Chicago’s CBS affiliate joins other local media by fielding a float in the city’s annual “gay pride” parade.  It’s up to us to tell the truth about homosexuality as a sin that can be overcome — since the media and political liberals have decided to celebrate it, casting aside God’s Word. 

“Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one ‘to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.’” – Nineteenth-Century Christian Commentator Albert Barnes describing the “shameful sin of Sodom,” as condemned by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans.

By Peter LaBarbera 

Tonight, America witnesses the sad spectacle of the major Democratic presidential candidates gathering for a “debate” built around the acceptance of homosexuality. The “debate” is being sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s leading homosexual pressure group, and HRC’s President, Joe Solmonese, will serve as one of the questioners. Needless to say, there will be no open critics of the homosexual activist agenda asking questions to balance Solmonese’s pro-”gay” queries.

The mere occurrence of this “debate”/panderfest has significance well beyond the realm of politics. The “pride” and arrogance of homosexual activists is swelling in direct proportion to their growing power in American culture. Who could have imagined this scenario in U.S. politics even a decade ago? Just remember: God is never mocked.

Fact is, a large swath of the American nation is fleeing God, Who, if you believe the Bible, is quite clear in His condemnation of all homosexual behavior as sin. (That hasn’t stopped liberal Lutherans affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Having already won the ordination of “gay”-identified clergy, the ELCA’s pro-”gay” wing pushed this week to build upon that heresy by fighting for the “right” of said clergy to be involved in “committed same-sex relationships.”) 

Memo to Christians tempted to backpeddle on moral issues: the ELCA’s treacherous debacle is further proof that the liberal, activist wing of ’christianity’ cannot be appeased. It is man-centered, sin-tolerant, Bible-denying and always on the offensive; if you concede one point to this errant movement, it will only demand further concessions. Ditto for the aggressive homosexual lobby’s modus operandi in all aspects of culture. So it’s best not to give in one inch.

Man knows best? 

The sum and substance of the modern liberal, “gay”-affirming argument on homosexuality is that man thinks he knows better than God. Nothing new there – haughtiness and disobedience toward God fills the Bible’s pages.  But let’s not kid ourselves that America’s trendy embrace (tolerance) of homosexuality and, lately, gender confusion, is not a serious sign of our moral and spiritual decline as a nation.

We sing “God Bless America,” but why should He when we spurn His moral laws?

Our Christian forefathers didn’t struggle over homosexuality

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) was a popular Presbyterian minister and Bible commentator who crusaded against slavery and lived to see it outlawed. Wikipedia (I know, they’re biased…) reports that over a million volumes of Barnes’ commentaries on New Testament books were sold by 1870.

Thanks to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, you can view Barnes’ entire commentary on Romans 1 online HERE, but below are some excerpts from Romans 1:26-28. We’ve largely lost the Biblical notion of homosexual acts as desperately wicked, but that’s hardly the only sin that “live and let live” America has decided is OK. After all, affirming that sex should be reserved for marriage and that young people should remain virgins until their wedding day is about as radical these days as saying that homosexuality is a sin. (I take some comfort in that: I suppose there exists a lot of abstinence-phobia among liberal, “safer sex” types that has to be dealt with.) And when was the last time you heard the word “fornication”?

Yet think of the sexual diseases, heartache and abortions that would be avoided if more young men and women would cast aside the pop culture’s cynicism and return to that simple truth!

Are homosexual acts now right before God?

So ask yourself: what is the justification for discarding the historic Christian view laid out by Barnes against what the King James Bible calls the “vile affection” of sodomy? If there is none — i.e., no serious indictment to be made against Biblical truth in this area, as the leading Bible-and-homosexuality scholar Rob Gagnon asserts – then we need to get back to the basics on homosexuality. 

Sure, compromised politicians and media groveling before a sin-based movement will evade, distort, water down, and outright lie about homosexuality, but does it really matter what they say?  The same politicians and media have for decades cast the abortion debate as one about “choice” – as if man, not God, has authority over life and death, and has some “right” to consign innocent babies to a horrifying execution in the womb.

Reform begins in our churches, with more pastors preaching — and speaking out boldly in the public square — from a fear of God, not man. And each of us, too, must commit ourselves to “agreeing with God” on this issue — and speaking and fighting for truth — no matter what the culture, your favorite politician, or a politically correct friend, says.  

Let’s commit to honor God, stop fearing men (that includes the media), and reach out with Gospel love to men and women struggling with homosexual temptation.  Go for it!

___________________________

Here are some passages from Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans 1: 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  (Romans 1:26-28)

Barnes’ commentary (emphasis added in bold):

[Verse 26] Vile affections. Disgraceful passions or desires. … The sins which he proceeds to specify are the most indelicate, vile, and degrading which can be charged on man. But this is not the fault of the apostle. If they existed, it was necessary for him to charge them on the pagan world. His argument would not be complete without it. The shame is not in specifying them, but in their existence; not in the apostle, but in those who practised them, and imposed on him the necessity of accusing them of these enormous offences…There is still abundant proof on record, in the writings of the heathen themselves, that these crimes were known and extensively practised.

For even their women, etc. Evidence of the shameful and disgraceful fact here charged on the women is abundant in the Greek and Roman writers…

Verse 27. And likewise the men, etc. The sin which is here specified is that which was the shameful sin of Sodom, and which from that has been called sodomy. It would scarcely be credible that man had been guilty of a crime so base and so degrading, unless there was ample and full testimony to it. Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one “to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.” And yet the evidence that the apostle did not bring a railing accusation against the heathen world, that he did not advance a charge which was unfounded, is too painfully clear. It has been indeed a matter of controversy whether paederasty, or the love of boys, among the ancients, was not a pure and harmless love, but the evidence is against it. See this discussed in Dr. Leland’s “Advantage and Necessity of Revelation,” vol. i. 49—56. The crime with which the apostle charges the Gentiles here was by no means confined to the lower classes of the people. It doubtless pervaded all classes, and we have distinct specifications of its existence in a great number of cases. Even Virgil speaks of the attachment of Corydon to Alexis, without seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Maximus Tyrius (Diss. 10) says, that in the time of Socrates this vice was common among the Greeks; and is at pains to vindicate Socrates from it as almost a solitary exception. Cicero (Tuscul. Ques. iv. 84) says, that “Dicearchus had accused Plato of it, and probably not unjustly.” He also says, (Tuscul. Q. iv. 33,) that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practised, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. (Tuscul. Ques. v. 20.) Xenophon says, that “the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws.”…

Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. Cicero introduces, without any mark of disapprobation, Cotta, a man of the first rank and genius, freely and familiarly owning to other Romans of the same quality, that this worse than beastly vice was practised by himself, and quoting the authority of ancient philosophers in vindication of it. (De Natura Decrum, b. i. eh. 28.) It appears from what Seneca says, (epis. 95,) that in his time it was practised openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colours and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. Those who may wish to see a further account of the morality in the pagan world may find it detailed in Tholick’s “Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism,” in the Biblical Repository, vol. ii., and in Leland’s Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome. If so common there—if it had the sanction even of their philosophers—it may be presumed that it was practised elsewhere, and that the sin against nature was a common crime throughout the heathen world. Navaratte, in his account of the empire of China, (book ii. ch. 6,) says that it is extremely common among the Chinese. And there is every reason to believe that, both in the old world and the new, this abominable crime is still practised…

That which is unseemly. That which is shameful, or disgraceful.

And receiving in themselves, etc. The meaning of this doubtless is, that the effect of such base and unnatural passions was to enfeeble the body, to produce premature old age, disease, decay, and an early death. That this is the effect of the indulgence of licentious passions, is amply proved by the history of man. The despots who practise polygamy, and keep harems in the east, are commonly superannuated at forty years of age; and it is well known, even in Christian countries, that the effect of licentious indulgence is to break down and destroy the constitution. How much more might this be expected to follow the practice of the vice specified in the verse under examination! God has marked the indulgence of licentious passions with his frown. Since the time of the Romans and the Greeks, as if there had not been sufficient restraints before, he has originated a new disease [Editor's note: assuming this is syphillis], which is one of the most loathsome and distressing which has ever afflicted man, and which has swept off millions of victims. But the effect on the body was not all. It tended to debase the mind; to sink man below the level of the brute; to destroy the sensibility; and to “sear the conscience as with a hot iron.” The last remnant of reason and conscience, it would seem, must be extinguished in those who would indulge in this unnatural and degrading vice. See Suetonius’ Life of Nero, 28.

Verse 28. And even as they did not like, etc. This was the true source of their crimes. They did not choose to acknowledge God. It was not because they could not, but because they were displeased with God, and chose to forsake him, and follow their own passions and lusts.

To retain God, etc. To think of him, or to serve and adore him. This was the first step in their sin. It was not that God compelled them; or that he did not give them knowledge; nor even is it said that he arbitrarily abandoned them as the first step; but they forsook him, and as a consequence he gave them up to a reprobate mind.

To a reprobate mind. A mind destitute of judgment. In the Greek the same word is used here which, in another form, occurs in the previous part of the verse, and which is translated “like.” The apostle meant, doubtless, to retain a reference to that in this place. “As they did not approve, edokimasan or choose to retain God, etc., he gave them up to a mind disapproved, rejected, reprobate,” adokimon; and he means, that the state of their minds was such that God could not approve it. It does not mean that they were reprobate by any arbitrary decree; but that, as a consequence of their headstrong passions, their determination to forget him, he left them to a state of mind which was evil, and which he could not approve.

Which are not convenient. Which are not fit or proper; which are disgraceful and shameful; to wit, those things which he proceeds to state in the remainder of the chapter.

Click HERE to read more of Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans. 
 

“The sins which he proceeds to specify are the most indelicate, vile, and degrading which can be charged on man….Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one ‘to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.’”– Nineteenth-Century Christian Commentator Albert Barnes describing the “shameful sin of Sodom,” as condemned by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans. 

Below we look at the writings of Albert Barnes (1798-1870), a popular Presbyterian minister and Bible commentator who crusaded against slavery and lived to see it outlawed in the United States. Over a million volumes of Barnes’ commentaries on New Testament books were sold by 1870.

Note Barnes’s clear explication of the Biblical text against homosexual behavior (the modern notion of an innocuous homosexual “sexual orientation” hadn’t been invented yet).

Also, note Barnes’ discussion of the ancient phenomenon of homosexual pederasty in Greece and Rome.  Gee, it looks like NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association), which marched in the early “gay pride” parades – a right which  “gay” American “founding father” and icon Harry Hay fought to defend – isn’t such an historical aberration after all? 

Ask yourself: what is the justification for discarding the historic Christian view laid out by Barnes against what the King James Bible calls the “vile affection” of sodomy? If there is none — i.e., no serious indictment to be made against Biblical truth in this area, as the leading Bible-and-homosexuality scholar Rob Gagnon asserts – then we need to get back to the basics on homosexuality. 

Thanks to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, you can view Barnes’ entire commentary on Romans 1 online HERE, but below are some excerpts from Romans 1:26-28. Here are some passages from Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans 1: 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  (Romans 1:26-28)

Barnes’ commentary (emphasis added in bold):

[Verse 26] Vile affections. Disgraceful passions or desires. … The sins which he proceeds to specify are the most indelicate, vile, and degrading which can be charged on man. But this is not the fault of the apostle. If they existed, it was necessary for him to charge them on the pagan world. His argument would not be complete without it. The shame is not in specifying them, but in their existence; not in the apostle, but in those who practised them, and imposed on him the necessity of accusing them of these enormous offences…There is still abundant proof on record, in the writings of the heathen themselves, that these crimes were known and extensively practised.

For even their women, etc. Evidence of the shameful and disgraceful fact here charged on the women is abundant in the Greek and Roman writers…

Verse 27. And likewise the men, etc. The sin which is here specified is that which was the shameful sin of Sodom, and which from that has been called sodomy. It would scarcely be credible that man had been guilty of a crime so base and so degrading, unless there was ample and full testimony to it. Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one “to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.” And yet the evidence that the apostle did not bring a railing accusation against the heathen world, that he did not advance a charge which was unfounded, is too painfully clear. It has been indeed a matter of controversy whether paederasty, or the love of boys, among the ancients, was not a pure and harmless love, but the evidence is against it. See this discussed in Dr. Leland’s “Advantage and Necessity of Revelation,” vol. i. 49—56. The crime with which the apostle charges the Gentiles here was by no means confined to the lower classes of the people. It doubtless pervaded all classes, and we have distinct specifications of its existence in a great number of cases. Even Virgil speaks of the attachment of Corydon to Alexis, without seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Maximus Tyrius (Diss. 10) says, that in the time of Socrates this vice was common among the Greeks; and is at pains to vindicate Socrates from it as almost a solitary exception. Cicero (Tuscul. Ques. iv. 84) says, that “Dicearchus had accused Plato of it, and probably not unjustly.” He also says, (Tuscul. Q. iv. 33,) that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practised, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. (Tuscul. Ques. v. 20.) Xenophon says, that “the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws.”…

Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. Cicero introduces, without any mark of disapprobation, Cotta, a man of the first rank and genius, freely and familiarly owning to other Romans of the same quality, that this worse than beastly vice was practised by himself, and quoting the authority of ancient philosophers in vindication of it. (De Natura Decrum, b. i. eh. 28.) It appears from what Seneca says, (epis. 95,) that in his time it was practised openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colours and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. Those who may wish to see a further account of the morality in the pagan world may find it detailed in Tholick’s “Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism,” in the Biblical Repository, vol. ii., and in Leland’s Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome. If so common there—if it had the sanction even of their philosophers—it may be presumed that it was practised elsewhere, and that the sin against nature was a common crime throughout the heathen world. Navaratte, in his account of the empire of China, (book ii. ch. 6,) says that it is extremely common among the Chinese. And there is every reason to believe that, both in the old world and the new, this abominable crime is still practised…

That which is unseemly. That which is shameful, or disgraceful.

And receiving in themselves, etc. The meaning of this doubtless is, that the effect of such base and unnatural passions was to enfeeble the body, to produce premature old age, disease, decay, and an early death. That this is the effect of the indulgence of licentious passions, is amply proved by the history of man. The despots who practise polygamy, and keep harems in the east, are commonly superannuated at forty years of age; and it is well known, even in Christian countries, that the effect of licentious indulgence is to break down and destroy the constitution. How much more might this be expected to follow the practice of the vice specified in the verse under examination! God has marked the indulgence of licentious passions with his frown. Since the time of the Romans and the Greeks, as if there had not been sufficient restraints before, he has originated a new disease [Editor's note: assuming this is syphillis], which is one of the most loathsome and distressing which has ever afflicted man, and which has swept off millions of victims. But the effect on the body was not all. It tended to debase the mind; to sink man below the level of the brute; to destroy the sensibility; and to “sear the conscience as with a hot iron.” The last remnant of reason and conscience, it would seem, must be extinguished in those who would indulge in this unnatural and degrading vice. See Suetonius’ Life of Nero, 28.

Verse 28. And even as they did not like, etc. This was the true source of their crimes. They did not choose to acknowledge God. It was not because they could not, but because they were displeased with God, and chose to forsake him, and follow their own passions and lusts.

To retain God, etc. To think of him, or to serve and adore him. This was the first step in their sin. It was not that God compelled them; or that he did not give them knowledge; nor even is it said that he arbitrarily abandoned them as the first step; but they forsook him, and as a consequence he gave them up to a reprobate mind.

To a reprobate mind. A mind destitute of judgment. In the Greek the same word is used here which, in another form, occurs in the previous part of the verse, and which is translated “like.” The apostle meant, doubtless, to retain a reference to that in this place. “As they did not approve, edokimasan or choose to retain God, etc., he gave them up to a mind disapproved, rejected, reprobate,” adokimon; and he means, that the state of their minds was such that God could not approve it. It does not mean that they were reprobate by any arbitrary decree; but that, as a consequence of their headstrong passions, their determination to forget him, he left them to a state of mind which was evil, and which he could not approve.

Which are not convenient. Which are not fit or proper; which are disgraceful and shameful; to wit, those things which he proceeds to state in the remainder of the chapter.

Click HERE to read more of Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans. 

How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture and Does Scripture’s View Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?

A response to R. Milton Winter’s Perspectives article: “Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals”

It’s a response to a paper that appeared in a PCUSA publication so to that extent it is more relevant to Presbyterians.

However, the 11-page appendices at the end (pp. 12-23) deal, in a free-standing way, with the questions asked in the title and are relevant to anyone interested in these issues, whatever the denominational affiliation. It’s a good summary of

1. How seriously Scripture views the offense of homosexual practice and
2. Whether Scripture’s indictment of homosexual practice applies to committed homosexual unions.

Earlier parts of the article also address the question whether a denomination’s support of homosexual practice justifies departure from the denomination.

…The divine revelation is eternal ethic and thereby will not condone homosexual practice. Those running counter to this revelation will answer to God’s wrath in this life and at death at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

TAKE ACTION – You may send a note of support to Ron Warren, who rightfully recommends removing Bradley Schmeling from his position of authority.

——————————

Excerpted from Homosexual Lutheran Pastor Charged, by Grant Swank, published Jan 20, 2007, by The Conservative Voice:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concluded at its 2005 conclave that sex was to be practiced within marriage. Also, such sex was not open to homosexual lifestyles. All this is because the Bible ethic is against sex outside of marriage and prohibits homosexual activities.

Bradley Schmeling, pastor, St. John’s ECLA, Atlanta, makes known that he is homosexual and now has a partner. The congregation agrees that he should continue as minister. In fact, the parishioners had a party celebrating his formal announcement of partnership with a “lifelong companion.”

Bishop Ronald Warren, Southeastern Synod, told Schmeling to resign. Schmeling said he would not resign. “Disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage” have begun. That means Schmeling confronts a hearing composed of a dozen ELCA members deciding his fate…

If the committee concludes him to be defrocked, he would no longer be “recognized as an ordained minister in the ELCA,” per AP. If the congregation still calls him their spiritual leader, the church then could be disciplined…

Throughout the divine revelation right and wrong are set forth by God Himself. Consequently, for those espousing homosexual lifestyles as divinely blessed is to expose their biblical ignorance and theological liberalism, the latter basically given to writing one’s own religion.

Other denominations dealing with this matter include the Presbyterian Church, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Convention and segments within the Mennonite framework. Denominations which accept homosexuality as ethically legitimate include the Unitarian Society, United Church of Christ (Congregational), and the Episcopal Church of America.

Continue reading at The Conservative Voice…

On 11/29/06, Neela Banerjee, religion reporter for The New York Times, emailed me to ask my views on “gay evangelicals” and about whether I thought “such a term can be honestly used.” On the same day I emailed my response. She took two quotes from my response for her article in the Times on Tuesday, Dec. 12, entitled “Gay and Evangelical, Seeking Paths of Acceptance” (front page, continued on p. 18; temporarily available on the web here). She was pleasant in her email. However, her handling of my response merits some comment and qualification. Here is the excerpt from the article that quotes me, along with the immediate context of her article and with boldface added to the quotations of my words:

But for most evangelicals, gay men and lesbians cannot truly be considered Christian, let alone evangelical.

“If by gay evangelical is meant someone who claims both to abide by the authority of Scripture and to engage in a self-affirming manner in homosexual unions, then the concept gay evangelical is a contradiction,” Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, said in an e-mail message.

“Scripture clearly, pervasively, strongly, absolutely and counterculturally opposes all homosexual practice,” Dr. Gagnon said. “I trust that gay evangelicals would argue otherwise, but Christian proponents of homosexual practice have not made their case from Scripture.”

In fact, both sides look to Scripture. The debate is largely over seven passages in the Bible about same-sex couplings. Mr. Gagnon and other traditionalists say those passages unequivocally condemn same-sex couplings.

Those who advocate acceptance of gay people assert that the passages have to do with acts in the context of idolatry, prostitution or violence. The Bible, they argue, says nothing about homosexuality as it is largely understood today as an enduring orientation, or about committed long-term, same-sex relationships.

For some gay evangelicals, their faith in God helped them override the biblical restrictions people preached to them…

Here is the email that I sent Ms. Banerjee, from which she extracted the quotes (I have placed the quotations in boldface):

Dear Neela,

Are there “gay evangelicals”? Yes and no.

YES: Well, there certainly are self-described evangelicals who experience homosexual impulses and, more, affirm these impulses as something good–just as there are evangelicals who both experience various sinful impulses and sometimes even wrongly attempt to justify these impulses from Scripture. For example, there are evangelicals who attempt to justify sexual relations outside the covenant bond of marriage (i.e., evangelicals who are also fornicators). The apostle Paul’s “first” letter to the Corinthians rebukes the Corinthian Christians for affirming an incestuous relationship between a member of their community and his stepmother (chap. 5) and later goes on to warn the Corinthian believers not to be adulterers, men who have sex with other males, or men who have sex with prostitutes lest they risk not inheriting the kingdom of God (chap. 6). Such persons who are “one spirit” with Jesus scandalously involve Christ in a sexually immoral “one flesh” union. So the phenomenon of Christians acting in ways that are contrary to the call of the Christian gospel, and even affirming such behavior, is as old as Christianity itself.

NO: But if by “gay evangelical” is meant someone who claims both to abide by the authority of Scripture and to engage in a self-affirming manner in homosexual unions, then the concept “gay evangelical” is a contradiction in terms–all the more if one understands “gay” to be a self-constructed identity that seeks to justify and gratify preexisting homosexual impulses. It is a contradiction in terms because Scripture clearly, pervasively, strongly, absolutely, and counterculturally opposes all homosexual practice. I trust that “gay evangelicals” would argue otherwise but Christian proponents of homosexual practice have not made their case from Scripture (see my website at www.robgagnon.net for this; start with my critique of your colleague Nicholas Kristof at http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAPReporter.htm and work your way to my critique of a recent book by Myers/Scanzoni at http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf). So to construct a self-identity around behavior that Scripture deems to be an egregious instance of sexual immorality, all the while claiming to be an evangelical Christian who upholds the authority of Scripture, is to engage in a self-contradiction. At best one might speak of “self-deceived gay evangelicals.”

Since Jesus himself would have found any self-affirming, unrepentant homosexual activity to be appalling, putting the perpetrator at risk of not inheriting the very kingdom of God that he proclaimed (see pp. 56-62 in my article cited in the last link above), he would have rejected any attempt to construct an identity around the affirmation of homosexual impulses as incompatible with the call to Christian discipleship. To be a true disciple (learner) of Jesus one must (according to Jesus himself) take up one’s cross, deny oneself, and lose one’s life. So the expression “gay Christian”–not just “gay evangelical”–is a contradiction of terms, just as “self-affirming polysexual Christian” or “self-affirming adulterous Christian” is a contradiction of terms.

We all sin and are regularly in need of God’s grace and forgiveness. But there is a difference between this and engaging in serial, unrepentant sin of a severe sort. Jesus called the adulterous woman out of sin, “lest something worse should happen” to her. The church should do the same in love for self-professed “gay evangelicals.”

Hope this helps.

Rob

I appreciate that Ms. Banerjee quoted parts of three of my sentences, which is more than most scholars espousing a position against homosexual practice could expect to get in a major newspaper heavily invested in promoting homosexual relationships, like The New York Times. Yet there are several corrections and comments worth noting here:

* Ms. Banerjee misconstrued my remark “Christian proponents of homosexual practice have not made their case from Scripture” to mean that such proponents in my view had not even tried to make a case from Scripture. To this Ms. Banerjee responds in the article: “In fact, both sides look to Scripture”—as if I were unaware of this obvious fact. She then goes on to explain—again, as if I were unaware—that “those who advocate acceptance of gay people assert that the passages have to do with acts in the context of idolatry, prostitution or violence” and not with acts in the context of “an enduring orientation, or about committed long-term, same-sex relationships.”

Now it should have been obvious to Ms. Banerjee that I knew about the frequent attempts on the part of many to neutralize the Bible’s clear opposition to homosexual practice. My publications on the subject of the Bible and homosexual practice over the last 6 years have dealt with all of these arguments in detail. Had Ms. Banerjee checked out the links that I provided her, or read any of my print publications on the subject, she would have known this. She would then have realized that my point was that Christian proponents of homosexual relationships have failed to make a good and convincing case from Scripture. (See the links above and, added to these, my recent extensive critiques of Jack Rogers’s recent book on the subject of the Bible and homosexuality, on my website; start here and then proceed here, here, here, here, and here.) The idea that Scripture says nothing against loving homosexual behavior entered into by homosexually oriented persons is akin to arguing that the Bible poses no obstacle to committed incestuous unions engaged in by consenting adults or that the New Testament is open to committed polyamorous (multiple-partner) unions entered into by confirmed “polysexuals.”

To her credit, when I pointed out this error, Ms. Banerjee acknowledged in an email that she had misunderstood me and apologized. I appreciate that. I doubt, though, that the Times will issue any public correction.

* In answer to Ms. Banerjee’s question about whether the term “gay evangelicals” can be “honestly used,” I said “yes and no” and explained both responses. Ms. Banerjee noted only the “no” part of my answer. My response is considerably more nuanced than the Times article would suggest. Of course, on an empirical level there are people who claim to be both “gay” (involving a self-affirmed identity around the acceptability of homosexual relationships) and “evangelical” (involving a belief in Scripture’s supreme authority for matters of faith and practice). But, since Scripture cannot be made serviceable to the acceptance of homosexual practice, it is a contradiction in terms to claim that one is an “evangelical” while affirmingly constructing an identity based on behavior that would have appalled all the authors of Scripture, to say nothing of Jesus.

* Ms. Banerjee was not quite accurate in characterizing my position as claiming that “gay men and lesbians cannot truly be considered Christian, let alone evangelical.” This way of wording things can convey a meaning different from my stated position to her, namely, that the term “gay Christian” is “a contradiction in terms”—“just as,” so I noted in my email to her, “‘self-affirming polysexual Christian’ or ‘self-affirming adulterous Christian’ is a contradiction of terms.” First, I made clear in my email that I understood “gay” as a label for someone who not merely experiences homosexual impulses but who, more, “engages in a self-affirming manner in homosexual unions.” Clearly, someone can be a Christian and experience homoerotic desires, just as Christians experience an array of sinful desires on a daily basis that ought not to rule their lives. Second, a person can even be a Christian while engaging in a self-affirming manner in homosexual practice, just as (again noted in my email) Paul dealt with the case of an incestuous Christian in 1 Corinthians 5-6. However, such a person would be a Christian at risk of exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11 and often). So a “gay man” or “lesbian woman” who calls him- or herself a Christian while engaging in serial, unrepentant, and self-affirmed homosexual activity could be “considered” a Christian who is at risk of not inheriting eternal life.

* Ms. Banerjee left out my concluding word on the importance of love and the distinction between succumbing to homosexual temptation out of weakness and actively affirming the homosexual behavior that one engages in. Such a note might have provided some balance to an article that otherwise appeared to be working hard to paint a sympathetic portrait of self-affirming “gay evangelicals.” It is also puzzling that Ms. Banerjee didn’t solicit any quotes from Christians who “take up their cross and deny themselves” as regards homosexual impulses.

On Ms. Banerjee’s behalf I can say that I’ve seen far worse reporting on this issue. At least Ms. Banerjee solicited my comments, was polite, and actually used most of three of my sentences. Moreover, she ended her article on the helpful note that relatives of one “gay Christian” in a homosexual relationship tell him, “We love you, but we’re concerned.” These features of her article and reporting should be applauded even as we continue to seek improved reporting on the subject of Christianity and homosexuality from the Times and other major media publications.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. He can be reached at gagnon@pts.edu.

[After various actions opposing homosexuality by the Catholic church, the North Carolina Baptist State Convention, and the US Presbyterian Church...]

Mr Solmonese (pictured right) described these leaders as “out of touch.“

He said: “It’s a sad commentary that these religious leaders are out of step with most Americans of faith in terms of equality and fairness for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people of faith.

“The real story is that more Americans of faith understand that God’s love is expansive, not exclusionary. In fact, church programmes welcoming GLBT people are on the rise and have in the last year experienced a growth of between 10 and 20 percent. ”

Continue reading at Pink News…

Faced with rising public acceptance of same-sex relationships, three U.S. Christian denominations are taking strong measures this week to condemn homosexual acts as sinful.

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, meeting in Baltimore, declared Tuesday that Catholics who minister to gays must firmly adhere to the church’s teaching that same-sex attractions are “disordered.” Catholics with “a homosexual inclination” should be encouraged to live in chastity and discouraged from making “general public announcements” about their sexual orientation, the bishops said.

The largest Baptist group in North Carolina, meanwhile, moved to expel any congregation that condones homosexuality, adopting a policy that allows the Baptist State Convention to investigate complaints that member churches are too “gay-friendly.”

And on Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a mainline Protestant denomination with about 3 million members, will put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women.

The decisions are part of a mounting backlash in many U.S. denominations against church groups whose stated goal is not only to welcome but also to “affirm” gay congregants.

Continue reading on Washington Post…

Jack Rogers’s Flawed Use of Analogical Reasoning in Jesus, the Bible, & Homosexuality.

Dr. Gagnon is arguably the foremost theologian on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible; his books and articles are an invaluable resource. This installment is his fifth in a series of critiques on Jack Rogers’s book, Jesus, the Bible, & Homosexuality. A few of the points he covers in this article are:

• Why slavery and the role of women are poor analogies to homosexuality
• Refuting the claim of a pattern of misusing the Bible to justify oppression
• Rogers’s misguided remarks about promiscuity and homosexuality
• Is homosexuality advocacy threatening?

Just over one-thousand members of Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church turned out and voted 967-to-36 to affirm a vote by church elders to leave.

The group then voted to request affiliation with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church…

The decision to change affiliations comes after the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopted a policy that some pastors say will allow gay pastors in the church.

Continue reading at Christian Post…