The majority visible “conservative” “Christian” Church in the West really serves the purpose of codifying progressive change as “Holy,” thus soothing the conscience of the member practitioners.
Think about it.
At one time the Church stood against Birth Control. Progressives pushed Birth control and mainstreamed it and the Church finally went along thus sanctifying Birth control for the membership while at the same time soothing the membership conscience in terms of practicing something that had previously been considered “sin.”
At one time the Church almost universally stood against divorce in most circumstances. Progressives pushed the boundaries of divorce even unto the legislating of “no-fault” divorce and the Church finally went along thus sanctifying divorce for the membership while at the same time soothing the membership conscience in terms of securing no-fault divorces that in previous generations would have been considered sin.
At one time the Church almost universally stood against sodomite Marriages in all circumstances. Progressives have pushed this boundary and within 10-15 years couples in sodomite marriage will be accepted as members in many, if not most, “conservative” Churches. The Church thus will sanctify, once again, the success of the Christ hating progressives and will serve as the cultural agent that soothes the conscience of the rank and file membership that the members really are servants of the Lord Christ despite their Birth control, divorces, and acceptance of, and participation in sodomite marriages.
Other examples could be enumerated but we see here that the Church still has a function in the culture. It’s function is to help the rank and file be comfortable with the direction that the Christ haters are pushing the culture. The Church convinces us that we can be comfortable and well adjusted in a culture that is insane.
To be sure, the Church often comes kicking and screaming to it new position but it realizes that if it wants to survive, pay the bills and the Pastor’s salary, and keep the bureaucracy rolling it must eventually give in the success of the cultural Marxists and make declaration that matters which were once considered sin are no longer considered sin and are even positive virtues.
You and I have had correspondence over this, and we both share very grave concerns regarding this.
You may be aware of the justification that reformed Christians use regarding “allowing” homosexuality into our circles. It boils down to these:
1) There is a (false) distinction made between attraction (of someone not your spouse) and lust.
It should be self evident that this is clearly absurd. However, the fact that we have reformed theologians that advocate this position indicates that it somehow is not as self evident as it should be.
By this logic, it is entirely acceptable for me to be sexually attracted to my mother, or my sister and this is not sin because it hasnt “risen to the level of lust.” ANY sexual attraction for anyone outside of your spouse is by definition lust.
2) Related to pt 1, then, it will “logically” follow since there is such a thing as a separation between non-spousal sexual attraction and lust, therefore it is justified to say that there is such a thing as homosexual attraction that is not sinful.
3) Then, there is a separation between homosexual attraction and the **subsequent** conduct. The dualists will advocate while the conduct is clearly sinful, the attraction is not (again, this is because of pt 1 and pt 2).
4) This is an utterly incoherent and downright dangerous position to uphold for several reasons:
-From the grid of the Bible, lust is **analytically** defined as non-spousal sexual attraction. The dualists will define lust **synthetically**.
While this seems esoteric, it isnt because if we are to understand that an analytic proposition is a proposition whose predicate concept (non-spousal attraction) is contained in its subject concept (lust), in other words, it is true by virtue of how it is defined, then therefore, lust can never be anything but non-spousal sexual attraction because that is how the Bible views it.
Therefore, this parsing that the dualists have between non-spousal attraction and lust, is arbitrary and not biblically consistent!
-Logically speaking, ethical conduct is always related to the initial intent that spawned the conduct.
In other words, ethical conduct or action is simply intent or attraction instantiated or manifested in time-space.
If we are to condemn the conduct, we have to therefore also condemn the intent behind that conduct.
It should be understood that homosexual conduct can be caused by homosexual lust. At the very least in this case, the dualists will recognize that the homosexual lust is sinful
If we were to put the intent which drove the conduct in the best light according to the dualist, then we would say that the intent was merely “attraction” and not “lust”. And it is this “attraction” that drove the ethical conduct (which is sinful).
If we are to properly understand that the conduct and the intent are related, we must therefore condemn the intent, in this case the “attraction.” Therefore, this “attraction” is sinful as well.
This simply destroys the assertion that the dualists have that there is a distinction between non-spousal (homosexual) attraction (not sin), and lust (sin).
Ultimately, the base assumption behind the dualists is that there can be a distinction between deliberately sinful conduct that can be driven non-sinful intent. This is clearly not biblical!
To put it simply, sinful actions and ethical conduct are always a matter of the heart (intent)!
Hatred without murder, for instance, is condemned as sin in the Bible.
Thinking in the ways of the world (which ALWAYS leads to ungodly action) is sinful in and of itself. Not trusting in God (intellectually) is sinful, even though we may not have had any specific conduct to correspond to this.
Therefore, the split between action and intent is artificial, not logical and downright unbiblical.
-Finally, the dualists will attempt to make a distinction between accomodation and affirmation. Accomodation meaning that while they cannot fully embrace homosexual behavior as affirmation does, it accepts that it is necessary to allow for this behavior because of the lust that burns inside of a homosexual.
Grudgingly accepting conduct and behavior is still to affirm it. Functionally speaking then, the two (accomodation and affirmation) are the same.
Therefore, there is not as sharp of a distinction between accomodation and affirmation as the dualists believe there is.
Again, not only is this not logical, it is not biblical!
A weak view of the general equity of the Mosaic “civil” law ends up having 4th and 5th order effects such as allowing for an accomomdationist/affirmationalist view of homosexuality!
That’s like saying that I despise pork, but will allow myself to eat bacon. I am still affirming the validity of pork by eating bacon, regardless of my personal feelings.
Please keep up the good work!
Christopher,
This is quite good but now you have to get it into a more readily understood format. I know what you’re saying but the average Christian is going to be lost by this.
I think that one way to attack this in order to simplify is just to say that we are not identified by our temptations to sin. If someone has an un-acted upon temptation to theft he does not refer to himself as a “Thieving Christian.” If someone has a un-acted upon desire for other men’s wives he does not go around labeling himself as a “Adulterous Christian.” If that is so, then why should those who contend with the temptation to sin by engaging in sodomy be allowed to refer to themselves as “gay Christians?” It serves only one purpose that I can see and that is to mainstream the sin so has to somehow have legitimacy.
Having said that we can rejoice that people who are tempted to sin in the way of sodomy have resisted temptation so that they can say that they are only afflicted with Temptation and yet are not giving into it. However, we must insist with them, that they with us — in our various temptations to besetting sins — must pray that God would deliver them (and us) from their (and our) perverse affections and lusts that drive all sorts of perverse temptations.
There is no nobility in identifying (“Gay [but celibate] Christian”) with our lusts. Yes, we must bear one another’s burdens but that burden sharing does not include marketing inordinate but resisted affections as somehow normative.
Correction:
“You may be aware of the justification that reformed Christians use regarding “allowing” homosexuality into our circles. It boils down to these:”
It should read “You are aware of the justification…”
(typing too fast)
Gary North once wrote, if you cant say it so as to have an eleventh grade audience understand, you have lost the majority of your audience.
This is not a slam on Mr. Lee, who writes in a way I can only dream of.
Put another way, the genius of genius is explaining difficult subjects in an easy to understand manner.