This beautifully written piece by Christian blogger Justin Taylor is well worth reading in its entirety at the website linked below…

Excerpted from Powlison on Biological Tendencies, Homosexual and Beyond, published Mar 5, 2007, by Justin Taylor on his “Between Two Worlds” blog:

In light of recent postings about the genetic causes of homosexuality, I received a helpful note from David Powlison. In the book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views (IVP, 2000), one of the contributors to that volume, David Myers (professor of psychology at Hope College), advocates a genetic basis for homosexuality. Powlison addresses that issue in the course of his response to Myers’s essay…

The point is that our various “tendencies” are part of a complex picture of the way in which all of us — not just homosexuals — work.

Here’s the relevant section from Powlison’s essay:

…It is no surprise that people being redeemed out of homosexual lust still battle with temptations – and that some fall back. This is true of every pattern of sexual lust, not only homosexuality: a woman whose romantic-erotic fantasies are energized by reading romance novels and watching Tom Cruise in Top Gun; a man whose eyes rove for a voyeuristic glimpse down a blouse; a woman aroused by sadomasochistic activities and implements; a man obsessed with young girls. In each of these cases, lust has been patterned around a characteristic object; love will learn a different pattern in Christ’s lifelong school for reorienting the disoriented.

…I’m not familiar with the studies of female homosexuality, but let me offer an “unscientific” observation arising from pastoral experience. I’ve known many lesbians driven more by “intimacy lusts” than by the unvarnished eroticism of many heterosexual or homosexual males. In fact, most of them had once been actively heterosexual, unsuccessfully looking for love from a man or men. They eventually found that other women were similarly wired to intimacy and companionship as the context for erotic feelings. An emotional closeness initially developed that was progressively sexualized during the process of redefining oneself as a lesbian. Such a process makes lucid sense on the Faith’s analysis of the outworking and inworking of sin. And I’ve seen the fiercely tender grace of God break in, progressively rewiring some of these women. Statistics might give definition to words such as “most,” “many,” and “some.” But statistics could neither confirm nor disconfirm the point of view whose plausibility is established theologically, anecdotally, and pastorally.

…Sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.

Grace is similarly personalized. Some of God’s children find Phillipians 4:4-9 breathes particular comfort amid their besetting temptation to anxiety. Others find the Spirit pacifying their fierce temper and writing James 3:1-4:12 on their hearts. Still others find Proverbs 23:29-35 clobbers them about the madness of their heavy drinking, and that they grow wiser as they quit hanging out with old drinking buddies and spend time with new, wiser companions (Proverbs 13:20). Still others experience a keen-edged joy in earning a pay check, paying for things they once stole, and sharing money with people in need (Ephesians 4:28). Others find that Christ’s comprehensive vision for rearranging everyone’s sexuality – in the whole Bible, not just “a half dozen verses” – reaches into their particular form of disorientation, teaching them to love people, not lust after them. One and all, former neurotics, rageaholics, drunks, thieves, and gays find that truth rings true and rings with hope.

Each of us deals with what Richard Lovelace termed “characteristic flesh” (Dynamics of Spiritual Life, p. 110). Repeat temptations and instances of recidivism do not change the rules. Strugglers with indwelling sin genuinely grow in grace, but often the generic issue remains on stage in some manner throughout a person’s lifetime. Abiding struggles are no reason to throw over the Christian life which is defined as growth amid struggle unto a future perfection (1 John 3:1-3). Those being redeemed out of homosexualized lust are examples of the rule, not exceptions granted license to give up the fight and rationalize their sin.

Continue reading at Beyond Two Worlds…

Proof that homosexual “rights” will take precedence over freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech…

Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:

…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.

From Broken Promise in the Promised Land, published Feb 1, 2007, by CWA:

Israel records homosexual “marriage” for first time

For the first time in history, Jerusalem has recorded the “marriage” of a homosexual couple. Two men who wish to be identified as “Binyamin and Avi Rose” were “married” in Canada over the summer of 2006 and moved back to Israel where their marital status is now being recorded through the Interior Ministry’s Population Registry. Israel’s highest Court ruled in November that same-sex “marriages” that have been legally performed in foreign countries will now be included in Israel’s records. Concerned Women for America (CWA) prays that the nation of Israel will embrace and defend the Biblical definition of one man, one woman marriage and not go down the slippery slope that seeks to destroy traditional marriage.

CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues Matt Barber said,

“Christians, Jews and all people of faith from around the world will no doubt be saddened and shocked by this alarming development in Israel – as should anybody who recognizes the tremendous benefits conferred upon humanity by the institutions of legitimate marriage and family. It defies logic that the state of Israel would grant any official recognition to counterfeit ‘same-sex marriage.’

“God ‘made them male and female.’ The Biblical model irrefutably defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It provides that all sexual relations are to occur within the bounds of marriage.

“But this is not just a spiritual issue. Even within secular society, marriage has, by definition, joined male to female since time immemorial. Unless the Israeli government reverses course here, it has now inexplicably capitulated to the radical and destructive redefinition of marriage.”

By Sonja Dalton

Lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding published a post on Mar 3, 2007, entitled Intimidation Tactics In the Name of Religion Will Not Stop Change. In it, she accuses Christians of inciting violence against homosexuals — for example,

• Bil Browning, head of Indiana Action Network and Bilerico blogger, claims that, following his coverage of a protest in Indiana over SJR-7, he received threatening phone calls and that the window of his car was smashed.
• 72-year-old Andrew Anthos of Detroit was taunted and viciously beated with a metal pipe, leaving him paralyzed and in a coma for ten days until he finally died. A sketch of the suspect has been released, but no arrests have been made at this point.
• A 19-year-old Hoboken High School student, Andy Rivera, has been charged (and a second person is sought) in the brutal beating of a 21-year-old man, allegedly for wearing pink pants.

Ms. Spaulding, a Duke employee whose blog has been lauded by the university (which has historic ties to the United Methodist church), says:

“This behavior occurs because many fundies actually justify explain violence against gays and lesbians as God’s wrath being visited upon them. It’s about controlling the behavior of people who are different, who may or may not share their worldview, or else, dag nab it, ‘God’ is going to work in his mysterious ways by inspiring someone to take a pipe to beat a 72-year-old gay man to death or beat up a gay man for wearing pink pants, for instance.”

Though none of the perpetrators have claimed to be Christians nor to have acted on God’s behalf (some are not yet identified), Ms. Spaulding blames these heinous crimes on “fundie” (fundamentalist) Christians — and she is not the only activist to make such claims.

On Feb 24, 2007, Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (which takes in over $30 million/year), issued the following statement blaming Christians:

“The hatred and loathing that led to the vicious murder of Andrew Anthos only because he was gay is not innate. Instead it is being taught every day by leaders of the so-called Christian right and their political allies. They disguise their bigotry as ‘deeply-held religious beliefs.’ They cloak themselves in ‘family values.’

“For years, Michigan has been subjected to the homophobic rants of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, while so many otherwise good and decent people have been silent. Just two years ago, the state endured an ugly campaign, led by Cardinal Adam Maida, to ‘protect marriage’ by writing anti-gay discrimination into its constitution. Based on that amendment, a three-judge panel of Michigan’s court of appeals voted last month to terminate medical insurance coverage for families of LGBT government workers throughout the state.

“It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos…”

From U.S. Supreme Court vacates widely criticized 9th Circuit decision in Poway “T-shirt” case, published Mar 5, 2007, by Alliance Defense Fund:

Nation’s highest court grants request of ADF attorneys to consider case, then vacates 9th Circuit’s approval of censorship of Christian students

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review of the appeal of a high school student represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund who was prohibited from wearing a T-shirt at school expressing his biblical views on homosexual behavior. The court then ruled 8 to 1 to vacate a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the student.

“Students simply do not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “Two 9th Circuit judges issued an extremely dangerous ruling last year, allowing a school to censor the Christian point of view, while permitting students to speak out in support of homosexual behavior. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court summarily eliminates that ruling, giving us much firmer footing in pursuing this case.”

….ADF attorneys are representing Chase Harper, a student at Poway High School who was prohibited by school officials from wearing a T-shirt expressing his religious point of view on homosexual behavior. A school administrator told Harper to “leave his faith in the car” when his faith might offend others. Harper’s younger sister Kelsie is also represented by ADF attorneys in the case…A copy of ADF’s writ of certiori petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in Harper v. Poway Unified School District can be read at Harper Petition.

A copy of today’s order vacating the 9th Circuit’s ruling can be read at Harper Supreme Court Order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 9th Circuit, which includes the state of California, more times than any of the other federal appellate circuits across the country.

Continue reading at Alliance Defense Fund… 

By Sonja Dalton

A gender confusion activist responds to the firing of a “transgendered” faculty member — a male now living/dressing as a woman — by a private Christian university:

Dr. Albert Mohler is quoted in Gender Issues at the Heart of Culture War (published Nov 23, 2004, by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) as saying:

“The issue of gender, in my estimation, is at the very center of the target of our secular age and postmodern world,” Mohler said. “It is also at the very center of the target of where we see theological accommodation is taking us, not only in the body of divinity, but also in the complex of the comprehensive truthfulness of God’s Word. What we are looking at here is an assault upon God’s glory.“

So, Danny Baker, we offer you a few examples of Scriptural authority that address “changing genders” and we pray that you will consider them soberly:

So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

— Genesis 1:27

The Bible describes a strict gender binary — only two sexes, male and female. God did not create a “FTM trans-male” and a “MTF trans-female” or a “genderqueer” or a “two-spirit” person. He created man and woman, and that is what He blessed.

Notice that Scripture says whoever — a completely inclusive term that leaves no room for justifying alternate behavior, even despite confused emotions, discomfort or dissatisfaction, or intense desire. This passage teaches that whoever (i.e., anyone, all, no matter who) cross-dresses, whoever mutilates their natural sexual organs in order to emulate the opposite sex, is an abomination to the LORD your God — not to “trans-phobic, hateful, judgmental Christians,” but to Jehovah God who created them.

After all, Christians are merely repentant sinners, formerly alienated, enemies of God ourselves, so how could we as redeemed sinners rightly look at another sinner as an abomination to us? No, we as Christians look with compassion, we warn of God’s impending final judgment, and we urgently invite all to share in the mercy which we ourselves so desperately need and for which we are so grateful: Come and see how Jesus Christ can transform your mind and your life!

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.

Excerpted from Transgender Professor Fights Dismissal at Christian School, published Feb 2007, by Associated Press:

Julie Nemecek has long, manicured fingernails and wears a blond wig, makeup and dangling earrings.

She’s also legally a man.

Julie, formerly John, says she gained a lot emotionally after starting to live openly as a woman in recent years — cross-dressing, getting hormone therapy and, a week ago, legally changing her name. But she lost something as well: her job.

Spring Arbor University, a small, evangelical Christian school…, fired the 55-year-old associate professor earlier this week…

In a recent statement, the school said: “Our curriculum integrates faith in all aspects of our liberal arts education, and we expect our faculty to model Christian character as an example for our students.”

…After the Nemeceks’ three grown sons moved out, John started researching gender issues in 2003. He was diagnosed with gender identity disorder, decided he could no longer live a lie and told his shocked wife.

Joanne, 55, didn’t know if she could stay in the marriage, especially when John wanted to transition further into living as a woman. She thought John’s lifestyle was sinful but eventually changed her mind after learning more about his condition…

Being Julie, however, hasn’t been easy.