Odd Gospel Coalition Article on Heterosexuality and Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
So many things wrong with this article, but this seems to be the direction that many evangelicals are heading in. The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality, however since the Bible condemns it, people who experience such attraction must remain celibate. While it is certainly good to encourage anyone who is not lawfully married (in God's eyes, not the state's) to practice abstinence, it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
So many things wrong with this article, but this seems to be the direction that many evangelicals are heading in. The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality, however since the Bible condemns it, people who experience such attraction must remain celibate. While it is certainly good to encourage anyone who is not lawfully married (in God's eyes, not the state's) to practice abstinence, it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree.

This was a short article, that makes sense. Sin is passed on. We all have various struggles. Some of us struggle with suicidal sin, some with pride, some with homosexual thoughts or feelings.

He did not say homosexuality is okay, the article explains that we can't just ensure that they won't struggle with any homosexual tendencies. We are going to struggle with sin as sinners and he's making the point that homosexuality is no different than other sins. You need support groups for homosexual lust just as much as regular lust. Sin is engrained in us out of the womb. We are born dead and that brings about sin issues, those issues come about over time and are different for everyone. This article does not condone homosexuality, but is just explaining these facts
 
Odd indeed. This statement, esp: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that same-sex attraction and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."

Hmm..let's try that with a little twist: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that adultery (or fornication/thievery/pride) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."

They DON'T mix. They are diametrically opposed. Godliness would not mix itself with sin. Full stop.

The wicked human heart, however, would like to think that they can mix.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the author?
 
Elizabeth said:
Odd indeed. This statement, esp: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that same-sex attraction and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."

Hmm..let's try that with a little twist: "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that adultery (or fornication/thievery/pride) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."

They DON'T mix. They are diametrically opposed. Godliness would not mix itself with sin. Full stop.

The wicked human heart, however, would like to think that they can mix.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the author?
Click to expand...

I think you are, if he were to rephrase it I'm pretty sure he would say something like, "It finally blew apart my wrong presumption that simply being tempted to sin (pride/fornication/thievery) and godliness, like oil and water, don’t ever mix."

That's his point, that the presence of temptation doesn't necessarily mean the absence of godliness.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
The narrative being pushed is that same-sex attraction is a biological reality... it is wrong to pretend that same sex attraction is natural or biological. Once you concede that homosexuality is a function of biology, then it will be in short order that biblical principles are pushed aside and the abstinence requirement dropped. After all, as Christians we cannot coherently divorce biology from the will of God, and so if same-sex attraction is indeed biological, then it can hardly be against the will of God.
Click to expand...

But since every aspect of man is corrupted by sin wouldn't that include our biology? I have no doubt that some people have a natural (in it's fallen sense) inclination to homosexuality even if this reason is sometimes overemphasised to the detriment of others. As long as we believe in a real Fall then I don't see the danger.
 
Some people are born with more of a prone-ness to addiction to drugs and alcohol or to depression. Identical twin studies don't seem to bear this out for homosexuality. But, if we grant the point - that some men are born with an effeminate disposition - than homosexual action is still no less sin, since our natures are fallen to begin with.
 
Yeah I have been noticing this trend in evangelicalism "Homosexuality is an orientation, there is no cure, just be celibate." It is unfortunate. I thought about this the other day. If a man oogles at a woman it is sin. Why is it not sin for a man to oogle a man? That's the vibe I get from those who think what I say above. They say temption is not a sin. They are correct but it I tend to read it as, at least according the context, that it is somehow ok to be attracted to men but not act on it i.e. sodomy.
Maybe I am wrong but, I that is how I have seen this latest trend.
 
Heinrich Heppe:
Meanwhile concupiscence must not be confused with the natural impulses, so far as God has created them and has willed their satisfaction: Bucan (XVI, 31): "Concupiscence is not, however, natural appetition for food, drink, procreation, and delight in the senses; in itself this is not sin, provided it is ordered and seeks after what is lawful. Nor movements of the heart so far as they are affections. Nor just αταξια of the appetitions. It is the propension of all the forces to do what is prohibited by the law of God, such as confusion or doubt in the mind about God and His providence; in the will and heart, contumacy against God."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
From the articles I've read, it seems like The Gospel Coalition is for the most part a competition to see who can most cleverly make criticizing reformed theology look like reformed theology.

Also, can we please declare a moratorium on "panels"?
 
Ephesians 5:22-33. "Godliness Is Heterosexuality."

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
 
Sin does not merely consist in the external act, but also in the vile disposition. Both are to be mortified. Shaw seems to convey that homosexual attraction (the disposition) is incurable; therefore, godliness consists in mere restraining of external actions. Is the grace of God not powerful to gradually purge even the disposition? Godliness consists in cleansing (through God's grace) both the nature and the deeds. Our sinful passions and their streams must be purified and mortified even if no great change is evident for some time and even if it crosses our wills and comfort.
 
This is no different than the Bible. People reading the authors intent into his article. Where questions arise about what he intends, instead of asking questions assumptions are made.

The point is obvious to me. With the godly you will still find homosexual thoughts. Period. Many great godly people will struggle in this way.

If this was about general lust I'm sure the general tone here would be different.

I see a trend as well. That Christians are starting to realize that you can struggle with homosexual lust as a Christian just as much as you can regular lust. Sure you shouldn't and we are called to be separate. But the whole point is Christians for a long time have put anyone actively struggling with anything homosexual in a class of non Christians, while those struggling with heterosexual lust are just put in a struggling Christian category. That's the point of this article and much of a trend going on. Realizing there is a balance.

I do see in our culture many are becoming accepting of homosexuality. That is completely wrong. Church's are starting to allow homosexuals to pastor (who have no intent of repenting). This is also wrong.

But I believe a far worse trend has happened for a long time. And it has truly been the mistreatment of unbelieving homosexuals, and the mistreatment of those who struggle with homosexuality. I don't know a single guy that would EVER feel comfortable sharing struggles with homosexuality. Because of the great mistrratment of this sin over our years.

We act like it's a switch and that once they give up "being gay" they don't struggle with homosexuality anymore.

There are several trends that have happened and will happen with homosexuality. But it seems very clear to me that the author was INTENDING to not defend homosexuality, but he intended to explain that we condemn any homosexual sttuggles to a far greater degree than hetero sexual struggles. To the point that authentic Christians are probably afraid, many even on this board now, I'm sure many are afraid to speak about these struggles due to the horrific attitude shown by the church towards homosexuals. Clearly we need to condemn sin, and help with struggling, but many will struggle with homosexuality their whole life (in a way. I use the word struggle because they aren't willingly submitting to it and are fighting it, similar to regular lust) and that's something many in the church do not understand.
 
James White remains controversial lately, but he gives a pretty full response to some problems with the article on today'd episode of his webcast. And in my opinion, there ARE problems.
 
rickclayfan said:
Sin does not merely consist in the external act, but also in the vile disposition. Both are to be mortified. Shaw seems to convey that homosexual attraction (the disposition) is incurable; therefore, godliness consists in mere restraining of external actions. Is the grace of God not powerful to gradually purge even the disposition? Godliness consists in cleansing (through God's grace) both the nature and the deeds. Our sinful passions and their streams must be purified and mortified even if no great change is evident for some time and even if it crosses our wills and comfort.
Click to expand...

Basically wha I was getting at but, you said it better.
 
The article cited in the OP is an extract from a book. Having just read the extract, the author appears to be attacking something of a straw-man. I have never heard anyone argue that godliness was merely heterosexuality. Does anyone seriously think that adulterous heterosexuality is godliness? Of course not.

By using the term "same-sex attraction" the author has created a lot of unnecessary confusion. It is not a sin for someone to be tempted by homosexuality. It is, however, a sin for someone to indulge in homosexual thoughts, just as it is also a sin to indulge in thoughts concerning heterosexual activity with someone other than one's spouse (assuming, of course, that the person is married; if the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful). The long and the short of it is that same-sex attraction is sinful, and the best way to stop that sin breaking out into external actions is to mortify such thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter said:
The article cited in the OP is an extract from a book. Having just read the extract, the author appears to be attacking something of a straw-man. I have never heard anyone argue that godliness was merely heterosexuality. Does anyone serious think that adulterous heterosexuality is godliness? Of course not.

By using the term "same-sex attraction" the author has created a lot of unnecessary confusion. It is not a sin for someone to be tempted by homosexuality. It is, however, a sin for someone to indulge in homosexual thoughts, just as it is also a sin to indulge in thoughts concerning heterosexual activity with someone other than one's spouse (assuming, of course, that the person is married; if the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful). The long and the short of it is that same-sex attraction is sinful, and the best way to stop that sin breaking out into external actions is to mortify such thoughts.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly heard people argue that same sex attraction is not sin. I do not understand how we can hold such a position. How can a desire that is so clearly unnatural and disordered be considered anything but sinful.
 
Zach Rohman said:
But I believe a far worse trend has happened for a long time. And it has truly been the mistreatment of unbelieving homosexuals, and the mistreatment of those who struggle with homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Brother, are you being fair? Are you using just weights and balances? Is it fair to say, on the whole, that those in the church mistreat believing or unbelieving homosexuals? What do you mean by "mistreat"? I, for example, do not think preaching the plain sense of Romans 1 is mistreatment. I do not think calling homosexuals to repentance is mistreatment; it is quite the opposite.

When someone is assailed by heterosexual lust, you show them compassion and help them in their fight against transgressing the 7th Commandment in word, thought, or deed. When someone is assailed by homosexual lust, you show them compassion and help them in their fight against transgressing the 7th and the 3rd Commandment, because within this lust is an assault against God's created order. If unchecked, this lust will attempt to un-say what God has said concerning sexuality, as we see in the article from TGC.

But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
1 Corinthians 11:31-32
 
James 1:12-15 (ESV)
12*Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13*Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14*But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15*Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

I think the notion of biological or therapeutic man has so captivated our thinking that we use terms that the Scriptures do not use.

What if I said that some of the most holy men I know are attracted to p0rn?

What do I mean by that? Do I mean that, in their hearts, they desire to look at p0rn constantly but they are holy enough to overcome it?

Rosaria Butterfield has given some very excellent lectures. You can find a recent series of lectures she gave at First Pres in Columbia on their Sermon Audio site: http://bit.ly/1N1sjGo

I'm not going to speak for her but I do want to synthesize some points she and many others have made.

In Ancient Greece there were those who practiced homosexuality but they did not consider it to be identity. They were considered acts.

Today we have a situation in which we speak of "gender identity" or "homosexuality" as that which a person is. We are not what we desire and we are not what we practice. We are men and women, created in the image of God, who have desires and commit acts. This foundational Biblical anthropology must be at the fore of any discussion.

What is a "same sex attracted Christian"? For that matter what is a "heterosexual Christian"? We are not what we are attracted to or what we desire.

Let me say that it grieves me that the author seems to downplay a parent's desire that their children would not struggle with a sexual sin. It is a legitimate question for a parent to ask: "How might I help my child grow in such a way that he might avoid being (as James writes) lured and enticed by his own desire? Do we have nothing to say other than "...well if if turns out the desires he is enticed by are homosexual desires then that is OK because he can still lead a Godly life...."

The excerpt seems to resign itself to the idea that a desire is inherent to the individual. It seems to suggest that parents must resign themselves that certain desires are unavoidable for certain people and its best to just figure out how to be Godly in spite of those desires that will be permanently attached to that individual.

One of the most helpful things that I heard Rosaria say in one of those lectures that resonates with themes from Owen's works on Sin and Temptation is the notion that we are called to a life of dying to our sin and turning to Christ.

What many Christians are looking for is therapeutic healing. Don't get me wrong, if God can heal us from something then that's fantastic. Nevertheless, we often approach sin and temptation with the idea that sin will only go away when God heals us so that we no longer experience temptation.

That's not the way the Scriptures teach us.

We are to put to death un-Godly desires. We are to starve them out and kill them. Yes, I acknowledge that there are people that will have desires for homosexuality but, as Owen wrote: "Be killing sin or it will be killing you."

Frank admission here but I used to struggle much, much more with what seemed like uncontrollable lust. It was Owen's work that helped me see that battle. I cannot take desire into my identity and then ask God to sanctify that desire-ridden identity. I need to see sin for what it is: that which competes for my affection and tempts me to sin and I must put it to death in my thoughts and in my members and cry out to Christ: "I am united to you Christ! You died to sin and put its power to death! I am not a slave to sin but have been united to Your indestructible life. Help me in this time of need to put this desire to death!"

I do not let my guard down for a moment. I do not take that sin into my identity that I might learn to cope with it.

I KILL IT! By the power of Christ I hate it and kill it. I kill it because IT IS NOT ME. I am Christ's and this desire does not belong.

I will never be "healed" of the necessity to put sin to death. That does not mean that I am resigned to being a {insert desire here} Christian. It simply means that whatever desires come, I know that I am Christ's and so I die every day to sin and turn to Christ in faith.

"Same sex attraction" is a desire. We need to stop treating it as an identity or we will not be able to place it within the context of that which must be daily put to death along with other aspects of indwelling sin.
 
In response to your position that those with homosexual struggles are treated as though they have a worse sin than those with heterosexual struggles -

does not not fit Scripture?

By this I mean, a man and woman fornicating, under OT law, could repent by marrying. A man having sex with a man was to be put to death. So, we see degrees of sin.

So I wonder if it is actually appropriate that homosexual urges/behaviors are treated as worse than heterosexual urges/behaviors?
 
"f the person is not married any indulging of thoughts concerning sexual activity with another person is sinful)."

I wonder how this can be true. Does a man never consider a woman in a sexual manner before he proposes marriage? It is a huge part of marriage.
 
Many evangelicals like to say that "Homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins." Or they will say gay lust or gay acts are bad, but so is hetero lust or hetero fornication.

However, Romans 1 seems to say that this state is not merely sin, but also a judgment upon sin - i.e., qualitatively worse. "Therefore God gave them up..."

Sodom and Gomorrah remain as examples of great sin.

And in the OT, there seems to be a gradation of sins, such that homosexuality is listed in the first tier:

Leviticus 20 lists homosexual practice among a first tier of sexual offenses (adultery, the worst forms of incest, and bestiality; 20:10-16) that are worse than a second tier of sexual offenses (20:17-21). In Leviticus 18, although in the concluding summary (Lev 18.26-27, 29-30) all the sexual offenses in Lev 18 are collectively labeled “abominations,” “abhorrent” or “detestable acts” (to’evoth), only man-male intercourse in 18:22 (and 20:13) is specifically tagged with the singular to’evah. Outside the Holiness Code in Lev 17-24 the term is normally used for various severe moral offenses (not merely acts of ritual uncleanness), including occasionally homosexual practice (Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 14:24; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; probably also Ezek 33:26).
Click to expand...

I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a land, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.


Here is a good link:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/is_homosexual_practice_no_worse.htm
 
"I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a land, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other."-Perg

Well said. Romans 1 places the acceptance of homosexuality at the end of the judgment process, in its final throes, and not at the beginning.
 
Pergamum said:
Many evangelicals like to say that "Homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins." Or they will say gay lust or gay acts are bad, but so is hetero lust or hetero fornication.

However, Romans 1 seems to say that this state is not merely sin, but also a judgment upon sin - i.e., qualitatively worse. "Therefore God gave them up..."

Sodom and Gomorrah remain as examples of great sin.

And in the OT, there seems to be a gradation of sins, such that homosexuality is listed in the first tier:

Leviticus 20 lists homosexual practice among a first tier of sexual offenses (adultery, the worst forms of incest, and bestiality; 20:10-16) that are worse than a second tier of sexual offenses (20:17-21). In Leviticus 18, although in the concluding summary (Lev 18.26-27, 29-30) all the sexual offenses in Lev 18 are collectively labeled “abominations,” “abhorrent” or “detestable acts” (to’evoth), only man-male intercourse in 18:22 (and 20:13) is specifically tagged with the singular to’evah. Outside the Holiness Code in Lev 17-24 the term is normally used for various severe moral offenses (not merely acts of ritual uncleanness), including occasionally homosexual practice (Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 14:24; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; probably also Ezek 33:26).
Click to expand...

I think we would do well to acknowledge that where homosexuality is celebrated in a land, this is a particular evidence of God's judgment and not just another sin, just like any other.


Here is a good link:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/is_homosexual_practice_no_worse.htm
Click to expand...

The fact that homosexuality is worse, although not in any way downplaying fornication, is because it is more clearly against nature and the revelation of the One Triune God in nature, in particular, in mankind. His making man male and female is an echo of both the unity and plurality in the Godhead which plurality homosexuality deliberately traduces.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Zach Rohman said:
We act like it's a switch and that once they give up "being gay" they don't struggle with homosexuality anymore.
Click to expand...

It will create more of a struggle if the normality of heterosexuality is not accepted. Godliness is not merely concerned with departing from evil; it is also concerned with doing good. A professing Christian who was "once" an homosexual ("such WERE some of you") should now be seeking to walk in the straight and narrow, accept God's norms for his life, and discipline himself to walk accordingly, while regarding deviation as a cause for grief and sorrow. The article in question essentially undermines the normality of heterosexuality as a "good" which God calls us to pursue, and seeks to procure some degree of tolerance towards homosexuality by reducing the abnormality of it. That tolerance meanwhile will undoubtedly suppress the moral persuasion to fight against it and leave the individual without any reason to resist it.
 
I think Peter Jones effectively argues that homosexuality is a natural progression of man's worship of himself. Once the "binary" of the Creator/creature distinction is denied and man brings his "god" down within the creation then reality becomes singular. In a set of lectures he points out that pagan religions have always had homosexual or androgynous priests. The acceptance of sameness in sexual relations ought to be seen as an outgrowth of a pagan cosmology.

One thing you hear quite frequently these days is that we need to eliminate "binary" thinking.

Rejecting God and man leads to a rejection of male and female, right and wrong.

We are told, are we not, that we need to stop thinking of "gender binaries".
 
Semper Fidelis said:
One thing you hear quite frequently these days is that we need to eliminate "binary" thinking.
Click to expand...

My response to that kind of talk (which is prevalent among social workers) is sometimes (when I'm on a roll), "try thinking in terms of polarity, then. There is no order in creation without some kind of polarity: proton/electron, cation/anion, stamen/pistil, north/south, nut/bolt, plug/receptacle, and so on. Your car wouldn't run without polar complementaries. Your electronic device absolutely needs plus/minus; on/off. Your plumbing has male and female fittings. You wouldn't even be able to digest food without the enzymes having a complementary form that mirrors the proteins. If you want to give up zeros and ones, have at it, but don't give up boy and girl, or the universe collapses!"

People usually walk away smiling defensively at the poor man. But at least they don't bring up that blasted "binary thinking" nonsense again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
The Puritans, Assurance, and Critiques From the Gospel Coalition
2
Replies
52
Views
11K
ChristianTrader
ChristianTrader
M
  • Locked
Homosexuality and Election
Replies
8
Views
2K
Beoga
Beoga
Scott Shahan
  • Locked
Martin Luther and Homosexuality
Replies
13
Views
7K
Scott Shahan
Scott Shahan
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
  • Locked
Homosexuality
Replies
3
Views
3K
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
fredtgreco
  • Locked
Excellent article on Concupiscence and its application
Replies
3
Views
877
Alan D. Strange
Alan D. Strange
Back
Top