Answers to Lonnie’s Questions

This dialogue began at Mike Bird’s blog with a post titled “Would you bake a cake for a gay wedding? The Perspective from Aussie Christians!”  Specifically, this is in answer to Lonnie’s request in this comment.

I’ve put Lonnie’s comments (including questions) in italics, and my answers to his questions follow in bold.

My own experience in homosexuality is all I ever needed to agree with the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin. However, having said that, I am absolutely convinced that Jesus can utterly put an end to homosexuality in the lives of broken people. I also believe that God absolutely created marriage for one male and one female, until death do them part.

You ask: “Do you really think that Paul would make a tent for the express purpose of use in a homosexual “wedding” ceremony?”

I can’t speak to whether Paul would or would not make a tent. I can take a look at what Jesus did at a wedding he attended.

“On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[b]

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

John 2:1-8

Did Jesus attend the wedding to show his approval of marriage between one man and one woman or did he attend the wedding for the reasons Jesus gives in Luke 4:18-19?  The Scripture does not tell us why Jesus attended the wedding.

Did Jesus attend the wedding at Cana because there were the poor there and he’d been anointed to preach good news to the poor, or was he standing in solidarity with hetero marriage?  I see no reason why He couldn’t have attended for both reasons.  And perhaps for others as well.  Since the Scripture doesn’t explicitly say, however, we probably ought to be restrained in our speculations.

Did Jesus attend the wedding at Cana because he was sent to proclaim freedom for prisoners and for recovery of the sight of the blind, and to set the oppressed free? Or was Jesus making a public service announcement about the right way to do relationships?  This is now a third time you have stated the same question in a slightly different form.  As I’ve been saying, though the Scripture does not tell us why Jesus attended, there is no basis on which we can reject either of the two possibilities you raise.  Nevertheless, there’s no record that He did or didn’t preach while there.

Are there poor people in need of the good news at a gay wedding?  Yes.

Are there prisoners in need of freedom at a gay wedding?  Yes.

Are there the blind, who need their sight restored at a gay wedding?  Yes.

Are there oppressed people needing to be set free at a gay wedding?  Yes.

None of this, however, means that this is the best time and place to reach these people with the good news of Christ.  Is the Westboro Baptist Church winning anyone to Christ when they show up at events to tell everyone how wrong they are?

Did Jesus actually try to avoid the appearance of supporting evil? If Jesus was worried about looking guilty for hanging out with sinners, then he absolutely and utterly failed.

Jesus was more interested in being right and doing right than in appearing right.  Thus He died by crucifixion – which made Him look wrong to a lot of people.

“Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus.2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Luke 15:1-2

Jesus knew he could and would overcome the world, so he had no need to worry about being contaminated by anything the world threw at him. The perception of his enemies (Luke 15) was that Jesus, far from avoiding the appearance of sin, actually courted sinners.

In 1 John 5:4, we are taught: “for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” So if you believe Jesus overcomes the world then you must also believe that you, a born again Christian, are conformed to the image and likeness of the overcoming savior. If you believe God’s word, and I believe you do then the Holy Spirit indwells you, and you too are called as Christ is called:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Luke 4:18-19

Once again I ask you:

Are there prisoners in need of freedom at a gay wedding?  
Are there the blind and oppressed at a gay wedding?  
Are there poor people at a gay wedding who need to hear the good news preached?  
Are there those at a gay wedding who need to hear the proclamation of the year of the Lord’s favor?
I answered all these questions above.  Note also that Nicodemus came to the Lord by night; Jesus did not call him to repentance in the middle of a Sanhedrin meeting.

And I also ask you: Does Jesus overcome the world and does that include homosexuality?  Yes.   If you are born of God then do you not also overcome the world?  Yes.  But neither answer means that we must participate in celebrations of homosexuality.

If you were dragged before a court of law today would there be enough evidence to convict you of, “…receiving sinners and eating with them,” as the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing in Luke 15:2??  You speak as if Jesus went out looking for sinners to court; the reality is that Jesus went out to preach repentance, and the “sinners” who repented were the ones who hung out with Him.

My reason for not attending a homosexual meeting can be best understood by recognizing that when the minister asks “If anyone here knows of just cause why these two should not be joined together let him speak now or else hereafter hold his peace,” I would be conscience-bound to speak up.  I don’t think the hosts would be pleased.  And while I think that such a “wedding” is wrong, I don’t think making a scene at their ceremony is the best way for me to make that point.  Therefore, I think the best way for me to speak the truth in love is to say it with the silence of my absence rather than vocalizing the point with my presence and thereby alienate everyone present.

We Shouldn’t Need Evidence That Gender Confusion Is Bad for Children…But We Have It

The author – Denise Shick – grew up with a transgender father (mother?).  Denise’s pain does not surprise us.  Why does it seem so few policy makers in America seems deaf to cries of pain like this?  We can only conclude that adults are quite willing to sacrifice the welfare of their children for the pursuit of adult pleasures, fantasies, and confusions.

(2 min read; 549 words)

Source: Unlike Obama, I Don’t Think Transgender Parents Should Adopt.

Boy Scouts of America Puts Its Welfare Above the Welfare of the Boy

Robert Gates is the CEO of the Boy Scouts of America.

In a speech at the Boy Scouts of America’s annual meeting in Atlanta last week, Gates said the group’s ban on gay Scoutmasters cannot last without endangering the future of the organization.

“I truly fear that any other alternative will be the end of us as a national movement,” Gates said.  (Source: Robert Gates tells Boy Scouts to face reality about gay Scoutmasters, LA Tmes)

He also said:

“…my only purpose – my only reason for assuming this leadership role – is to preserve the Boy Scouts of America…”  (Source: Excerpts from Robert Gates’ remarks on Boy Scouts’ ban on gay leaders, LA Times)

It is disturbing enough that the Boy Scouts of America would put its institutional wefare above the welfare of the boys whom it ostensibly exists to serve, but even more disturbing that the CEO of the organization would make this rationale the basis of his appeal for public support.  In other words, “We’re selfish; who can blame us?”

“I cannot deny my eating orientation.”

I have an eating orientation.  Do not judge me for it just because it may be different from yours.

Each of us has an eating orientation.  We did not choose it.  We were born this way.

My eating orientation is to eat whatever I want, as much as I want, whenever I want.

Do not ask me to deny my eating orientation.  That’s like asking me to deny my identity.  My eating orientation is part of who I am…just like your eating orientation is part of who you are.

It’s only with the progress of science in modern times that we have come to understand eating orientation.  We cannot expect Jesus or the biblical authors to have understood or addressed eating orientation. Therefore, we cannot assume that their warnings against gluttony have any application to us today.

I think the sooner a person comes to an understanding of eating orientation the better.  Therefore, it’s time we had instruction in our schools to help young people come to grips with their eating orientation – whatever it is.  Otherwise, they might become the victims of bullying.  Education is the answer.  Only then will the bigotry against over-eating or under-eating stop.

We also need more laws in our country to protect against discrimination in eating orientation.  If I am in a restaurant and want more desert, I don’t see how it’s fair to ask me to pay more than someone who has a different eating orientation.  Why should his eating orientation receive favorable financial treatment?

Now I know what you must be thinking: What about people who change their eating orientation?  Yes, there are trans-appetite people.  And, yes, they should be allowed to change their eating orientation without criticism or penalty from the rest of society.  I know you will want to say my thinking is inconsistent because I insist that I cannot change my eating orientation but that they should be allowed to change theirs and at government expense, but you are just being judgmental and discriminatory…and both I and the trans-appetites are sick and tired of it.  By the way, I’m hungry…do you have any chocolate cream pie?

Our Political Problems Have Moral Roots

Mankind’s fundamental problem is sin.  And the sin that lies at the heart of our political crisis and social decline is the undermining of the family.  And what has most undermined the family is licentiousness – the wanton pursuit of personal pleasure.

Here are two speeches – fifty years apart – which demonstrate how things have only gotten worse.  The world that frightened Reagan is a much scarier place today.  But as he held up a torch of light then, so Ryan Anderson holds up one today.

Ryan T. Anderson on the 50th Anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech (16:57)

Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing.”

“I’m so sick of the gay marriage debate; let them have their way and let’s move on!”

Many people today think this:  “I’m so sick of the gay marriage debate; let them have their way on this issue and let’s all just move on!”  That is, they think that if the U. S. Supreme Court rules in favor of SS”M,” making it the law of the land, legal in all 50 states, that the public conversation about this issue will stop and we can move on to other discussions.  Such people are going to be sorely disappointed.  A Supreme Court decision favoring SS”M” won’t end the discussion; it will further energize it.  You will never hear the end of this issue.

Think otherwise?  This video gives the history of what happened in the state of Massachusetts after it approved gay marriage in 2004.

How Do Heterosexual SS”M” Supporters Reach Their Conclusion?

This is a follow-up post to Why Do the Majority of SS”M” Supporters Care?

Q:  What is the thinking process for heterosexual supporters of SS”M”?  Are they conscious that their commitment to sexual liberty is what’s driving them to side with homosexual demands?

A:  I think for most it goes like this: 1) God (or evolution) made homosexuals this way, 2) they’re just wanting to do the same thing we do (which is have fun), 3) how is it fair to discriminate against them?

Things not thought about: God’s instructions (the Bible), God’s design (human anatomy), marriage being defined as heterosexual for all prior human history. In other words, they ignore practically the totality of history, science, and religion. It’s as if all they know is what they heard last week on the news.

Thus, very little actual thinking is going into their decision. Mainly, it’s emotion – and it’s the emotion of fear: “If I don’t support this, all the people whose good opinion I want will think badly of me.”  From that inner emotional demand, it’s a pretty short step for the mind to come up with “It’s wrong to discriminate” since that’s what it’s hearing from supposed victims.


Do Not Waste Your Time Seeking Religious Liberty in America Today

Why should you expect to find religious liberty in America today?  Yes, I know it was founded on the basis of religious liberty, but that nation has ceased to be.  Today’s America is interested in sexual liberty, and, consequently, religious liberty is of no interest to them.

Well, that last statement is not really precise enough.  Supporters of sexual liberty actually do have a negative interest in religious liberty.  That is, they have to oppose it.  Why?  Because religion is a source of constraint on sexual liberty.   Religion – specifically, the Christian religion – says that marital intimacies are for marriage and no other relationship.

Americans can’t very well support religious liberty without endangering their sexual liberty.  Therefore, Christians who have given up on the SS”M” fight and now want to plead for religious liberty are deceiving themselves.  There is nothing but coercion awaiting those who do not want to legitimize homosexuality.  If you are expecting mercy from supporters of SS”M” you are looking to the wrong place.  Neither religious liberty nor mercy are on their “to do” list.


Why Do the Majority of SS”M” Supporters Care?

As I understand it, homosexuals make up about 2% of the population.  If the majority of the population now supports SS”M,”  that means that the majority of SS”M” supporters are not homosexual.  Why on earth do the heterosexuals care?

They care because they have much more in common with homosexuals than they do their fellow heterosexuals.  And what is that?  A belief in sexual liberty.  Specifically, this means that they do not believe that sex is confined to marriage.  That is, they believe as long as you have mutually-consenting adults, then no one has a right to pass judgment on the activity.  Since in their minds, sex is a God-given, or evolution-giving, drive, it must be fulfilled and cannot be denied without harm to the person.  Sometimes, they don’t require the persons involved to be adults.  That is, they may think it appropriate that 18-year-olds “explore” their sexuality.  If believers in sexual liberty confine their belief to no more than two participants at a time, they have no principled reason for doing so.

If you are a heterosexual who believes in sexual liberty (i.e. that the only rules for sex are mutual adult consent), then you have no logical argument against homosexuals who want to justify their behavior.  They are your natural ally.

Therefore, the debate about homosexuality is not being carried by homosexuals – there are too few of them.  It is being carried by people who are committed to sexual liberty.