Author Topic: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda  (Read 10133 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2012, 06:13:03 PM »
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.

"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2012, 09:09:58 PM »
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2012, 09:41:31 PM »
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.


I wrote "commands" not "verses". If you eat pork, you ignore the command that prohibit eating it, but you follow the verse that declares all foods clean.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #93 on: September 10, 2012, 09:46:11 PM »
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.


I wrote "commands" not "verses". If you eat pork, you ignore the command that prohibit eating it, but you follow the verse that declares all foods clean.
Actually, you didn't write commands. You wrote "things" on several occasions upstream. Be that as it may (and is), commands and things and rules are all subsets of verses. I do not ignore any commands in the Scriptures.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13248
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #94 on: September 10, 2012, 10:26:22 PM »
Part of the problem with this discussion is that we have two diametrically different approaches to Scripture.  For some, one of the fundemental purposes of exegesis is to discect Scripture to find and amplify differences in theology, emphasis, and message.  Points are scored for every contradictory statement found.  A corollary to this is that each statement of Scripture must only be taken with wooden literalism and as an absolute command, not fit together with other seeming contradictory statements to form a more complete and nuanced whole.  To do so is to "harmonize" and of all the exegetical sins there are few greater.

Thus, for example, there are two contradictory teaching about faith - Paul's which says that we are saved by faith without works, and James's which says that faith without works is dead.  Obviously, this proves that there are contradictory theologies in Scripture that cannot, must not be harmonized.  By discerning and disecting these separate parts, that task of exegesis is finished and since all of theology is basically exegesis - systematics is simply an exercise in the forbidden harmonizing - we are finished. 

The other way of doing theology is to recognize that different parts of Scripture were written at different times and with differing audiences and purposes in mind.  The examination of the particular emphases of each writer is important, but the task does not end there, any more than the job of anatomy is finished when the body is disected and laid out on the table so that all the individual organs and tissues are seen and catalogued.  The next job is that of synthesis - discerning how these disparate parts work together and function, differently but harmoniously, so that the whole body as a unit functions.

In a body, not all of the parts are active in the same way all the time.  Some function more during growth and development and less so later.  Others function most when they are needed.  Of the various commands, instructions and passages in the Bible, some were of more importance before the birth of Christ and when the nation of Israel was functioning as a theocracy.  Some of those commands have been superceeded - as other passages of Scripture affirm.  However if each passage is to be considered in a wooden literalism where each passage must be considered independantly of every other passage, then there is conflict that such black and white consideration cannot resolve the conflict or even wants to.  So the accusation is that traditionalists ignore commands the same way that revisionists do.  But what we strive to do is see how it all fits together and that means at times that some commands do not apply to all situation or are no longer in effect.  But in a world of black and white where there are no shades of grey each passage and each command must be considered independently and given equal weight.  That one might modify another cannot be considered lest in the end we cannot simply go with what we in our superior knowledge and sensibility informed by our advanced and superior society tells us it should be.
 
Dan
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 11:09:05 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Team Hesse

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #95 on: September 10, 2012, 11:25:39 PM »
There is a fundamental difference between asking questions of scripture and questioning scripture. The first should be embraced the last should be deplored.....

Lou

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #96 on: September 11, 2012, 01:10:24 PM »
So then it is pointless for you to ask your question - you already know the answer.  It is this:  we (I and 95% of the Christian church) ignore certain passages of Scripture dealing with food laws while honoring those passages that prohibit homosexual behavior because of the witness of the whole of Scripture.  You disagree with our reading of the whole of Scripture.  This is not a revelation.

My point was to counter the idea that "revisionists" ignore passages of scriptures while "traditionalists" do not ignore passages of scriptures. We all ignore passages of scriptures (and what is ignored (or disregarded) is more than just the food laws in the Old and New Testaments).

I often use the analogy of that sign in front of the school that says "25 MPH".  First, a pharisaical brute drives, every day, exactly 25 MPH down that road without stopping, regardless of whether there are baby ducks, schoolchildren, or deer in his way.   The Pharisee tells his critics, "I am obeying the Law."   The Revisionist then comes along with his tape recorded statement of the Pharisee and then tells everyone, "Obeying the Law allows one to run over baby ducks-- are you blind to church and world history?? Do you not see the sign??  We are setting aside the law if we don't allow people to drive over ducks. We have to have an additional filter lest we start obeying horrific laws like this one."

Everyone else knows there are additional laws on the books about not killing children or even wildlife, even for courtesy and love.


So what has that to do with that fact that everyone ignores/disregards some commands in scriptures? "Ignoring some commands" also means that we follow some commands, too.
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.


I wrote "commands" not "verses". If you eat pork, you ignore the command that prohibit eating it, but you follow the verse that declares all foods clean.
Actually, you didn't write commands. You wrote "things" on several occasions upstream. Be that as it may (and is), commands and things and rules are all subsets of verses. I do not ignore any commands in the Scriptures.


First of all, I wrote "commands" three times in the post you responded to.


Secondly, there is a command in Scriptures against eating pork (and some other foods). If you ever eat pork, you are ignoring/breaking/disregarding/nullifying that command. I'm certain that you have good and valid reasons for ignoring that command, but you are still acting contrary to that biblical command.

"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #97 on: September 11, 2012, 01:16:25 PM »
So the accusation is that traditionalists ignore commands the same way that revisionists do.  But what we strive to do is see how it all fits together and that means at times that some commands do not apply to all situation or are no longer in effect.


So you ignore those commands that "do not apply to all situations or are no longer in effect". I've not given reasons why some commands are ignored, just that we all ignore some of the biblical commands, contrary to Peter's statement that he does not.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #98 on: September 11, 2012, 01:57:22 PM »
Brian, you do not know what "ignore" means. I do not "ignore" any Biblical commands. I consider them all carefully. Some weren't addressed to me (e.g. "Go and wash in the Pool of Siloam,") others were fulfilled, others I have failed to keep to my shame and cause me to repent, others I insist be used (e.g. Matthew 18) in a practical way. But I do not ignore any of them.

But I should go back to my prior discipline of "ignoring" your posts.

Marshall_Hahn

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #99 on: September 11, 2012, 04:16:52 PM »
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.
Quite right you are Pr. Speckhard.  Neither do I.  I evaluate each command in light of the whole of Scripture.  Some (against eating pork, for example) I disregard due to other passages in Scripture (such as the passage in Mark "declaring all foods clean").  Pr. Stoffregen has failed to be clear as to whether he means "ignore", "disregard", "disobey", "oppose" or what exactly he has in mind.  Thank you for pointing out this confusion.

Marshall Hahn

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44240
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #100 on: September 11, 2012, 05:52:15 PM »
Brian, you do not know what "ignore" means.


This is how the online Oxford American Dictionary defines it: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

I agree that we do not refuse to take notice of any verse in the Bible; but I'm just as certain that we intentionally disregard some of the commands. We often have very good and legitimate reasons for disregarding those biblical commands, otherwise we'd all be missing hands and have eyes plucked out.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

cnehring

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #101 on: September 11, 2012, 05:59:26 PM »
I do not ignore any verses in the Bible.
Quite right you are Pr. Speckhard.  Neither do I.  I evaluate each command in light of the whole of Scripture.  Some (against eating pork, for example) I disregard due to other passages in Scripture (such as the passage in Mark "declaring all foods clean").  Pr. Stoffregen has failed to be clear as to whether he means "ignore", "disregard", "disobey", "oppose" or what exactly he has in mind.  Thank you for pointing out this confusion.

Marshall Hahn

Don't you just "love" the way revisionists and post-moderns play with language and, in regards to the Church, Scripture? We all know that Brian very well understands the Church's teaching on Christ's fulfilling of parts of the law, so they are no longer binding, but when it doesn't fit his agenda, he conviently "ignores" as if such a thing has never happened. However, whenever it fits his agenda, he will sudeenly insist on nothing else but the prevoiusly ignored concept.

Ahhhh.....post-modernism, the "active embodiment of Genesis 3:5."

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19177
    • View Profile
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #102 on: September 11, 2012, 06:45:44 PM »
Brian, you do not know what "ignore" means.


This is how the online Oxford American Dictionary defines it: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

I agree that we do not refuse to take notice of any verse in the Bible; but I'm just as certain that we intentionally disregard some of the commands. We often have very good and legitimate reasons for disregarding those biblical commands, otherwise we'd all be missing hands and have eyes plucked out.
But again, I do take notice of, acknowledge, and otherwise intentionally consider (as opposed to disregard) every command and every verse I come across. It isn't a matter of liberals and conservatives simply picking and choosing differently as to which verses to ignore. Fundamentally different and mutually-exclusive approaches to the Scriptures are involved, not just different preferences.

Rev Mathew Andersen

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #103 on: September 12, 2012, 12:15:42 PM »
First of all, a couple of things about the regulations of the Old Testament.  It is true that Christ put them aside and it is for this reason, not because we do not happen to find them convenient, that we do not follow them.  But what we often forget to point out is that the civil and religious regulations NEVER applied outside Israel.  We are not dealing here with a set of Laws God originally set down for all people and then about which He later changed his mind.  We are dealing with a set of Laws a great many of which, from the start, applied only to Israel.  Dietary laws, with the exception of eating blood, did not apply to devout gentiles living in Israel who were permitted, for instance, to eat animals that had died a natural death.  Interestingly enough, even though non-proselytized gentiles were exempt from many of these laws and could not eat the Passover, they could bring an offering to the tent of meeting and they were included in the communal sacrifices for unintentional sins.  So, even though they were not seen as part of the people of Israel, the means of grace and, therefore, salvation were available to them.  (It is interesting that, with the exception of a foreigner who blasphemed, the vast majority of times that God says there will be one law for both Israelites and gentiles concerns access to the worship of the tabernacle)

The Laws which DID apply to the gentiles living within Israel were the moral laws, especially as revealed in the ten commandments.  Laws against murder, adultery, theft and the worship of false Gods all applied to gentiles, devout or not, who lived in Israel.  The only two that we in the Church "ignore" today would be the keeping of the Sabbath and the eating of blood.  The Sabbath law was specifically set aside in the new Testament.  I would argue that this was done not because it was too hard or uncomfortable to keep but that, having been fulfilled, all the time from the resurrection to the second coming of Christ IS the Sabbath.  The eating of blood was, obviously, seen by the council of Jerusalem as applying to gentiles as well as Jewish believers and, frankly, I would have no problem we a bit more keeping of that today.

In any case, moving on to the specific laws of sexuality.  In Lev 18:24, which concludes the section on sexual immorality, it says "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean."  It is pretty obvious, therefore, that these particular Laws, flowing directly from the moral Law, were seen by God as applying beyond the borders and beyond the existence of Israel as a nation.

Do these moral Laws apply to Christians today since we have been released from condemnation by the Law?  Absolutely.  The council of Jerusalem also affirmed this as did Christ. The relationship, however, is now different.  We realize that in the moral Law God is not merely setting down a bunch of regulations on a whim.  He has, in this Law, described how He has created the universe to run.  As created beings and as people of faith, we desire to live in respect for God and gratitude for the universe He has created.  Therefore, we seek to keep the Law, not out of fear, but out of trust and respect.

When we choose to live in a repeated and purposeful sin we are saying "I have trust in God.  But I DON'T trust His knowledge of what is good and bad for me.  I don't trust that He cares for me.  In fact, I believe He has commanded me to stay away from something that is good for me and to do things that are not good for me.  I don't trust Him to have expressed His will correctly in His Word.  I don't really trust Him to be a forgiving God.  All I really want to trust Him for is permissiveness."  This attitude is not faith.  It is the very opposite of faith.  It is the demand that God follow our Will and bow to us.  It is the demand that God ignore sin rather than forgive it.  It is a blatant breaking of the first commandment.  True Faith is a joyful knowledge that there is no other God but one and that He is a loving God from first to last.  Purposefully living is sin is a denial of that faith and a demand that God turn a blind eye while allowing us to live in slavery to desire.  We humans are contradictory beings and it may be that one can have faith while living in its antithesis for a time.  But, in the end, feeding such an attitude will destroy faith, rip it to pieces and kill it.  Faith in the true God will be replaced by the worship of an idol of the mind who smiles and nods indulgently at our progress on the road to our own destruction.  in the end, faith WILL die.
 
Can a person live a gay 'lifestyle' and still go to Heaven?  Well, maybe.  It is also possible that a person might smoke cigarettes for their whole lives and die at a healthy old age.  It is possible a person might live after falling several stories.  It is possible that a person could survive a disastrous car accident.  But it is still stupid to take up smoking, to jump off a high balcony or to drive drunk.  It would be even more ridiculous for us to expect others to support us in such actions.  Can a Person Live a Gay "lifestyle" and Still Go to Heaven?  Maybe.  But to live in such antithesis of faith is just plain stilly, dangerous and scary.

Rev Mathew Andersen

  • Guest
Re: Parents' rights and the homosexual agenda
« Reply #104 on: September 12, 2012, 12:22:05 PM »
As to the conservative side, however, while we have been clear and correct on the Law, we have failed miserably with the Gospel.

Until the mid 1800's no one really cared who or  what you were sexually attracted to as long as you kept sexual behavior within marriage between a man and a woman.  There is no verse in the Bible that even discusses homosexuality as "orientation."  The closest is Romans 1 but the condemnation there is that people are "given over to desire" not that the desire itself was the penalty for sin.  There is absolutely no implication or assumption in Romans 1 that a Christian would not face homosexual temptation either more or less than a non-Christian.  The dividing line is that a Christian is not abandoned by God to face that desire or temptation alone.  All other verses in the Bible about homosexual behavior focus on action alone.

Then in the mid 1800s, as the pseudo science of psychology was born, the focus shifted to feelings and desires instead of behavior.  The question was not "how should a Christian overcome temptation?" but "why are people tempted in the first place?"  A new word was born to describe this "orientation" and that word was "homosexuality."  Unlike the Biblical view which concentrated almost entirely on behavior, this word concentrate almost exclusively on the presence of desire and simply describes a person for whom, when temptation comes, it comes toward those of the same sex instead of the opposite.

In other words we have turned temptation into the sin.

Though you, as the pastor may not put all this together, the 13 and 14 year old boys in your congregation who face this temptation DO.

If, the fact he faces temptation is, in and of itself a sin then he must read

Hebrews 4:15 this way:  For I have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with my weakness, but one who has never been tempted as I am, for He was without sin.

and 1 Corinthians 10:13 as: "A temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is not faithful, for he has let you be tempted beyond your ability,  and in that temptation he has not provided the way of escape, and you are not able to endure it. "

And if "EVERY manner" in Hebrews 4 excludes homosexuals and "NO temptation has overcome you that is not common to man" excludes homosexuals then these young adolescents have to ask, "Does not 'ALL sins are forgiven'  also exclude homosexuals?"

This implication that a person can not face homosexual temptation and still be included as Christians is further emphasized when the pastor preaches about homosexuality as if it were something awful that happens outside the Church, out there in the world or when he talks about homosexuality in casual conversation or discusses it on his blog without Gospel.

The message is sent VERY clearly to these kids and their parents that a pre-requisite for forgiveness is that one must FIRST be heterosexual.

This is the real danger of reparative therapy.  The methods mentioned earlier in the thread have not really been around since the mid 80s.  The therapy itself is actually pretty healthy - simply working on healthy relationships with parents and friends.  The danger lies in the expectations of the client and his parents that he must be "fixed" before he can be forgiven.  Such therapy, however, almost never creates a complete change in sexual desire, even for those who, as a result of the therapy, can maintain a healthy and fulfilling heterosexual marriage.  So the kid is set up for failure as a child of his parents and a child of God long before the first therapy session.  He will have to live his whole life fighting against the overwhelming message that he can not really be forgiven if he does not like girls.

Again and again I speak to devout, faithful men and women who face this temptation but who, instead of being honored for the courageous manner in which they have fought the battle against homosexual desires, feel condemned by their brothers and sisters in Christ for being sent to this particular battle field at all.  While struggling to wield the Sword of the Word, they must struggle to hold onto their armor as the very ones who should be supporting them in their battle seek to snatch it away with the message "this salvation is not for you."

Don't believe me?  Hmmm, well how about 7 pages of a thread, a thread on which one reader already admitted early on that he was homosexual, and not a single word of Gospel.  Not one post about how Christ forgives rather than excuses sin, about how baptism creates a new identity as a beloved child of God, not one post about the cross or the fact that Christ's blood washes away sin and gives encouragement to stand against temptation.  Nothing about communion being a fellowship of believers who all struggle and who all find relieve in the table of the Lord.  Now multiply that by the hundreds or thousands of letters to the editor, blog posts, emailed notices from the Manhattan declaration, joint letters from denominations defending marriage, the Ruth institute, The family research council and on and on and on in which there is hardly even a word of forgiveness or grace or encouragement even to those who repentantly maintain celibacy, much less to those who fall into unwanted sin.  (Maybe the very worst example of this is the book "A Queer Thing Happened to America" in which a "Christian" author delineates the history of all the worst things about homosexual behavior and keeps saying he "loves gays" but includes less than 3 pages of anything even remotely resembling Gospel.  I wish he were alone in this.)

And somehow, in spite of all this, a 12 year old boy is supposed to hold on to faith AND successfully fight temptation that would fell a grown man?

If we are angry about this measure in California then we need to do our part by not setting kids up for failure, by acknowledging that a Christian might very well be "homosexual" in orientation, by standing with them as they acknowledge that homoserrotic behavior is always wrong, by strengthening their faith in the Gospel, by forgiving them when they fall, and by encouraging them and honoring them when they seek to obey God in this very difficult battle.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 12:26:12 PM by Rev Mathew Andersen »