically the case between males and females) no matter how exquisitely sensitive the test” (as cited by Satinover, p. 102). This is because they are genetically male, and therefore not different from other men hormonally.
            From an evolutionary standpoint natural selection should eliminate or cause the decline of the purported “gay gene” (p. 103). Risch, et al. said, “One would expect that the role of a major gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong selective pressures against such a gene. It is unlikely that a major gene underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary counterbalancing mechanism” (1993, p. 2063-2065). Homosexuality is not diminishing from one generation to the next (a point that is emphasized by gay activists), which strongly suggests that it is, in fact, not genetic (Satinover, p. 103).
            Satinover affirms that “The family environment plays a critical role in the development of homosexuality,” as is affirmed by more than “eighty years’ worth of psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic observations” (p. 104). The large majority of homosexuals have had traumatic sexual experiences with a parent or other adult (Rekers, et al., 1983). Notably, it is the subjective experience of such a trauma that determines the degree, or lack thereof, of a boy’s gender confusion (Satinover, p. 107). This can be demonstrated as a fear of women and an over-familiarity with people of the same gender (safety), just as one example (p. 107). Homosexual behaviour, as a result, becomes a way of relieving stress as a “compulsive pursuit of pleasure,” as pleasure “is the most common human response to distress” (p. 108).  
            As a result of the false dichotomy of purely genetic and choice, Satinover suggests that we ask better questions that more accurately reflect the correlations between nature and nurture in behaviour. His suggested questions are, “To what extent, respectively, is such and such genetic and nongenetic, innate and noninnate, familial and nonfamilial, environmentally determined or not, direct and indirect [leading to the trait]? In the course of development, when do which influences dominate and how do their interactions affect one another?” (p. 75). All of these factors have to be accounted for in any given behaviour. No behaviour can be exclusively genetic or choice. To this, Rekers concludes, “the main source for gender and sexual behaviour deviance is found in social learning and psychological developmental variables…although we should recognize that there remains the theoretical possibility that biological abnormalities could contribute a potential vulnerability factor in some indirect way” (1987).
            The worldview of naturalism, the most common view regarding the secular sciences, says that only matter exists and that everything, therefore, must be a result of natural causes. Human free will is no exception. Taken to its logical end, the human brain is not unlike a computer (by this view) in that every function has been predetermined by its programming. Consciousness, autonomy, morality, and “free will” are ultimately viewed as having material causes that render its conception “illusory” (despite needing consciousness to begin with for an “illusion” to take place). As a system, therefore, naturalism “can say nothing of morality,” except that it can potentially help us to survive; how things are and not how they should be (p. 121). The illusion of free will is thus the “sheer complexity” of mechanism (p. 123). Behaviours, as a result, are seen as all being inherently deterministic; reducible to cause and effect. Affirming that homosexuality is purely “genetic” by this view does not need to be on the basis of evidence, but rather, philosophical assumption. Their statement of any behaviour being inherently genetic can be philosophically justified irrespective of current evidence and scientific advancement: “The analytic, scientific method in its very essence is reductive without limit. Applied to man, it is the universal solvent’” (p. 125). What homosexual activists are left with, by this desirable view, is an elimination of choice, and therefore, responsibility for their way of life (p. 125).

            Homosexuality and Harm. There is much harm that homosexual activity causes. In short, Satinover lists some as:
·         “A significantly decreased likelihood of establishing or preserving a successful marriage” (Bell, et al., 1981)
·         “A twenty-five to thirty year decrease in life expectancy” (Cameron, et al., 1993)
·         Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease—infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer
·         Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers
·         “Frequently fatal rectal cancer” (Daling, et al., 1987)
·         “Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases” (Judson, 1984)
·         “A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
·         A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is
·         At least a 50% likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected group of sufferers (although a very high success rate, in some instances nearing 100%, for groups of highly motivated, carefully selected individuals)” (Satinover, p. 51). These last statistics will be discussed and sourced later in the paper.

In addition, of almost 5000 homosexuals in Kaslow’s (1987) studies, 69-83% had over 50 “lifetime sexual partners” and in the past two years, more than 80% had “receptive anal intercourse with at least some of their partners in the previous two years.” Other studies demonstrated that only 2% of homosexuals had ten or less life-partners (Bell, et al., 1981) when compared to the 75% of heterosexual men who have never had sex out of wedlock (Michael, 1994, p. 205). Another noteworthy statistic, according to Goldman, is that epidemiologists estimate that 30% of all twenty-year-old homosexual men will either have AIDS or die by age thirty (Goldman, 1994, p. 5). When compared to the heterosexual population, the chances for getting AIDS for those homosexuals are over 430 times higher (Satinover, p. 57)! This is likely why AIDS was originally called Gay-Related Immune Disorder (p. 16).
            Regarding anal sex, with or without condoms, it is very harmful to the receptive partner. Every encounter causes trauma to the soft tissues and rectal lining (Satinover, p. 67). Unlike the vagina, which has reinforced tissue, tears in the anus, even without “severe trauma,” cause small tears that lead to blood contamination and feces getting into the bloodstream (p. 67). As well, continued trauma often leads to anal cancer, rectal incontinence and a host of other rectal problems and diseases (p. 67). One may suggest that the solution would be to become monogamous; however, those couples often engage in more anal sex than do “polygamous gay singles” (p. 67). There is much more that can be said regarding the harm of homosexual activity, but it is beyond the scope of this paper.

            Homosexuality and Sin. A distinction should be made between homosexual attraction and homosexual activity: in other words, for example, between being tempted and acting on that temptation. Acting on the temptation would be sinful, while not acting on it would not be sinful, for “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man” (Mark 7:15). Some Christians claim that homosexuality is just like any other sin; however, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” A distinction is made between sexual and other sins, as sexual sins are against our bodies, and as Christians, our bodies are “the temple of the Holy Spirit” right in the next verse (1 Cor. 6:19). As well, there are sins that are done out of ignorance, which are less severe, and those that are done knowing full well that they are sinful, which are more severe (Luke 12:47-48). The worst sins here, therefore, are sexual and committed knowing of their sinfulness (or having heard that it is sinful and rejected that claim).
            The central question for Christians and their responses to homosexuality is: is homosexual activity intrinsically sinful? William Webb, a Theologian from Heritage Seminary, recommends that “if a Christian wants to reflect the spirit and direction of the biblical text, a negative assessment of homosexuality needs to be retained. Only a negative-assessment application captures the essence of the movement between the ancient-world setting and the biblical text” (2001, p. 39). We have to remember that homosexual activity in the Old Testament was punishable by death (Lev. 20:13). This was unlike the ceremonial laws that had rituals to get one’s self back to being clean. Homosexual sin could not be rectified through “ceremonial washing” (p. 169). Homosexuality is not related to the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, which is significant because, when Christ came, He was the perfect sacrifice that brought to completion all of the ceremonial laws (the sacrificial system) of the Old Testament. Since homosexual activity was not ended as sin through Christ, but is a part of the moral law (as are all Old Testament laws with the death penalty), we must conclude that it still sinful today. Paul recognized this and said that those who engage in homosexual activity are given by God over to a “reprobate mind … who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:24-32). This reprobation is much akin to the aforementioned effect that habit (in this case, repetitive homosexual activity), especially of the sexual nature, has on the hardware of the mind, since the software is the hardware. Homosexuals become “hardwired” to homosexuality the more they practice it, as Paul recognized. Webb concludes that “the deepest issue for biblical authors was the breaking of sexual boundaries between male and female. Until God redesigns the physical/sexual construction of male and female, this distinction or boundary continues to influence our contemporary world” (p. 200). In other words, the sin of homosexual activity in the Old Testament is fully applicable to the contemporary world. Homosexual activity is sin.

Part 2: Secular and Christian Homosexual Marriage
            Homosexual Marriage at Large. There are many reasons why the homosexual marriage debate is important for Christians, in addition to its inherent sinfulness and harm that it causes to both homosexuals and to others. Homosexual activists, for example, are using their movement to coerce Christians to change their morality because of their “scientific” affirmation that homosexuality is innate and genetic (Satinover, p. 25). This argument has come to churches often in the form of “God made me this way” or “I was born this way” (Copan, p. 91). If homosexuality is natural, then who are we to oppose it? However, ever since the Fall, sin has become natural to us. The same argument could be applied to justify murder, pedophilia, bestiality, and any other “natural” behaviour that people have to sin. In other words, “there is ultimately no argument against pedophilia or any departure from heterosexual monogamy if individual experience is imposed on Scripture” (p. 91). Therefore, changing the traditional definition of marriage (as if it were only a social construct) will leave it wide open to all possible variables without defense.
            As well, gay marriage cannot be a neutral position, nor can someone (or an institution) take a neutral stance on it. The position we choose has wide-ranging consequences, a few of which are listed by Copan, such as “adoption, child-custody laws, public and private school curricula, [and] anti-discrimination laws based on marriage” (p. 112). Once all of this is in place, Copan states that, “principled disagreement … will lead to denunciations of ‘hate speech’ and intolerance” as it is moving presently (p. 113).
            Furthermore, in both public and private schools, students will have to learn (mandatory) that homosexual activities are safe and acceptable, yet, without discussion regarding its “typical features and typical consequences,” as it is in many states (Satinover, p. 22). This will serve to encourage children to get into the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality blindly, and will increase the frequency of those adopting the lifestyle.
            The institution of the family will suffer. Copan noted that “A society will be as healthy and strong as the family units that constitute it. If families are fragmented and dysfunctional, societies will be as well” (p. 113). In other words, homosexual marriage will serve to fragment and cause much dysfunction to families. David Popenoe, a sociologist, states that “children have dual needs that must be met [complimentarily by the male and female parenting styles]: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support” (1996, p. 145). Therefore, those that grow up without a mother or father are much more likely to be stunted developmentally, and live dysfunctionally.  This is especially true when we remember the aforementioned percentage of “stable” monogamous homosexual relationships (2%), the high probability for the parents to have mental illness, and the compulsive addictions that commonly come with the lifestyle (among others mentioned). The kids will more likely not know how to relate to a gender, and not learn the vital skills necessary for living a healthy life. Another important point is that “gay marriage separates marriage and parenting” (Copan, p. 114). The focus in a homosexual marriage is placed on the couple, rather than on rearing healthy children. Christians need to consider these consequences when making a decision on the topic of gay marriage.
            The irony of the whole gay marriage debate is that homosexuals do not gain any new freedom. They could already commit their lives to each other and have all of the same rights that any other person has in the West (Copan, p. 116). Marriage does not need to be redefined for them to live like married couples. What they do gain, however, is status: a change in the perception of the people regarding the acceptability of their desired lifestyles, and the imposition of homosexuality on the church (in all the forms the church takes in society) and others to accept its mores as a redefinition of morality.

            Covenant Homosexuality in the Bible. Homosexual marriage, in its “baptized” form is known as “covenant homosexuality,” which means that both members are of equal status, are committed and loving homosexual adults, and married under God. Since homosexual activity is clearly sinful (as aforementioned), it is untenable to assert the perpetuation of said activity under the guise of marriage. There are a number of reasons for this in addition to those already given. One is that in Genesis 2:24, God says that one man and one woman shall become one flesh. In homosexual marriage this is a “contradiction in terms” (Copan, p. 90). Homosexuality leaves the boundaries that God “commanded” in the same verse.
            According to Webb, many of those who hold to the covenant homosexuality view believed that the Old Testament did not include covenant homosexuality in any of its condemnations (p. 81). The underlying assumption here is that the pagan cultures surrounding Israel, and those driven from Canaan, while they practiced ritual homosexual prostitution and pedophilia, they never had any same-status, loving homosexual marriages, and therefore, the Bible could not possibly be condemning covenant homosexuality. In other words, they believe that covenant homosexuality is a new and contemporary form that did not exist when the Old Testament was written. However, the commandments about homosexuality are stated broadly in the Old Testament, and “Biblical tradition moved the cultural norms on homosexuality from a significant amount of tolerance and acceptance [in the pagan cultures] to non-tolerance and non-acceptance within the covenant community (ex: Lev. 18:22; 20:22; Deut. 23:18)” (Webb, p. 81).
            Furthermore, believers of covenant homosexuality often suggest that churches accept homosexual marriage in the church because it would remove “barriers [from] in the way of unbelievers” and attract them (Webb, p. 109). This reasoning, however, is fallacious because the purpose of the church is not mandated by what is attractive to society, but by the God of the Bible. Instead, one must consult the Bible to see if that claim is true (p. 109). What we find is that there are no texts to justify that position, but rather,
“prohibitions against homosexuality within Scripture [that] often carry a countercultural purpose in relationship to society. The kingdom of God is marked by different sexual behaviour than what is permitted in the kingdom of this world (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The homosexual prohibitions, like other sexual prohibitions, often challenge behaviour within the larger society” (p. 109).
Verses such as Leviticus 18:3, 24-30; 20:22-24 say that “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I shall bring you, shall you not do: neither shall you walk in their ordinances.” Webb says that it is those very acts that the covenant homosexuals want to accept, that led God to drive out the nations before Israel (p. 110). He suggests that covenant homosexuals were included in the condemnation because covenant homosexuality, as defined, was an option to those pagan cultures (p. 156). As well, ancient secular writers wrote specifically about lasting homosexual marriages that are akin to covenant homosexuality during that era, therefore, the Israelites condemned that variant of homosexuality as well (p. 161). Webb concludes that the whole Bible uniformly calls homosexuality sinful, and it “reveals that the lack of covenant or the lack of equal-partner status is simply not a substantive issue” (p. 250). Covenant homosexuality is, therefore, an unbiblical and inherently sinful position to maintain.

Part 3: A Christian Response to Homosexuality In and Outside the Church
            Homosexuality and Unrepentant Sin in the Church. As Christians, we are called to reach out to sinners (both in and outside the church) and form friendly relationships with them. We are also called to repent of our own sins, and if we notice that we are persisting in one, surrender it to God and work on ridding it out of our lives. Hebrews 10:26 says, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,” and Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” What these verses tell us is that Christians cannot continue in unrepentant sin (open rebellion against God), but must repent of their sins and seek God’s will. All who do not repent lack the “fear of the Lord [which] is to hate evil” (Proverbs 8:13), and therefore, also lack “the beginning of wisdom” as attained by “do[ing] His commandments” (Psalm 111:10). This is a very serious cause for concern, where people “call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). This sort of open rebellion is an affront to God and can lead other Christians down this path. Therefore, as Christians, sin should be recognized for what it is, as depicted in the Bible. If there is ever doubt, the Bible should be the medium. This may sound harsh to some; however, when Christians reject God’s commandments they reject His very nature as conveyed through Scripture, as 1 John 2:3 says, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” and in Malachi 3:6, “For I am the Lord, I change not.” Therefore, if a Christian is, or gets into homosexual activity and does not repent of it, especially if he calls it “good,” his salvation is at stake. Homosexual marriage among Christians is a clear confirmation of this unrepentance. The loving act for the Christian regarding homosexuality among other Christians would be to lovingly exhort them. This may be best done by someone who is in a position of authority (ex: an elder), or a close person to them in their lives. However, if this person cannot speak into their lives out of love, then it is better if they remain quiet than to spread hate and discord (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3). Kevin Deyoung, a Christian theologian, says in sum,
“Christians who live in habitual, unrepentant sin show themselves not to be true Christians. Of course, we all stumble (James 3:2; 1 John 1:8).  But there’s a difference between falling into sin and jumping in with both feet. It doesn’t matter the sin—pride, slander, robbery, covetousness, or sexual immorality—if we give ourselves to it and live in it with joyful abandon, we will not inherit the kingdom of God. Simply put, people walking day after day in the same sin without a fight or repentance go to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 John 3:14)” (2014).
We need to love those professing Christians holistically. If we ignore the eternal consequences of their unrepentance, do we really love them? Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, says no (see John 3:16). In fact, silence in this situation could just be the most unloving thing one Christian can do to another.
            What the homosexual marriage issue highlights in the church is a need to be consistent. What this means is that homosexual marriage is not the only unrepentant sin a person can have. Our preaching and emphasis should be just as emphatic about unchastity or extramarital affairs as it is homosexual marriage in the church. If this consistency is lacking, as it is in many churches in the West, then so is the effectiveness of our witness. Homosexual activity is not singled out in this way, but is among other sins in the Bible. A lack of repentance is the main theme here. This call affects all Christians, and should cause us to reflect on ourselves to see if there is unrepentant sin, especially willful sin, in our lives.
            As Christians, we must realize that we still sin. Deyoung says that “we must be willing to touch—emotionally, socially, and physically—those who sin just like us, even if they sin in different ways than some of us.” We ought to enter into their lives, help them through their temptations and “be willing to suffer for standing on the word of God” (2014).
            We can trust in the hope that God gives us, that He can help us to overcome even the worst addictions and sin (see the next section about leaving homosexuality). As well, we can pray for those who get caught in unrepentant sin. Love them as you would yourself.

            A Christian Response to Homosexuality at Large. In the Western World it is an easy thing for Christians to equate loving one’s neighbour with accepting their lifestyle as Christian. This may largely be due to the postmodern view of “tolerance” as acceptance, rather than as tolerance of something that you do not agree with. The same is true of Christians who equate loving one’s neighbour with accepting their lifestyle. Webb understood this in regard to homosexual marriage and said, much akin to the last section, “So the real question is, what is the loving thing to do? … Loving one’s neighbour in this instance means caring for their entire well-being—temporal and beyond—even if such act of interactive love has an extremely painful and straining side” (p. 183).
            One way that we can love our homosexual neighbours is to help provide a way for them out of the lifestyle. Satinover states that there were many research articles written in the past aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals: Some secular methods with over 65% success rates (see table in Appendix). However, since homosexuality was “normalized,” most of the research in this area has ceased (p. 170). Charles Socarides, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who cured many homosexuals said that there continues to be “a complete and disastrous disregard of knowledge gained through painstaking psychodynamic and psychoanalytic investigations over the past 75 years” (1976). This research was largely stopped despite the average success (being defined as “considerable to complete change”) rate being over 50% from 1930-1986 (see Appendix). If we compare that success rate to Alcoholics Anonymous’, which is about 30% (the most effective in the treatment of alcoholism), we can quickly deduce that homosexuality is treatable (p. 170). Some organizations that can help with this process is Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) which is modeled after AA, Redeemed Life Ministries (with a success rate of over 80% according to Bergner, 1995), Pastoral Care Ministries, and NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), just to name a few (Satinover, p. 204).
            What is involved in this process may surprise many. Satinover notes that Alcoholics Anonymous’ (AA) approach to alcoholism was the most common approach to helping homosexuals up until 1973, when political pressure changed the American Psychiatric Association’s position on the subject (p. 174). What is involved in that process? The twelve steps, which can be accessed from the references, involve admitting one’s powerlessness over alcohol, believing that God can restore them to sanity, and ultimately, surrender to God (Alcoholics Anonymous, 2014). What makes AA so effective is its appeal to an objective standard. There is no question as to whether or not alcoholism is sinful. Alcoholics can believe with confidence that there is a way out, and that only God can help them. This is, essentially, the Christian message. Only Christ can save us from ourselves. Substitute alcoholism for homosexuality and you have homosexual treatment. What better way to minister to those caught in homosexuality than to give them the gospel! The success rates speak for themselves.
            Lastly, we can care for homosexuals in a social manner. In other words, we can be with them when they suffer, and give them support and encouragement as they need it. We can befriend them, become a part of their lives, and show them God’s love without an agenda. Who knows, God may provide a good context where the topic of homosexuality can be discussed in a loving and relational way. Even if not, the sole fact of their homosexual activities should never exclude them from the love that you have to offer them in Christ. Are we not but sinners saved by grace? We deserve nothing but condemnation, but God loved us enough to save us from sin. Unrepentant homosexuals are not unlike us, except that they have not accepted God’s grace. There is a fine line between them and us. Let us love our neighbours.

Conclusion
            In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that homosexuality most-likely results from indirect genetic factors and environmental factors cumulatively, much akin to one becoming a basketball player. As well, homosexuality is very harmful to those who practice it, often resulting in a host of diseases and other consequences. Homosexuality is sinful, and if promoted in the church, can lead to unrepentant sin and condemnation from God. The homosexual marriage debate directly influences Christians in a negative and coercive way regarding our views on morality and freedom of speech. There is no form of “covenant homosexuality” in Christianity. Homosexuality is reversible, and a loving call to repentance and surrender to God is an effective means of changing their orientation if they want help (akin to AA).  Lastly, truly loving our neighbours (homosexuals included) leads us to enter into healthy friendships with them, and to share the Gospel of Christ. Only God can tear down the barriers of homosexuality, and our genuine love of them greatly contributes to this progression. Only love, as depicted in the Bible, can make what we learn and do effective in bringing them to Christ.



References
  Alcoholics Anonymous. (2014). The twelve steps of alcoholics anonymous. Retrieved from: http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf/
  Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  Bell, A., Weinberg, M., & Kiefer, S. (1981). Sexual preference: Its development among men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  Bergner, M. (1995). Setting Love in Order. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  Billings, P., & Beckwith, J. (1993). Born gay? Technological Review, 96, 60-62.
  Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-39.
  Cameron, P., Playfair, W., & Wellum, S. (1993). The homosexual lifespan. Presentation to the Eastern Psychological Association.
  Copan, P. (2008). When God goes to Starbucks: A guide to everyday apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  Daling, J., Weiss, N., Hislop, G., Maden, C., Coates, R., Sherman, K., Rhoda, A., Marjorie, B., Ryan, J. and Lawrence, C. (1987). Sexual practices, sexually transmitted diseases, and the incidence of anal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 317, 973-77.
  Deyoung, K. (2014). How to handle your sin. Retrieved from: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/04/08/what-we-need/
  Goldman, E. L. (Oct. 1994). Psychological factors generate HIV resurgence in young gay men. Clinical Psychiatry News.
  Judson, F. (1984). Sexually transmitted viral hepatitis and enteric pathogens. Urology Clinics of North America, 11, 177-85.
  Kaslow, R. (1987). The multicenter AIDS cohort study: Rationale, organization, and selected characteristics of the participants. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 310-18.
  King, M., & McDonald, E. (1992). Homosexuals who are twins: A study of 46 probands. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 409-10.
  Michael, R. Gagnon, J., Laumann, E., & Kalota, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive study. New York, NY: Warner Books.
  Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York, NY: Free Press.
  Rekers, G. (1988) The formation of homosexual orientation. In P. Fagan (Ed.), Hope for homosexuality. Washington, DC: Free Congress Foundation.
  Rekers, G. Mead, L., Rosen A., & Brigham, S. (1983). Family correlates of male childhood gender disturbance. Journal of Genetics and Psychology, 142, 31-42.
  Risch, N., Squires-Wheeler, E., & Bronya, J. (1993). Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. Science, 262, 2063-65.
  Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  Socarides, C. (1976). Beyond sexual Freedom: Clinical Fallout. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 30, 385-97.
  Webb, W. (2001). Slaves, women & homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.



Appendix
Secular treatment of homosexuality, as cited from Satinover: