The Tale of Two Emails...

After having gone through one of the most difficult ordeals of my life and ministry career, I have had a little bit of time to evaluate the experience. For me, it is best explained in two different emails that I received. Honestly, I am not entirely sure of how many emails I received about the events related to the protests of our church and my message on homosexuality, but I know for a fact it was well over 2,000 emails.

One of those emails was by far the worst thing I have ever read in my whole life. And I am not referring to the threatening emails I received. This particular email finds itself in a place of infamy for me. If there ever was a way to convert fecal matter into text form, I believe the author of this email had discovered how to do it.

I cannot share with you the content of the email because not only is it pornographic in nature (and, by the way, I received several emails that were nothing but pornographic images of homosexual sex) but it was the most vile filth I have ever even heard of. Honestly, I should not be, but I was really surprised at the depths of depravity that were in this message that had one intent...to hurt and shock me.

You see that email represented the vast majority of the hate messages I have received for speaking out against homosexuality. What happened was the bully in the school yard wanted to take my lunch money. But the best thing you can do with a bully is to face him head on.

The homosexual activists decided that they wanted to intimidate and punish me. They wanted to make an example of me so that there would not be another preacher in the state (and country perhaps) that would ever dare speak out against homosexuality in a public way again. So I received threats, vitriol and a barrage of angry hate messages that were literally overwhelming.

Another email I received was from a young man who took pains to articulately describe his life-long struggle with homosexuality. He described how nothing ever quite seemed right unless he found himself in the embrace of another man. But he knew always that it was wrong.

He told me that he had given up hope of ever being able to quit the homosexual lifestyle until only a couple weeks ago. He had began to feel like the Lord was literally calling him out of this lifestyle. He shared that he knew God was urging him to turn his back on homosexuality...but he was still waffling with the decision.

He said one evening that he was watching the evening news when he saw a story about a local church that had caused a stir because of the sign message. Then he saw the picture of the sign that said: Gay is not okay. He wrote me these words, "Pastor, if no one else tells you this, I want you to know that your sign helped me to know that I was supposed to leave this life of sin. Gay is not okay. God wants me to live for Him and not for me anymore."

I have to tell you, church, I would do it all over again for this one dear soul! Every hate-filled message I received, everything that the protesters intended for my detriment, God used to reach this precious soul! To God be the glory in all things!

Arguments I've Heard Recently Favoring Homosexuality

Let me start out by saying that contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is not only right about the issue of homosexuality even though it's teachings may be old...they are obviously VERY relevant to this current fallen culture. I am not a fearful homophobe clinging to God and my guns, I am a rational Christian who does not accept the terms of the current debate over homosexuality and its acceptance as normative in our day and age.

Those in support of the acceptance of homosexuality have stated that Bible is not clear in it's view of homosexuals. On the contrary, I believe it couldn't be any more clear.

The Law of Moses said, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; c.f 20:13). The Old Testament (OT) also condemns "sodomites," which were male temple prostitutes (I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7).

The New Testament is just as clear on this issue as is the Old Testament. In the first chapter of Romans Paul wrote of the many evils mankind has engaged in while suppressing the knowledge of God that He has revealed to them (Romans 1:18-21), one of which was homosexuality. Paul plainly declared: "Because of this [the suppression of truth resulting in idolatry] God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27, NIV). Although homosexuality is not named as such here, the act of homosexuality is clearly described. It was in judgment that God allowed men and women to have sexual relations with the same sex, and they received in themselves their due punishment for such indecent acts.

While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10, NET).

In a recent email debate, a person arguing for homosexuality said to me, "Jesus does talk about those who are victims of prejudice like the Samaritans, and those who are marginalized and rejected like the lepers, but he never says a word about anyone's sexual orientation. Perhaps as a church leaderyou should contemplate the possibility that they are, as one man once suggested, 'making much of that which cannot matter much to God.' "

This argument fails on two grounds. First, the major premise of the argument is flawed. The argument goes like this:

P1 Any issue Jesus is silent on must be morally acceptable
P2 Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is morally acceptable

Is it true that any issue Jesus did not speak to is to be considered morally acceptable? A cursory reflection on the notion reveals that this is not a true premise. Jesus did not speak to the issue of incest, rape, drug abuse, wife beating, and gay-bashing. Are we to conclude that these acts are morally good? Clearly not. We cannot determine the moral nature of an act by the mere observation that Jesus did not address the issue. Jesus did not speak to every moral issue there is to speak to.

Secondly, from the Christian perspective what is moral or immoral is not based solely on what Jesus said or did not say. While we are very interested in what Jesus had to say, we use Scripture as a whole to determine how God feels about various moral issues. When we examine the whole of Scripture we find a very clear portrait of God's take on homosexuality.

This comprehensive approach to morality makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview for two reasons:

1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. This means that every word in the Bible is equally authoritative. The teachings of one individual in one book cannot be given more weight than another individual's teaching in another book. Jesus' words hold no more authority than Paul's or Moses'

2. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The same God who spoke in the OT is the same God who became man in the face of Jesus Christ. It would be a mistake, then, to argue that since Jesus did not speak against homosexuality that God is not concerned with the issue, for it is clear that God did speak to the issue.

I have also had individuals tell me to my face that the sin of Sodom was due to the inhospitality and NOT the sexual perversion rampant in the city. I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this notion, because I am not aware of any. While it is true that Sodom was not judged only for its immorality (Ezekiel 16:49-50), from the Biblical narrative it is clearly the main reason. Jude 7, for one, makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual perversion. The focus of the Genesis narrative is their sexual perversion as well.

Besides, the inhospitality that the men of Sodom exhibited toward the visiting angels could not have been the cause of their destruction because God had determined to destroy Sodom prior to this incident.

Furthermore, while Biblical scholars and historians recognize that inhospitality was much more serious in the Ancient Near East than it is to Westerners today, do we really believe that God would destroy two whole cities for having bad manners? What could explain God's execution of mass capital punishment on these people? Amazingly enough we find in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality was deserving of the death penalty. There is no prohibition in the OT against inhospitality, yet alone death as a prescribed form of judgment against it. The argument of inhospitality is further weakened by the fact that the inhospitality of the Sodomites is only implied in Genesis 19. The only thing explicitly stated in the text is the Sodomites' homosexual behavior. It would only make sense that this was made explicit to highlight why it was that God had determined to destroy these wicked cities.

It has been argued with me that if Christians wish to take the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality seriously, they also need to take its prescription for punishment seriously: death. The fact that Christians do not believe homosexuals ought to be put to death indicates that we do not consider the Biblical teaching on homosexuality to be entirely authoritative, and thus have no basis on which to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is authoritative either. I believe that is the gist of your argument.

This argument fails on two grounds: logical, Biblical. From a logical perspective, at best such a point would only demonstrate that Christians are inconsistent in their application of the Biblical teaching. The real problem, however, is Biblical.

The Bible is clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. While there are some similarities between the two covenants, this is not one of them. The Law of Moses was a contract between God and Israel to govern their life in the land of Canaan, both spiritually and politically (a theocratic kingdom).

The New Covenant serves an entirely different purpose. The New Covenant governs our spirituality, not our politics. While the New Testament is clear that God has ordained human government to punish evil and commend the good (Romans 13:1-7) it does not speak to how that punishment ought to be carried out for particular moral crimes, or the degree of punishment. It would seem that those decisions are given to the state. It is clear, however, that under the New Covenant sins are not punished in the same way they were under the Mosaic Covenant because the New Covenant is a spiritual, not a political-social covenant.

It would be a mistake, then, to say that as a Christian, I am not obeying my own Scripture, or being arbitrary in what parts of the Bible I keep. Each passage of Scripture must be evaluated within its historical and covenantal context, and be applied appropriately.

Not all commands in Scripture apply equally for all people and all times (but are specific to a covenant), whereas others do. For example, while I am not obligated to build an ark, I am obligated to abstain from murder. Christians do not believe in exercising capital punishment for homosexuality because we are not under the covenant that once prescribed such a punishment. Christians are not ignoring those Old Testament passages, but are properly interpreting them within their context and applying them appropriately. The same goes for the dietary laws, and the garment laws that are typically referenced in this dicussion as well(Romans 14:1-7, 20; See Galatians 3:19-26; 4:8-12; Colossians 2:14-17).

I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, if not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.

"Gay" Christian?

I was so saddened to read the article in Christianity Today about Christian music artist, Jennifer Knapp, admit that she's a lesbian. You can read the article HERE. One of the assertions made in the article, by Knapp herself, is that she is a Christian who just happens to be gay.

By the way, she isn't the first person in the Christian music industry to do this either. Ray Boltz admitted he was gay in September 2008. Of course, this came out only after a horrible divorce from his wife and deep hurt to his grown children. (But that's not as sweet a story, so we'll just skip over that detail.)

After cleaning up my playlist on my iPod and trashing my Kansas CD (Knapp's best album, in my opinion), I thought about the idea...can I be "gay" (stolen word) AND a Christian? Can I practice deviant sexual behavior and still rest assured in my salvation?

Well, let me start off by saying that I am not a very PC guy. I don't try (or care) to not offend someone's sensibilities. If something is true, it is true. Why sugar-coat it?

Jesus didn't (i.e. - Matthew 7:23)So why should I? By the way, the verse I referenced there, was in the closing section of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is addressing those people who claim they know Him...but don't really know Him. He is addressing people who say (or sing maybe) that they love Him, but don't. It is a pretty hard passage.

So with that in mind, my answer is: HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?! Have we become so open-minded that our brains have fallen out?

Of course you cannot continue to sin sexually (or any other manner) in a habitual way and expect God to be okay with it. He's not. His holiness demands reflective holiness from us (1 Peter 1:16).

I would tell a married man who was cheating on his wife that he better not expect to think he's on the highway to heaven continuing to lead that kind of lifestyle...nor would I tell a woman who thinks she can be in a lesbian relationship and still maintain solid faith in Christ. You can't.

Darkness doesn't coexist with light. What is so horrible about calling homosexuality sin? Why has that become taboo?

The Word of God has not changed. Our culture hasn't attained some new enlightened level of sexual awareness. We have simply devolved into the same old sins of our forefathers. We are becoming more and more like the days of Noah when every man did what was right in his own eye (or every "Christian" artist did what was right in their eye).

By the way, if you read the article, Jennifer Knapp admits she doesn't go to church. Although, it probably wouldn't be hard for her to find one that would wholeheartedly approve of her lifestyle choice (oh, pardon me, if our culture is correct then she never had a choice in the matter...she was DNA-destined to be a lesbian).

Here's the cold, hard truth. Sin separates us from God. The more of sin we adopt, the farther from Him we find ourselves. You cannot call good what God has called sin. Homosexuality isn't any worse than any other sexual sin. It all leads us away from God and Christ, and if we are never brought off that road...we are just another statistic on a very wide road (Matthew 7:13).

Are the issues that homosexuals face on par with civil rights issues?

This is a question that has been getting asked a lot lately. I have had this particular side of the argument used many times by advocates of same sex marriage (even in the comment threads on this blog).

So to phrase the question properly: Are homosexuals an oppressed minority that should have the same civil rights extended to them regarding the homosexuality as other minorities?

Homosexuals are seeking not only to affect public policy, but also to determine the terms of the debate. The more the homosexual community is able to construe the issue of homosexuality and public policy along the lines of "civil rights," the more success it seems to have in achieving its agenda.

There are several things wrong with regarding homosexuality as a civil right. First, the law already protects the civil rights of citizens. Homosexuals now enjoy these civil rights as everyone else does. It is true that individual homosexuals have had certain rights deprived at times (just as anybody could), and it may be because of their homosexuality, but this is nothing that the law does not already address.

For example, it is already against the law to beat someone up. If a homosexual is beaten up by someone who hates homosexuals, the offending party is already culpable by law. To extend protection to a homosexual on the basis of his homosexuality is unnecessary and unfair.

One's behavior should not be the subject of civil rights laws. With the new onslaught of potential hate crimes legislation being proposed before Congress, we are potentially going to be saying that it is more brutal to beat up a 22 year old homosexual than a 92 year old lady. I say, both crimes are equally evil and wrong. But with the hate crimes legislation, it would add more weight for the one perpetrating a crime against a homosexual. That puts a class distinction on victims. That is wrong.

Homosexuality is not a benign factor like race. It is a behavior and a choice...no matter how hard those who are homosexuals stomp their feet and say it wasn't a choice. That's precisely what it is.

Also the criteria to judge whether or not a group is an oppressed minority do not apply to the homosexual community. Tony Marco, in his book Special Class Protection for Gays: A Question of Behavior and Consequences, notes the three criteria that the Supreme Court established in awarding special protected status:

1. There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education or cultural opportunity. This certainly does not apply to homosexuals. Homosexuals have an average annual income that is $20,000 more than the general population. More than three times as many homosexuals are college graduates than average Americans. Three times as many homosexuals as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions...some 65% of homosexuals are overseas travelers - four times the national average.

2. Protected classes should exhibit obvious immutable, or distinguishable characteristics like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete group. It should be clear that this does not apply to the homosexual community.

3. Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. Again, it should be clear from the impact that the lobbying arm of the homosexual community is having across the nation currently. Our recent ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court makes this a mute point. The homosexual community is far from being politically powerless.

There is no one who can rightfully argue that homosexuals should be a protected class using the very criteria that our Supreme Court used. But I believe that it isn't merely acceptance and tolerance that is the true spirit of the homosexual agenda. I believe that they are fully intent on silencing anyone who would question their lifestyle. That, I think, is the end goal.

Rick Warren Waffling on Same-Sex Marriage

I have to be honest, I have very high regard for Rick Warren. I respect him and admire his love for the church. But he has been called in to serious question lately concerning his position on same-sex marriage. And his appearance on Larry King Live the other night did NOT help his case. Watch the video...

It is sad when pastors begin to sound like politicians. What people need from our pulpits is a CLEAR statment of truth. Hear me, small church guy, say it as loudly and clearly as I can: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS WRONG! That is something I will never change my position on. In fact, I'd be willing to be thrown into jail on this one.