I confess that my talents don’t run toward brevity. In case some of yours do, especially in controversy and debate with those confused and untaught on the view of Scripture and Christian tradition on homosexuality, I’d appreciate your help in my helping a former parishioner, who some years ago moved away.
This former parishioner remembers what he heard in my pulpit regarding the Bible and the homosexual agenda, and he just called me asking for (in essence) a cribsheet which he could use to assist a colleague. The colleague will attend a meeting of what sounds like a group of confused evangelicals who are upset that their church governing board has approved the use of the church facilities for a gay wedding later this year.
My former parishioner is not a member of this congregation and has no dog in their hunt. However, he does wish to give aid and advice from a bona fide Biblical, orthodox Christian perspective on homosexuality.
Perhaps what I wish to offer him is going to be inadequate (in the totality of this controversy), but that thing is (for this purpose only) something like a crib-sheet which he can use to counsel and prep one of his colleagues who will attend this meeting.
I’ll so in search of such myself, but I thought I remembered someone saying something somewhere about safety being found with a multitude of counselors. Sanityille seems like a good gathering of such.
And, so, if you’re aware of something already on the net (blog post, apologetics site, whatever) that sounds like it might fit the bill, please drop a link here and I’ll share them with my former parishioner.
Actually somewhat related, but not really, the Pentecostal Prime Minister of Australia has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition if he thinks gay people will go to hell, and this in the week leading up to the Federal Elections.
The PM might be able to use the same crib sheet! Considering the highest scoring rugby player in Australia has been drummed out of the World Cup and will likely lose his job for an Instagram post based closely on 1 Cor 6:9-11, the PM has been put in a difficult position.
I don’t know, some guys wrote a book that’s pretty good, called The Grace of Shame. You might have heard of it… Especially the first few chapters gave me a lot of ammo.
You might take a look at the Declaration of Doctrine and Policies Concerning Sexuality available here. Churches joining Evangel Presbytery are adopting this statement. It has 27 points; here are the first two:
“In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. God created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.”[1] God formed the first male, Adam, from the dust of the ground. He made the first female, Eve, from Adam’s rib[2] and presented her to Adam to be his helpmeet. Adam called his wife “Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”[3] God named the race adam after the first man Adam.[4]
From the beginning, God gave Adam authority over Eve and responsibility for her. This authority and responsibility are inseparably joined together. Eve was created to be a “help meet” for Adam,[5] that is, a help fitting for Adam. God’s decree of father-rule is the necessary outworking of the authority over Eve and responsibility for her that He placed on Adam. Man is to love and take responsibility for woman by leading her and laying down his life for her, providing a living illustration of Christ’s sacrificial leadership of His Bride, the Church. This estate of male responsibility and authority is not a consequence of the Fall, but was ordained by God in the beginning: “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”[6] God’s subordination of the woman to man in no way diminishes the woman’s perfect equality with man in essence, worth, and honor.
Yeah, interestingly it seems like a super-simple crib sheet is impossible when the understanding of sexuality and its deepness is lost in the culture.
It used to be the sheet could simply say “Here are the Bible passages that make clear that homosexuality is a terrible sin.” At that point, the implications would have been understood about allowing your church house to be used for such a thing. It would have been understood to be similar to the idea of allowing your church house to be used for animal sacrifice. Today, the response, at best, would be, “You and I know it’s a sin, but we’re just trying to be loving.”
Thanks to all for your suggestions. Some are very helpful reminders; others confirm and encourage me that what I was considering is, indeed, something on the right track.
Ach. This has been heavily impressed upon me since I spoke with this fellow yesterday afternoon! As he describes these people, who properly and rightly sense that participating in a homosexual-affirming activity is evil, they are nevertheless utterly untaught (deliberately so by their leaders) on all the reasons not to do this, and the consequences of going ahead anyway . . . well, the prospect of actually turning hearts in this meeting are exceedingly dim. My prayers for it amount to asking the Lord to lodge some points of His truth in some of their hearts, to the end that they may sprout later.
Again, thanks to all the suggestions, and any others that may come in.
This doesn’t really count as a crib sheet, as it’s really a little too long for that, but this debate is one I found particularly helpful.
Two things that make it helpful, at least for me:
The postive argument for Biblical Sexuality was excellent, and started with Jesus’ words on marriage, which is always the best place to start.
The answers and refutations of the most popular (so-called) Biblical arguments for homosexuality give a person a good basis for having those conversations in real life.
I’m going to recommend that the fellow who does have a dog in this particular hunt view this video, an example of a debate on the topic. If he takes notes, it should “prep” him to relate to the debate that will likely take place later this week. Thanks for this.
I don’t have time to find a top-notch, succinct statement of her argument, but my wife and I have been reading Nancy Pearcey’s book Love Thy Body recently and are finding it to be immensely helpful. Tim Challie’s does offer a skeleton form of her argument here: Love Thy Body | Tim Challies
The world around us neglects the core unity of human beings and instead divides us into two-tiered beings. “Christianity holds that body and soul together form an integrated unity—that the human being is an embodied soul. By contrast, personhood theory entails a two-level dualism that sets the body against the person, as though they were two separate things merely stuck together. As a result, it demeans the body as extrinsic to the person—something inferior that can be used for purely pragmatic purposes.”
Essentially, she argues that non-Christians believe “they” are who they are based on subjective thoughts in their heads and their objective bodies (produced by random evolution) are irrelevant whereas Christians have an actual respect for the body as we find it (based on the principle it was designed and has telos). We were initially introduced to her argument in this episode of the Sheologians, and I think it really has good power to surprise and speak to people with whom we agree about almost nothing: Engaging the Culture with Nancy Pearcey - Sheologians
As she pointed out about the apologetic force of the argument in the interview I linked to (I’m paraphrasing), non-Christians love to tout their adherence to scientific fact and their respect for nature, and on this topic, all of these arguments work out in our favor. So you can use their words and instincts to quickly undermine their beliefs in a way they can understand without doing too much initial spadework.