Menu

174 Sermon Illustrations on Homosexuality

174 illustrations Page 4 of 4

This subject addresses the biblical and moral perspectives on homosexuality within Christian preaching, often exploring themes of sin, redemption, and church discipline. Illustrations commonly use legal, pastoral, and personal narratives to discuss scriptural teachings and the tension between cultural acceptance and biblical authority (Romans 1:26-27). The topic engages with issues of identity, transformation, and the church's response to those who identify as homosexual (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

The Search For the “Gay Gene”: A New Study, Predictable Reactions

Jude 1:7

Nothing in our culture so clearly demonstrates the controlling power of one’s settled presuppositions like how we think and talk about sexuality. This time the topic is a new study, the largest ever done, on the relationship between genetic makeup and same-sex sexual behavior.

“Research Finds Genetic Links to Same-Sex Behavior,” proclaimed the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times agreed, using this headline, “Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single Gay Gene.” But NPR, looking at the exact same study, chose a different headline: “Search for ‘Gay Genes’ Comes Up Short in Large New Study.” The AP put it this way: “New Genetic Links to Same-Sex Sexuality Found in Huge Study.” But Science News announced, “There’s No Evidence that a ‘Gay Gene’ Exists.” The Washington Post played it more in the middle with, “There’s No One ‘Gay Gene’ but Genetics Are Linked to Same-Sex Behavior.”

Oh, and then there’s the Guardian’s approach, which I predict will be the settled conclusion from most media outlets within a few days. They chose to Op Ed this story, which is garnering inconsistent and even contradictory headlines, by confidently concluding: “Gay Gene theories belong in the past – now we know sexuality is far more fluid.” In other words, the science is settled on sexuality despite what any new science tells us. Or as Owen Jones, author of the Guardian article actually wrote, “ ... while the research may be interesting, it is surely irrelevant.”

Since the 1980s, researchers have been on the hunt for the elusive “gay gene” as a way to prove what was the defining argument of the early LGB movement (this was before the “T” was added): “Born this way.” Of course, as early as 1989, gay advocates admitted that what was increasingly being called sexual orientation was obviously a mix of both nature and nurture. Still, it proved to be not only useful, but effective, so it stuck.

That’s what makes the reaction to this new study so interesting. Clearly newspapers across the spectrum are clamoring for a headline that follows the instructions they were given a couple decades ago about the biological basis of sexual orientation. What they’ve missed (except for NPR and the Guardian) is that advocates have moved on. “Born this way” is no longer a necessary talking point. The cause has won, so the fact that a study like this comes up empty-handed in proving today the very thing everyone proclaimed yesterday as settled science will elicit only a shrug.

But newspapers know the sort of abuse they face if they get this wrong and, apparently, so do the researchers. They couched their study in all kinds of politically correct jargon and clarifications, even consulting with science communication teams (?) and LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups to help them communicate what they found about LGBTQIA+. The study’s lead author, Andrea Ganna, was careful to say that homosexuality is “a natural part of our diversity as a species.” See how she couched that ideological presupposition in the verbiage of scientific authority?

What the study showed, however, was unremarkable. There was no evidence of a single “gay gene.” There was evidence of modest to weak correlation between a combination of genetic factors and those who had reported to have had a same-sex sexual experience. That last clarification is important for two reasons: First, it’s being assumed that having had a same-sex sexual experience is the same as having a particular sexual orientation. And second, the same genetic combination also showed correlation for risky behavior. Might the decision to have risky sexual experiences be connected to the tendency to engage in risky behavior overall? And even that tendency only has a correlation with this combination of genetic factors which, of course, is not the same as genes causing the behavior.

While the researchers behind the study and the media reporting on it were being so careful to couch these unimpressive results as previously instructed, the movement they are trying to accommodate has long since moved on. After all, they’ve been far more effective capturing the cultural imagination, including much of the scientific community, without needing the science to back it up.

Resources:

"Gay gene’ theories belong in the past – now we know sexuality is far more fluid," by Owen Jones, The Guardian, August 30, 2019, .

________

Copyright (c) 2019 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

This Little Light of Mine

Luke 8:16

Christians who grew up thinking about a candle’s light when singing “This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine” have entirely the wrong idea about what it truly means to be a Christian light shining in the world, said the Benham brothers in a recent talk in Herdon, Virginia.

The identical twin brothers said that most think of a candle’s flame when singing the lines from the song about not letting Satan “blow it out.” But Christian faith, they said, is not meant to be extinguished when faced by the winds of opposition, but to become more inflamed. That’s why the image of a candle in the song needs to be replaced by the image of a coal, they said.

“You see, the same wind that extinguishes the candle’s light ignites the coal’s light,” said Jason.

“What’s the difference between a candle and a coal?” he asked. A candle is lit from the outside while a coal burns from the inside,” he continued.

Jason quoted from the prophet Jeremiah (20:9) who called the word of God in his heart a blazing “fire” that could not be contained inside himself.

“Do you know how God gets the light that’s inside of you out into the world?” asked Jason. “He puts you in situations and around people in certain contexts where the devil is trying to extinguish your light. And the very act of the devil blowing as hard as he can to extinguish your light will actually ignite the light that’s already inside of you.”

Jason said Christians must become on fire for the faith like a “coal” so that they can “burn brightly” for Jesus.

But David pointed out how the “wind of culture is blowing” in an attempt to extinguish Christian lights. The wind comes in the form of politically correct pressures to accept “gay marriage,” “abortion on demand,” and “rampant perversion.”

Many Christians, David said, have unfortunately fallen for the trap of hiding their light under a basket “whenever it is not convenient” for them to shine in the darkness.

The brothers related how they themselves fell into the trap of turning off their own lights when they were first approached by home improvement television network HGTV a few years ago to film a reality show based on their wildly successful real estate business.

But in doing background checks on the brothers, HGTV lawyers discovered an article by pro-homosexual website Right-Wing Watch that accused the brothers of being “anti-gay, anti-Choice extremists.”

When the show’s producers asked the brothers if they were “anti-gay,” the brothers thought they were going to lose their chance at making the show. They related how they immediately began to experience a “heaviness” and a “fear.”

The brothers decided to draft an email to HGTV based on what they called a “man-pleasing spirit.” They outlined their Christian belief in marriage, stating, however, that when representing the HGTV network, “we’ll be quiet about [our beliefs].”

But before sending the email to HGTV, the brothers decided to run it by a spiritual mentor. “Three minutes later [our mentor] sent an email back saying: ‘How dare you boys write an email like this. ... You don’t even know who you are anymore. ... How do you know that God hasn’t put you in this situation to tear down the stronghold that’s ransacking this nation? People are operating in fear, and now you are too. You both need to repent.”

The brothers said the mentor’s words pierced them. They immediately got down on their knees and begged God to forgive them for being so “blind” and willing to “betray” the Lord by being quiet about His truth.

The brothers went on to explain the essence of the trap they had fallen into. “We were operating out of a man-pleasing spirit, not a God-pleasing Spirit,” said Jason. “We were operating out of the fear of man instead of the fear of God. We took our focus off of the person of God and put it onto that platform that he put there in the first place.”

“And guess what, anything that God puts into your hand, if you’re not willing to let it go, it’s that thing that’s enslaving you. You are now controlled by this thing that you’re not willing to let go. And oftentimes, it’s a good thing that God put there in the first place, and [you compromise to protect your platform, saying] you’re ‘doing it for the Lord,’” he added.

The brothers gave an example of how this trap works in the real world. They said if a religious leader refuses to speak Biblical teaching about homosexuality from the pulpit because he’s afraid of retribution or losing his congregation, then he has fallen into the trap of “operating out of the fear of man instead of the fear of God.”

Such a religious leader is “enslaved” and must learn to let go of his man-pleasing spirit, said Jason.

The brothers said that falling into the “man-pleasing” trap taught them a crucial lesson in how to be a real Christian. They realized that the moment a Christian begins to focus on the “platform or the promise ... or whatever it is” instead of the person of God who put it there in the first place, such a Christian begins to operate according to human strategies, not according to God’s ways, which are found “spiritually in the heart.”

“Strategies are good, but they have to follow the Spirit,” said Jason.

The brothers never sent the email. A few weeks later, HGTV contacted them to sign the contract for the show. The brothers were already months into filming and the first episode was about to run when the network suddenly capitulated to homosexual-driven attacks against the twins and decided to cancel the show.

When HGTV informed the brothers of the decision to cancel, the brothers realized that the time had come for them to let their light shine by taking a bold stand for the Lord and his truth about marriage and the family.

“[We realized that] this is a ‘bully agenda’ that will not go away, and that it is bullying every single person of faith into submission,” said David.

As the brothers encountered the winds of opposition blowing on them because of their Christian beliefs, they experienced the inner coals of their faith ignite into a blazing flame.

They went on to appear in about 200 interviews with major television networks and radio programs across the country where they spoke in defense of their Christian beliefs on marriage and the sanctity of life.

They would never have been able to proclaim God’s truth so widely and effectively to so many people had they surrendered to their fear and compromised on their faith by deciding to be quiet about their beliefs.

Jason explained that Christians will only begin to be a blazing coal of light in the culture when they surrender their dreams and ambitions to the Lord (their platforms and positions) and face their greatest fear.

“When you face your fear, God takes over the fight,” said Jason. “And let me tell you, if you are willing to face your fear, God promises you this: your greatest blessing is only found on the other side of your greatest fear.”

The brothers said that when Christians are willing to face their fears and let everything go to follow the Lord, then they can expect miracles.

“Boldness [in facing your fear] precedes the miraculous,” Jason said.

“Let go of that thing you’re holding onto. Step out onto the field of battle and you do business with God,” he added.

David said all Christians, whether they be business leaders, stay-at-home moms, politicians, or pastors, need to be “bold” today because “now is our time, this is our moment.”

“And we’ve got to embrace this [fight], whatever the cost,” he said.

Placing My Identity In Christ, Not My Sexuality

Jude 1:7

Unlike Matthew Vines, I was not raised in a Christian home and believed homosexual, romantic relationships were not sinful. I became aware of my attractions toward other men when I was nine but hid them until I came out in my early twenties while in graduate school pursuing a doctorate in dentistry. My mother was devastated but through this incident, she became a Christian. Although her initial response was rejection, after coming to Christ she could do nothing other than love her gay son.

After many years of running from God and rebelling against my parents, I was incarcerated for drug dealing and received the news that I was HIV+. I found a Bible in the trash can and began reading it. I confided with a prison chaplain who told me that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and he gave me a book by gay historian, John Boswell.

Like Vines, I too wanted to reconcile faith with sexuality. With that book in one hand and the Bible in the other, I had every reason to accept Boswell’s assertions to find biblical justification for homosexuality. But surprisingly, I felt Boswell’s interpretations did not line up with the plain reading of Scripture. So I turned to the Bible alone and read every verse looking for positive support for romantic, homosexual relationships. I couldn’t find any.

What changed my mind wasn’t the six “clobber passages” which mention homosexuality. It was realizing that I had placed my identity and focus on the wrong things – my sexuality and pursuing a same-sex, romantic relationship. But God calls Christians to put their identity in Jesus Christ alone. God says, “Be holy, for I am holy.” I needed to pursue a life of holiness, not heterosexuality or homosexuality.

After my release from prison, I attended Moody Bible Institute receiving a degree in the Bible with an emphasis in biblical languages and also completed a masters in biblical exegesis from Wheaton College Graduate School for a total of four years of biblical Hebrew and four years of biblical Greek. I am now an adjunct instructor of the Bible at Moody Bible Institute while pursuing a doctorate of ministry at Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, Minnesota).

Exegesis (literally “to draw out”) is the critical interpretation of a text requiring knowledge of the original language in which a text is written. Many begin with a presumption and superimpose their predetermined conclusion upon a text. This is eisegesis (“to draw in”) which is the opposite of exegesis. Matthew Vines’ entire argument hinges upon his presumption that the Bible doesn’t specifically address loving, same-sex relationships. Although there is no direct mention, the Bible does condemn it in its universal prohibition against all homosexual sex and romantic relationships.

In Romans 1:26-27, Paul draws from well-known Greek philosophers and Hellenistic Jewish authors to universally condemn all homosexual sex and romantic relationships. “Unnatural” or para fusin is used by Plato, Philo and Josephus to refer to homosexual sex per se, not merely lustful, homosexual relationships. In addition, “nature” or fusis is found in Wisdom of Solomon, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees. In each occurrence, fusis refers to nature (in general), a characteristic or origin – never as “customs” as Vines asserts.

Most importantly is Paul’s appropriation of the Levitical condemnation against all homosexual sex and relationships in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Paul created a word “arsenokoitai” directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). The first half of Leviticus 20:13 from the Septuagint reads: “kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos.” Any good Hellenistic Jew familiar with the Torah and the Septuagint would make an unmistakable connection between “arsenokoitai” and the universal condemnation of all homosexual sex and romantic relationships found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Even if Vines’ presumption is true that the Bible doesn’t specifically address loving, same-sex relationships, the absence of evidence is not evidence to the affirmative.

Finally singleness, voluntary or involuntarily, is not a curse. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7 that singleness is good. This does not contradict Genesis 2:18, “It is good for a man not to be alone.” New Testament scholar Barry Danylak states, “When Genesis 2:18 affirms that it is not good to live alone, marriage is given as a provision. But this does not imply that marriage was designed to be the sole provision for one’s aloneness.” Singles can develop deeper (but non-romantic) relationships which would otherwise be more difficult if married. Jesus, who was single, teaches in Mark 3:31-35 that family in the New Covenant extends beyond our immediate biological family.

Voluntary or involuntary singleness is not the same as being alone, nor is it “incalculable pain and suffering” as Vines states. Paul exhorts believers in 1 Corinthians 7 to find contentment in whatever situation we find ourselves in – whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Contentment should never be predicated upon another person, but solely in Christ Jesus and a life fully surrendered to Him.

________

Christopher Yuan (www.christopheryuan.com) is author of “Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God, A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope.”

This section is part of the larger article "Christians With Same-Sex Attractions Weigh in on Homosexuality-Bible Debate" by Nicola Menzie, Christian Post Reporter, October 1, 2012.

Another Example of Civilization Going Down the Tubes

The headline was "Gay Catholic Ex-Stripper Awaits Birth of Twins Carried by Husband’s Sister." Here is the article:

Tom Marino’s husband’s sister is carrying his babies.

They used his husband’s sperm and a donor egg to conceive their babies through IVF. Previously, they used Tom’s sperm to conceive their now two-year old son-using the same surrogate (the sister) and donor eggs.

On the outside, Marino is a buttoned up white collar dad who is a regional banking manager, monogamous husband, devout Catholic, former altar boy and former Civil Air Patrol member.

However, he is also a former exotic dancer and author of TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE -- a very honest and gritty memoir about toxic homosexual love and living a life of debauchery.

With your audience, Marino can share intimate accounts and devastating real-world incidences about how he spent the last two decades rebuilding his ‘tomorrow’ after a unflattering series of events -- including a messy (heterosexual) divorce, one-night-stands, white collar crime, heartbreak, spiritual intervention and the birth of a child - to become a real-life example of a modern American family.

Study: Gay Parents More Likely To Have Gay Kids

Walter Schumm knows what he’s about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

When one such researcher, Paul Cameron, published a paper in 2006 arguing that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay themselves, the response from the academic press was virulent, to say nothing of the popular press; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, equated Cameron to a Nazi.

Not all of the vitriol was hyperbolic. Cameron does not tolerate gay people. He believes that “homosexual practice is injurious to society.”

The gay press, as far back as the 1980s, labeled Cameron “the most dangerous anti-gay voice in America.” Though Cameron was the first to publish papers on the dangers of secondhand smoke, the scientific community has abandoned him. The American Psychological Association long since dropped him from its membership for an “ethical” violation.

Today, Cameron is the founder and chairman of the Family Research Institute, whose “overriding mission” is to publish “empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality.”

Schumm doesn’t go for that sort of research. After Cameron’s 2006 paper, Schumm listened as the academic community stated certainty of two things: Cameron was an idiotic bigot; and the existing literature showed little to no societal, cultural or parental influence on sexual orientation.

Schumm began investigating the second premise. “I just want to know the truth about something,” he tells AOL News. And he found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children’s lives -- but not in any way their sexual orientation.

Lawyers for the state of Florida heard of Schumm’s fledgling research and invited him in 2008 to testify in a case. The state’s Department of Children and Families was attempting to uphold a ban on gay and lesbian parents adopting children. Schumm’s testimony actually ended up aiding the gay parents in the trial.

He said: “Gay parents can be good foster parents,” and “The decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis.”

Schumm tells AOL News that he agreed to testify as one of the state’s witnesses only if his evidence was not “slanted” for or against gay rights.

But also in his testimony was an inkling of the robust research Schumm has just completed. His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. “I’m trying to prove that it’s not 100 percent genetic,” Schumm tells AOL News.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting; Cameron, for what it’s worth, had only looked at three, and offered no statistical analysis in his paper. Schumm skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.

This is important because sometimes Schumm would come across a passage of children of gay parents who said they were “adamant about not declaring their sexual orientation at all.” These people would be labeled straight, even though the passage’s implication was that they were gay.

Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures’ acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, “89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.”

Finally, Schumm looked at the existing academic studies, the ones used to pillory Cameron’s work. In all there are 26 such studies. Schumm ran the numbers from them and concluded that, surprisingly, 20 percent of the kids of gay parents were gay themselves. When children only 17 or older were included in the analysis, 28 percent were gay.

Abbie Goldberg is a psychology professor at Clark University, and the author of “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle,” which this year won the Distinguished Book Award from the APA. She hasn’t read Schumm’s study, only seen the abstract. But she says, in general, that a meta-analysis of this nature relies on sample sizes that are often too small and may furthermore brim with participants whose perspective is firmly aligned with the LGBT community. In other words, they’re aware of these sorts of studies and seek them out.

“The fundamental problem with this [type of meta-analysis] is such samples tend to be biased,” Goldberg tells AOL News.

Schumm says he guarded against that by seeking out so many different works. And across all his data -- the 10 books he consulted, the anthropological study, the scientific articles -- he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. In Schumm’s study, he quotes from the extant literature the stories of young women, describing how being gay was never frowned upon in their household, and so that “option” was available to them. That said, Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to “try out women.”

Sponsored LinksBut couldn’t gay men also tell their sons this? Yes, but Schumm tells AOL News that most gay men have at some point been with a woman, so they understand why their sons might date them. Whereas the literature shows some lesbians “have a hatred of men that’s intense,” Schumm says.

Schumm says it shouldn’t have taken until 2010 to do the meta-analysis. Too often his colleagues impose “liberal or progressive political interpretations” on their studies, which inhibit further inquiry. “It’s kind of sad,” he tells AOL News.

As if expecting a political backlash himself, Schumm concludes his study with a quote from philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. “All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

from America Online News · Paul Kix via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database childrearingcriticism

Scalia Was Right: Incest and Lawrence V. Texas

In its 2003 Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court overturned Texas’s ban on sodomy. Critics, I among them, warned that this precedent would open the floodgates to gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of horribles. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a blistering dissent, charging that Lawrence "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”

Defenders of the opinion scoffed at the warning and accused critics of hysteria and homophobia. Then Senator Rick Santorum, a critic of the ruling, was subjected to continuing and merciless vilification.

Well, sadly, eight years later, all I can say is “we told you so.”

The occasion for revisiting Lawrence is the revolting case of Columbia University Professor David Epstein. Epstein is charged with third-degree incest for having a sexual relationship with his daughter. What made this case stand out, apart from Epstein’s Ivy League credentials, was that his daughter was 24-years-old and, by all accounts, a consensual partner to this repugnant union.

This fact prompted William Saletan of Slate to ask a question many people desperately wanted to avoid: “If homosexuality is okay, why is incest wrong?” Saletan isn’t trying to justify incest-he’s merely trying to get people to articulate a reason why, in light of Lawrence and similar arguments, society should distinguish between the two.

What Justice Kennedy wrote about the relationship in Lawrence - it involved “two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle” - would be just as true here if you substituted “incestuous” for “homosexual.”

Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, said as much in a television interview: “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home ... How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

While defenders of Lawrence purport to be appalled by such arguments, this is exactly what Justice Scalia predicted in his dissent. According to Justice Kennedy in Lawrence, the fact that the majority “has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral” isn’t sufficient justification for outlawing the practice. This kind of disapproval doesn’t justify an “intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”

Of course, it logically follows that this reasoning could just as well be applied to “bigamy” or “adult incest” or “polygamy” or “polyamory.” If all that matters is age and “mutual consent” the Lawrence decision is limited only by the perversity of the human imagination.

Unfortunately, under Lawrence, what ethicist Leon Kass calls the “wisdom of repugnance” is an insufficient basis to outlaw something.

If Epstein raises the Lawrence decision in pre-trial motions or on appeal, judges will be caught in a dilemma: apply Lawrence and sanction perversity or tie themselves into knots trying to distinguish what, under Lawrence, is indistinguishable.

It’s a dilemma of the Supreme Court’s making: It usurped the prerogative of the people and their elected representatives and created a hole so big that any kind of perversity could drive through.

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Chuck Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Breaking the Spiral of Silence

Job 7:11

Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” researchers Rob Willer, Ko Kuwabara and Michael Macy devised a set of ingenious experiments that showed how distressingly easy it is to make people go against what they believe to be true.

One of the experiments involved wine-tasting, in which participants evaluate both the wine and one another’s wine-tasting skills. The participants were given three samples of wine. In reality, all three samples were from the same bottle. One had even been tainted with vinegar!

Before they delivered their evaluation, they listened to other participants, who were plants, who praised the vinegar-laced wine as the best. Half of the participants went against their own taste buds and joined in praising the vinegary concoction.

Even more interesting is what happened next. Another participant, who was also a plant, told the truth about the wines. But when it came time for the participants to evaluate each other, some of them were permitted to do so confidentially, and the others had to do so publicly.

The ones who gave their evaluations confidentially praised the truth-teller. But those who had to evaluate the truth-teller publicly actually turned on him and gave him low marks.

The researchers call this phenomenon “false enforcement,” which they define as “the public enforcement of a norm that is not privately endorsed.”

What sustains the norm isn’t its popularity, much less its validity but, instead, the desire to “avoid a negative social judgment from one’s peers,” according to the report. Important words.

And the desire to “avoid a negative social judgment” feeds what German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called the “Spiral of Silence.”

Simply stated, out of a desire to avoid reprisal or isolation, people go along with what they think is the popular opinion — even if they object to that opinion personally. Instead of voicing their objections, they remain silent.

That’s precisely what’s happening in the debate over so-called same-sex “marriage.” Actually, “debate” is a misnomer. There’s no lack of evidence indicating that most Americans oppose it: Every time the question has been put on the ballot, voters have upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

Yet to voice that private opinion in public is to be subjected to a real-life version of what happened to the wine-tasters: an almost-universal chorus of people telling you that any “right-thinking” person favors so-called same-sex “marriage,” and that those who don’t are homophobes and “bigots.”

The result is the “spiral of silence.” People keep their supposedly “wrong-thinking” opinions to themselves, which, in turn, reinforces the impression that same-sex “marriage” is inevitable.

The good news is these kinds of spirals are fragile: Once exposed, they unravel. All it takes is someone like the little boy in Andersen’s fable to pipe up and say, “Hey, the emperor has no clothes!”

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Chuck Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database homosexuality

A Biblical Look At Sexual Orientation

My childhood was decidedly not gay. To the naked eye, it probably looked great and happy and carefree and normal. But it was none of those things. It was confusing and scary. The word that most clearly defines my childhood emotions is “fear.”

I never thought much about my “orientation” at all. As a young boy, I thought more about how different and isolated I felt from the other boys. As I grew older and my feelings of being different became sexual, I thought more about how lonely and how dirty I felt -- wondering if I was abominable to God. I worried about my feelings but I never claimed any specific sexual orientation and I ran from any identity based on my gay feelings. But, admittedly, my feelings grew and grew, and the more I read and observed, the more I craved an “identity” that would validate and support my feelings. Eventually I took the step of saying “I am gay” and I began to live a life centered on my sexual and romantic feelings for other men.

But while I claimed that identity with my head, something deep inside of me fought it. I read books that blamed what I was feeling on my oppressive Christian upbringing. But I know now that the Holy Spirit inside of me was fighting FOR me and for the truth of who I am in Christ. The amazing love of Christ wooed me home, and I returned to my wife. The feelings I had fought most of my life remained, but I was beginning to see the truth of who I really was. I was learning more than religion. I was learning to rest in my new identity. It was the beginning of a journey to freedom, new life and reorientation.

Much attention and power are given to our “sexual orientations.” It is curious to me. We don’t allow other parts of our human nature to define us. We are not “gossiping Christians” or “envious Christians” or “carbohydrate Christians” (although I am definitely oriented towards bread and pasta). But somehow sexuality has assumed an all-consuming and all-defining role in the lives of many. Sexuality has become an adjective designed to clarify one’s Christianity. Christianity should never need clarification based on our humanity. To place undue emphasis on our sexual orientation is to follow Christ in the context of our sexuality instead of looking at our sexuality in the context of our Christianity. We are not called to figure out how to follow Christ as someone having a homosexual OR a heterosexual orientation. When we do that, we create loophole after loophole to make our Christianity fit us -- instead of surrendering ourselves into the transformative process that IS Christianity.

So many people get completely hung up on their sexual orientation. But the reality is that there are only two true orientations for all mankind: Pre-redemption (or you might say “pre-salvation”) we are all oriented towards our flesh. Post-redemption we are oriented towards Christ. That’s it. This does not mean that we don’t still struggle with sin. It means we no longer define ourselves by the daily struggles we may have.

When we choose to follow Christ it is not just to “get out of hell.” Our salvation is a full and total surrender to Christ of all we are -- all of our feelings and desires and struggles and dreams and ambitions. We don’t choose to follow Jesus within the boundaries of what attracts us naturally or what motivates us naturally. The calling on the lives of people who say they follow Christ is a high one.

Sometimes Jesus is portrayed as this sort of soft-spoken, passive giver of gifts. While no one would actually say this, many people live as if Jesus is a divine enabler of destructive behavior -- as if He died on the cross to simply give us license to do whatever feels natural to us at any given moment.

Scripturally, to say we follow Christ is to say that we are willing to leave all that we cling to, to die to all that we are in the flesh, to endure all that the world throws at us, and to serve all who God places in our paths. While that can sound drastic, Jesus promises that when we leave all, die to all, endure all and serve all that we will receive all. We will receive benefits and blessings that far exceed anything we give up. Blessings like eternal life, abundant life, joy, peace, fulfillment, rest, relationship and purpose. Instead of a life focused on exalting ourselves, He blesses us, in His time and in His way. To claim an orientation based on our flesh is to see Jesus simply as a get out of hell free card and is a rejection of the newness He wants to impart on us. To reorient ourselves toward Christ is to walk in the new creation He has made us to be.

I am not gay. I am a Christ follower. As a Christ follower, my identity is not so much wrapped up in my salvation as it is in the man whose righteousness was substituted for my sin. My identity is not rooted in how I feel on any given day or in areas in which I may struggle on any given day. I am not defined by my orientation, sexual or otherwise. I do not claim a homosexual orientation, or a heterosexual orientation, and certainly not a “mixed” orientation. I am not a gay Christian, a straight Christian or a fundamentalist Christian or a liberal Christian. I am a Christ follower.

Jesus did not die for certain parts of me. He died for all of me, and He died to make me new, no matter what my human nature craves or desires. He did that for you, too. So I propose we reorient the word “orientation.” How we WERE oriented no longer matters. As Christ followers we are to be oriented towards one thing only -- Christ Himself. Putting aside all that we were oriented towards, and claiming nothing but an orientation towards Christ, will free you. And it will change your life. Walk in that freedom, and receive all that God has for you in Christ -- the Man who not only saved you, but also made you new.

________

Mike Goeke is an associate pastor of at Stonegate Fellowship Church in Midland, Texas.

from Baptist Press · Mike Goeke via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

No Stone Throwing: Speaking About Human Sexuality

John 8:7

Sometimes we Christians demonize our opponents instead of loving them. We often forget that, apart from the grace of God, we might well be on the other side of the issue. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of human sexuality. To understand why, we must first remember that, for the Christian, truth is a person: Jesus Christ. We see the world and our place in it in light of the person and work of Jesus. So we should never forget that just as Jesus was the incarnation of God’s love, mercy, and compassion for us, we are called to model these for our neighbor.

Now this doesn’t mean that we should shy from calling sin by its name — on the contrary, sometimes this is exactly what loving our neighbor requires. But we should do this in sorrow rather than in anger and never out of a sense of condemnation — because we know that since none of us is without sin, none of us gets to cast the first stone.

So, when we address a hot-button issue like same-sex attraction or same-sex marriage, we should always keep in mind our own struggles and brokenness when it comes to sexuality.

If you are blessed not to have struggled in this area, then recall your struggles in other areas. If you can’t think of any, well, you might want to think about the sin of pride. I’m just saying.

We also need to avoid the mistake that some of our opponents make: treating sex as merely physical. As Christians know, sex is intended to serve a unitive purpose — it’s supposed to be the physical expression of the spiritual union between husband and wife. As the Bible puts it, “the two become one flesh.”

It may come as a surprise to many of us, but many people in same-sex relationships are seeking the same thing. The problem is that they can’t achieve what they are seeking, because they are seeking it in what Catholic moral theology calls a “disordered” manner. Likewise, many advocates of same-sex marriage aren’t out to subvert marriage, at least not consciously. They’re pursuing the goods of marriage, all be it, in a disordered fashion.

Thus when we rightly say that the Christian response to same-sex attraction is chastity, we must remember that chastity is difficult enough for heterosexual Christians — who at least have the hope of expressing their sexuality in marriage.

The same is true with same-sex marriage. As God said in Genesis 2, “it is not good for man to be alone.” We were designed for the deep kind of physical and spiritual connection that comes through marriage. So even while we insist that that kind of connection is only available between a man and a woman, we must empathize with and grieve for those who cannot achieve it.

If we can’t, then we should consider keeping our mouths shut. Because if we forget to offer love and support along with the truth, we aren’t much better than the scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked for placing heavy loads on people’s shoulders while not lifting a finger to move them.

The world doesn’t need more Pharisees, it needs people who speak the truth in love — love that never forgets Who is the Truth.

________

Copyright (c) 2012 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database homosexuality

What, That's In There?

Mark 12:24

According to various blog reports, delegates at the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church were discussing a resolution to add the English Standard Version of the Bible to the list of officially approved versions for the denomination. Then someone discovered that the ESV rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly includes those who unrepentantly practice homosexuality as among those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Well, immediately a new vote was called, and the resolution on the ESV was, in essence, tabled. But then someone got around to reading the other translations and was shocked to discover that essentially the same wording is found in the RSV, the NIV, the CEV, and several other versions already approved for use in the Episcopal Church!

That’s in there? Who knew? And as they continue their investigation, I wonder what else they’ll find.

________

From his BreakPoint Commentary, "Bible Trivia: We Got Some Learnin’ to Do".

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database liberalism

Handling the Truth: On the Use and Misuse of the Bible

Mark 10:6

Last week, I received a comment on YouTube challenging the assertion I made in our Sexual Brokenness series that homosexual behavior was one of the many ways we exhibit sexual brokenness.

Dennis asked, “Why do you focus on that sin and ignore the rest of Leviticus? There are laws in there against gluttony, eating pork and shrimp, and wearing cotton-poly blends.” You know what? He’s right. In the book often quoted to condemn homosexual sin, these other things are condemned also. So what do we do now?

Yesterday we talked about how important it is for Christians to commit themselves to the Scriptures. But it’s not enough that we read and quote the Bible. How we read and quote it matters too. A lot. The basic fact is that we evangelicals often misuse the Bible in ways that can look just silly to the outside world.

We’re often quick to quote verses or moralize stories out of context. For example, we’ll quote Jeremiah 29:11, and claim that the promise found there means God has plans to prosper us and not harm us. But we’re unaware that that particular promise was delivered to Israel, a nation whom God had just punished by sending them to captivity.

The problem here is not that we don’t know what the verse says, but that we don’t really know what the verse means, because we don’t know the rest of Jeremiah 29, or the rest of Jeremiah, or where this promise fits in the whole scheme of redemptive history.

This sort of proof-texting reveals our tendency to selectively focus on certain parts of the Scripture, like the promises, while we ignore the other parts, like the curses.

Jewish philosopher and Rabbi Abraham Heschel once remarked to a group of Christians, “It seems puzzling to me how greatly attached to the Bible you seem to be and yet how much like pagans you handle it. The great challenge to those of us who wish to take the Bible seriously is to let it teach us its own essential categories; and then for us to think with them, instead of just about them.”

Ouch! But he has a point. The Bible is not a set of disconnected stories or self-contained phrases. Even the morals and the songs found in the Proverbs and the Psalms are given to us within the context of the history of Israel, which is given to us in the context of the history of everything — from the creation of the heavens and earth to the re-creation of the heavens and earth.

This big picture of the Bible should always be the backdrop whenever we read any part of the Bible. And we should keep in mind what kind of book we are reading: history, theology, poetry, prophecy, proverbs, or letters. A letter shouldn’t be picked apart like a proverb, and history shouldn’t be read as theology. Reading it as it was written, in light of the larger context of redemptive history, will help us learn what God is revealing to us about Himself and the world.

Which takes us back to Dennis’s comment about Leviticus. Leviticus clarified God’s law for the Israelites. Some of these laws were specific to Israel, to set them apart from the other nations. Other laws reflected God’s created order for everybody — such as the the one man-one woman sexual love described in Genesis and later endorsed by Jesus and Paul.

Any form of sexual brokenness is harmful precisely because it violates God’s good design which Jesus said was “from the beginning.” And because Scripture reflects the world as it actually is, the tragic results of sexual brokenness are evident not only in the Bible but throughout human history.

________

Copyright (c) 2012 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

There Is No Right To Not Be Offended

Acts 6:11

“The right to free speech and the unrealistic expectation to never be offended cannot coexist,” rightly observed Philip Sharp. It seems, however, that the “unrealistic expectation” cited by the retired U.S. Army Ranger and author is being viewed increasingly as a right.

The belief that individuals have a “right” to not be offended seems to be gaining momentum in the United States. As this concept grows in popularity it is set to challenge one of America’s first freedoms -- the freedom of speech. If the “right” against offense ever triumphs, if it is ever enshrined in law, free speech, of necessity, will cease to exist.

The Founding Fathers believed that man is ultimately accountable to God and not government. As a result, they were quick to add the Bill of Rights to their newly drafted Constitution. The very First Amendment they adopted stated in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...”

Having chafed under an oppressive government that recognized only one official religion and oppressed political dissent, the Founders wanted individuals to be free to pursue the dictates of conscience in matters of faith and speech.

While they were not all were followers of Christ in the strictest sense of the word, there was a consensus among the Founders that biblical principles were acceptable, strong and necessary underpinnings for a solid society.

Make no mistake: the Founders were protecting the government form encroaching on any speech that might be deemed unpopular or offensive. They wanted to guarantee that dissent was allowed.

Fast forward to the past few decades and it appears there is growing dissatisfaction with the Founders’ protection of speech. Though individuals, groups and sometimes those in the government have whined at times about offensive speech and the expression of dissent, the bulwark of the First Amendment has thus far held strong.

However, the assaults of political correctness -- introduced in the latter half of the last century -- pound against the idea of protecting speech, especially speech that might be considered by some to be offensive. Currently, it seems, many in America are willing to embrace freedom from offense over and above the freedom of speech.

For instance, homosexual activists claim that much offense and harm comes from those who espouse opposition to their lifestyle. Some even accuse conservative churches of practicing “spiritual” violence and abuse. They even insist that those who call homosexuality a sin -- as the Bible describes it -- drive some to commit suicide.

California recently passed a law that makes it illegal for a licensed counselor to offer therapy to a minor to help the child deal with and overcome homosexual feelings. Even if a teenager and his or her parents desire what is known as reparative therapy, the Golden State will not allow it.

If some homosexual activists get their way, speaking out against homosexuality will one day be outlawed in the U.S. They are more than willing to stifle free speech in their desire to not be offended.

As I write this, Muslims across the Middle East are violently protesting against America, in part, because of a film/video mocking Mohammed. Countries ruled by Islamic ideology employ blasphemy laws. These statutes punish -- sometimes by death -- any attack on Mohammad or the Muslim faith.

I have heard individuals -- American citizens -- who have advocated punishing those who dare speak against Islam, because they fear Muslim reaction. All they are really doing is advocating for the use of blasphemy laws here in the United States.

Please don’t misunderstand me; I do not advocate offense just for the sake of offending. Christians must always ask themselves if their speech is appropriate for a given context or situation.

The truth, as the Apostle Paul instructed, must be shared in love. However, like Philip Sharp pointed out, “The right to free speech and the unrealistic expectation to never be offended cannot coexist.”

“I know not what course others may take;” Patrick Henry famously declared, “but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” We will either embrace the liberty of free speech or we will allow it to die at the feet of political correctness.

More Than Our Feelings: California Bans Reparative Therapy

This past weekend, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a ban on so-called “reparative therapy” for minors with same-sex attraction. In other words, counselors will not be permitted to help young people change their sexual orientation or behavior. Well, the law stinks on multiple levels.

First, what if the minor wants to change, as many do? Doesn’t this violate the supposed liberal cardinal tenet of “choice”? And it’s a troubling precedent to nail an identity on an entire segment of the population with the stroke of a pen.

Second, the law claims scientific consensus when there is none. Gov. Brown said the law would consign reparative therapies “to the dustbin of quackery,” banning “non-scientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide.” But the governor failed to note the high rates of depression and suicide among active homosexuals with or without therapy.

Folks, what we have here is ideology disguised as science. We’re telling young people who may want to change that they should live a lifestyle that statistics say is a dangerous one. And then we’re telling their parents and counselors that if they help them escape that lifestyle, they are breaking the law. That is not loving.

But most importantly, this California law codifies into law an awful tendency in our culture to deify feelings. To be “true to yourself,” we’re told, we must obey feelings, because that’s who we are.

This law makes it illegal to try to alter sexual orientation or sexual behavior, as if they’re the same. Why? Because it’s widely assumed and held as ideological dogma that homosexual feelings determine identity and demand behavior.

But isn’t the right question with any sexual feelings we experience, what should I do with these feelings? Should I obey them or not? Why in this area, am I thought to be the victim of my urges and attractions? The funny thing is, homosexuality is one of the few areas in life where we use this “I feel, therefore I am” standard.

Urges towards co-workers do not justify adultery. Strong feelings of love and attraction toward siblings do not justify incestuous behavior or “marriage.” Adults are expected to govern their sexual behavior. But if you struggle with homosexual feelings or attractions, you should act on them because you simply “must be gay”? It’s cultural schizophrenia!

The fact is, feelings are caused by a wide variety of influences, and many people, no matter what help they seek, will have to live with strong feelings all their lives. But God has very definite things to say about sexual behaviors, including homosexual behavior, which thank God, can be changed.

I’m not saying this issue is easy or cut and dry; it’s not. Feelings can feel quite overwhelming at times, but what makes us human — what sets us apart from the animals — is the ability, with God’s grace, to resist urges that would harm us or others.

Vaughan Roberts, rector of St. Ebbes Church, in Oxford, England, has written a book called Battles Christians Face, in which he admits struggling with same-sex attraction. Yet Vaughan embraces biblical sexual standards — sex between a married man and a woman, or celibacy. His is not a grim, lonely march of obedience, but a bracing discipleship of hope. Vaughan says, “Very often God’s power is seen, not by him removing our temptations and difficult circumstances, but by giving us the strength to persevere and live for him in the midst of them.”

Friends, whatever this week’s headlines say, Christ gives us the power to live above our sinful inclinations.

________

Copyright (c) 2012 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

What Disqualifies From Service?

John 1:14

Preaching at North Point Community Church, in a sermon series known as “Christian,” Andy Stanley preached a message titled “When Gracie Met Truthy” on April 15, 2012. With reference to John 1:14, Stanley described the challenge of affirming grace and truth in full measure. He spoke of grace and truth as a tension, warning that “if you resolve it, you give up something important.”

The message was insightful and winsome, and Andy Stanley is a master communicator. Early in the message he spoke of homosexuals in attendance, mentioning that some had shared with him that they had come to North Point because they were tired of messages in gay-affirming churches that did nothing but affirm homosexuality.

Then, in the most intense part of his message, Stanley told the congregation an account meant to illustrate his message. He told of a couple with a young daughter who divorced when the wife discovered that the husband was in a sexual relationship with another man. The woman then insisted that her former husband and his gay partner move to another congregation. They did move, but to another North Point location, where they volunteered together as part of a “host team.” The woman later told Andy Stanley that her former husband and his partner were now involved as volunteers in the other congregational location.

The story took a strange turn when Stanley then explained that he had learned that the former husband’s gay partner was still married. Stanley then explained that the partner was actually committing adultery, and that the adultery was incompatible with his service on a host team. Stanley told the two men that they could not serve on the host team so long as the one man was still married. He later told of the former wife’s decision not to live in bitterness, and of her initiative to bring the whole new family structure to a Christmas service. This included the woman, her daughter, her former husband, his gay partner, and his daughter. Stanley celebrated this new “modern family” as an expression of forgiveness.

He concluded by telling of Christ’s death for sinners and told the congregation that Jesus does not condemn them, even if they cannot or do not leave their life of sin.

Declaring the death of Christ as atonement for sin is orthodox Christianity and this declaration is essential to the Gospel of Christ. The problem was that Stanley never mentioned faith or repentance — which are equally essential to the Gospel. There is indeed no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but this defines those who have acted in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). As for those who are not in Christ, they stand condemned already (John 3:18).

The most puzzling and shocking part of the message was the illustration and the account of the homosexual couple, however. The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship. They would be allowed to serve on the host team if both were divorced. The moral status of their relationship seemed to be questioned only in terms of adultery, with no moral judgment on their homosexuality.

Was this intended as a salvo of sorts? The story was so well told and the message so well constructed that there can be little doubt of its meaning. Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later.

We can only hope that Andy Stanley and the church will clarify and affirm the biblical declaration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, even as he preaches the forgiveness of sin in any form through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His affirmation of grace and truth in full measure is exactly right, but grace and truth are not actually in tension. The only tension is our finite ability to act in full faithfulness. The knowledge of our sin is, in truth, a gift of grace. And grace is only grace because of the truth of what God has done for us in Christ.

Responding To Those Who Say the Bible Is Outdated

Acts 10:9

It’s a common scenario. Someone objects to the Bible’s teaching on a point of ethics or morality (often homosexuality, promiscuity or divorce), so he cites a couple of Old Testament commandments and says something like, “Well, the Bible also says not to wear a garment made of wool and linen mixed together (Deuteronomy 22:11) and not to eat pork products or shrimp (Leviticus 11:7-12).”

The implication is either that the person upholding biblical standards of sexuality is a hypocrite because he’s wearing a linen/wool blend sport coat and ate a hotdog for lunch, or that the Bible’s commandments are inconsistent and therefore not credible. And it’s not just a hypothetical scenario. A recent New York Times op-ed article argued against a biblical position on homosexuality by suggesting that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally because it also says to “refrain from planting multiple kinds of seed in one field” and not to charge “interest to the poor.”

Such arguments may seem convincing at first. But their problem is a failure to recognize the Bible’s overarching storyline. They assume that Scripture is largely a list of doctrines and rules. Since some of the rules seem outdated or impractical, the critics reason, all of them should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem with such reasoning is that the Bible isn’t merely a list of rules and doctrines. It’s a story about how God relates to the world He created. And with a little study it becomes obvious that God gives slightly different instructions to His people in different parts of the story.

In the Old Testament the Jews were God’s chosen people. He gave certain ritual and judicial laws to set them apart from the pagan, Gentile nations around them. The commands mentioned in the Times op-ed are perfect examples. Leviticus 19:19 told the Israelites not to sow a field with two different kinds of seed. The idea was to set Israelite fields apart from Gentile fields, marking the Jews as God’s set-apart people. Similarly, Deuteronomy 23:19-20 forbade Jews from charging interest on loans to their countrymen, particularly the poor, though they were free to charge interest on loans to foreigners. Again, the command was intended to set Israelites apart from all other nations as God’s chosen people -- with whom He had made a covenant and on whom He had set His love. Similar explanations apply to the commandments not to mix wool and linen and to refrain from eating certain types of meat.

After the coming of Christ, however, there was no longer a spiritual divide between Jews and Gentiles. All who placed their faith in Jesus could become God’s people, regardless of their nationality (Ephesians 2:11-22). Accordingly, God abolished the ritual and judicial laws that set Jews apart from non-Jews (Acts 10:9-48; Hebrews 8:13-9:28) -- laws like those about sowing seed and charging interest. At the same time, God kept in force moral standards that promote holiness and general well-being, as in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. That’s why Christians are neither hypocritical nor inconsistent when, for example, they insist on keeping sex within monogamous, heterosexual marriage but do not keep Old Testament ceremonial laws.

Knowing the overarching story of Scripture helps us to know Christ and see a hint of the Gospel in every passage. That alone is reason enough to study the narrative of Scripture. But in addition, knowledge of biblical theology makes us less vulnerable in those all-too-common circumstances when a critic begins, “Well, the Bible also says ...”

________

This column first appeared at the blog of Bible Mesh, a website that teaches the Bible as a unified story pointing to Christ (online at www.biblemesh.com/blog).

A Lesbian's "Train Wreck Conversion"

John 7:17

As a leftist lesbian professor, I despised Christians. Then I somehow became one.

________

The word Jesus stuck in my throat like an elephant tusk; no matter how hard I choked, I couldn’t hack it out. Those who professed the name commanded my pity and wrath. As a university professor, I tired of students who seemed to believe that “knowing Jesus” meant knowing little else. Christians in particular were bad readers, always seizing opportunities to insert a Bible verse into a conversation with the same point as a punctuation mark: to end it rather than deepen it.

Stupid. Pointless. Menacing. That’s what I thought of Christians and their god Jesus, who in paintings looked as powerful as a Breck Shampoo commercial model.

As a professor of English and women’s studies, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, I cared about morality, justice, and compassion. Fervent for the worldviews of Freud, Hegel, Marx, and Darwin, I strove to stand with the disempowered. I valued morality. And I probably could have stomached Jesus and his band of warriors if it weren’t for how other cultural forces buttressed the Christian Right. Pat Robertson’s quip from the 1992 Republican National Convention pushed me over the edge: “Feminism,” he sneered, “encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” Indeed. The surround sound of Christian dogma co-mingling with Republican politics demanded my attention.

After my tenure book was published, I used my post to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful, and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: aids activism, children’s health and literacy, Golden Retriever rescue, our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few. Even if you believed the ghost stories promulgated by Robertson and his ilk, it was hard to argue that my partner and I were anything but good citizens and caregivers. The GLBT community values hospitality and applies it with skill, sacrifice, and integrity.

I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track: the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics, and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers. It was 1997.

The article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk: one for hate mail, one for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.

Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week, confronting me with the worldview divide that demanded a response. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview, but Christianity is a supernatural worldview. Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.

Friends with the Enemy

With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen. Oh, I had seen my share of Bible verses on placards at Gay Pride marches. That Christians who mocked me on Gay Pride Day were happy that I and everyone I loved were going to hell was clear as blue sky. That is not what Ken did. He did not mock. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward: Surely this will be good for my research.

Something else happened. Ken and his wife, Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We did book exchanges. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. They did not act as if such conversations were polluting them. They did not treat me like a blank slate. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. Vulnerable. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.

I started reading the Bible. I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations. At a dinner gathering my partner and I were hosting, my transgendered friend J cornered me in the kitchen. She put her large hand over mine. “This Bible reading is changing you, Rosaria,” she warned.

With tremors, I whispered, “J, what if it is true? What if Jesus is a real and risen Lord? What if we are all in trouble?”

J exhaled deeply. “Rosaria,” she said, “I was a Presbyterian minister for 15 years. I prayed that God would heal me, but he didn’t. If you want, I will pray for you.”

I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired. But the Bible got to be bigger inside me than I. It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in. The image that came in like waves, of me and everyone I loved suffering in hell, vomited into my consciousness and gripped me in its teeth.

I fought with everything I had.

I did not want this.

I did not ask for this.

I counted the costs. And I did not like the math on the other side of the equal sign.

But God’s promises rolled in like sets of waves into my world. One Lord’s Day, Ken preached on John 7:17: “If anyone wills to do [God’s] will, he shall know concerning the doctrine” (NKJV). This verse exposed the quicksand in which my feet were stuck. I was a thinker. I was paid to read books and write about them. I expected that in all areas of life, understanding came before obedience. And I wanted God to show me, on my terms, why homosexuality was a sin. I wanted to be the judge, not one being judged.

But the verse promised understanding after obedience. I wrestled with the question: Did I really want to understand homosexuality from God’s point of view, or did I just want to argue with him? I prayed that night that God would give me the willingness to obey before I understood. I prayed long into the unfolding of day. When I looked in the mirror, I looked the same. But when I looked into my heart through the lens of the Bible, I wondered, Am I a lesbian, or has this all been a case of mistaken identity? If Jesus could split the world asunder, divide marrow from soul, could he make my true identity prevail? Who am I? Who will God have me to be?

Then, one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked. In this war of worldviews, Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess. Conversion was a train wreck. I did not want to lose everything that I loved. But the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother.”

I have not forgotten the blood Jesus surrendered for this life.

And my former life lurks in the edges of my heart, shiny and still like a knife.

________

Rosaria Champagne Butterfield is the author of The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (Crown & Covenant). She lives with her family in Durham, North Carolina, where her husband pastors the First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham.

===============

Version used in Holwick sermon on 11/17/13:

Rosaria Champagne was a college professor of English and women’s studies. She was a liberal, a feminist - and a lesbian. She had no respect for Christians, especially after Pat Robertson quipped at the 1992 Republican National Convention, “Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” After that, Rosaria made it her personal quest to challenge the Religious Right.

In 1997 she wrote an article in a local newspaper critical of the Promise Keepers. The article generated a lot of response so she put a Xerox box on each side of her desk: one for hate mail, one for fan mail. But one letter she received defied her filing system. It was from Ken Smith, the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged her with questions like: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God?

Ken didn’t argue with her article; rather, he asked her to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. She didn’t know how to respond to it, so she threw it away. Later that night, she fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on her desk. With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing Christ to a heathen. So when he invited her to get together for dinner, she accepted. Her motives at the time were straightforward: Surely this will be good for her research.

Something else happened. Ken and his wife, Floy, became her friends. When they ate together, Ken prayed in a way she had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy.

Rosaria started reading the Bible. She read it many times that first year in multiple translations. Her friends began to notice. A transgendered friend named “J” cornered her in the kitchen. She warned her, “This Bible reading is changing you, Rosaria.” With tremors, Rosaria whispered, “J, what if it is true? What if Jesus is a real and risen Lord? What if we are all in trouble?” “Rosaria,” she said, “I was a Presbyterian minister for 15 years. I prayed that God would heal me, but he didn’t.”

Rosaria continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired. Then, one Sunday morning, she rose from the bed of her lesbian lover, drove an hour and sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. She was conspicuous with her butch haircut, but reminded herself that she came to meet God, not fit in. She continued to attend the church, continued to question.

One Sunday, Ken preached on John 7:17: “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” This verse exposed the quicksand in which Rosaria’s feet were stuck. She was a thinker. She expected that in all areas of life, understanding came before obedience. And she wanted God to show her, on her terms, why homosexuality was a sin. She wanted to be the judge, not one being judged.

But the verse promised understanding after obedience. She prayed that night that God would give her the willingness to obey before she understood. She prayed a long time. In the morning, when she looked in the mirror, she looked the same. But when she looked into her heart through the lens of the Bible, she wondered, Am I a lesbian, or has this all been a case of mistaken identity? Who am I? Who will God have me to be?

She describes her conversion as a train wreck. She did not want to lose everything that she loved. But she weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make her world right. Today, Rosaria lives in Durham, North Carolina, and is married to a Presbyterian minister.

Christians shouldn’t build walls to keep people out. We should let God break down those walls so they can come in. He did it with Rosaria. He did it with Ruth he can do it with you.

Pedophilia, Italy ... & Us?

2 Chronicles 29:1

The conviction of a 60-year-old man for having sex with a pre-teen girl was overturned by Italy’s highest court last fall according to a report by Agence France-Presse. Social worker Pietro Lamberti was sent to prison for five years for his relationship with an 11-year-old girl.

The original conviction in 2011 was upheld by an appellate court but now has been overturned by the Italian Supreme Court, which ruled the original court had failed to consider the consensual nature of the relationship, according to AFP. The court ordered a retrial.

The high court said consideration should have been given to the “existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl’s feelings of love,” AFP reported. Russia Today reported that one Supreme Court justice said the sexagenarian and the pre-teen “shared a genuine emotional bond that could justify the carnal union between the two.”

It seems the Italian Supreme Court has joined a growing number who are more than willing to acquiesce to the prevailing winds of perversity in regard to adult depravity and child sexuality.

Two respected publications have subtly promoted the idea in the past year that adults having sex with pre-teen children perhaps should not be viewed as taboo.

The British national newspaper The Guardian published an article titled “Pedophilia: bringing dark desires to the light” in January 2013. While it was a news-type report, a preponderance of the quotes were sympathetic to the idea of pedophilia.

Consider the following from The Guardian report:

“But there is growing conviction, notably in Canada, that pedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that pedophilia ‘is a sexual orientation’ and therefore ‘unlikely to change.’

“A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in pedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests -- as Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says -- that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are ‘nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes.’”

The Atlantic, in its August issue, ran two articles wholly sympathetic to pedophilia.

In the article “I, Pedophile” Canandian journalist David Goldberg recounted his arrest in 2012 for possessing child pornography. A question-and-answer piece titled “What Can Be Done About Pedophilia” featured James Cantor, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto who is regarded as an international expert on pedophilia.

Commenting in the aftermath of his arrest, Goldberg wrote, “The main query that I am convinced will always be without an answer is why I am a pedophile. It is the equivalent of trying to determine why someone is heterosexual or gay. We don’t choose our sexual orientations. If we could, believe me no one would choose mine.

“The most important thing I’ve discovered in the 15 months since my arrest isn’t the why,” Goldberg wrote, “but rather what can be done to change the preconceptions and misconceptions that society has when it comes to pedophiles.”

In the Q&A, Cantor makes clear he believes pedophilia is a matter of birth and not of choice. “No one chooses to be sexually attracted to children, although people do choose whether they act on their sexual attractions,” Cantor said.

“The best current evidence suggests that pedophilia results from atypical wiring in the brain,” Cantor said. He went on to repeatedly indicate that he believes pedophilia is innate.

It should be noted that neither Goldberg nor Cantor in any way suggested adults having sex with children should be advocated. However, it seems the Italian justices have taken their arguments to their logical conclusion.

If a person is born a pedophile and it is illegal to have sex with minor children, how does he or she find sexual expression? As long as pedophilia is against the law, the pedophile will be a frustrated outcast.

If pedophilia is indeed innate, then age of consent laws become the issue of debate. Does a pre-teen have the capacity to make a rational decision to have sex with an adult? The Italian Supreme Court has said yes. Hence, the age of consent laws in Italy will now have to be reconsidered.

What does this all mean for America? Already in the United States adults are allowing children to decide what sex they should be, judging from a handful of cases of children as young as 5 and 6 being allowed to pursue a transgendered existence.

If you believe a child as young as 5 has the capacity to rationally decide that he or she was born the wrong sex, then your logic would have to dictate they have the same ability to decide whether to have sex with an adult.

In the same way homosexual and transgendered activists have fought successfully to have laws changed so they can pursue their lifestyles, expect pedophile activists to follow suit.

The reality is children, especially pre-teens, do not have the cognitive ability to even know what is best for them. They certainly do not have the ability to rationally decide about having sex with an adult, much less that they are transgender.

Society should do everything in its power to protect children from those who would rob them of their innocence, particularly from perverts whose only desire is to satisfy their depraved desires, a concept it seems the Italian Supreme Court is unable to grasp.

from Baptist Press · Kelly Boggs via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

On Being Saved From Confusion: The Testimony of Rachel Gilson

Acts 19:32

Many Christians settle for a reductionistic view of salvation, in which eternity is secured but the rest of life left untouched. The Bible, however, presents a much more holistic vision of redemption.

To explore salvation from a broader point of view, this year’s Wilberforce Weekend looked at “Life Redeemed.” The event was framed around three questions: What are we saved from, what are we saved to, and what are we saved for?

Rachel Gilson is the author of a fascinating book entitled Born Again This Way: Coming Out, Coming to Faith, and What Comes Next. She spoke specifically on something the Bible describes that we are saved from: confusion.

Here’s a portion of Rachel’s compelling message:

As I started having romantic and sexual relationships with other young women, I thought, “Oh, this is where home is for me.” So, I got to Yale, and I was like, “Oh no!” The girl I was dating at the time, well, she left me for this guy that lived in a van. And I was, like, “That is bad news, no matter what.” And also, I’m just sad, you know? So teenage breakups — very dramatic. I was basically dumped into the pit of an identity crisis, and never once did I think, “Oh, I should turn to Jesus” because I didn’t believe in Jesus.

So, a little while after that, I happened to be in the room of — I could call her a friend; she was more like an acquaintance — a non-practicing Catholic. And I remember standing in her doorway, and she was further into her room getting something, putting it in a bag, whatever. We’re going to walk somewhere. And she had a bookshelf next to her doorway, and one of my favorite hobbies is to look at people’s bookshelves and judge them, you know? So, I’m checking it out, looking up and down.

And there was a copy — there was a book on this shelf. The spine read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and so I thought, “Oh, I really want to read that book,” but I was too embarrassed to ask my friend for it. So, I just stole the book because, again, I had no moral code, right? My bag, it’s not that big — you can just slip it right in.

So, I was sitting in the library soon after that, reading Mere Christianity, and while I was reading it one day, I was just overwhelmed with the realization that God exists. I was trying to explain this to an atheist friend of mine recently. He’s, like, “Tell me again.” I’m, like, “I don’t really want to say.” I was sitting there, and it was clear to me suddenly — I don’t remember where, what chapter I was in, what page, anything like that, but I was just overwhelmed with the reality of God. And not like a store brand, you know, like Zeus or something, but the God who made me and who made everything and who was perfect.

It was like I could sense God’s holiness even though I didn’t know that vocabulary and the only thing I felt was fear. I’m arrogant. I’m cruel. I’m sexually immoral. I lie. I cheat. I’m reading a stolen book. It’s clear all of the chips are in the guilty category, right? I had no confusion at that moment either, but really quickly with that I also understood that part of the reason Jesus had come was to place Himself as a barrier between God’s wrath and me. And that the only way to be safe was to run towards Him, not away from Him.

It was lovely, but it also was really clear to me really soon in my walk with the Lord that my attraction to other women wasn’t going anywhere. And it’s been 18 years, and my attraction to women still hasn’t gone anywhere. So, it was where the confusion actually entered in. I was, like, “How, how am I supposed to thrive in Christ when these attractions aren’t gone?” And the Lord kept pushing on me at this time. Like, “Hey, if you’re only willing to obey when you both understand and agree, maybe you’re actually serving yourself as God and not me.”

Probably many of you experience other places where you feel confused because there’s something the Lord says and it doesn’t seem to line up with you intuitively. There’s maybe some sin that you love, that you don’t know how to — you don’t know how to part with. And I would just say again and again, the only place of safety is found in Him and in His Word. And He promises by His Word, by His Spirit, by His people, to lead us out of confusion and to lead us into love and joy and peace and patience, into the obedience of faith that He’s calling us to.

________

Copyright (c) 2022 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Changing, Not Expanding Marriage

Was marriage “equality” the real goal of the gay marriage movement? Or was it something else?

Both before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, some Christians argued that allowing same-sex couples to marry is not inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching on marriage.

At the heart of these arguments is the assertion that same-sex relationships are, to borrow a phrase from gay writer Andrew Sullivan, “virtually normal.” That is, same-sex relationships are, with one very obvious exception, not all that different from traditional marriages. Thus, just as the Supreme Court held that similarly-situated couples should be treated equally under law, similarly-situated couples should be treated equally in our churches.

The problem is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not nearly as alike as those making these arguments would have us believe.

This reality was amply demonstrated in a recent broadcast of “Weekend All Things Considered.” Host Arun Rath spoke to J. Bryan Lowder of Slate, who worried about the impact of the Court’s decision on gay culture.

By “gay culture,” Lowder wasn’t talking about a particular fashion sense and a fondness for Judy Garland. What he had in mind was the ability to “imagine different ways of being in romantic relationships and loving.” For some gays and lesbians, this “meant monogamous relationships that looked exactly like a married couple ... [without] the legal imprimatur of the state. But for other people, they had many different kinds of arrangements.” Emphasis on many.

Lowder was concerned about losing “some of that imagination that the gay community has had in the past to think about how to live in different ways and ... offer a critique to straight culture of how we can arrange our romantic lives.”

In other words, LGBT folks are just like straight folks except when they’re not. They want to be married like everyone else, except when they don’t want to be. They want to embrace bourgeois domesticity, except when they don’t and, instead, prefer to use their imagination, as he put it.

Lowder is hardly an outlier. Last year, in a Daily Beast article provocatively entitled “Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along?” gay activist Jay Michaelson acknowledged that there “is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage.”

Michaelson cited a 2013 study finding that “about half of gay marriages surveyed ... [are] not strictly monogamous.” He called this fact “well-known in the gay community,” adding that “we assume it’s more like three-quarters” that are not monogamous. They are, to cite a now-popular phrase, “monagam-ish.”

Michaelson admitted that his straight friends who believed that they “were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition,” felt “duped.” But he was unapologetic. In his words, “actual monogamy has never been an actual norm,” as opposed to an ideal.

Michaelson seems to think that because some men have been unfaithful, monogamy should not be an expectation of marriage. The vast majority of women, by the way, would undoubtedly disagree.

This brings to mind an exchange between Andrew Sullivan and conservative columnist Mona Charen more than 20 years ago. In response to Sullivan’s claim that marriage would domesticate gay men’s sex drives, Charen replied that marriage doesn’t domesticate men, women do.

This, my friends, is sexual complementarity in a pithy nutshell. The sexes are different, and each promises the other something different that will contribute to their union and the wellbeing of their offspring.

Frankly, Christians who support same-sex marriage have been had. The question is: Now that they know what’s really going on, will they change their minds?

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Religions Need To Reassess Homosexuality

NHS published a report suggesting that "religions need to reassess homosexuality in a positive context within their belief system." The statement calls for legitimizing homosexual marriages and accepting homosexuality as "healthy and natural." Secretary Louis Sullivan disassociated himself from it.

from Christianity Today magazine via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Paradox of Surrender

2 Corinthians 5:15

Twenty years ago I surrendered my sexuality to God. After days of wrestling with Him, I knocked on my wife’s door and asked her if I could come home. She said yes, and we began, inch by inch, the journey of surrender, restoration, redemption and rebuilding that we remain on today.

I had left her months earlier after having surrendered myself to my sexuality. For most of my life I had fought feelings and desires I did not want. When I finally gave up the fight, I felt liberated.

The inner tension that had defined so much of my life seemed to disappear. I felt free from the confines of my traditional sexual boundaries, free of the urge to hide myself and free of secrets.

Yet something was “off” inside me. Over time, I felt less free and began to feel unsafe. Everything I read said I should embrace it, learn to love it, and live with it. Escape was described as an exercise in futility. So I pressed on.

On Easter weekend 1997, through a testimony of a man who struggled as I did, I reconnected with Jesus. But it was not the Jesus I thought I had known. It was a very real, very strong, very powerful Jesus. I realized that He was offering me the freedom that I thought surrendering to my sexuality would give me.

He offered me love -- a love that loved me where I was and loved me too much to leave me there. And so, on April 17, 1997, I held up a white flag and surrendered myself to Jesus.

For years I had made demands of God under the guise of prayer, and when He failed to meet my demands, I decided that He either lacked the power to meet my demands or that He simply didn’t care. But on that day in 1997, I had no expectations or demands. I knew without a doubt that He was calling me back to Himself and to give up the fight.

Instead of demanding of God the result I wanted, I simply said, “God, I give this all to You. Do with it what You will.” He accepted my surrender, and nothing looks like I anything I could have imagined.

Over the years, people have often asked me about the current state of my sexuality, and about specific changes that might or might have happened in my desires. When I admit the existence of lingering struggles or the reality of ongoing issues, there is often this unspoken (and sometimes spoken) thought that surrendering my sexuality to God might not have been worth it. Other strugglers often seem to want proof that God will do certain things as they tally the pros and cons of surrender.

But surrender is not an act of assessing pros and cons. We often forget that we are not in a position to bargain when we surrender, coming to some sort of terms as to what we will keep and what we will give up.

We simply surrender all.

In 2 Corinthians 5:15, Paul says that Christ died for all, “that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” Two verses later Paul ties the idea of living for Christ with the idea of becoming a new creation. Ceding control of our lives to Jesus is the essence of what it means to be “new.”

There have been times when I have wanted to retract my surrender. While Paul says that we don’t regard “new creations” according to flesh, our flesh still exerts itself. I have been blessed with an amazing wife and many good friends who have reminded me of truth when I was tempted by the lie that what I walked away from was better than what I now have.

When I first began this journey, I was afraid of what I might look like when God was finished with me. But God has been faithful to reveal things to me as I am ready for them, and to prepare me for each new and exciting part of the redeemed and transformed life I have in Him.

Now, 20 years later, I feel safer and freer than I did 20 years ago. God-willing, 20 years from now I will look back on today and be equally amazed at how my life, under His care, love, leadership and ownership, has changed for the better.

The paradox of surrender is that in it we find freedom. In surrender, I found joy and purpose and security and abundant life. I have also discovered that I assert control and fight against God in many other areas of my life, areas like money and relationships and affirmation and acceptance.

As we live surrendered lives, we all have things that fight against the freedom God has for us, and in all of those things we are called to surrender. And as was true when I surrendered my sexuality 20 years ago, when we hand those things over to God, He does not leave us empty.

Instead, we get Jesus. We get the great liberator who lives inside of us -- empowering, enlightening, encouraging and embracing us just as we are, yet destined for so much more.

________

Mike Goeke is associate pastor of First Baptist Church in San Francisco.

From Transgender To Transformed

Luke 15:11

Francine Perry and her daughter Laura recently sat down to look at family photos. As they reflected on the good times, they also could see how God was at work, especially through the difficult times -- and there were many of those.

Francine, left, and Laura with a family photo album

On the heels of rebellious teenage years, Laura lived as a transgender man for nearly a decade of her adult life. Other than her family and select friends, though, most people just knew Laura as “Jake.”

Laura was living with a partner who also identified as transgender, and had become estranged from family members and the church.

Laura had grown up in a Christian home. Her parents, Paul and Francine, were and are active members of First Baptist Church of Bartlesville, Okla., where they took Laura and her siblings to church nearly every time the doors were open.

“I grew up going to church constantly,” Laura said. “I was in Sunday School, children’s choir, GA’s, Bible Drill, VBS and more. But ultimately I lacked a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

James Biesiadecki, left, pastor of First Baptist Bartlesville, Oklahoma, baptized Laura in 2016.

Growing up, Laura constantly struggled with her sexual identity and did not “feel” like a girl. She experienced other various challenges through childhood, which culminated in poor choices in her teen years, and later embracing a transgendered life during her 20s.

When they found out about Laura’s choice to embrace a transgender male identity, Laura’s parents were devastated.

“At first I said, ‘how could you do this to us, after all we have done for you?’,” Francine said.

Though she had support from friends in church and in her ladies Bible study, Francine felt depressed and isolated because of the family’s plight.

Out of a sense of desperation and hopelessness, Francine began to dive deeper into God’s Word.

Laura Perry and her mother Francine share a hug. After many rocky years, God has fully restored family relationships.

“I realized, through our ‘prodigal child’ experience, that I had a more works-based faith in Christ, a more legalistic mindset,” Francine acknowledged. “I was Pharisee-like in so many ways.”

God, though, began to soften Francine’s heart. Her ladies Bible study group began to lift up Laura in prayer. Yet things got worse before they got better.

Laura once wrote a letter to her mother that said, “This is what I was supposed to be. Please accept me.”

Francine and Paul began to become more open in sharing their struggles.

The Perrys also refused to believe that God would leave Laura in the transgender life. They asked people to pray.

Meanwhile, Laura had delved deeper into the transgender life, attending pro-LGBT support groups and even taking hormonal and surgical steps to become less feminine and more masculine.

“I bought into the lies of Satan, believing that my sinful choices would make me happy,” Laura said. “Inside, I was miserable and searching for real peace.”

Laura’s transgender partner happened to be a staunch political conservative, and this exposed Laura to various talk radio and teaching programs.

“I got fascinated with the idea of absolute truth,” she said.

Her interest in politics led her then to listen to biblical preaching on the radio.

One day a co-worker asked if she was a Christian. Laura said, “Yes.”

“That was the first time in a long time that I said I had anything to do with Christianity,” she said.

It would be a long road leading home, but God began to awaken faith and belief in Laura.

“I always knew about Jesus and believed. But I never knew Jesus personally or made Him Lord of my life,” Laura said.

Eventually, the truth began to get through, bit by bit. And Laura began to reach a breaking point.

“God opened my eyes to the truth. He made me realize that the transgender life was not His will for my life, that it was a dead end. But I was still conflicted.”

One day, through tears and much struggle, Laura prayed and asked God for help. She was, however, still in a transgender lifestyle and relationship. God continued to work on her heart.

Francine and Paul kept the lines of communication open, and met with Laura from time to time.

Francine said, “It was as if God said to me, ‘If you keep trying to fix Laura yourself, I will not. If you just sit down and leave Laura to me, I will work.’”

That began the change, not only in Francine’s life and heart but Laura’s.

Laura asked her mother one day, “Is it OK if I come to church?” Francine, who was the church pianist, struggled with the idea of Laura coming to church.

“I thought if she showed up to church looking like a man, she only would embarrass us. That shows you how far I still had to go in my walk with Christ,” Francine said.

Laura did come to church that day, and the message was on the prodigal son. The person to feel convicted by the sermon, though, was Francine.

“Satan whispers in your ear along this dark road, but God’s grace won out,” Francine said.

Laura eventually made the hard, painful decision to turn away from her transgender life, leaving her partner, and made the step home, moving back home with her parents.

“I didn’t know what came next,” Laura said. “But I was clinging to God’s promise that He would take care of me. I experienced such love and acceptance from my mother’s Bible study group. It was hard, but I had never experienced such peace and love as when I came back to the church.”

The ladies group helped Laura acquire a new wardrobe, including earrings and dresses. Members of First Baptist have continued to walk alongside Laura.

Brandi Biesiadecki, wife of pastor James Biesiadecki, has mentored Laura.

“It is so encouraging to see the true repentance and restoration Laura has undergone,” she said.

Last August, Laura made her decision to follow Christ public in front of the church and was baptized the following month.

Today, Laura has fully embraced her God-given sexuality as a woman, and she is active in the church.

The journey home, which took place a year ago, has led to both restoration and reconciliation. Francine and Paul believe God answered their prayers, and they believe that parents should never stop praying for their “prodigal” child or children.

They give all glory to God. “Only God could have done this,” Francine said.

Pastor James also sees God’s grace demonstrated in the Perry family.

“Laura’s testimony, and the testimony of the Perry family, is proof that Jesus is the answer to sin and life’s struggles,” he said. “I am so thankful for this dear family, and I pray Laura’s testimony of salvation and new life in Christ will continue to inspire many people.”

In addition to co-teaching a Sunday School class at church, Laura has been able to share her story in front of audiences, as well as on Tony Perkins’ national radio program.

“I am living proof that God’s love is greater than the devil’s lies,” Laura said with a smile.

Gender Transition Is 'A Medical and Scientific Fraud'

Mark 10:6

Anyone who’s ever been verbally bullied can tell you that the old saying “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me” is nonsense. Words are powerful things. They can harm people. In fact, words can create whole categories that confuse men and women into a twisted understanding of their bodies and souls, and can even wreck their lives.

To be clear, I’m not talking about just insults. I’m talking about labels — the words we use to think about ourselves and the power they have to shape our lives, especially our sexual identities.

Just ask Jamie Shupe, who recently told his story in the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal. Shupe was America’s first legally-recognized “non-binary” person. In fact, his case opened up the non-binary status for people in eleven states and counting. His journey didn’t begin with reworking gender labels. Before he won the right to be known as non-binary, he claimed to be a transgender woman, writing about his experience in The New York Times and receiving rock-star treatment from the LGBT movement.

There was just one problem: Shupe wasn’t, in fact, a woman trapped in a man’s body or a genderless being. He was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and a veteran with PTSD. Now, after changing his mind and going back to living as a man, he admits that assuming new gender identities and fighting for their legal recognition was his way of trying to make a fresh start. The scary part is how, at every step, the medical community, state governments, and the news media legitimized his confusion.

As Shupe writes: “When a licensed medical doctor writes you a letter essentially stating that you were born in the wrong body and a government agency or court of law validates that delusion, you become damaged and confused ... The truth is that my sex change to non-binary was a medical and scientific fraud.”

I hope you’ll read Jamie Shupe’s sad but revealing story. It’s heartbreaking. And the saddest part of his story is that it exposes the new gender identities embraced by so many as artificial, harmful, and dehumanizing.

Of course, there have always been those who have experienced gender confusion, and who have dealt with their sexual attraction in ways that are at odds with our God-given purpose. What’s new today is the set of scripts that’s currently imposing these confusions on individuals: If you’re a little girl who plays with trucks, one script goes, you must really, deep down, be a boy. If you’re a young man who has trouble relating to others of your sex, you must really, on the inside, be a woman. And if you have a mix of both traits or just can’t decide, well then, there’s a new script for you, too. You’re “non-binary.”

In all of these cases, it is the words — the categories that our culture has made up and imposed on real people — that carry all the power. In the long run, the mismatch between these categories and the people on whom they’re imposed becomes painfully obvious.

Last year on BreakPoint, we highlighted a study that called transgender identification a “social contagion” among teenagers — in other words, it’s something many adopt because it’s what all the cool kids are doing. We also know that between 63 and 94 percent of minors who identify as transgender will later change their minds, or “desist” as it’s medically termed.

This research, and stories like Shupe’s, show how easily the new gender labels can consume a person’s identity while burying real trauma that needs treatment. Young people especially need to know that turning words such as “transgender” and “non-binary,” and even “gay” and “lesbian” into categories of identity is a practice younger than I am. Seriously, this just started yesterday. But now, they’re so often assigned as identity labels to anyone who fits an arbitrary set of stereotypes. As a result, they dominate lives and cause immeasurable damage.

That’s why refusing to accept these labels isn’t an act of hate, as we are told, but rather it’s an act of love. As Christians called to this confused cultural moment, we should be sensitive to people’s experiences, recognizing that trauma often plays a major role in gender confusion. At the same time we should be clear that trendy labels and identities aren’t the answer, and the best way to honor others’ humanity is to refuse to perpetrate this medical and scientific fraud against them.

________

RESOURCES

“I Was America’s First ‘Non-binary’ Person. It Was All a Sham,” by Jamie Shupe, Daily Signal, March 10, 2019; https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/10/i-was-americas-first-non-binary-person-it-was-all-a-sham.

“God and the Transgender Debate,” Andrew Walker, Good Book Company, 2017.

________

Copyright (c) 2019 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet with G. Shane Morris via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database homosexuality

Banning Conversion Therapy: A Step Too Far Or Not Far Enough?

John 8:31

The United Kingdom government has outlined some of the details of its proposed conversion therapy ban and, to say the least, they are interesting. For those who wish to engage you can have your say on their equality hub, and I hope that many church leaders will because this law has the potential to be a real trojan horse for discrimination and abuse.

In a nutshell, the government is proposing legislation:

targeting physical acts conducted in the name of conversion therapy

targeting talking conversion therapy with a new criminal offence; and

producing a package of holistic measures, such as conversion therapy protection orders, new support for victims, restricting promotion, removing profit streams, and strengthening the case for disqualification from holding a senior role in a charity.

To some it seems pretty draconian – although it does all depend on what you mean by conversion therapy. After all, would anyone argue against banning physical coercion? But to others it is far too weak.

From a Christian perspective there are three interesting observations.

1. The proposed legislation includes conversion to transgenderism

In a surprising development the government minister, Liz Truss, has declared that it will include seeking to ‘convert’ someone to transgenderism: “The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone.”

This is logical - but with potentially interesting consequences. I think of the teacher who advised a depressed young teenage man that he could be ‘trapped in the wrong body’. Would this teacher fall foul of this law? Or what if someone tried to persuade a teenager that they might want to change their sexuality and asked something like ‘why don’t you experiment with your sexuality?’. Could they potentially be breaking the law?

Pink News is not happy. It writes, “The idea that children are being coerced into ‘becoming’ trans is a popular anti-trans talking point, a myth which suggests that affirming trans and gender non-conforming kids will cause them to be trans when they otherwise would not have been.”

But that’s their standard. It’s so strange that in their world there are thousands of gay teenagers who are being damaged by being ‘coerced’ into changing their sexuality, but it’s a ‘myth’ to suggest that young people can be led into changing their gender!

Yet the evidence is that social contagion, peer pressure and ‘counselling’ can cause considerable harm. There are numerous lawsuits coming down the line from adults who now want to detransition and feel that they were misled as teenagers. There is little doubt that the harm caused by the trans ideologues far outweighs anything done through any other conversion therapy.

2. The proposed laws do not ban prayer or private speech

“To be clear: talking conversion therapy could not be reasonably understood to include communication such as casual conversations, exchanges of views, private prayer or pure speech acts,” the government says.

Peter Tatchell was disappointed. He tweeted: “The UK government’s proposed LGBT+ conversion therapy ban has loopholes. It allows adults to consent and churches to pray in certain circumstances. We await the final details. Until then, the battle goes on. #StopDithering.”

Imagine allowing churches to pray!

The formerly evangelical minister, Steve Chalke, agreed that this was dangerous.

“There’s a lethal loophole in the proposed ban on Conversion Therapy. It leaves room for adults to give ‘informed consent’ to religious groups for help with ‘unwanted same sex attraction’, so can’t protect LGBT+ people already brainwashed into believing their sexuality is ‘a sin’!” he wrote on Twitter.

Although Chalke is not noted for his understatement, claiming that allowing individuals to pray with people is ‘lethal’ is, even by his standards, somewhat over the top!

Jayne Ozanne, another former evangelical who describes herself as a conversion therapy ‘survivor’ was just as condemnatory. She told Pink News: “The consultation document makes little mention of the harm that religious practices are known to cause, nor does it recognise that the government’s own research has shown that these form the majority of such practices.”

It appears as though Ozanne and Chalke will not be happy until churches which uphold biblical standards on marriage, humanity and sexuality are prosecuted for daring to teach what the Bible teaches. It is quite extraordinary that it is not the militant secularists but some professing Christians who are pushing the government to persecute those who are supposed to be their brothers and sisters!

3. Consent is no longer the absolute of progressive society

You will have noticed in the earlier Tatchell quote how he objects to the idea of adults being able to consent to conversion therapy. It used to be the mantra that what consenting adults do on their own is nobody else’s business. But in the marketplace of progressive idols, autonomy is now trumped by sexual ideology. Campaigners say that no one can freely consent to psychological harm. And of course, they are the ones who will determine what psychological harm is.

The argument goes: “Saying you can consent to conversion therapy is like saying you’re consenting to robbery when you hand over your money because you’re terrified of being assaulted if you don’t.”

The whole issue of ‘consent’ is fascinating. To what extent, for example, can we say that people ‘consent’ to vaccinations when they are threatened with not being able to travel, visit many places, or even go to church?

It’s interesting that progressives are now admitting that consent is a mixed term. There is a sense in which their new attitude is more realistic and biblical. Some of the Jews who heard Jesus offer to set them free were confused and upset, and instead argued that their very identity made them free. But Jesus pointed out that everyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:31-34).

We do not have that radical autonomy. We are not in control. But we do have the right and the ability to ask for help from our fellow humans, and from the Lord. The proposed Bill seems to at least preserve that in civil law - although no serious Christian would be prepared to hand that right over to a secular government. We ultimately answer to God, not to them.

Once governments grasp the limitations of their power, they will stop trying to make rules which control every aspect of our lives. ‘Know the truth and the truth will make you free’ is a word for all in today’s increasingly bound society.

________

David Robertson works as an evangelist with churches in Sydney, Australia

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate