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.

“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)

Our good friend Dr. Rob Gagnon has posted a new article on his website entitled:

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.

Mr. Swank says it well:

…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…

From Can One Be a “Gay Evangelical”?, by Dr. Robert Gagnon, published Dec 16, 2006:

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:

Excerpted from Anti-Gay Christians ‘Out of Touch’, by Marc Shoffman, published Nov 26, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality Pink News:

[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…

Excerpted from 3 Christian Groups Move To Condemn Gay Sex, by Alan Cooperman and Peter Whoriskey, published Nov 15, 2006, by Washington Post:

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…

Our friend, Dr. Rob Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, has a new article up online:

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?