Tag: homosexuality

Deeper Waters 10/5/2013 Robert Gagnon

What’s coming up this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Dr. Gagnon will be my guest and is an informed speaker on this area, having written the book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.” This is one of the most thorough works if not the most thorough (And certainly the most thorough I’ve read) on the matter of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Gagnon doesn’t even begin with Scripture but rather begins with the ancient society that the people of the Bible lived in. How was homosexuality viewed in their culture? What did the other societies do in relation to homosexuals or even to simple accusations of homosexuality? How did Israel behave in comparison to them?

Then, there’s the looking at the biblical texts and even texts that some people would think at the start have nothing to do with homosexuality. Does the story of Noah being shamed by his son have anything to do with homosexuality? It just might.

Of course, there is then time spent on accounts like Sodom and Gomorrah and looking at any argument against that being about homosexuality that can be found. Certainly, Gagnon takes us through the arguments of the holiness code in Leviticus and argues why it should be treated as a prohibition and explains why eating shellfish would not fall in the same category.

What about the writings of Jews outside of the Bible? Gagnon also looks at the positions of Philo and Josephus for instance to see what they say. Now some could say “Well Jesus never says anything about it?” According to Gagnon, Jesus in fact does say something about it and we’ll be definitely looking at that this Saturday.

Then we come to the NT and especially the passage in Romans 1. Is this a condemnation by Paul of homosexual behavior? Is it true that Paul knows nothing about loving and committed homosexual relationships? Do modern studies on sexual orientation change anything that Paul has said?

For those who want more, Gagnon also looks at modern discussion on the topic and even scientific studies on the matter. We’ll be discussing what the implications are of accepting the redefinition of marriage and why it is so important that we win this battle today.

I urge everyone to listen in and please be willing to call in and ask your questions, though I’m suspecting that some that champion tolerance in calling in might reveal themselves to be people who are in fact only tolerant of that which already agrees with them. In other words, intolerant. If you want to call in, the number is 714-242-5180. The time is 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: This blog entry is largely a copy of what I had back in August when unfortunately we had to reschedule so if some of you are getting a sense of Deja Vu this time, there’s a reason. The information he has is still just as relevant so please be listening.

Deeper Waters Podcast 9/28/2013: Ex-Homosexuals

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast on 9/28/2013? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We’ve all heard something about the debate on marriage today and when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, we’ve been told that homosexuality is something immutable. It’s not a choice. It’s something that you’re born with and you just don’t change that! There is no such thing as an ex-homosexual.

Well if that’s the case, then my three guests on this week’s episode don’t exist.

My guests are Greg Quinlan, Douglas McIntyre, and Grace Harley. All three are Christians today and all three were at one time practicing homosexuals. All three have stories of how their change came about and want to speak about the way that people like them are ignored and if not that, in fact persecuted by those on the other side.

If what you hear on Saturday is true, then it is a strong argument against the idea that homosexuality is immutable. If there is just one case otherwise, then the claim is shown to be false. This is not to say that the change would not be difficult for some and in fact, it might be the case that some just don’t pull it off, but such is the same if anyone is addicted to anything or has a strong desire towards something. These three say they have done it and that there are several several others out there that you just don’t hear about.

They’ll tell us about what we should be doing in the debate on marriage today. We want to win this battle of course, but there’s a right way to fight and a wrong way to fight. If you want to fight the right way, why not learn from those who have been there?

Also, how does the church treat homosexuals and what can be done? While my guests definitely don’t go in for the Fred Phelps technique at all, they do see problems with the way the church goes about in its normal witness to homosexuals. This includes a stigma that many Christians have against homosexuals. How is it that the church should treat a homosexual man, woman, or even couple that shows up in their presence?

And what about the family situation? How should people respond to questions of homosexuality in their family? Are there steps that a mother and a father can take to instill proper ideas of sexuality within their children?

It is my hope that with a show like this, you listeners and myself as well will better learn how to respond in this debate and know that we are not alone. If anyone asks for evidence that homosexuality is not immutable then, we can just point them to the testimony of my three guests.

I hope you’ll be planning to join in this Saturday from 3-5 PM EST on Blog Talk Radio. The call in number if you want to ask a question of my guests is 714-242-5180. Make sure they’re questions. No angry diatribes wanted.

The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 8/3/2013 Robert Gagnon

What’s coming up on this edition of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The news has recently been talking about the striking down of DOMA and what it means for the future of marriage in our country. Right now, there are several people who are in favor of redefining marriage and unfortunately, a lot of them are Christians. For the church, it is said that the Bible really doesn’t say anything clearly on this issue.

Robert Gagnon disagrees.

Dr. Gagnon will be my guest and is an informed speaker on this area, having written the book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.” This is one of the most thorough works if not the most thorough (And certainly the most thorough I’ve read) on the matter of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Gagnon doesn’t even begin with Scripture but rather begins with the ancient society that the people of the Bible lived in. How was homosexuality viewed in their culture? What did the other societies do in relation to homosexuals or even to simple accusations of homosexuality? How did Israel behave in comparison to them?

Then, there’s the looking at the biblical texts and even texts that some people would think at the start have nothing to do with homosexuality. Does the story of Noah being shamed by his son have anything to do with homosexuality? It just might.

Of course, there is then time spent on accounts like Sodom and Gomorrah and looking at any argument against that being about homosexuality that can be found. Certainly, Gagnon takes us through the arguments of the holiness code in Leviticus and argues why it should be treated as a prohibition and explains why eating shellfish would not fall in the same category.

What about the writings of Jews outside of the Bible? Gagnon also looks at the positions of Philo and Josephus for instance to see what they say. Now some could say “Well Jesus never says anything about it?” According to Gagnon, Jesus in fact does say something about it and we’ll be definitely looking at that this Saturday.

Then we come to the NT and especially the passage in Romans 1. Is this a condemnation by Paul of homosexual behavior? Is it true that Paul knows nothing about loving and committed homosexual relationships? Do modern studies on sexual orientation change anything that Paul has said?

For those who want more, Gagnon also looks at modern discussion on the topic and even scientific studies on the matter. We’ll be discussing what the implications are of accepting the redefinition of marriage and why it is so important that we win this battle today.

I urge everyone to listen in and please be willing to call in and ask your questions, though I’m suspecting that some that champion tolerance in calling in might reveal themselves to be people who are in fact only tolerant of that which already agrees with them. In other words, intolerant. If you want to call in, the number is 714-242-5180. The time is 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Treating Jason Collins Equally

Is Jason Collins really a hero? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The homosexual community has been stating for a long time that they want to be treated equally. Okay. Let’s consider that. Right now, the news is about an NBA player named Jason Collins who plays for the Washington Wizards and has come out and said that he is a homosexual.

Upfront, I will tell you that I am not a basketball fan so I am not up on Collins’s playing ability, though I understand he was about to head out and that his playing ability was not exceptional. If it hadn’t been for this statement of his, no one would have really remembered him in the sport overall.

Now we’ve been told that this is an act of courage. How it is that an act of courage is to come out and say you agree with a position that the popular media agrees with and is celebrated regularly in the populace, I have no idea. What is not being considered as much is what happened before this point.

Enter Carolyn Moos. Who is this person? She was someone who spent eight years of her life on Collins. They were to be married in fact and in 2009, the wedding was cancelled by Collins. Until this event happened, Moos had no idea why it was that she was abandoned.

If we were not so busy celebrating the fact that Collins admitted to being homosexual, we would be looking at the story of a guy who led a woman on for eight years and then abandoned her just as she was anticipating getting married. Those are eight years that Moos cannot get back. Those are years she could have been dating another man and seeking her spouse. Those are years that she was lied to.

It was a similar incident with Bishop Robinson, the first practicing homosexual bishop. While everyone was talking about him, it was ignored that in the background was a wife and kids that he abandoned for a man. Are we to overlook the fact that he broke his marital vows and divorced? Are we to overlook that he abandoned his children?

For those wanting equal treatment, let’s be consistent. What are we to say about a guy who abandons a woman saying he will marry her after several years? What are we to say about someone who abandons his wife and his children?

Are there any examples of courage? In the past, Carrie Prejean would have been a great example, and in all honesty, she still is. Do you remember her? She was the contestant in the Miss America pageant from California who said she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. We are certainly thankful that Perez Hilton and the rest accepted her different and diverse view with love and tolerance.

Of course they didn’t! Prejean was mocked and insulted throughout the media simply for saying what she thinks is the case. For all the times that we’ve had feminists talk about the objectification of women, they were awfully silent when it came to Prejean. They didn’t mind men making derogatory remarks about her body.

As has been said, tolerance and diversity is a one-way street.

Yet there is another example of real courage. That’s ESPN commentator Chris Broussard. Broussard said that he believes homosexual actions and pre-marital sex are sinful. He is a Christian and this is his belief system. Now a world wanting to celebrate diversity is celebrating the diversity of Broussard’s opinion and a world wanting to celebrate tolerance is being understanding for Broussard’s view.

And if you believe that, I have some oceanfront property I want to sell you in Montana.

Going with the flow of popular culture does not take courage. What Broussard did does take courage, especially knowing he could well be putting his job and family on the line for being willing to state what he believes in. The tolerati will not be so accepting of this opinion.

What has not been learned is that if you only accept viewpoints you agree with, you are not practicing tolerance and you are not doing so in any sense. True tolerance does not mean you accept someone’s belief system. You don’t tolerate what you agree with. True tolerance means you allow someone the right to believe something differently.

I don’t approve of Collins’s lifestyle. What does that mean? We have a discussion on it. Does it mean I want him thrown out of the NBA? No. His being a homosexual has no effect on his playing basketball that I know of. By all means let him play, let him sign autographs, let him do whatever he can on the field. I’m just not required to accept his personal lifestyle and more than I would be required to accept the lifestyle of an athlete who is sleeping with multiple women.

When disagreement comes, debate it. Too often, debate is being about the people who disagree instead of about the topic itself. As soon as I see labels like “bigot” and “homophobe”, I know that we are no longer really doing debate. I am no longer defending my position. I’m being forced to defend having my position.

Perhaps if we are really doing equal treatment, we will consider what it means to do what was done to Moos. Perhaps we will want to make sure that Broussard gets the right to express his views without repercussion the way that people want Collins to.

My prediction? Equality will not be a big deal in this case. Like tolerance and diversity, the rule of equality only applies when it favors the other side.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Levitical Layout

Does the case for the layout of Leviticus affect the condemnations of homosexuality? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A friend of the ministry recently sent me this item: http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/component/docman/doc_view/418-jsq-two-screens?Itemid=267

It’s a fascinating read on the work of Mary Douglas in interpreting the book of Leviticus. Douglas thinks that the book describes a layout of the tabernacle as it were. Chapters 1-17 deal with the common area. 18-24 deal with the priestly area. 25-27 deal with the Holy of Holies. Does that mean that chapters 18-20 would only apply to the priests?

Well first off, let’s look at some commands in these chapters that would not apply to the common folk then.

18:21 “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”

So priests could not sacrifice to Molech, but everyone else could.

19:4 “Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the Lord your God.”

Idolatry was only a no-no for priests. Not for everyone else.

19:11-18 “11 “‘Do not steal.

“‘Do not lie.

“‘Do not deceive one another.

12 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

13 “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

14 “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.

15 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.

17 “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

All of these applied only to priests? That includes lying and stealing and loving your neighbor as yourself?

19:29 ““‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Only priests could not make their daughters prostitutes?

I hope the point is clear.

In fact, it is when we get to chapter 21 that we have a start with “Speak to the priests.” Before that, there is no reason to think the verses do not apply to the common man. In fact, since the end of chapters 18 and 20 tell of how the people in the land practiced these activities and thus were being cast out, it would follow that those people should have known that these behaviors were wrong.

Now could it be God is being more forward in holiness standards from 18 on? Sure. Let me also be clear Douglas makes no argument herself that the moral rules no longer apply that I saw, nor did the person who emailed me the information make any such statement.

If someone still disagrees, they’ll have to give reasons why only homosexuality should be excepted from the list. So far, the cases have just been special pleading.

Also, keep in mind that the argument is not “The Bible says so, therefore it’s true.” It’s just getting clear what the Bible says. (Although I do agree with it.) For the sake of argument, the Bible could be wrong on what it says, but let us be clear we are not wrong on what it is saying.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Danger of Tolerance

Is it ever wrong to be tolerant? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A lot of Christians yesterday, including some in leadership, had the equals sign as an avatar of Facebook saying they wanted equality in marriage. I would like to have seen how they would have been responded to being told the standards of who one can marry is already the same for everyone, but I fear there is more heat than light on this issue and more are thinking with emotions than reasoning. This is especially so since politicians like Portman and McCaskill have given reasons that are largely emotional for a change of mind.

One aspect of this is the idea of tolerance. Christians want to be good people. I get that. We think it is good to be tolerant. Therefore, we decide we should be tolerant. We get the command that Jesus told us that we are not to judge and therefore it comes to “Who am I to judge someone else? Let God do that. I will be tolerant. That’s what Jesus would have me do.”

Keep in mind, Jesus made several judgments and he was hardly tolerant of the false teachings of those around Him. When we look at the epistles, it’s the same way. They hardly would have been written if the apostles had been practicing tolerance.

Of course, this is with the modern view of tolerance. The modern view is more along the lines of having to accept everything. One cannot say that another person is wrong in their position. All views are to be seen as equal and no view is any better than another.

Such a position will lead to numerous contradictions. For instance, if no view is better than another and all views are equal, what about the view that all views are not equal and some views are better than others? Is that to be treated the same way? If an exception is not made, then the principle is violating itself.

So am I saying Christians should be intolerant? No. I’m saying we should practice classical tolerance. In classical tolerance, you allow some wrong views to be held on matters of serious discussion. You still say the view is wrong, but you allow the person the freedom to hold that view.

This shows up in the NT. What about meat offered to idols? What about whether one should have wine? What about if any days are sacred? 1 Cor. 8-10 and Romans 14 are classic texts about this. If someone wants to do something like this, then let them, but the only problem Paul had was when one person started assuming they were more spiritual or better than another.

Note also that Paul also said some behaviors were clearly wrong. You do not tolerate lying or adultery or stealing. Interestingly, in 1 Cor. 6, homosexual behavior is included in this. Note especially that this is talking about the household of God. What about those outside? They are not held to Christian standards, though their behavior is still wrong.

In our country, we are allowed basic freedoms. For instance, the freedom of religion. The government is not to favor one religion over another. Hence, I will oppose Islam, but I defend their right to build mosques here and worship as they see fit, provided they obey the laws of the land in doing so.

Why oppose the change in marriage? Because this does affect everyone, particularly the least of these, the children. If you think that children have a right to have a relationship with their natural mother and father, then you have all the reason you need to keep marriage as it is.

Note also the other great danger of tolerance. It’s a one-way street. You can be sure that when the other side is in power and you want to practice your Christianity that says homosexual behavior is a sin, they won’t be so tolerant. You will be called to task. How do I know this? Because it’s happening already. Tolerance is not being practiced for those who disagree. Those who seek to celebrate diversity don’t seek to celebrate those who disagree with them.

Christians. Practice true tolerance, but don’t practice the modern notion. The church never prospers when it backs down on its Christian principles.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

McCaskill’s Stance On Marriage

Does 1 Corinthians 13 mean what McCaskill thinks it means? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently, Senator McCaskill of Missouri came out in support of redefining marriage. Her entry on the topic on Tumblr can be found here. I’d like to look at her entry today and ask the question of it if it works or not.

At the start, the passage is about 1 Cor. 13. I have an interest in this having done a sermon on it that can be found here. In looking at this entry of McCaskill, I find no attempt whatsoever to engage with the text and see what Paul meant. The impression I am getting is as if a bone has been tossed out to those who are religious with an implication that our own Scriptures teach this, but there is no argument for it.

“The question of marriage equality is a great American debate. ”

But what is the question? Is the question “Do we want to treat people unequally?” I do not think people are advocating that. If two things are equal, we should treat them equally. We support equality, but not all claimants are equal. We don’t allow children to marry, for instance. We don’t allow polygamists to marry. This is not a slippery slope argument. What we are saying is that if you want marriage to be redefined, it needs to be done in such a way to allow the group you want and exclude the ones you don’t. I have not seen this done yet.

“Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values. ”

The loaded language is great at this point. The religious people who believe in traditional marriage are the ones who just want to exclude. Fortunately, there are some who are also of strong religious faith who are “open” and think that we “should not limit” but favor “all Americans” and want them to “fully participate in the most basic of family values.”

It never seems to occur to McCaskill that family values are a reason for opposing redefining marriage. To redefine marriage is to redefine the family. It is also not the value of honoring marriage for the sake of marriage. It is about the purpose of marriage. Can the ultimate purpose of marriage be achieved in the new union even if not everyone participates in it?

“I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love.”

The problem here is that we in America do marry based on who we love, but all over the world, this is not why people marry. Arranged marriages are still quite common. It is just that it happens that the person we love often fits into the overall scheme of what marriage is. Being in love with someone is not a reason why the government should allow you to marry. If I love a small child, I cannot marry them. If I love my sister, I cannot marry them. If I love two women, I cannot marry them. The government looks at those and says “We don’t care if you love them. It’s not marriage.”

“While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry. ”

With the first part, we may not have to conduct marriages, but will we have to recognize them? For instance, even if you disagree, my Scriptures teach me that participating in homosexual behavior is sin and to have that as a lifestyle is to be “living in sin.” Of course, we all have sins we struggle with, but in those cases, we are to be seeking to free ourselves from them.

So when a homosexual couple comes to the church, do I have to grant them church membership? Do I have to accept them for baptism? Do I have to grant them Communion? When we have photos of church members, do I have to treat them as a couple? These are hard questions.

Of course, they are welcome to attend, but the church by and large is to expect holiness from its members and living a lifestyle that goes against what we believe in is not holy. Could I have a case brought against me then for discrimination just because I am living my religion?

The second part of McCaskill’s saying leads to the suicide approach. If the government should not tell who we have a right to marry, then I suspect McCaskill should be against this going to the Supreme Court. Why should the government recognize a marriage if it can’t have any standards on marriage? Why should it be something we vote on if government is not to tell who we can marry? McCaskill can’t have it both ways.

“My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.”

This sounds persuasive to several people, but to see if the argument works, you just have to put in another group instead.

“My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my incestuous friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for incestuous couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.”

or

“My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my polygamous friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for polygamous families is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.”

The bottom line in this is it looks like McCaskill has emotional issues when confronting others so to avoid her discomfort, the law of the land needs to be changed. The law of the land frankly should not care about her discomfort or mine. It should care about what is good and right and true.

McCaskill does not give a rational argument here. She gives an emotional one. An appeal to emotions is not always wrong, but it is when it is done without an argument to back it. McCaskill does not give any new evidences to support her position. She does not interact with those who disagree with her. She does not state anything about the purpose of marriage, or the raising of children.

That last point is important. We are making marriage about the people getting married. The people getting married have reason to celebrate, but the institution does not exist just to make people happy and feel good about themselves. Several other things can do that. Marriage does often and should do those things, but that is not why it exists.

“Good people disagree with me. On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.”

Frankly Senator, I don’t know why your children should be seen as the authorities on public policy. I am sure some children didn’t have a problem with slavery. I am sure some children have a problem with abortion. In fact, we educate people so they will not have the understanding of children.

You can say history will agree, but so what? Future people will side with you does not mean that future people are right. If the position is an unchangeable moral truth, then it will be true or false in the future just as much as it is today. Also, history has made wrong decisions. All over the world today, world leaders are making wrong decisions that will impact their people for years. Some decisions seem good at the time and have disastrous effects. We cannot appeal to unknown future without warrant. We can make warnings however if we have parallels.

In this case, we do. When no-fault divorce was a debate, we were told it would not harm children in any way. Children would adapt. This was expert testimony. Now we know that we were wrong. What if we make that same mistake again? The question to ask is “Is it worth the risk?” If so, why?

I hope the Senator will give us an argument next time. We have much here in the way of rhetoric, but naught in the way of argumentation. I would hope someone in charge of the laws of the land would base their arguments on more than emotion.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Another excellent response on an excellent blog can be found here.

It Won’t Hurt Your Marriage

Redefining marriage won’t hurt yours will it, so what’s the big deal? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

How many of us have heard this one? What’s the big deal about letting homosexuals marry? It won’t hurt your marriage.

This sounds like a powerful objection, but it’s simply empty rhetoric.

For a start, most of us are encouraged to look for the good of others. It’s interesting that those who make such statements as this usually also tell us that we should seek the happiness of others and give them what they want. On the one hand then, I am encouraged to do this because it meets my own interests. In the other case, I am not to look for my own interests. Which is it?

Still, let’s look also at the way the argument is. There is a hidden premise.

That which will not hurt you is that which you should not worry about.
Homosexuals marrying will not hurt you.
Homosexuals marrying is that which you should not worry about.

But how would this work in other situations?

The kids of the neighbor are being abused by their father. Well that hurts them certainly, but it does not hurt me or my children. Therefore, I should not worry about it.

There is a high frequency of female rape in your community. Supposing you are not married and not even interested in marrying and have no female relatives nearby, then it affects no one that I know, therefore I should not be worried about it.

Our country is going to war. I know no one in the military and I know no one we are fighting against. Therefore, I should not worry about it.

In being good citizens of society, we all know that we should have an active concern in seeking the good of our society regardless of if it affects us directly or not. Even if I am not homeless, I should go and help those who are. Even if I am not going hungry, I should be willing to go and help those who are. (Interestingly, these were the same people who also complained that Christians were going to Chick-Fil-A instead of going to the soup kitchens. Would it have been fair to say “Starving people don’t affect me so why should I go?”)

In fact, in all of this we have not yet answered the question of if it hurts us. I contend that the answer is yes.

Let’s use divorce as an example. Let’s suppose we live in a society where people are profoundly aware of no-fault divorce. They are aware due to a high divorce rate in their area. Say that a couple gets married. The man has no intention of divorcing the wife. The woman has no intention of divorcing the husband. Both can repeat this to each other but when a hard time hits, both could be tempted to think “I will not divorce my spouse, but I wonder if I’m starting to wear on them.”

Even supposing that it is true that divorce never enters the mind of either, when they are asked by each other and answer “I would never think about it!” it could be easy to say “They’re just saying that.” This leads to the breakdown of trust. Never mind the effect that something like this will have on children who need to grow in an environment of stability.

We were told divorce would not really hurt kids. We were wrong.

Now this time we are to believe that not having a mother or not having a father as the default position will not hurt kids. A study like Regnerus’s has come along to help dispel this myth. I have no doubt that ten to twenty years down the line, even more research will come in to support this. If marriage as an institution is lowered, all instances of that institution will be lowered.

Yes. What happens does hurt my marriage but even if it did not, I believe it hurts society so I cannot be silent.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Shut Up!

Can’t you be more tolerant? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In the debates over marriage today, we are often told as Christians that we are haters, we are bigots, we are homophobes, and we are intolerant. Now keep in mind I don’t mind someone having a different opinion on homosexuality than I do. What I do mind is this kind of behavior that does not deal with the arguments but rather deals with the attitudes of the person. Arguments like this distract us from the data.

Keep in mind there were people who were screaming for us to be open for years for people to live the way they wanted to individually. If they wanted to be homosexual, let them be homosexual. Let them love the person they want to and let us stay out of it. Now I think that their behavior is immoral, but fair enough. I don’t want to legislate against it. One aspect of Natural Law thinking is that you are willing to allow some lesser evils for the greater good of human freedom.

Now today we are the ones telling the homosexual community and their supporters to do what we have really been doing. That is to allow us the right to live the way we do and practice our religion that way. We believe homosexual behavior is sinful. Now you are free to believe all you want that it’s a sexual behavior with no moral ramifications. The point is that we do not think so. We think that whole debate is still open and to not listen to that debate is to treat our opinion like it doesn’t matter, not really tolerant is it?

You may not think homosexual behavior is wrong. Fine. We as Christians do think it is and if we really think that, which we do, it is the most loving thing that we can do to state it. Now of course, that does not mean that it is always said in a loving way or said out of love period. The reality is that when it’s done in an immoral way we condemn it even if it is true. While we hold that homosexual behavior is immoral, that does not mean we support a group like Westboro Baptist. I think bullying is wrong on all fronts and the only people I get tough with are those who are trying to bully others.

And yes, that is happening. There are people being hurt by the homosexual community and their supporters by this title of “haters.” Consider the case of Adam Smith who drove through the drive-thru at Chick-Fil-A and told the girl running the drive-thru that their company was a hate company. This man did not have the guts to park his car, get out, and go into the store and talk to the manager who would have some authority. This lady is just doing her job and got bullied. Now the guy got fired, but what happened to that girl for the rest of the day?

What about the store that had spray-painted on it “Tastes Like Hate.” Anyone working there could think that if a person is willing to vandalize, what else could they be willing to do? Look. We understand that you want to get your viewpoint out there but the best way to do that is not to try to win by using these kinds of tactics. If you want to discuss the issues, discuss the issues. (Note also I do realize not all homosexuals and not all people who agree with SSM are like this)

What is this doing when someone is told that they are a hater? Here is what the person who is being called a hater is being told. “SHUT UP!”

What you are saying is that your mind is made up, and there is nothing wrong with having a conviction mind you, but you do not even think the other side deserves a hearing. You are telling them that you will not listen to them at all. Their opinion is not worth it. This all the while telling them they should be tolerant of the other side. Excuse me if we don’t hear it when this kind of event happens.

This keeps you from discussing why the person holds the opinion that they hold. Why do that? Because in telling them they’re a homophobe or a bigot, you’re just saying “I don’t care why you think what you think. I’m going to tell you to be quiet or you will not be accepted.” If you’re sure your opinion is the correct one, the reality is that you should not be afraid to hear the other side. Why should anyone treat your opinion seriously when you automatically refuse to listen to someone else’s?

As one who is in the area of apologetics, I find that I love to hear what the other side says. I am sure I am right. I realize I could be wrong, but I have my opinion after years of study. It is enjoyable to enter into the debate and think you can win simply by pointing to the facts on your side and the bad reasoning and lack of facts or information that is not true but is claimed to be factual that the opponent presents.

What is happening is meant to end dialogue and not encourage it and quite frankly is simply emotional reasoning. You cannot determine whether homosexual practice is right or wrong based on how you feel. What if someone else feels differently? Why should your feelings trump everyone else’s? You also cannot command someone to just feel differently. IF that were the case, most of us would command ourselves to feel happy. We’d like to, but we don’t. Ever had one of those nights where you want to try to sleep but you’re up worrying? Telling yourself to feel calm doesn’t really end the matter.

How about we come and actually discuss the data and not use emotional reasoning. Let’s discuss homosexuality. Let’s discuss marriage itself. Let’s discuss morality. Let’s talk about the data. I don’t come to this debate to talk about you or me. I come to talk about the data. Let’s do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Concerned Christians and Homosexuality

Can you be a good Christian and still not accept homosexuality? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A lot of Christians have some concerns over the debate going on over Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) today. Honestly, I don’t think this is directly the fault of individual Christians so much as it is of churches. Our churches have failed us by and large. We have not been taught how to think Christian. We have only been taught to be good little children, as if the only reason Jesus came and died and rose again was so that we could all get along.

Now I’m not objecting to Christian morality. It should be taught. However, it needs a foundation. It has one already, but it is not known. Too many Christians have this idea that they will sit down with their Bible and God will just beam down the information to them as they read or some mystical experience like that. That can happen, but it is not to be expected. The reality is like learning anything else, you will have to do some study and frankly, you can’t count on your pastor to do it all for you. (And personally, I think most pastors have no business being in the pulpit. Pastor. If you cannot give a case for Christianity beyond personal experience and can’t answer critics, you have no business being in the pulpit.)

What I am wanting to do in this post is to introduce you to a new way of thinking on the issue, but I recommend you go online and look up sites in Christian apologetics on thinking about these issues. If you do not know, Christian apologetics refers to the defense of Christianity. In our day and age, you will need much more than just “The Bible says so.” In fact, I would discourage you from using the Bible in this debate. It makes the issue a religious issue instead of a social issue. Marriage existed before the Bible and exists around the world even where there is no Bible. It is known through general revelation. You don’t need the Bible to know what marriage is and to know homosexual behavior is wrong.

For now, let’s look at some concerns Christians have.

“But I don’t think we can judge can we?”

Matthew 7:1 seems to be the most popular Bible verse. Is Jesus condemning all judging? Not at all. Looking at the context, Jesus is condemning hypocritical judging. Note he says to not give what is sacred to dogs and throw our pearls to swine. You have to judge to know what is sacred, what are dogs, what are pearls, and what are swine. You have to judge to know there is a speck in your brother’s eye as well as a plank in your own.

This is something we do regularly. When you go out somewhere and leave your car, you lock the doors. Why? Because you know there are people who might want to steal your car or items in it. When we go to sleep at night, we lock our doors. Why? Because we know there are evil people out there who might want to rob us and hurt us. If you are married, you made a judgment whether to marry your spouse or night. If you have kids, are you going to let anyone who knocks on your door be a babysitter when you go out at night?

As soon as you call something right or wrong, you are making a judgment. In fact, the reason Jesus came was to deal with sin. If you are going to give the gospel to someone, you have to tell them that they are in sin and that involves a judgment. You have to tell them that Jesus is Lord and that involves telling them all other claimants to the title are wrong.

Yes. Make a judgment. You have to. Be loving in your judgment. That does mean you might have to say something that does initially hurt. We all do that. In fact, many of us have appreciated when someone came and hit us right between the eyes with a judgment we needed to hear because they loved us enough to say it. If you think someone is living in sin that will cause them to not be in the presence of God, it is the most loving thing to do to tell them.

“Isn’t it wrong to hate?”

No!

What? Did I surprise you with that?

You hate several things like me I’m sure. I hate lies. I hate injustice. I hate bullying. I hate evil. If you love something, you will want to go against that which contradicts it. If my wife is being hurt by someone, I can hate that she is being hurt. It does not necessitate that I hate the person doing that to her, but it does mean that I hate what is happening to her. We’ve been taught in our society that all hate is evil. This is not the case. Some hate is essential because it goes against what we love.

To be clear, we are not to hate homosexuals. We can hate homosexual behavior however because we believe that this keeps people from being all they can be. It is the same reason you hate alcoholism in a loved one if you have one who is alcoholic. If you have a friend who has a pornography addiction, you will hate that addiction and still love the person. Now you could be wrong for the sake of argument on homosexual behavior being harmful. I don’t think you are, but you cannot be wrong in why you think you are doing it. You are the one who knows that.

Keep in mind when someone refers to you as a hater or a homophobe or a bigot, they are begging a huge question. They are assuming that it is already an established fact that homosexuality is perfectly moral and everyone knows that. Therefore, the issue is not open for debate and the problem must be you. You are what is wrong. Don’t fall for it. For instance, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose I hated homosexuals. Does that mean that my position on homosexuals is wrong? No. The way you know my position is wrong only by looking at the data. Calling someone a hater or some other name is a way of avoiding the real issue. Don’t fall for it.

“Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.”

Explicitly? No. However, Jesus didn’t speak about rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and a number of other issues. The idea is that if Jesus was silent on an issue, then obviously that meant he did not have a problem with it. That being said, let’s suppose you’re a Christian at church and you meet someone else who is a Christian. Do you usually ask if they believed Jesus rose from the dead? No. If you’re a Christian, it’s understood you believe that. If you’re a Jew in 1st century Israel, there was much to disagree on, but one thing could be agreed on. At least the first five books of the Old Testament came from God.

Those first five books also condemned homosexuality.

We have instances where Jesus did say something different, such as pronouncing all foods clean, but we don’t have him changing moral issues. Well, not in the way we think. When he changed moral issues, he made them stronger. The Old Testament said “Do not commit adultery.” Jesus said “Do not lust.” It said “Do not murder.” Jesus said “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” Do we have any reason to think he would have changed the homosexual rules, especially with all the other sexual rules that went along with it?

Notice also there is no hint of change in the New Testament anywhere on this. Look at how many times sexual sin is condemned in the New Testament. In 1 Cor. 5, we have the case of a man with his stepmother. The Corinthians could have seen this as freedom from the Law and they were celebrating it. Paul had none of it and let them know that this was something so wicked it was not even done among the pagans!

If Jesus was silent, it would be more likely that He DID agree with the beliefs that were taught in the first five books. We do not have anything from Jesus correcting the Jews on this issue and if it was such an important one, then it would seem that Jesus would have said something about it. Even when he showed grace, remember he still condemned sin. If you consider the story of the woman caught in adultery authentic, Jesus did tell her to go and sin no more. (By today’s standards, since Jesus condemned sin, do you realize he would be called a hater?)

“Isn’t Leviticus just something that is temporal? Aren’t I being arbitrary?”

A lot of people make the claim that the only verses in Leviticus Christians know are the ones condemning homosexuality. This is indeed a shame. Leviticus is the one that has the word to love your neighbor as yourself. It also talks about the Day of Atonement in there, something all Christians should know about. Still, Leviticus says this is an abomination, but it also says that eating shellfish is an abomination. Aren’t we picking and choosing?

First off, the word abomination can refer to something ritually unclean, but it can refer to a wicked act. How can you tell? Context. Look at the surrounding passage. For one thing, these activities mentioned are not just rituals. There is a reason you’re not to marry close relatives and I believe it was for more than just DNA mixing too closely producing children with genetic conditions. It was blurring the lines of the family.

But most importantly, in Leviticus 18 and 20, the verses following the list of sins tells us that it is for committing these sins that other nations are being cast out. Other nations were never punished for not following the dietary restrictions or wearing mixed fabrics. Those were practices that set Israel apart from the other nations as a sign they were in covenant with God. The other nations were commanded by Israel to live moral lives, but they were never commanded to follow Jewish practices. Jews could be condemned for trading with other nations on the Sabbath, but the other nations were not condemned for working on the Sabbath.

Note also that this places homosexuality in the category of general revelation. Other nations were cast out because of doing things that we can say that they should have known better. It would not make sense for God to punish a people when they could not have known that they were doing anything wrong. Since this is in general revelation then, you don’t need the Bible. It would be better to study other issues relating to homosexuality and how it affects other people.

“Aren’t we denying equal rights?”

Let me make a list of my rights as a heterosexual man for choosing a spouse.

I must marry someone of the opposite sex.
They cannot be a close relative.
They must be a human.
They must be someone of age.
I can only marry one person.

Here are the rights of a homosexual person.

They must marry someone of the opposite sex.
They cannot be a close relative.
They must be a human.
They must be someone of age.
They can only marry one person.

The criteria aren’t different. Now they can tell us they can’t marry the person they love. You are not so much meant to marry the person you love, as you are to love the person you marry. When my wife and I went to get our marriage license, we were never asked “Do you two love each other?” Frankly, the state couldn’t care. All they care about is that we’re a couple coming together that can build up the next generation.

What is being asked for in this case is different rights. The whole idea is that all that matters is the happiness of the persons involved. The question is not asked about whether this is good for society as a whole. Note also we have a bad view of happiness today. We think happiness means a sort of good emotional experience. No. Happiness is found more in realizing your place in the universe and fulfilling it. For the ancients, your happiness could be altered after you were dead, and for someone like Aristotle, you wouldn’t even exist then and could have your happiness changed!

We all know happiness does not come from getting everything we want. There are many things we want that are not good for us. Wives. Consider this. When your husband is walking down the street and he sees other women, he is tempted with something that he wants. Now do you want to allow him to go out and have a number of affairs just because that’s what he wants? Or, should it be that he should seek to change his wants so that he only wants you? For we men, this is a battle we have to fight. We have to train our eyes. We are all called to faithfulness, but that does not mean that it is easy.

“You can’t help who you love!”

Would the case be the same if someone loved children, such as goes on in NAMBLA? Now immediately too many in the homosexual community says that that is not homosexuality. Now I would agree that the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles. That is true. However, if you have attraction for someone of the same sex, that is what it is. I am thankful that homosexuals by and large would also condemn such behavior.

The problem with this is that you can help who you love. If a married man starts developing desires for another woman, he would not be justified in telling his wife “I’m having an affair because I can’t help who I love.” The man has to change his desires and that can be a battle. People treat this as easy. They often say “Why would someone choose to be homosexual?” Why would a man choose to desire other women? He doesn’t. It is just his nature and as much as he wants to change it, he also has to work on it. If a desire is wrong however, then that is what must be done.

“How can you deny their love?”

How can you deny incestual couples their love? How can you deny polygamous couples their love? How can you deny the love of a man and a boy in NAMBLA? The objection assumes all love is good. There are loves that we have that are not good and we should seek to change them. Not all love is equal.

“It doesn’t harm anyone!”

If an action is sinful, even if it is just internal, it harms someone as it builds up an attitude. Note also the affect this has on families. Do you believe a father and a mother are the best environment for a child to be raised in, and most preferably their natural parents? If so, then you should support traditional marriage. To accept homosexual marriage is to accept that men and women are interchangeable as parents. Only a man can truly teach a boy how to be a man and teach a girl how to relate to men and vice-versa for women.

At the bottom of this post, I will also have a link showing the effects of SSM on Massachusetts that a friend sent me.

Keep in mind also that laws change attitudes. Divorce laws for instance affect those that will never get divorced. Why? It builds up in our culture the idea that marriage is not a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman but something that can be broken. That idea can be built up in someone implicitly and they live in marriage with the idea that their spouse could leave them at any moment even if their spouse would never dream of it.

“Aren’t we just legalizing a religion?”

No. We are making a law about a practice. This practice happens to be condemned in a religion, but it is not exclusive to the religion. We can say that the Ten Commandments condemn murder, but that does not mean that we are going to throw out the laws against murder just because a religious institution upholds it. What we need to do is not look and see “Does a religion teach this?” but rather “Is this a true moral principle?” If it is, we should uphold it whether any religion believes it or not.

“But we can’t legislate morality!”

Baloney. Morality is the only thing that can be legislated. Let us suppose that I was president and passed a law that forbid drawing stick people on Friday and if you did so, you would be executed. You would say “Nick. That’s ridiculous!” “Why?” “Because there’s no basis for such a law and with such an extreme penalty.” Exactly. There’s no basis. All laws have to have a moral basis in order to be valid. Our branch of government in the U.S.A. is called the Legislative Branch. We did not see ourselves as lawmakers but revealers of the law.

“Aren’t we to love?”

Yes. We are to love, but we are not to love that which is wrong. If someone is in the wrong, then it is loving to point that out to them. Yesterday, someone asked me if I would have an outcry if someone was trying to treat Christianity the way homosexuality is supposedly being treated. I said I would have no problem. In fact, I’d love it. I think one of the best things ever for the church has been the rise of the New Atheists. I want people to come and challenge my position. Why? Because that is when I get the chance to demonstrate my claim. I am sure my position is right, and therefore I don’t fear dialogue. Now if you’re sure yours is, you should have the same opinion.

Good Christian. I applaud you in wanting to be loving, but don’t accept it on the terms of the world. Don’t play the game according to the rules of the other side. If they do not want to dialogue, don’t dialogue. Someone who just calls you a hater, bigot, and/or homophobe is not someone who is interested in dialogue. I will engage with them in the public forum only to demonstrate to other Christians that these guys can be answered.

I also recommend for more information resources such as the Ruth Institute with the work of Jennifer Roback Morse.

I also ask your prayers in all of this. I and others are on the front lines and we value your support.

In Christ,
Nick Peters.

Information on the effects of SSM in Massachusetts can be found here.