Why is it so hard to talk about why it is so hard to talk about homosexuality — II

Continuing, in this second entry, to examine this article

seeking to respectfully point out the errant thinking, inconsistencies, contradictions, and misinformation contained therein.

When we left off last time we began to deal with the accusations of “homophobia” which Rev. Nydam said was “so present in our gay-unfriendly culture.” Rev. Nydam in the same context raises an implicit objection to patriarchy. It seems that Rev. Nydam is convinced that as a culture we value the masculine above the feminine. Rev. Nydam offers no facts to support this bald assertion. The good pastor goes on to lament how our culture condemns men with feminine traits. And yet we must keep in mind that the Scripture teaches,

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Now, perhaps the Pastor is correct in saying that we shouldn’t condemn those with feminine traits but surely given the teaching of God’s word we should meet Christian men who are overwhelmed with feminine traits with some disapproval.

We already mentioned, but it bears mentioning again, that Rev. Nydam is not up to date concerning the false narrative of the Matthew Shepherd case. In the last entry we pointed out an investigation which has been done in this case which demonstrates that Shepherd was not murdered because of his homosexuality but rather Shepherd was murdered in the context of a meth drug deal gone bad. In point of fact the man convicted for Shepherd’s murder had previously had sodomite relations with Shepherd. Like the Roe. vs. Wade false narrative from 1973, the Matthew Shepherd narrative was completely contrived in order to gain legislative sympathy for the sodomite agenda. Rev. Nydam completely missed this in his article. With this article by Rev. Nydam I have to conclude that Rev. Nydam may have a severe case of Hetero-phobia as seen by his symptomatically high egalitarian fever.

I agree with Rev. Nydam and that is the necessity to come alongside and support those Christians who are struggling with the temptation of homosexuality.  I agree that we have need to confess our sin so that we do not come across as self righteous prigs to those who are genuinely struggling to put off the old man of homosexuality and put on the new man of heterosexuality or who are seeking to be celibate in the context of what they recognize as sinful appetites. At the same time we need to enter careful self-examination to make sure we are not watering down the word of the Lord Christ in order to be able to fit into the zeitgeist. We have need to name the sin of compromise with this present wicked age in order to help those who are struggling. This is a very difficult spiritual challenge.

I also agree with Rev. Nydam that we must be friendly with those who are struggling against the sin of sodomy and lesbianism. We must come alongside them and encourage them to honor our Lord Christ by remaining chaste. We must advocate for before God’s throne in prayer asking that increasingly they will be able to quit finding their identity in their sexuality and instead find their identity in Christ. We must never push away repentant people who were once LGBT but now are in Christ. We must remind them though they were once Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and  Transgender they have been  washed, and sanctified, and justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. By coming alongside them and encouraging them in their new identity in Christ we can together rejoice over the Grace that has delivered each one of us from our sin and misery. In just such a manner the love of God gets to them just as God intended.

So as the CRC continues in the conversation concerning pastoral ministry among those redeemed out of the LGBT lifestyle, those struggling with the sin of LGBT-ism and the sin of continuing to identify as a LGBT person even after they’ve embraced Christ how can we best prepare ourselves for this conversation?  Several recommendations come to mind.

1.) As Rev. Nydam said, “we must continue our commitment, once again together, to a careful, thoughtful hearing of the biblical text. Scripture must speak to us.” This means guarding ourselves against novel readings of the Scripture that conclude what nobody in 2000 years of Church history have concluded. It’s possible that for 2000 years the Church has gotten something this significant wrong but extraordinarily unlikely.   So,  as Rev. Nydam offers, “we must not give in to the temptation, the exegetical error, of reading our wishes or beliefs into the text.”  
2,) We must affirm a biblical definition for human sexuality. This means, in terms of marriage, that one boy goes with one girl. It also means understanding that given the way our sexuality is tied up with how we are God’s image bearers that it only makes sense that Lucifer is going to seek to overthrow God’s design at just this point. This also means that we have need to be sensitive to the fact that this kind of sinful behavior could well be a sign of God turning people over to their reprobate desires (Romans 1:18-32). Becoming more comfortable with the way God speaks about sexuality will give biblical wisdom to our responses.

3.) We need to allow the Scriptures to shape our understanding of gender roles. Scripture teaches that men are to  love their wives, and wives are to submit to their husbands. Scriptures teaches that men are to lead and women are to be silent in the Church. Scripture teaches that we all have the fruit of the Spirit as that fruit demonstrates itself in the roles God has assigned to men and women.

4.) We must learn more about homosexuality in general. For example, repeated studies demonstrate that in a overwhelming percentage of cases where boys become homosexual it is due to some kind of molestation or Father-Son dysfunction in early development. If this is true then it is likely also true that people do not choose aberrant sexuality the way they might choose what flavor of ice cream to have. This is a fallen world and people can be fallen quite apart from self consciously deciding how their fallen-ness is going to manifest itself. Studies have given us very little evidence that LGBT-ism is a genetic predisposition.

5.) We must be sympathetic and empathetic. This sympathy and empathy must be for both God and His authoritative word and for those struggling with LGBT-ism. We must be tender where there is a spirit of repentance or anguish on their part. We must sincerely care about those who want to give this lifestyle up to follow Christ. Let it never be said of Christians that we added burdens of hatred upon and for those who are already bearing the terrible burden of a self-loathing because of the sin they struggle so mightily against.  Let it never be said that we failed to encourage those who have been redeemed from this lifestyle to remember their identity in Christ.

6.) For those of us who have friends who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle we must continue to show ourselves kind and generous. This means having them over for a meal and making them welcome. This means taking their phone calls at midnight in order to help them past temptation.

 

 

Lift up your glass and raise up your pitcher to good Judge Roy Moore

At Iron Ink we talk a good deal about the lesser magistrate doctrine as developed by the Reformers and their descendants. This doctrine simply teaches that if Magistrates (Elected officials) at the top of the ladder go off the rails in wickedness then the Christian faith allows people to follow elected officials at a lower lever in overturning the design of wicked higher officials.

Some would contend that Alabama’s State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is just such a lesser Magistrate who is throwing off the wickedness of a lower Federal judge who has ruled that Alabama must allow sodomite and lesbian marriages. I disagree. It is my conviction that Judge Moore in this case is the higher magistrate overturning the ruling of the lesser lower Federal court judge. However, even if Judge Moore is a lesser magistrate he is still doing what is right both Constitutionally (Where does the US Constitution explicitly command that States must embrace sodomite marriage?) and according to Natural Law and according to Biblical Law.

My friends, somewhere a line has to be drawn or else we are going to discover that marriage can be defined as any combination imaginable. In this completely arbitrary definition of “marriage” that we are on the threshold off we will doubtless soon find a man, a woman who used to be a man, a man who used to be a woman, a homosexual transgender and their toaster all joined in holy wedlock.

May the Lord Christ bless Judge Roy Moore.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK4PNmtTBg

THE NORMAN AND THE SAXON by Kipling


“My son,” said the Norman Baron, “I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–

“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.

“You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don’t try that game on the Saxon; you’ll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They’ll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

“But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don’t trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they’re saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear ’em out if it takes you all day.

They’ll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It’s the sport not the rabbits they’re after (we’ve plenty of game in the park).
Don’t hang them or cut off their fingers. That’s wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.

“Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say ‘we,’ ‘us’ and ‘ours’ when you’re talking, instead of ‘you fellows’ and ‘I.’
Don’t ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell ’em a lie!”

Why is it so hard to talk about why it is so hard to talk about Homosexuality — I

In the February edition of the Banner Rev. Ron Nydam wrote an article probing as to why it is so hard to talk about homosexuality. I wanted to spend some time probing Rev. Ron’s probing.  It is my conviction that Rev. Nydam’s article is written in order to grease the rails into accepting the idea of the normalcy of relationships that the Scripture characterizes as sinful.We should note at the outset that it is always the goal of those who want to make something formerly taboo to be acceptable to get people talking about the taboo. Conversations about the taboo make the taboo more acceptable and less frightening. As such Nydam and the Banner are advancing the agenda of the LBGT crowd by continuing to insist that this is something that must be spoken about. In a sense, even my writing of this essay serves their agenda because continues the conversation they so desperately desire in order to mainstream aberrant behavior.

Rev. Nydam leads off by mentioning the CRC study committee due to report in 2016 on providing pastoral guidance  to churches, pastors, church leaders, and members on appropriate ministry and expectations in a culture where same-sex marriage is increasingly legal and common. Rev. Nydam throws in the bisexual and transgender people into this pool of ministry consideration since their pastoral needs may be quite similar. My question for Rev. Nydam and others is why stop with LGBT folk? Shouldn’t we include in the report the pastoral needs of necrophiliacs and bestiality oriented folks as well? After all, why should we be so narrow as not to include their very real pastoral needs?   The answer to the bigotry of the CRC against these folks is that LGBT has become societally acceptable while those who perhaps suffer the most from unmet pastoral needs are left not considered. This is a black mark upon us as a Denomination.

Rev. Nydam speaks of the necessity of shalom that we are to seek in our congregations and is concerned that this issue will divide congregations. He’s afraid that this issue will bring strife and divisions to families, friends congregations, and Denominations. In writing this Nydam has suggested that the acceptance of the LGBT agenda, sure to be at the very least hinted at in the coming report, is not something so serious as to actually divide over. We must be see that our false unity as based on false theology is more important then any unity that can only exist in the context of dividing from people with whom we have no unity.

Rev. Nydam subtly suggests that people who disagree with LGBT-ism struggle do so wisely and biblically. Rev. Nydam insists that what he is writing about is not the ethical issues around sexual behavior but only to examine the high anxiety in the hetero-sexual community. But Rev. Nydam seems not to realize that the very reason there exists high anxiety in the hetero-sexual community is because of the ethical issues around sexual behavior. It really is impossible to tamp down high anxiety on this issue without also engaging in the ethical issues around sexual behavior. For Rev. Nydam to suggest that he is only going to address high anxiety but not ethical issues is like someone saying they are going to address conductivity without mentioning electricity. In point of fact, by inviting the “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender members to listen in” he has at that moment touched upon the ethics of all this.  Is it ethical for Christians (even celibate ones) to self identify as sinners?

Rev. Nydam then suggests that the real problem here is that Scripture appears to be being interpreted “in new and different ways.”  Once again, we are back in the realm of ethics. We have to ask, “Is it ethical to appear to be interpreting Scripture in new and different ways when it comes to the issue of sexual ethics. (?)

Rev. Nydam next suggests that since we are all sexual sinners in one form or another then none of us have the place to speak to the sin of the LGBT community. After all we all have beams in our own eyes therefore we have no business worrying about the beams in other people’s eyes. This is the classic moral equivalency apologetic. If you have one sin in your life you are no longer qualified to hold up God’s standard. In point of fact no one is qualified to hold up God’s standard since no one is without sin. Somehow Rev. Nydam knows that “all of us struggle to some degree with our sexuality.” Really? All of us? Each and every one of us?

Rev. Nydam implicitly complains about the double standard that Christians have regarding sexual sins. He says that on these sins we are “especially punitive.” Maybe though the reason we are especially punitive on these sins is that the Scripture teaches that these sins are especially grievous?

“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (I Corinthians 6:18)

In the Ten Commandments God gave us two commandments that protect the family. Maybe we are especially punitive on sexual sins because we know that not only do they destroy the individual but they destroy the family and eventually, if left unchecked, they destroy the community.

(And Rev. Nydam … can you give me the names of folks who say that each and every sin is as bad as any other sin that can be imagined? Is the sin of a 5 year old stealing a cookie as bad as the sins of Stalin?)

Rev. Nydam then notes that we heterosexuals might be committing the sin of “self-righteousness” for being pleased that we are heterosexual. But might not Rev. Nydam be committing the sin of self-righteousness for being pleased that he is not being guilty of the heterosexual pride which leads to self-righteousness? What Rev. Nydam seems to be attempting  here is getting everyone in the same sin boat. Once we are all in the same sin boat then none of us can complain about the sin of anybody else since, in Rev. Nydam’s words, “one sin is as bad as another,” and “we are all pretty crooked.” But if Rev. Nydam is pretty crooked also why is he here faulting the crooked heterosexual people who are opposed to mainstreaming the crookedness of LGBT-ism? Who is the crooked Rev. Nydam to correct anybody?

Next Rev. Nydam launches into a soliloquy on homophobia, and patriarchy. In doing so he trots out the Matthew Shepard canard.  It seems that Rev. Nydam has not learned yet that Shepard was not killed because of homophobia but rather the murder was due to a Meth deal gone bad.

The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard

And Now a Word From Rachel McAtee Contra The Doug Wilson Vaccine Nonsense

If Doug Wilson would like to have a civil discussion on vaccines, he would be wise not to start off by portraying anti-vaxxers as cute but ignorant hippies (Seriously? Multi-colored wind chimes?)

Wilson’s whole article presupposes that vaccines work and are effective. He says that we are able to debate about vaccines because they have been “so successful”. He pooh pooh’s the claim that vaccines have a correlation with autism. Instead of discussing the vaccine itself (because that’s where he knows he could get in trouble), he wants to speak abstractly about whether people should have personal choice when it comes to vaccines. But let us suppose for a moment that the anti-vaxxers are right and that vaccines are ineffective and harmful. Suppose they are right that vaccines are the main cause of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). If so, why are we talking about whether the government should be able to force death down our throats? Shouldn’t we be discussing whether anyone should be getting a vaccine in the first place? Shouldn’t we be doing tests to see what the long term effects are of numerous shots full of mercury, formaldehyde, genetically modified human protein, and aborted fetal cells? If vaccines really do cause death, would Doug Wilson still be arguing that the government has the “right” to force their “convictions” on us? I hope not. If he can first prove that vaccines do indeed work, are effective, and do not cause death, then we can talk about whether the government has the right to forcefully vaccinate all members of society.

Doug Wilson cites Leviticus 13:1-4 to make his point that because a person’s personal choice on vaccination affects all of society, the “society” (by which he really means the federal government) should be able to not only have a different conviction, but be able to dictate their conviction to the individual person. Now first of all, there are plenty of individual decisions a person makes every day which affect all of society. Let us look at homeschooling for example. The homeschooling movement has doubled between 1999 and 2012, from 1.7% to 3.4%. (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013028/tables/table_07.asp) Homeschooling is definitely a decision that affects society, especially as it continues to grow at its current rate of 8% per year. (http://www.nche.com/stats) If the government decides for whatever reason that homeschooling is harmful to a society, should they be allowed to force children into the government schools? Doug Wilson wants to subscribe to the Hillary Clinton’s theory that “it takes a village to raise a child”, as though individuals and parents are hippie loonies who don’t know or care what is best for “society”. We see more and more attempts to take away personal and parental rights out of concern for the “society”. However, individual and parental rights are fundamental to the freedom of a society. As individual and parental rights continue to get taken away, our society becomes more and more enslaved to our own government. As Ronald Reagan said in 1961, “Drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active”—and that has replaced the word “promiscuous”—are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion…Is the Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? … Isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. There’s a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America’s goodness and greatness.”

Let us allow Doug Wilson, for now, that a government should be able to override individual and parental rights for the good of a society. Wilson is then stuck in no-man’s land as even the choice TO vaccinate affects all of society. Wilson is obviously ignorant of the fact that many vaccines can shed the live virus they contain for weeks or even months. The measles vaccine, TB vaccine, yellow fever vaccine, oral polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, and nasal flu vaccine are just some of the vaccines that contain live viruses and have been proven to spread the virus to anyone who is unvaccinated, which can be serious trouble for those who cannot receive vaccines such as the elderly, infants, or the immune compromised. (http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding) One study done by scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which looked at the 2011 measles outbreak in New York City concluded “This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status.” (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/9/1205.long) In other words, someone who has been vaccinated twice could transmit measles to four other individuals, even individuals who themselves had been vaccinated against measles. Who wants to get vaccinated against measles with those kind of statistics? Certainly the choice to get vaccinated against measles is one that will affect all of society. If Doug Wilson really wants the good of the society, perhaps he should be arguing against vaccines.