David Bennet War of Loves - is it ok for Christians be gay and stay celibate?

Recently this topic was brought up in our church. An elder used his book as his story line. I scratched my head to say the least.

I have not read the book but listen to David’s story and position in a couple of videos. You can check it on YouTube.
David used to be an atheist and gay activist but had a real conversion experience and was later filled with the Holy Spirit. He dropped his lifestyle and left his gay community. He went on to study theology and earned a DPhil. His position in brief is the following. He believes man is created in God’s image as male and female and that could me hetero or homosexual. He remains gay and but celibate and does not engage in sexual activity. In essence, he identifies as being gay. He believes it is ok to remain gay and that it is something to be celebrated, but he submits to the commandment of the bible, not to practice such things. This puts him at odds with the LGBTQA community and many gay Christian proponents, but he maintains friendly relations with the Christian gay community.

He justifies his position with reference to 2 bible passaged that deals with eunuchs:
Isa 56:4-5 For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

and

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

I do not think that the description of the eunuch can be applied to homosexual Christians. This applies to men castrated as boys, or those born with a physical disorder or those who chose not to marry so that they can do things that are inconvenient for those who are married.

While I believe it is laudable that David abstains from practicing homosexuality, I have concerns about his position. I also understand that gay people often struggle a great deal with rejection, bullying, self-rejection, and suicidal thoughts. Many have been abused before they came out as gay. So we deal with deeply wounded people.


Remaining gay and celebrating it
When someone is born again, he is a new creation in Christ, the old is gone. The first thing the born again does is stop sinning and break sinful habits. We know of countless testimonies of people breaking free from besetting sin in an instant. The second thing that must take place is the transformation of what we were into the image of Christ. This involves the continuous process of sanctification.

In 1 Cor 6:9-11 (KJV) Paul lists a number of people that will not enter heaven:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
BTW the ESV, says only “who practice homosexuality”. This translation only excludes the practice, not the state of being effeminate or homosexual. The Greek text however uses the adjectival form μαλακοὶ meaning to be effeminate, and the abusers of mankind in the substantival form.

So that means that I not only have to stop doing sinful things, but it also involves ceasing to be such a person. It is erroneous to say that I stopped stealing but I am still thief, or a drunkard who does not touch alcohol.

I am asking myself, is it ok for a Christian to say I remain gay but just cease practicing it? What does the bible actually say to gays who become born again? Should they become straight and be attracted to the opposite sex? Should they become asexual if they cannot become straight? Does that solve the problem?

Continual struggle?
We all struggle with temptations, and we need to battle as long as we live in our fallen body. David’s position would mean that a Christian gay person will have continual desires in his/her heart that can never have a legitimate consummation. I think it is absurd to think that God would commit anyone to temptations that spring from an unchangeable identity. It is like Paul’s example of a sow that can’t help to wallow in mud, even after you washed it.

1 Cor 6:11 says “and such WERE some of you. This is past tense, the old is gone, we are justified and sanctified. Christ dissolves all bands of misaligned identity that are a result of sin. This is something every Christian is entitled to and we need to take it by faith.

What position should the church take?
These people need our help and love, but true love does not shun the truth. I do believe that a born-again Christian can cease to BE a drunkard, an idolater or a homosexual. These are not intrinsic identities we are born with but a besetting sins that distorts the identity of humans created in the image of God.

Danger
We Christians easily cringe being called bigots. That needs to stop. Nobody who is surrendered to Jesus and lives a godly life is a bigot, just the opposite is true. I believe David makes some good points, and again I applaud his conviction that homosexuality must not be practiced by a Christian, but he does not offer help to those who came out of this lifestyle and want to become completely free.
Could we trust such a person with children’s ministry? Would such a person not try to encourage young people to identify as gay?

I am also concerned that his position is a very cunning attempt to introduce and legitimate homosexuality into the church. We must not forget that the LGBTQ movement is the very edge of the sword of Christian persecution in the West. Countless Christians have been prosecuted or lost their jobs or business because of their campaigns.
They whine that Christians reject homosexuals but at the same time they are relentless in their effort to enter the church and turn things upside down.

I see it as a Trojan horse, we must be on our guard.

If the guy truly has homosexual feelings he can either be truthful about it, lie about it, or say nothing. A Christian alcoholic can either admit it, lie about it, or say nothing. What neither must do is submit to their feelings. Celibacy or abstinence is required.

I think it’s naive to suggest every born again homosexual will always be delivered of those feelings. So it seems the best course is to say nothing and stay celibate so as not to cause a brother or sister to stumble.

_________________
Todd

Narrowpath,

> I see it as a Trojan horse, we must be on our guard.

I had a forum thread on this issue back in 2016, where I expressed concern about unbiblical theological trends amongst evangelicals at the time. Everything I had predicted has since come to pass.

"The Trojan Horse of LGBT Concepts, and the Lack of Gospel Transformation"
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=58125&forum=35

The slope has definitely proven to be very slippery.

_________________
Todd

There's this concept known as "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Many articles and books have been written on the LGBT issue - some are clearly unbiblical; others may provide refutation of certain pro-LGBT points, but usually fail to "refute the central point" or deal with the core theological issues (as per "Graham's hierarchy").

We must be clear as to what the central theological issues are, and address them accordingly. I believe these are the core issues at stake, all of which are related to the gospel's integrity and power:


1. LGBT lusts are a sin (Matt 5:27-30, Romans 1:26-27)

The usage of worldly vocabulary to substantiate unbiblical views is a sin (2 Timothy 2:15-17, 2 Peter 3:14-18). Likewise, the adoption of worldly identity labels (e.g. "transgender Christian", "gay Christian", "alcoholic Christian", "porn-addicted Christian") is a sin.

To that end, it is helpful if Christian communities stick to biblical vocabulary and avoid euphemisms conceived by man. For instance: the correct term is "same-sex lust", not "same-sex attraction" or "same-sex love" (the LGBT issue has nothing to do with attraction or love at all).


2. The gospel provides two central things:

(i) justification by faith in God's grace (forgiveness of sins) – Ephesians 2:8-9

(ii) sanctification by faith in God's grace (set free from the power of sin; this reality is experienced through renewing of the mind) – Romans 6:14, Romans 12:2, 2 Cor 5:17. Ezekiel 36:26, John 8:31-32

This sanctification is already 100% done (that's what "born again" as a new creation means). However, experiencing this reality is not automatic – it needs to be actively believed, i.e. appropriated by faith. Transformation comes by renewing our minds with the truth (Romans 12:2) – and this is an act of faith.

Christians can continue to struggle with addictions, heterosexual lusts, LGBT lusts and habitual sins because they do not know, or do not believe, certain truths concerning their identity or concerning who God is. Ask God and study His Word – He will guide you to the necessary truths that you need to renew your mind with, that you too would experience transformation and freedom (John 16:13, Romans 12:2).

As people renew their minds, they will increasingly experience their new creation identity – lusts and sinful cravings will diminish over time, and eventually will totally disappear. You will experience freedom from bondage in a very real way.

Whatever the struggle, the Lord Jesus guarantees 100% freedom for the struggling Christian in this life (John 8:31-32) – it just has to be received by faith. The sanctification doctrine (a.k.a. "sanctification method") which works for others will work for you too.

TMK,

Know that I'm responding out of good will:

> I think it’s naive to suggest every born again homosexual will always be delivered of those feelings.

I cannot agree with that, because:

1. There is no Bible verse which substantiates that view (in fact, the Bible states the opposite – as I articulated in my earlier posts)

2. It fails to explain: (i) why some people get set free while others don't, despite facing similar struggles and having similar backgrounds; (ii) why some ministries have many testimonies of freedom, while other ministries have zero testimonies (I had earlier attributed the difference to understanding of sanctification doctrine)

(continued in next post)

As I see it, in dealing with the LGBT issue, every Christian community has to decide between two theological positions:

– Position (i): Most, if not all, strugglers do not get healed in this life.

– Position (ii): There is healing available for every struggler in this life.

We have to choose carefully, together with God, which of the two positions on which to build our theology. There can be no middleground between the two, because: proper sanctification doctrine (a.k.a. "sanctification method") is either effective for everyone, or ineffective for everyone.


Some remarks:

1. We cannot surrender on the truth that is Position (ii), because truth builds upon truth, and error builds upon error (Galatians 5:9).

2. I've been a Christian long enough to remember a time when Position (i) was eschewed by many, if not most, evangelical churches. Sadly, Position (i) has become increasingly popular over the past decade - particularly amongst churches with zero testimonies of freedom. But the lack of testimonies and ineffectiveness of their ministries only prove that their "sanctification method"/"sanctification doctrine" is erroneous – there is no evidence that their methods work whatsoever.

Some churches have instead built a huge theological edifice on the basis of Position (i), often referencing the fleshly opinions of man (e.g. preferred theologians; so-called "gay celibate Christians") rather than Scripture. I've observed these churches inevitably end in disaster, with untold damage done to people (including congregants departing from the faith, after being told they had no hope of transformation).

Position (i) is indeed one of the greatest deceptions of this era, as it directly negates the sanctification provisions of the gospel (this, in turn, invariably opens the door for other perverse doctrines). Rather than "having a form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:5), it would have been wiser for those churches to humble themselves and seek God – reconsider their theology with Him, admit that their ministry lacks power, and admit there is much more in the Bible they have yet to experience.

3. We are living in a time where wives could be waking up and stating to their husbands, "I'm a man, call me he/him", and kids are being conditioned at an early age to adopt non-biblical identities and develop perverse sexual desires. If the preached message is that there is no practical hope of change for them (as per Position (i)), how can that message be attractive? How can that be good news? Is not such preaching "a form of godliness but denying its power"?

I'm glad that the Christian gospel offers a different message – a message that has power. Everyone who actively renews their mind and appropriates their identity in Christ (acts of faith) experiences freedom – I don't know of any exceptions.

Yuehan- I don’t disagree with what you are saying really. I think it would be nice if all persons had all their impure thoughts and habits instantly removed when they are born again but we know this is not true. But I also believe there is victory in the Lord.

_________________
Todd

I found a really good talk on this topic
Christopher Yuan used to be gay and a drug dealer. He got miraculously saved in prison and abandoned this lifestyle.

I find him much more biblical in his approach.

You can watch his video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk4gqp4qTk8&t=3709s

He says some very interesting things:

Homo- and heterosexual are not attributes that identify a person. Christ is our identity and he created us male and female.

He does not believe that homo- or heterosexuality are an identity we can define us, he instead defines "holysexuality" as a more apropriate term.

Heterosexuality can only be consumed within a marriage between one man and one women, all other practises of heterosexuality are sinful.

A Christian can only live single and abstay from sex or have sex within marriage.

He does not condone Revoice's approach to homosexual Christians, but maintains that Christians who were gay should no longer use the term "gay" as an identifiying attribute.

As 1.Cor 6:9-11 says
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

//but maintains that Christians who were gay should no longer use the term "gay" as an identifiying attribute.//


I certainly agree- that’s what I meant below about stumbling other believers. There is no need to announce anything to anybody.

_________________
Todd