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:

The Heart of Worship: Why Worshiping God Matters to His Creation

            Firstly, let me say that this is not just another post about just praising God because He created the cosmos, but one that seeks to go deeper than what may appear on the surface level. Second, it is easy to be someone on the outside and say something like, “your God is an egomaniac and a narcissist who needs the praises of others to feel good about Himself,” yet, is worship, a fundamental tenet of Christianity, really that shallow?

            Right off the bat we need to realize that when we view God the latter way, we are imposing a human paradigm on Him. In other words, God is being brought down to the level of a human being and being judged as if He is one. If I heard a fellow human being asking me to worship him, or who required his followers to worship him, I would likely agree that there is something seriously wrong with that person. However, God is not such a person. In fact, if we want to discuss God fairly, then we must acknowledge that He, properly understood, transcends all of the created order. In other words, God created the cosmos, and therefore, since he preceded its creation, is not contingent on it. God does not need the cosmos to live, and He did not originate in the cosmos. All of creation, therefore, is a direct result of God’s action and volition. If this is true, then creation is contingent on God, who built into the very fabric of time and space, our base desires, needs, purpose and meaning. As such, God is anything but ignorant of what is good for us (since He built them into us).

            What then has He built into us? What then was our purpose from the beginning? Our purpose from creation was to live in relationship with God; not as equals, but to commune with Him. As we know, God did not want automatons, so He gave us the choice to accept and commune with Him, or to reject Him. This ability to choose stems from the fact that we were “made in His image” (the “imago dei”); we were given the capacity to reason one way or another, to choose personal desire or God. Yet, our capacity to choose did not change what we are, and what we have been created for.

            So what happened? Sin entered the world. Sin is anything that brings us farther from our highest purpose: communing with God. Everything that constitutes sin ultimately brings harm not only to the sinner committing the sin (as everyone is a sinner), but also to others. In God’s mercy, He sent us His only Son to pay the price for our choices and for us rejecting Him. In summation so far, whatever is harmful for us is sin (as the Bible depicts harmful), sin that by its very nature rejects communing with God and brings us farther from Him.

            What is meant by “communing?” When God created us, He created us in such a way that we find our deepest longings, satisfaction and desire only in Him. The completeness and highest realizations in our lives are entirely contingent on God. God does reciprocate these strongly, as His love for us is immeasurable, but He Himself is not contingent on them. He does not “need” our worship, but rather, we need to worship Him! Therefore, when we worship God, we are not stroking His ego, but are receiving the needs and desires of our hearts for which we were created. Worshiping God, then, does immeasurably more for the worshiper than it does the worshiped. The fact that we can worship God is an act of love and mercy in itself. Worship allows us to commune with God and be in relationship with Him. Those who reject God and do not worship Him are simply causing themselves great harm and are subjugating themselves to a miserable mediocrity; a mediocrity that lives primarily for the short-lived kicks in life, not unlike a mouse and a pleasure button. As Christians, we need not fall victim to the allure of cheap substitutes, but have the real thing: God Himself. Those who worship God, worship Him at their great benefit and fulfillment; those who do not, to their harm. God has us in mind when He asks us to worship Him.

            Yet, here is an interesting point: If we worship God with the chief end being our benefit or desire, we are not worshiping God, but ourselves. At this point, our worship has become vain, and we live as though we do not worship Him. Rather, our identity must be in Him, and this is what worship enables us to do: to put our identity into someone who cannot be shaken. How many of us put our value in pervasive personal identities like being an “effective teacher,” or “someone that everyone likes?” We each have our own identities that we are particularly susceptible to. Yet, we are freed from the harm that comes from having so much value in such finite and contingent identities that are ultimately outside of our control. Life and circumstances can cause us to be ineffective teachers, or to never be as effective as we like. This incapacity and finitude can only be remedied by moving our value of our personal identities into an infinite God who has ultimate control over the whole of reality; a God who is faithful and can be trusted; a God who cannot be shaken. Placing our identity in Him transforms our whole life into an act of worship. It affects how we think, what we say, and how we act as we begin to see our lives in His terms and based on His purposes, rather than in our finite identities. Therefore, rather than finding value in being “an effective teacher,” we can find our intrinsic worth, meaning and purpose in God, who gives us the capacity to love and obey Him in a way that is fulfilling on the deepest level, but is not self-centric. Our fulfillment is then peripheral to worshiping God (which is both obeying and loving God with our lives).

A Christian Response to Richard Dawkins' Naturalism

          It has certainly been a while since my last blog post! This paper was one of my latest projects for my leadership degree. It is a very relevant paper for anyone wondering about a Christian response to the worldview of naturalism. I hope that you enjoy it!

Paper outline:

1. Introduction and thesis

“The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the superimposition of metaphysical naturalism upon science and religion by Richard Dawkins, as well as to provide a Christian response.”

2. An exposit of the thesis

3. Define important terms

            a. Metaphysical naturalism

            b. Metaphysics

4. Explore Dawkins’ popularity and views of science and religion

5. Assess the basis of Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism to substantiate his views of science and religion

            a. From naturalistic evolution

                        i. Organisms are geared for survival, not obtaining truth

                        ii. There is an impasse between metaphysical naturalism and science

            b. From scientific method as the only criterion for truth

                                                  i.   Humanity can only observe reality in motion and give an interpretation

                                                ii.   Our interpretations of observations are often contingent upon personal presuppositions of meaning, origins, purpose, and worldview

                                              iii.   Metaphysical claims about morality, the supernatural, purpose, origins, and meaning cannot be substantiated by scientific method

                                              iv.   Scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate that only the physical exists, but rather, it needs external validation to be substantiated

6. A Christian response from the Bible

            a. God’s existence is self-evident and nonbelievers are without excuse

            b. The false premise of God’s nonexistence leads to a ripple-effect in the mind of nonbelievers

            c. The basis for objective morals and duties are in God’s nature

            d. The importance of apologetics in Christian leadership

7. Conclusion

            The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the superimposition of metaphysical naturalism upon science and religion by Richard Dawkins, as well as to provide a Christian response. This will be done, regarding Dawkins, by first elaborating on the breadth and application of the thesis, defining key terms, getting an overview of Dawkins’ views, assessing the explanatory range of scientific method, and giving a Christian response.

            When we look at the thesis statement, we find that the word “the” connotes a singular and specific imposition “by” Richard Dawkins. As such, the words “metaphysical naturalism” are not used statically, but are instead used to connote Dawkins’ specific use of that view to impose upon science and religion. This imposition would include Dawkins’ particularly aggressive application of metaphysics upon scientific method and religion. Therefore, as based on the thesis, the range of scientific method will be explored, as well as Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism, by its own criteria. As such, this paper is not trying to “refute” metaphysical naturalism, but seeks to demonstrate how Dawkins’ own worldview cannot substantiate his claims about the non-physical. A Christian answer will also be posited, which has the intended explanatory power in coherence with, and beyond that of scientific method. Yet, the latter point cannot be explored in great detail, given the scope of this paper.

            Before continuing, it is necessary that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysics are defined. Metaphysical naturalism refers to “a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance—mass–energy. … The supernatural does not exist, which is to say, only nature is real” (Academic Room, 2013). In other words, by this view, scientific method is the only criterion for truth, only physical matter exists, all thoughts in the brain are physical, and no nonphysical entities exist, and thus, only natural causes for the cosmos. Metaphysics is defined as “A priori [or, before experienced,] speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment” (The Free Dictionary, 2009). This includes discussing morality, the supernatural, meaning, origins, nature of reality, and purpose. Dawkins’ use of metaphysics will help us to assess his use of scientific method.

            Although other prominent atheists could have been chosen, Dawkins was specifically chosen because of his popularity in western culture today above the others. Dawkins is considered to be among the top ten atheists in the world, is widely regarded as the “most influential living atheist” (The Best Schools, 2011), and, as of 2010, has sold more than two million copies of The God Delusion (Friendly Atheist, 2010). William Lane Craig goes as far as to say that Dawkins is an “icon in pop culture” (July 7, 2013).

            Richard Dawkins’ views are consistent with the views of metaphysical naturalism, yet, his particular application of the view is likely what gives him his popular flare. Alister McGrath, a theology professor at Oxford, says that Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, “has established Dawkins as the world’s most high-profile atheist polemicist, who directs a withering criticism against every form of religion” (McGrath, 2007, p. 7). According to McGrath, Dawkins views the natural sciences as “an intellectual superhighway to atheism,” (p. 9) and views faith as a “process of non-thinking” associated with “indefensible” religious creeds (p. 17, 64). By this view, Christians are seen as people who have lost touch with reality, and are “delusional” (p. 18). Dawkins, according to McGrath, also views raising children in a religious tradition is a form of child abuse (p. 21), violence as a “necessary feature of religion” (p. 76) and sees religion and science as “locked into a battle to the death” (p. 46). He views God as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully,” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 31) yet no Christian would agree with this (McGrath, p. 75).

            In a public secular rally, when talking about Christians, Dawkins said: “Mock them, ridicule them in public” (King, 2012). By making this statement, Dawkins is labelling himself as a polemicist, someone who spreads hateful propaganda, in a way that defies empirical reason (explained later). As a polemicist, much of Dawkins’ influence on society has been a negative one. Rather than appealing to science and reason, Dawkins instills biases against non-metaphysical naturalists. His views seek to condition the layman against rationally considering Christianity, and selectively dismisses evidence counter to his own beliefs (McGrath, p. 11). According to my experience, Dawkins generally appeals to those disenfranchised with the church, angry at God, afraid of religion and surrender to Christ. Ironically however, Dawkins public contempt for Christianity is helping to usher people into a Christian renaissance in philosophy and apologetics (Craig, June 9, 2013).

            The problem with Dawkins’ views of religion and God is that they cannot be substantiated by his belief in natural causes or scientific method. Yet, Dawkins claims objectivity in scientific method, regarding his metaphysical claims (McGrath p. 41). The bastion of metaphysical naturalism is evolution, which Dawkins believes is substantiated by scientific method. However, even if evolution is true, all it could demonstrate innately is that humanity could not obtain “truth” naturally, but instead, incline towards survival. Regarding evolution, Timothy Keller states that, “The laws of reason would have to make sense to us only because they help us to survive, not because they tell the truth” (2008, p. 142). In other words, according to naturalistic evolution, the reason why we reason is to help us survive. This was originally meant to be applied to just religion: that religion would help us to survive. This however, is not only against religion. In essence, it also applies to all of our rational functions, science not exempt, because of the belief placed in the interpreted meaning of observations. Therefore, in evolutionary biology, reason is not a reliable tool to uncover truth, but rather, a tool to further the species. Therefore, according to Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism, all we can be certain of is not the truth of our statements, but our inclination to survive. As such, by his view, his musings about science and religion can be dismissed as an attempt at survival. The conflict, therefore, according to Alvin Plantinga, “is not between science and belief in God but rather, science and naturalism” (2007, p. 24).

            In regards to the explanatory scope of scientific method, in our human limitation, all we can possibly do to discover how reality works is observe. Scientists observe and try to replicate what they observed. At the end of the day, all they can do is give an interpretation of what they observed. By this method, they cannot justifiably say “this is definitively reality” because humanity is not in a position that can transcend its existence. Peter Hitchens, a former staunch atheist, realized this when he said, “the ‘laws’ in science are all accounts of what did happen, rather than rules of what should happen” (2010). Since scientists have to give an interpretation of observations, it is impossible to maintain in that interpretation the uninterrupted realities of the cosmos, as it was before it was interpreted, without imposing an outside worldview on the observations. This is especially true regarding purpose, meaning and origins. As such, our observations are contingent upon our interpretation, which is always subjective and grounded in the presumptions of our worldview. Therefore, when Dawkins makes metaphysical claims regarding the supernatural, meaning, morality, religion, or origins, on the basis of “scientific method,” he is only highlighting his personal interpretations, and is not maintaining objectivity, since morality, for example, cannot be derived from observing the collision of two atomic particles. This realization seriously calls into question the metaphysical naturalist’s use of scientific method as the sole criterion of truth. Also, this point becomes even more questionable when we remember that metaphysical naturalists can only affirm the inclination to survive, and not an inclination towards obtaining truth.

            When the belief of scientific method as the sole criterion of truth is analyzed more closely, we find more complications. We find that viewing scientific method as the only criterion of truth cannot be substantiated from scientific method. Eric Ling used this example, “we cannot validate a piece of software using a tool that belongs to the same piece of software being validated. We need a separate test tool, which is logically and physically independent from that piece of software, in order to validate it” (2013). Therefore, scientific method cannot itself prove that only the physical world exists. Such a statement would require an infinite knowledge of the cosmos and beyond. In order to remain consistent with what scientific method can attest, Dawkins would have to avoid making any philosophical claims about purpose, meaning or metaphysics, which includes claiming that only physical reality exists (Noebel, 2001, p. 56). Yet, Dawkins does go beyond the scope of scientific method because metaphysical naturalism is a belief system that is “distinct from scientific practice” (Bishop, 2009, p. 109). Therefore, since metaphysical naturalism cannot be substantiated by scientific method, neither can claims from religion regarding the supernatural be assessed by that medium (McGrath, p. 67). Metaphysical issues are simply beyond the scope and explanatory power of scientific method.

            The greatest objection that metaphysical naturalism has with Christianity is that Christians believe in a supernatural God who created the cosmos (Genesis 1:1). If God exists, then there were not naturalistic causes, and therefore, entities exist who transcend physical matter. The Bible also says that people who deny God’s existence are without excuse. Romans 1:20-22 says that, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse … and became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Therefore, according to the Bible, metaphysical naturalists have sufficient resources to know that God exists. They become “vain in their imaginations” because their worldview is based on a false premise: that God does not exist. All of their vain imaginations stem from that mistake, like Richard Dawkins.

            Since the logical conclusion from naturalistic evolution is that all genetics can try to do is survive, there is no allocating for objective moral values and duties. Furthermore, humanity would have to transcend human subjectivity in order to find justification for objective morals and duties. Christians, however, find justification for objective truth in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6). Much of this objective truth is revealed in Scripture, where moral commands are given to humanity (Deuteronomy 10:4), and God is identified as the “Lord God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). God identified His nature with His commands when he said in 1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments,” and solidified their objectivity in His nature when He said, “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). By equating immutability with “the Lord,” God was declaring His nature to be transcendently objective. Dr. Greg Bahnsen summarizes the metaphysical naturalist’s predicament and the Christian solution well, when he said,

“The transcendental argument for existence of God … is that without the existence of God, it is impossible to prove anything. And that's because in the [world of metaphysical naturalism] you cannot justify and cannot account for laws in general, laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for the human line, the fact that it is more than electrochemical complexes and events, and cannot give us moral absolutes. … You would have to say they are just something that happens inside the brain” (Bahnsen, & Stein, 1985, p. 31).

Therefore, a better justification for absolutes, morality, and rational intelligibility is in the Christian worldview. As Kai Nelson, a prominent Canadian atheist said, “Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality” (Nelson, 1984, p. 90).

            It is very important that Christian leaders get acquainted with the beliefs of Richard Dawkins, and know how to answer them from a rationally coherent Christian worldview. Young adults and teens, especially when they go to university, often have their Christian beliefs challenged in a similar manner, if not by Dawkins’ materials. The Bible calls Christian leaders (and all Christians) to “always be ready” to give an answer for our faith (1 Peter 3:15) in grace and love (Colossians 4:6; Matthew 5:44).

            In conclusion, Richard Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalistic worldview is ill-equipped to substantiate the metaphysical claims he made about God, the nature of reality, morality, science and religion. Dawkins, while popular in western culture, has been ineffectual in light of his foundation both in scientific method as the only source of truth and naturalistic evolution. Only in God do people have a stable foundation for objectivity. As such, the Christian worldview contains more explanatory power and gives external validation to its claims. The resources are out there. As leaders, it is necessary that we learn and teach these resources to the next generation.

References:

  Academic Room. (2013). Metaphysical naturalism. Retrieved from: http://www.academicroom.com/topics/metaphysical-naturalism/

  Bahnsen, G., & Stein, G. (1985). The great debate: Does God exist? Retrieved from http://cdn.theresurgence.com/files/2012/01/13/The_Great_Debate.pdf/

  The Best Schools. (2011). 50 top atheists in the world today. Retrieved from: http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/12/01/50-top-atheists-in-the-world-today/

  Bishop, R. (2009). What is this naturalism stuff all about? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29, 108-113. doi: 10.1037/a0016967/

  Craig, W. L. (2013, June 9, July 7). The unbeliever’s movie part 2 & the NEW new atheism [Audio podcast]. Reasonable Faith Podcast.

  Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

  The Free Dictionary. (2009). Metaphysics. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphysics/

  Friendly Atheist. (2010). How many copies of the God delusion have been sold? Retrieved from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/

  Hitchens, P. (2010). The rage against God: How atheism led me to the faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

  Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of scepticism. London, England: Hodder.

  King, B. (2012). Interview: Richard Dawkins celebrates reason, ridicules faith. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/26/149310560/atheist-firebrand-richard-dawkins-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith/

  Ling, E. (2013). In Richard Dawkins and metaphysical naturalism [comment]. Retrieved from: https://courses.mytwu.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=118519&parent=465977/

  McGrath, A. & McGrath, J. (2007). The Dawkins delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

  Nelson, K. (1984). Why should I be moral? American Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 81-91.

  Noebel, D. (2001). The battle for truth: Defending the Christian Worldview in the marketplace of ideas. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.

  Plantinga, A. (2007). The Dawkins confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum [Review of the bookThe God delusion, by R. Dawkins]. Retrieved from http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html?paging=off/

Part 3: James 2:17 Carrying Out Your Faith

                I have been thinking about the passage in James where it says “faith without deeds is dead”. Many Christians take this passage to mean, “If you don’t go out and do ‘good things’ in general then your faith is useless”. This is not what the passage is talking about. Simply said, we should carry out our faith. This passage is not saying that we need to tag on good deeds to our faith, but rather, we should act on our faith. If we know God wants us to preach, then to not preach is to make our faith useless. If we do preach however, then we have carried out our faith “in word and deed”. Deeds (or works) can be anything that God has called us to do. It is not limited to helping the poor, but to everything we know by faith (even simply going and talking with someone can be living out our faith; whatever God’s will is for us). If we believe that God wants us to speak for or against something for believers (on the basis of God’s word) then in that case by doing it, we are acting in faith and deed.

                Both works and faith have to work together and can never be separated since we live out our faith in whatever that faith is (as based on the Bible). We can never then have faith apart from carrying it out (that would be sin because we are not doing what we know we ought to do) and things that we do should never be done not in faith, “for whatever is not done out of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23) From this we can see that we are justified by faith being taken to completion and not by deeds independent of faith.

Part 2: Needs Based Ministry

                I have been thinking lately about what is called a “needs based approach to ministry”. This approach does definitely focus on some important things, like helping the poor to have autonomy, a higher quality of life and to promote mental health. There are however, inherent attitudes and messages that this approach is sending to the recipients of “needs based ministry”. I feel that this approach is perpetuating a mentality which chooses to say that human needs take precedence over God’s sovereignty over us. I have heard it said that one’s needs must be fulfilled first (or to reach autonomy) before we can and should share the gospel with them. Although needs are important, we should never try to forcefully cram the gospel message into a formula. The reasoning behind this is simple: Romans 12:2 says, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” “Do not be conformed to this world” means that we should not conform to an “A leads to B” mentality, which would be rooted in self (a narcissism or serving something other than God). In other words, we need to teach others not to be rooted in themselves (which is the message conveyed in a needs based approach to ministry). Rather, we should teach others to be rooted in God.

                Too many times the carrot for the unbeliever has been “join so that you can reach self-actualization and have all your needs fulfilled” and, “God is here to fulfill your every need and so are we”. This could sound great on the surface, but what is really behind this approach is the deification of the self. When people become Christians on this precedence they would generally do one of two things: they either view God as a cosmic Santa Claus who is there only for their own self-wellness, or they conform to a sort of secular humanism where human suffering is the greatest evil and is the highest priority for humankind to alleviate. The difference between a Christian approach and a secular one here appears subtle, but makes all the difference. After all, who does not want self-wellness or human suffering to be alleviated? While these are both great things, they are not the main things in Christianity. God is being left out of the picture to a large extent. We are teaching others to submit to the gods of self-wellness, autonomy and humanism, which greatly plague the church today.

                There is, further, a great irony in this approach to ministry. We hear a lot about promoting justice, human rights and various tenets of humanism in what is called “the social gospel” but we never hear anything about God’s judgement. Am I missing something here? Last time I checked, judgement was synonymous with justice because it is the carrying out of justice. Who better to define what justice is and is not than God himself? Or do we find it unthinkable that God would dare to condemn humanity? 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 says:

“This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.”

And

Romans 2:4, “Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”

God has made a way for humanity to be saved despite their just deserving of eternal condemnation. The greatest charge of God to Christians is that we tell others about God’s grace which goes beyond justice. Grace is also different from any conceivable “human right” because it is undeserved (the only right we have is to condemnation). Grace is at work through a belief-obedience in God so that we do not need to face God’s just and eternal condemnation. Anything good in addition to God’s just judgement is an undeserving grace as is any kind of relief from suffering. We justly deserve eternal death, but God has given us a way out by taking consequences that should be upon our own heads upon himself. What greater love can there be then this: that one would lay down his life for his friends? God has laid down His life to save our wretched selves. Who else would do such a thing? People need to know and accept this or face eternal judgement! Therefore, the single greatest and most potent injustice a Christian can do to humanity is deprive them of Christ's call to repentance, forgiveness and eternal reconciliation with God. God’s judgement is totally and utterly interwoven into the fabric of justice. To leave God’s judgement out of justice is to have no justice at all. We can have a façade of justice in absence of God’s judgement, but in reality, it is only an illusion. This is because God is the standard of justice and without Him we are caught perpetually in a cycle of subjectivity.