Category Archives: Homosexuality

Was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah not being hospitable?

John Martin’s rendering of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction (Courtesy Creationwiki)

By Spencer D Gear

I find it disconcerting how wide of the mark some secular journalists can become in their understanding of Scripture. A recent example was that of Elizabeth Farrelly in The Age, a Melbourne newspaper (also online). The article was titled, ‘Tenets of democracy get lost in hate storm’.[1]

The first line was, ‘The sin of sodomy, say biblical scholars, was not homosexual sex but a failure of hospitality’. Really?

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe give this reason behind the ‘hospitality’ interpretation of Gen 19 rather than sexual sodomy:

Some have argued that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality, not homosexuality. They base this claim on the Canaanite custom that guarantees protection for those coming under one’s roof. Lot is alleged to have referred to it when he said, “Don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof” (Gen. 19:8 NIV). So Lot offered his daughters to satisfy the angry crowd in order to protect the lives of the visitors who had come under his roof. Some also claim that the request of the men of the city to “know” (Gen. 19:5 ) simply means “to get acquainted,” since the Hebrew word “know” (yada) generally has no sexual connotations whatsoever (cf. Psalm 139:1 ) (Geisler & Howe 1992:48).

Farrelly’s view is that biblical scholars claim that the issue for Sodom & Gomorrah is not the sin of male homosexuality but of being inhospitable.

That is not how the Hebrew scholars who translated the New International Version of the Bible saw it. Their translation of Genesis 19:5 is that the men from every part of Sodom who ‘called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them”‘. That’s not hospitality but sexual perversion.

While the Hebrew word, yada (know),[2] is not mandatory to be translated as ‘to have sex with’, in 10 of its 12 times in Genesis (see Gen 4:1, 25), it does mean that. We know from Gen 19:8 that it means sexual intercourse as Lot refers to his virgin daughters who had not ‘known’ a man, obviously meaning sexual intercourse.

‘Know’ cannot mean a hospitable person getting acquainted with someone else because it is associated with ‘a wicked thing’ in Gen 19:7. In addition, God said he would be destroying Sodom & Gomorrah in Gen 18:16-33, before the evidence of Gen 19:5, 8.

Elizabeth Farrelly, as a journalist, has violated a fundamental of interpretation in her statement that the sin of Sodom was not homosexual sex but failure to be hospitable. That fundamental of hermeneutics is that the meaning of any text, including Farrelly’s writing in The Age, is determined by the context in which it is used. To determine the context for the Sodom situation, one has to go to Genesis 18 and 19. There one finds evidence that the sin of sodomy definitely refers to sexual intercourse between men (homosexuality) and not to inhospitality.

Farrelly concludes her article with these words:

When the men of Sodom demanded that Lot relinquish his angel visitors, his asylum seekers, God punished Sodom for this breach of the sacred duty of welcome. A sodomite was a hard-heart, a jackboot, a repeller of blow-ins.

So I ask again, is Scott Morrison a sodomite? Is Tony Abbott? Are we okay with this?

Farrelly is right off track because she can’t be on track with her interpretation of Sodom and the sodomites in Genesis 19. If she gets that context wrong, how can she be correct with her application to Scott Morrison or Tony Abbott?

Am I okay with Farrelly’s interpretation of sodomites and application to Morrison and Abbott? Absolutely not! She is pushing her politically correct agenda and it has nothing to do with an accurate, contextual interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah events of Genesis 19.

Therefore, based on the above exposition, it is reasonable to interpret the Genesis 19 passages as referring to something other than Farrelly’s view of not being hospitable. It definitely refers to the sin of sexual sodomy, i.e. homosexuality.

Works consulted

Geisler, N & Howe, T 1992. When critics ask: A popular handbook on Bible difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Notes

[1] The Age, 25 September 2014. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tenets-of-democracy-get-lost-in-hate-storm-20140924-10lbp4.html#ixzz3EHScfs7W (Accessed 25 September 2014).

[2] Some of the following information is based on Geisler & Howe (1992:48-49).

The dangers of anal sex and fisting

Sex On The Brain

(courtesy publicdomainpictures.net)

By Spencer D Gear

Anal sex is intercourse via the anus/rectum rather than using the vagina. It is sexual activity that involves inserting the penis in the rear end (anus) rather than the front end (vagina).

What is fisting? ‘Fisting is a type of sexual activity that involves using the whole hand (fist) to penetrate the body. People engage in both vaginal fisting — inserting the hand inside the vagina — and anal fisting, inserting the hand into the rectum’ (Elizabeth Boskey 2011, Fisting: Sexually Transmitted Diseases [STDs]).

In a reply on a Christian forum, I wrote:

I cannot begin to tell you what happens with anal sex and the diseases caused.

There are practical reasons why God tells Christians to avoid fornication, adultery, sex outside of marriage.

And we haven’t dealt with what God says that happens when a man and a woman join in sex – the effects of bonding. But that’s for another time.

There are biblical and practical reasons why God forbids sex outside of marriage – porneia.[1]

A mature Christian responded:

I just wanted to add, you mentioned anal sex. This is growing in popularity among the younger generation that doesn’t seem to have a clue how physically destructive and dangerous this is.

Our family had a huge discussion on this very subject. My sister who is a counselor talked very frankly to all the young people in our family about how it became such a common practice among heterosexuals and the disastrous physical effects it has on the body.[2]

How should I reply? Be honest, avoid the topic, or give a compromised position that will not cause offense? I chose the line of honesty and gave a[3]

A. Warning rather than falling victim

If people find this topic too offensive (what follows), I or the moderators can delete it. But I thought that we needed to get back to grassroots here. Warning might be better than becoming a victim. I can put the topic on my homepage and give a link to those who want to visit it.

The topic I have introduced is not new to the medical, psychological and counselling professions. I speak as a long-term counsellor and counselling manager who has recently retired.
For some of the evidence and the danger of anal/rectal sex, I recommend a read of,

‘Gay Men Should Be Checked for Anal Cancer, Experts Say‘,
‘The Health Risks of Gay Sex‘, and
‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’.

You’ll appreciate that this is not a disease restricted to the homosexuals as I know of heterosexuals who are getting into the practice as well. As a counsellor, I’m deeply concerned at what people don’t know about anal intercourse and the damage of fisting.

B. Vaginal vs. anal intercourse and the dangers

Here’s a graphic of the rectum and anus:

Courtesy WebMD

God made the vagina with thick walls for sexual penetration. The rectum and its entrance, the anus, are not designed by God for sexual penetration. Therefore, anal/rectal sex is at a higher risk of disease as medical experts tell us. I’m not inventing this.
God knew what he was about when his law restricted sexual intercourse to a man and woman and in the place that God made for such sexual activity.

Then there is the added problem that comes with ‘fisting’ in vagina and rectum. See the article, ‘Sexual trauma associated with fisting and recreational drugs‘.

These may not be nice topics to discuss, but I have to be honest in exposing the consequences of what is happening in our sexualised society.

I don’t enjoy having to deal openly with this kind of topic. I’m grieved that people get into it without knowing the consequences. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to know of the harm that anal/rectal intercourse and fisting do to the human body.

There are disgusting photos online of fisting action.

C. Is anal sex safe?

I went to WebMD Sexual Health Center and the article, ‘Anal sex safety and health concerns’ and learned that anal sex is risky sexual activity:

An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse.

Often referred to simply as anal sex, anal intercourse is sexual activity that involves inserting the penis into the anus. People may engage in anal intercourse, which has health risks, because the anus is full of nerve endings, making it very sensitive. For some recipients of anal sex, the anus can be an erogenous zone that responds to sexual stimulation. For the giving partner, the anus may provide a pleasing tightness around the penis.

While some people find anal sex enjoyable, the practice has downsides and requires special safety precautions.

Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus.Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.

The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.

Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections. For heterosexual couples, pregnancy can occur if semen is deposited near the opening to the vagina.

Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that requires immediate medical attention. Treatment involves a hospital stay, surgery, and antibiotics to prevent infection.

Surely this should be sending a strong message to avoid anal sex. The anus and rectum were not made for penetration. The vagina is.

As for fisting, get the gist of the feisty, fantastic, outlandish way of abusing your body – sexually. Become an advocate for healthy living and give up the practice and recommendation of sexual fisting.

D. A feisty response

One fellow got rather feisty when I provided a link to this article on Christian Fellowship Forum. He wrote:

You cited a single article by a doctor as your soul scientific reference — completely without peer review, then launched into an opinion piece based on nothing more than your personal opinion about a subject you’re not qualified to write about with any authority.

Bring in real scientific studies and facts, then your credibility will rise (‘Five things I wish Christians would admit about the Bible’, George #130).

My response was (ozspen #165):

For heaven’s sake, I was writing a popular level article on fisting and the dangers of anal intercourse and I cited an article that was written by Elizabeth Boskey, written or reviewed by a board-certified physician that dealt with the dangers of this activity. It was not written for an academic audience to provide peer-reviewed research articles. However, the information is consistent with the peer-reviewed articles I have read down through my 34 years as a counsellor and counselling manager.

It’s time he got with the programme of why I have a homepage and the nature of my audience. In addition, he is as capable as I to Google peer-reviewed articles that deal with the dangers of anal intercourse. But no, he spoofed at my article because it didn’t provide peer-reviewed information. That was not its purpose. My homepage audience, based on the feedback I receive, is not interested in peer-reviewed material . They want the practical facts of the dangers of such risky sexual behaviour as anal intercourse and fisting.

In this article, The dangers of anal sex and fisting, I included information from the Cancer Health Center which concluded that ‘Gay Men Should Be Checked for Anal Cancer, Experts Say‘. I provided a link to an article by John Riggs MD on ‘The health risks of gay sex‘. ‘The Gay Bowel Syndrome‘ provided details of the problem and then had a bibliography that provided links to peer-reviewed articles.

As for peer-reviewed journals that document this problem with anal intercourse, see:

Prevalence of Unprotected Anal Intercourse among Men Who Have Sex with Men in China: An Updated Meta-Analysis;
Anal sex practices in heterosexual and male homosexual populations: A review of population-based data (Anal sex is known to be an important risk factor for anal cancer);
Anal sex among young people and implications for health promotion: A qualitative study in the UK (British Medical Journal);
A qualitative assessment of health seeking practices among and provision practices for men who have sex with men in Malawi (It found that men who have sex with men (MSM) in Malawi have a disproportionate burden of HIV compared to other adults)
A systematic review of HIV interventions for black men who have sex with men (MSM) (It found that Black men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately burdened by HIV/AID);
Anal sex and associated HIV-related sexual risk factors among female sex workers in Andhra Pradesh, India (Anal sex is associated with STI symptoms, a factor for HIV risk. HIV intervention programmes need to educate female sex workers about the risks associated with anal sex).

Notes:

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, Christian Morals, ‘Shacking up before marriage’, ozspen #39, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=33&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=122551 (Accessed 28 November 2013).

[2] Ibid., Noelle #43.

[3] Ibid., ozspen #46.

Queen Elizabeth II and Jesus silent on homosexuality

Queen Elizabeth II (2007) [Courtesy Wikipedia]

By Spencer D Gear

It is time to bash Queen Elizabeth II in print because she did not mention homosexuals in her signing the new Commonwealth charter, which states: “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”[1]

Journalist Patrick Strudwick made these points:

‘We extremists, who believe gay people should not be tortured or persecuted, shall be granted a new comrade: the supreme governor of the Church of England, the head of the Commonwealth, the Queen of more than a dozen countries. And then I read the detail’.
‘Fighting for gay rights? The Queen won’t even mention them. She dare not speak our name – that is, if you believe she is even referring to gay people’.
‘Jesus never mentioned homosexuality – has that dissuaded many of his followers that “love thy neighbour” does not in fact mean: “as long as his partner’s not called Steve”’?
‘No, to refrain from specification is to collude with silence, the Grand Pause that keeps lesbians and gay men invisible, suffocating in marriages of inconvenience or trapped in police cells. The hush of polite conversation is the rusty mattock of a millennium’s oppression’.
‘Of course. Stating that all humans deserve rights is “political”. How controversial it is that people should not be discriminated against. But how laughable would it be for an unelected head of state to preach equality anyway?’
‘If only the alleged intention were expressed explicitly, unequivocally. Most Commonwealth nations, injected by our colonial laws and Old Testament homophobia in the first place, need it. Desperately’.
‘Two Commonwealth countries sentence gay people to death, one tortures them with flogging, five impose life sentences and 41 of the 54 nations keep homosexuality illegal’.
‘This is why our opposition to discrimination needs spelling out’.

Let’s tackle these allegations and statements directly, according to numbers 1-8 above.

1. Gay people should not be tortured or persecuted

It is a fundamental of Christian beliefs that no people should be tortured or persecuted. All should receive this kind of love, whether gay or non-gay, no matter what the race or nation: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these”’ (Mark 12:30-31 NIV).

Christians are fallible human beings who have the Saviour living in them, but they sin and do not always follow God’s commands as He intended. For that they need to seek God’s and the people’s forgiveness and repent of their evil ways.

I can hear a secularist’s objection: ‘Your God tortured and persecuted people in the Old Testament’. No, God carried out his just judgment on the people of Israel and the nations when they violated God’s laws. This is not indiscriminate torture and persecution. There is a fundamental difference between persecution and judgment. Here are a couple of examples:

a. God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah

You can read about it in Genesis 18 and 19. Genesis 18:20 states, ‘Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave”’.

Abraham interceded for Sodom but there were not 10 righteous people he could find there (Gen. 18:32). Lot and his family escaped Sodom, but the Lord rained down judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin (Gen 18:23-29).

God brings judgment, but it is not torture and persecution from an indiscriminate, brutal, uncaring, unfair God. He is the God of absolute justice. This is a lesson for all nations of the world in the twenty-first century. God will not tolerate sinning against his holy nature. Nations and people will be punished with God’s judgment.

b. King Jeroboam of Israel built golden calves

See 1 Kings 12 and 13. Jeroboam set up gods – golden calves – one in Bethel and the other in Dan (1 Kings 12:29). Jeroboam built an altar in these places and offered sacrifices to these gods. But a man of God ‘cried against the altar by the word of the Lord’ (1 Kings 13:2) and Jeroboam’s hand dried up (1 Kings 13:4). This was enough judgment on Jeroboam to cause him to ask the man of God, ‘”Entreat now the favour of the Lord your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me”. And the man of God entreated the Lord and the king’s hand was restored to him and became as it was before’ (1 Kings 13:6-7).

But God is a just judge. The Scriptures declare in Genesis 18:25, ‘Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”’ (ESV)

Here the one God of the world, revealed in Old and New Testaments, is declared to be the God of justice. Not one single person or nation, will receive an unjust treatment from the Lord God Almighty.

Therefore, it is not an extremist position to say gay people should not be tortured or persecuted. It is a Christian position that all people should be treated fairly and ones enemies should be loved:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[a] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:43-48 NIV).

2. It’s discriminatory to accuse the Queen of not fighting for gay rights

Isn’t it amazing how skewed the perspective can become of those who fight for equal rights (gay rights)? Surely one of the fundamentals of human rights is freedom of choice?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Spanish version)

Courtesy Wikipedia

In the Preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

Article 18 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes this statement: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion….’.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes this statement: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference’.

The Queen, as representative of the Commonwealth countries, has signed a document that the Commonwealth countries have approved. Surely she has the right to freedom of thought, religion, opinion and expression, based on Articles 18 and 19 (above)! But she is castigated by Strudwick for her silence on gay rights issues.

The article by Patrick Strudwick stated:

according to a Palace spokesman, the charter’s words are not even the monarch’s: “In this charter, the Queen is endorsing a decision taken by the Commonwealth… The Queen does not take a personal view on these issues. The Queen’s position is apolitical”.[2]

Why can’t the Queen be granted a basic human right of freedom of speech and belief or freedom not to speak or not believe as her choice? This sounds like an awfully hypocritical stance by Strudwick, the homosexual and human rights’ advocate, who does not like the Queen’s personal silence on this issue.

Isn’t it amazing how the arguments of some advocates can be so self-defeating?

3. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. So what?

Patrick Strudwick shows his ignorance of what Jesus said. Jesus understanding of marriage was:

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’” And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together (Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus did not need to mention homosexuality to affirm marriage was between a man and a woman. It is obvious Jesus supported heterosexual marriage.
However, Patrick’s point is valid that the call of Jesus’ followers to “love thy neighbour” does include all, including those males whose partner is called Steve. Too often Christians have excluded the biblical love of one’s neighbour, no matter who that neighbour is. I urge such Christians to repent.

There is an additional point. The Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God. Therefore, the New Testament does give God’s judgment on all sinners, including those who practice homosexuality:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous[3] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[4] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And 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 (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV).

Here is a statement of condemnation for all sinners – the unrighteous – they will not inherit God’s kingdom. But the good news is, ‘Such were some of you’. Yes, the heterosexually immoral, idolaters, thieves, greedy, drunkards, swindlers, etc., can be changed by the power of God through salvation in Jesus Christ. Thus, those who practice homosexuality are not practicing a genetic condition, but a sinful condition, that God says can be changed: ‘Such were some of you’.

4. To be silent is to ‘collude’

That is one possible meaning. Another possible meaning is that as head of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth countries have agreed to this charter but the Queen may not be supportive of the Commonwealth position, but she still has to sign it. I can’t read the Queen’s mind for not speaking up for ‘gay rights’, but a basic of any democracy is that the Queen has every right to say or not say what she wants regarding gay rights.

Silence does not necessarily mean collusion. It could mean an expression of her own views that she does not want to make public.

5. So it’s ‘laughable’ for the Queen to preach equality

As an unelected head or state who wants to be apolitical, why should it be ‘laughable’ for her to be silent on gay rights? So, according to Strudwick, it is controversial that people should not be discriminated against. But what does he do? He discriminates against the Queen for being silent on this occasion. That is a hypocritical and self-defeating response.

6. Explicit, unequivocal statements would oppose the Old Testament homophobia

Ah, so that is one of the issues! To speak out explicitly and unequivocally in favour of gay rights would counter the colonial laws and Old Testament homophobia – which is desperately needed. Again, this is Strudwick’s discrimination against Old Testament (and colonial) laws against homosexuality.

The Old Testament states:

Leviticus 18:22, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination’.

Leviticus 20:13, ‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them’.

Homosexuality in the Old Testament was regarded as such a serious sin that it deserved capital punishment. But never let us forget that other sins also required capital punishment. See Leviticus 20:1-5; Leviticus 20:9-21;

The Christian does not live under Old Testament law, thanks to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. See Matthew 11:13; Romans 5:13-14; 6:14; 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:11-13; Galatians 3:19; and James 2:10.

However, the unforgiven sins of the unrighteous, including unforgiven homosexuality, has the ultimate consequence of denying eternal life to the perpetrators. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

See Matt Slick’s article, ‘Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and a “man who lies with a man”’.

7. Is it correct to execute homosexuals or make homosexuality illegal?

There are many sins mentioned in, say, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, that are criminal offences. These include theft, being drunk, revilers (slanderers), and swindlers. However, Strudwick has a point here. To execute homosexuals is an Old Testament punishment that has been abolished since Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross. To torture, flog and impose life imprisonment on homosexuals is parallel to Old Testament law that has been superceded. To make homosexuality illegal has benefits when we understand some of the consequences of a homosexual lifestyle:

The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (USA) reported (May 2012) on HIV among homosexual and bisexual men:

Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.
Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.
From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.

What about the prevalence of anal cancer among homosexual men? According to WebMD, ‘Gay and bisexual men are at significant risk for developing anal cancer, and testing them for the disease would save many lives, says a new study in the American Journal of Medicine [the year 2000]…. The number of cases of anal cancer is rising in gay men’. Physicians for Life reported that ‘a study which appears in the February [2007] issue of the International Journal of STD & AIDS, has found that “HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer”’.

8. Opposition to discrimination needs spelling out

This is an excellent point, but this article by Strudwick was also discriminatory towards Queen Elizabeth II. She has a right to silence because of her position, values, or any other reason that she accepts as a free person in a free society. To oppose the Queen’s silence and call it discrimination is self-defeating when Strudwick engages in discrimination towards the Queen because she does not line up with his gay rights beliefs.

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

Notes:

[1] Patrick Strudwick, ‘The Queen defending gay rights? She can’t even say the words out loud’, The Guardian, 11 March 2013, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/queen-gay-rights-commonwealth (Accessed 13 March 2013).

[2] Ibid.

[3] The ESV footnote at this point was, ‘Or wrongdoers’.

[4] The ESV footnote here as, ‘The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts’.

Tolerance, homosexuality and not inheriting the Kingdom of God

God love you

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

It is standard fare to hear of theological liberals who accept and even promote the homosexual lifestyle. But getting acceptance from a supposed Bible-believing pastor is quite another thing. Former homosexual, Joe Dallas, wrote in 1995 in “Answering Pro-Gay Theology”, “The debate over homosexuality and the Bible – specifically, whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual acts in all cases – will do no less than rip the body of Christ apart in the next decade. It will force believers to declare, in black and white terms, where they stand on issues of sexuality and Biblical interpretation” (p. 172).[1] Joe hit the mark – big time!

A theologically liberal Anglican clergyman

We saw this in Brisbane with a liberal Anglican clergyman, Peter Catt, supporting the Queensland Bill for the legalising of homosexual civil unions. See the article, “Anglican Church’s Peter Catt backs gay civil unions at Queensland parliamentary hearing” (Courier-Mail, 11 November 2011). What were some of his arguments?

The same-sex unions’ Bill does not denigrate the legitimacy of marriage;
It extended “liberties” to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples;
“I really don’t see that this impinges on marriage at all”;
This will mean that children in same-sex unions are in a relationship with good values;
Bad marriages did more to undermine the institution of marriage.
He said, “To some extent … [I’m] putting my neck on a chopping block”;

Rev. Dr. Peter Catt is the Anglican Dean of Brisbane. This link provides a reflection on what liberal Anglicanism means: “We strive for open-minded conversation, seek to practice inclusion, and reflect on how we might see our beliefs put into action”. Open-minded, inclusive practice means that homosexuals are included in the name of inclusion, tolerance and open-mindedness. Do you notice what he missed out in what was reported?

The Courier-Mail did not provide one statement from Rev. Dr. Catt on what the Bible says about homosexuality. There was not a word about the content of anything in I Corinthians 6:9-11,

⁹Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will 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 (ESV).

Liberal, inclusive, open-mindedness means that the full story of God’s view of homosexuality (and all other sin) as portrayed in the Bible is censored. Also, theological liberalism has a low view of the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, so it’s not surprising that that this liberal view downplays the importance of a biblical view of sexuality, including homosexuality. Now, I expect that from a liberal Anglican, but I did not expect something similar from a charismatic preacher.

What about the ‘tolerance’ view from a leading charismatic minister?

Rob Buckingham is the senior pastor at the large charismatic Bayside Church, Cheltenham, Victoria. The Sunday Herald Sun, 17 November 2011, reported on his approach to homosexuals in, “Preaching tolerance bayside”. You can hear this message by Rob Buckingham at Youtube online, ‘Real Christianity is accepting‘. It was preached in 2009. What is your view on this approach?

What some other churches are concluding

a. Australia: There is an assumption among some that the Bible and religious tradition do not teach that homosexual relationships are contrary to God’s plan. A brochure, representative of the Uniting Church in Australia, stated that ‘Homosexuality is a good part of God’s diverse creation’.[2] Adelaide’s new Anglican Bishop, Dr Tim Harris, supports homosexual clergy but they must follow church guidelines and not engage in homosexual sex.[3]

b. The USA: The United Church of Christ’s General Synod (USA), in 2005, affirmed a resolution that there should be “equal marriage rights for all people regardless of gender”, but that denomination does not require pastors to perform homosexual marriage.[4] The United Church of Canada urged its federal government in Ottawa to recognise same-sex relationships.[5] The Presbyterian Church USA in 2011 ratified support for homosexual clergy, stating that

“persons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination,” General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons told the Presbyterian News Service. “The gist of our ordination standards is that officers submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and ordaining bodies (presbyteries for ministers and sessions for elders and deacons) have the responsibility to examine each candidate individually to ensure that all candidates do so with no blanket judgments”.

c. Canada: The United Church of Canada has developed a resource that “offers four workshops to help a congregation or a group within the congregation to explore civil recognition of same-sex relationships from a faith and justice perspective. It also offers a process for congregational decision making on same-sex marriage”.

d. Europe: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany has affirmed that

Gay and lesbian Lutheran ministers in the conservative German state of Bavaria may live with their partners in parish parsonages, but only if they enter into a state-sanctioned civil union. Although the move may seem bold for what is generally considered one of Germany’s most traditional states, Bishop Johannes Friedrich of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria said it was no great departure from existing policies. He noted that the church had already welcomed openly gay ministers and same-sex unions. “We had only left out that a couple could live in a civil union in the parsonage,” he said. To abide by the ruling, gay or lesbian ministers must receive a church blessing for their union and enter into a civil union officially recognized by government officials.[6]

(image courtesy openclipart)

Of the Church of Scotland, the Herald Scotland reported:

THE Church of Scotland is being starved of donations due to the growing schism in the Kirk over moves to allow gay ministers. The Church has been riven with internal divisions since its decision to set up a special commission on same-sex relationship in the ministry in 2009. An internal report by Glasgow Presbytery described how in one church – St George’s Tron in Glasgow – the “general disquiet and sadness about the Church of Scotland’s decision to set up a special commission on this matter had been a contributory factor in several members directing their sacrificial giving and tithing towards the congregation’s evangelical ministry and outreach, rather than the central funds of the Church of Scotland…. “Someone,” he says, “said to me recently, ‘I’m in the wrong church.’ I know a lot of people are feeling like that”.[7]

e. Africa:

The largest Protestant church in Africa grabbed the world’s attention when it publically denounced homosexuality and said people who support gay rights were not welcome in the church—and neither was their money. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT) posted a notice on its Web site entitled: Church rejects homosexuality. “Those in same sex marriages, and those who support the legitimacy of such marriage, shall not be invited to work in the ELCT,” a press release states. “We further reject their influence in any form, as well as their money and their support.” In addition the fastest-growing church in Africa with 5.3 million members said it “supports all those around the world who oppose churches that have taken the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.” This loud warning was seen as a prelude to split from its main financial partner, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which now supports gay rights.[8] In Uganda in 2010, African Anglican bishops forcefully opposed homosexuality in the church: The question of homosexuality reared its head for the umpteenth time this week at the all African Anglican Church conference that is taking place in Entebbe. Despite pressure from the western world, African bishops have renewed their condemnation of the practice of homosexuality in the church. The widely criticised practice in Africa has been viewed as a threat to the unity of the church. Homosexuality and ordination of women prelates are two of the underpinning practices that have put the Anglican Church at cross-roads over how its pastoral commitments should be exercised. Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of the province of Nigeria says the church has always had differences of opinion over certain issues. Breeding disunity “Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon in the society but the only trouble is that the issues dividing us (church) now are very difficult to handle. They are threatening the unity of the church because they disobey the authority of the scriptures,” says Bishop Okoh. He says homosexuality is a result of some people engaged in making their culture to be superior to the biblical teachings. “It is two sided; while some people want to be obedient to their culture to determine the content of the church, others say no and it must be the guidance of the bible,” he added. The primates describe homosexuality as an imposed interpretation and alien culture that has hindered the growth of an authentic church which could respond to its people. “We are saying homosexuality is not compatible with the word of God. We are saying that this culture of other people is against the traditional belief of marriage held by the Anglican Communion,” says the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi. Bishop Orombi says that the Anglican Church will never accept homosexuality because the scriptures too do not allow people of same sex to join in marriage.[9]

f. South America: Time magazine reported in 2010 that

the legislators of the South American nation passed a law on Thursday, July 15 [2010], that made Argentina the 10th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. By a vote of 33 to 27, they gave homosexual couples the same inheritance and adoption rights as heterosexual ones. Against the intense and sustained opposition of the church, President Cristina Fernández staked her political reputation on passing the law, deepening her often bitter feud with the country’s Catholic hierarchy. “I am very satisfied. It has been a positive vote,” said the President in Shanghai, where she is on an official tour of China. “This is a positive step that defends the right of a minority.” Her Cabinet chief Aníbal Fernández was slightly more effusive, posting on Twitter, “Same-sex marriage is law in Argentina. Don’t worry, be happy”.[10]

g. However, these views contradict the biblical Scriptures which state that God’s plan for love and sexuality does not include homosexual relationships, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. See Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. The Bible is clear that from the beginning of time, expressions of sexual intimacy were designed for a man and a woman in marriage and there were severe consequences for the practice of homosexuality. h. Heterosexual sin and homosexual sin are so serious that people who continue to practise these sins ‘will not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 6:9). i. Jesus Christ defined marriage: ‘“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’ (Matthew 19:4-6). j. A nation that dares to promote the violation of God Almighty’s laws, is calling for judgment (see Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:5-6). k. ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord’ (Psalm 33:12). The New Testament teaches that homosexuals need to be changed by the living Christ and “such were some of you”. Yes, God changes homosexuals. Read the story of a lesbian whom God radically changed: “One woman’s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howard”.

Notes:

[1] This is from a chapter in the book, Michael Mazzalongo (ed) 1995. Gay Rights or Wrongs: A Christian’s Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

[2] Uniting Network, NSW/ACT, ‘Gay and Lesbian Couples: Prayers and blessings’, available at: http://www.unitingnetworkaustralia.org.au/resources/UN%20NSW%20Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Couples.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[3] David Jean, The Advertiser, ‘New Anglican bishop welcomes homosexual ministry’, November 19, 2011, available at: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/gay-clergy-practice-what-we-preach/story-e6frea83-1226199415441 (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[4] See the BBC News report, 5 July 2005, US Church backs same-sex marriage, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[5] See the United Church of Canada, available at: http://www.bible.ca/cr-united-Can.htm (Accessed 12 March 2012).

[6] Neils Sorrells 2011. German church allows gay pastors to live with partners. The Huffington Post, 25 May. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/german-church-allows-gay-_n_784518.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[7] Herald Scotland 2011. The gay divide, 28 May. Available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-gay-divide.13864698 (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[8] Wayne M. Anderson n.d. African church waivers on homosexuality. Gnesio [Lutheran], available at: http://gnesiolutheran.com/african-church-waivers-on-homosexuality/ (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[9] Ephraim Kasozi 2012. Uganda: African bishops unite to denounce homosexuality. The Monitor (All Africa). 29 August. Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201008290002.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).

[10] Uki Goñi / Buenos Aires 2010. Defying church, Argentina legalizes same-sex marriage. Time, July 15. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2004036,00.html (Accessed 15 March 2012).