Editorial By David Kowalski
“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” (John 15:19 NASB)
– Article continues below ad –
Atlanta Pastor Louie Giglio’s socially forced choice not to deliver the inaugural prayer is, I believe, a kind of watershed moment in North American culture. The great controversy over Giglio regards a sermon he delivered 15-20 years ago in which he observed that the Bible says homosexual conduct is unnatural and sinful.
In the sermon, Giglio declared God’s love for homosexuals and challenged church members to love homosexuals and invite them to church. For this, he has been labeled “Anti-Gay Pastor Louie Giglio.” The news media has portrayed Giglio as “homophobic” and “backward.” A Washington Post article stated, “President Obama should not have to share the stage with him.”
No one has accused Giglio of harming homosexuals or of trying to deny them rights. The gay and lesbian agenda has not been over actual rights for quite some time. Homosexuals can do as they please, work where they want, and live anywhere they like. The battle now is over popular thinking — we must not think homosexuality is a sin, as they find this insulting.
Thought control can never be even handed. One group must prevail over others in order to assume the role of Thought Czar. The current, anti-Evangelical, locus of thought control is evident in what is not excoriated in the Giglio affair — the insulting, verbal absuse of Giglio which calls him anti-gay, homophobic, and backward; as well as the public declaration that Obama should not have to even share the same stage with such a vermin. These thoughts are well tolerated but Bible-believing ones are not. Passages such as the following are no longer politically correct:
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:26-27 NASB)
“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, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB)
“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Timothy 1:8-11 NASB)
The meaning of these texts is perfectly clear. The kind of hermeneutics employed by some interpreters to explain away such passages would be scoffed at by the entire, academic community if the homosexual agenda were not involved. In a 1993 article in Bibliotheca Sacra, (150: 599: 327-340), David E. Malick takes a close and fair-minded look at each of the attempts to dismiss the modern relevance of Romans 1:26-27. He concludes as follows:
A contextual and exegetical examination of Romans 1:26–27 reveals that attempts by some contemporary writers to do away with Paul’s prohibitions against present-day same-sexrelations are false. Paul did not impose Jewish customs and rules on his readers; instead he addressed same-sex relations from the transcultural perspective of God’s created order. God’s punishment for sin is rooted in a sinful reversal of the created order. Nor was homosexuality simply a sin practiced by idolaters in Paul’s day; it was a distorting consequence of the fall of the human race in the Garden of Eden. Neither did Paul describe homosexual acts by heterosexuals. Instead he wrote that homosexual activity was an exchange of the created order (heterosexuality) for a talionic perversion (homosexuality), which is never presented in Scripture as an acceptable norm for sexuality. Also Hellenistic pederasty does not fully account for the terms and logic of Romans 1:26–27 which refers to adult-adult mutuality.Therefore it is clear that in Romans 1:26–27 Paul condemned homosexuality as a perversion of God’s design for human sexual relations. (p. 340 [see link at the bottom of this post])
It should go without saying that Christians must love homosexuals and have kind interactions with them (contra the Westboro crowd). We should befriend homosexuals and show that we like them. We cannot, however, deny what God has clearly said about homosexual conduct. If the world hates us for agreeing with God, we cannot help that.
Like Louie Giglio, I am pro-gay in the sense that I want the very best for homosexuals both now and for eternity. I want them to experience the same life-changing power of salvation that this filthy sinner was graciously given from above 37 years ago. There is, however, no salvation without the saving truth. It would be quite cruel to refuse to tell the truth on this most important topic when such serious consequences are at stake. Let the world have its inaugural prayers; we have more important business to tend to, and we don’t need their ceremonies to pray.
“The business of truth is not to be deserted even to the sacrifice of our lives, for we live not for this age of ours, nor for the princes, but for the Lord.” — Ulrich Zwingli
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle front besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.– Martin Luther
David E. Malick’s article on Romans 1: 26-27 can be found at http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bsac/romans_malick.pdf
See slso Malick’s examination of the condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bsac/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf
© Copyright 2013, David Kowalski. All rights reserved. Links to this post are encouraged. Do not repost or republish without permission.