Introduction – The Problem Presented Today
Christians today live a very difficult and yet a very exciting time. It seems as though every Christian value that has been generally accepted over the centuries as being sacrosanct is being challenged not just by the fringe groups of society but also by the mainstream core. The judicial system is constantly making decisions that challenge the very moral code of Christianity. The government is being pushed to bring what has always been known as being immoral into the norms of societal existence. And fringe groups are pushing both to establish their “rights” to live in lifestyles that orthodox Christians know, from God’s Holy Word, to be evil in nature and of the world of Satan.
In the case of homosexuality, the homosexual (both male and female) community is pressing on all sides of commonly accepted moral behaviour in order to have their lifestyle validated. It is not simply a matter of wanting to be accepted but is also an attempt to force all members of society to accept that which is an aberration to orthodox members of all major faith systems as being a valid alternative lifestyle. And the pressure goes further as the proponents of homosexuality are pushing to have speaking against the lifestyle turned into a hate crime. And such would, despite the negative protestations of those proponents of such legislation, even place the Holy Bible into the position of being “hate literature.”
The political and judicial minions of Satan find it politically expedient to attempt to support the protestations and ultimate desires of this fringe community. And, in the guise of multiculturalism take steps to be “inclusive” and accepting of the desires of the homosexual lobby.
However, even more frightening is the tendency of the liberal arm of some major Christian denominations, as well as those of other major faith systems, to try to make friends with secular society by embracing the goals of the homosexual community. In doing so, they are denigrating their faith and turning their backs upon those who provide most of the support to the communities both financially and in faith expression.
The ultimate result of all of this could be devastating for the whole of society. And the faith structure of society today could be seriously altered with the liberal groups being considerably weakened while the conservative groups, while different in appearance, will be considerably stronger.
The problem is that the whole situation is being considered almost exclusively from a sociological, political, and (to some extent) pastoral point of view. While there is some reference to science in attempts to establish a genetic base for homosexuality, the “proof” of helplessness is not the prime motivation. Neither is much noted about the specific health problems generated by participation in the homosexual lifestyle. And, of course, very little recognition, even in the Church, is given to the Will of God expressed in His Divinely Inspired Scriptures.
The goal of this work will be to examine the various lines of social, scientific, health, and faith issues contained in the whole matter of homosexuality. Then, a considerable portion will be given to how Christians should view the problem of homosexuality.
Since the end of World War II North American society has seen a considerable change in its make-up. The years immediately following the war were ones of recovery and the reestablishment of the structures of society. North America was essential a Judaeo/Christian society with moral values commensurate with these religious systems. The 1940’s and 1950’s saw the family as being the central building block of society. Churches and Synagogues flourished.
The challenges came as immigration policies were established to open up the country to other peoples who were needed to contribute to the growth of the continent. These open door policies brought peoples from other faith communities into North American society. And, of course, many wished to continue in the faith system with which they were familiar and to which they were committed.
Coincident with this influx of other cultures and faiths came the desire to challenge the established structures. Such challenges came from young people and, of course, academia. The 1960’s and the 1970’s witnessed the onslaught of the drug culture spurred by such academic notables as Timothy O’Leary of Berkley, California who held up and praised the “mind expanding” experiences of LSD and other hallucinatory substances.
In this same era in the USA the young people were challenging the right of their country to demand their service in the military. Draft dodgers were numerous. Protests over compulsory service and the Vietnam war were many and often as violent as war itself.
The moral norms of society were openly challenged and flaunted. Youth demanded to know from their parents why they went to the Church. When parents were only able to say, “because it’s the right thing to do” the youth understandably bolted and found other pursuits in their lives. At the same time matters of human sexuality were being openly challenged. Why is marriage necessary for sex? Shouldn’t something so enjoyable be available to everyone to express joy of companionship? Is marital fidelity really necessary in this day and age?
Of course, again, academia had to get involved when persons such as Joseph Fletcher wades into the fray with works such as “Situation Ethics” that posited that there is nothing in this world that is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the theories stated, everything is relative and dependent upon the specific situation. Hence lying, while wrong by God’s Law could be justified for the greater good. Similarly, murder, deceit, adultery, open marital infidelity, abuse of the worship of God, etc. could all be justified in specific circumstances dependant upon the prevailing situation. Essentially, “if it feels good do it” became the norm of life as long as it could be justified – at least to the participants in the event.
It was from this era that the modern da concepts of right and wrong were developed. Now, even in our substandard educational environments, we find there is no right and wrong. Rather, every student is encouraged to put away the family instituted moral structures in favour of developing their own visions of right and wrong.
Children are taught to make moral decisions in accordance with the language of sociology that, by its very nature, has no basic right and wrong form which to start. Sociology in itself is a valueless language. Hence, starting from this platform, it is impossible to create a justified system of right and wrong. Rather, no matter what God, or anyone else, says, right and wrong is what the individual wants it to be as long as no one else is affected.
The concepts of human sexuality have taken a real beating during these eras. What is right and acceptable in one period of time suddenly becomes wrong and abominable in another period of time. Loving and caring for one another through loving touch is good at one time and an “inappropriate sexual act” in another. It is no wonder that young people today are sensual, sexual, emotional cripples.
The educational system has usurped sexual training from the rightful place in the family. However, in order to not be seen as placing moral values in the heads of the students, such training become merely mechanical and health oriented. How does sex happen? You are ready when you feel it is time to have sex. Here is how you “do it.” And, here is how you can try to avoid the horrible STD’s that exist in the world. Whether sex outside of marriage is right or wrong depends upon how the person feels and what the person wants to be right or wrong.
Josh McDowall reports the following daily USA statistics generated in the wake of the intellectually driven school training programs:
· 1000 unwed teenage girls become mothers
· 1106 teenage girls get abortions
· 4219 teenagers contract STD’s
· 6 teens commit suicide
Around this structure of moral degeneration comes the threat of homosexuality and the stated regularisation process that it is undertaking. The aberration is presented to young people as just another way of life. If the faith position is brought up it is run down and stated that faith has no place in the classroom – meaning the world of freedom and moral degeneration. Young people who have already had their sexuality crippled by an amoral and valueless system are particularly susceptible to the homosexual lifestyle. When there is doubt over who one is sexually it is easy to fall into the trap of entering an unnatural form of sexuality. When one is afraid of pregnancy or one is not confident with the opposite sex it is easy to turn to same-sex relationships as a means of experiencing sexual activity while not having to face insecurities.
With society having moved to general acceptance of the lifestyle through fifty years of change and constant social, political, and judicial cajoling it is not hard to understand how God’s Word has been driven into the background by the minions of Satan. IN fact, many Christians today find it hard to stand for God’s Word in a society drunk with the new wine of open sexuality and a do what you want when and how you want because everything is OK mindset.
The Goals of the Homosexual Community
The days of a stigma being attached to being a homosexual have long gone. And this is a good thing in that, regardless of a person’s lifestyle, the individual is a creation of Almighty God and deserving of respect from the rest of humanity.
In the not so distant past homosexuals hid their orientation for fear of reprisal from people who considered themselves to be more righteous and morally superior. To the shame of the straight community such reprisals were commonplace and often even sanctioned by society. Thus, homosexuals were denied access to jobs. In many instances violence was perpetrated against those who did not conform to the sexual norms of society. In short, the behaviour of the non-homosexual community was an abomination in its own right.
As the rules and concepts of right and wrong changed within society the homosexual groups became freer to openly proclaim their orientation and demand respect and safety within the social order. And society, in its newfound openness felt compelled to grant such to this small minority group of people.
However, the homosexual pressure groups were not satisfied with merely being respected and able to exist openly. Rather they began to compare their plight to that of the women’s rights movements and the anti-racist movements.
In attempting to put forth their case for totally equal rights in all facets of life, the homosexual lobby began to perpetrate the falsehood that their homosexuality was genetically driven and uncontrollable. As such, the contention was that the homosexual way of life should be considered a valid alternate lifestyle. In this vein, homosexuals should have all the rights and privileges as heterosexuals in all facets of human existence.
This lobby has even insisted and persisted in pursuing the homosexual lifestyle be taught in the schools as a valid alternative form of life no matter how the parents of the children felt about such a form of education. And many school systems, while staunchly refusing to allow the morality of faith systems to be taught permitted, and even dictated, the teaching of that which is opposed to, and an aberration to, these faith lifestyles.
The public press has latched onto this liberal view of the homosexual lifestyle and has consistently produced articles brazenly upholding or heavily slanting toward homosexuality as a right and privilege available to anyone on an equal footing with heterosexuality. The fact that such openly violates the traditional morality of society has no bearing on the presentations within the press.
Similarly, the political arena has many adherents to the genetic falsehood and the reversing of centuries of moral standards. While such politicians are certainly not well versed in the so-called science of the genetic cause of homosexuality or the faith based moral objections, they do see the emotional arguments and, most certainly, the votes they would receive due their stance in some communities. Hence, especially liberal minded politicians are solidly on the homosexual bandwagon that is racing toward calling homosexuality a “natural” phenomenon that should be generally accepted by all of society. Attempts, now that toleration of homosexuality is established, are even being made to make publicly speaking against homosexuality a “hate crime” and printed works doings “hate literature.” And, it is not hard to see, despite the contrary protestations of the political law makers, that it will not be long before the Holy Bible and those who preach God’s Word from these Scriptures will be brought to court to face charges for their faith.
Also, the justice system seems bent upon taking all that is sacred and holy and deeming the reverse to be just in today’s society. As is the case in cases involving abominations such as child pornography, drug dealing, etc., the judicial system is bending over backwards to attempt to write new law forcing society, often against the will of society, to accept immorality as being just and moral. Hence, the homosexual lobby continues to force its way into the judicial environment demanding all the rights of heterosexual even to the point of attempting to force a revision of the definition of marriage to all homosexual marriages – a term that is in itself an oxymoron. In witnessing the actions of the judiciary in this area it is easy to see Satan driving the so-called decision criteria of his minions on the bench.
Thus, it is easily seen that the goals of the homosexual lobby in today’s world is to bring equality to the point where, while homosexuals can speak against those who do not accept their way of life, anyone speaking against their lifestyle will be considered a criminal. They are rapidly moving toward their goal of having the status similar to that of a persecuted racial minority needing not only protection but also affirmation.
The homosexual lobby has been very successful in convincing the media, the political arena, and the judiciary that the state of homosexuality is a given that is not developed but genetic in nature. In other words, the party line is that the homosexual cannot help who he or she is. Therefore, the lifestyle should not be put down or deemed morally incorrect. Rather it must be defended and affirmed.
However, there has been no conclusive study that has proven such a genetic link. Each of the studies that are often referred to has easily seen problems that decry both its authenticity and its validity. The amazing point is that the intelligence of the people mentioned above is somehow moved to overlook such problematic areas in these studies and to accept invalidity as being valid and proven.
A further point that comes into play is that of relevancy. If one is to say that homosexuality, despite its being contrary to both faith law and natural law, is to be accepted as an alternative lifestyle by society because the proponents of such have deemed it inherited and uncontrollable, isn’t it equally as reasonable to require inherited lifestyles involving marital infidelity due to an innate need for many sexual partners, or thievery driven by an inherited tendency toward kleptomania, or murder due to an inherited propensity to react violently toward others, as also being alternative and acceptable lifestyles?
Of course such thinking is ridiculous but congruent with the logic involved in the alternate lifestyle argument of homosexuality even if science could prove a genetic link. But the fact is that such has not been proven as the following analyses will certainly prove.
a. Kinsey Research – 1948
The Kinsey Research on Human Sexuality, and most importantly for this paper, Homosexuality shocked the world in 1948 due to its brazenness and being diametrically opposed to the generally accepted moral standards of the day. In fact, outside of academic circles, finding a copy of the research was extremely difficult in that family oriented sexually modest society.
Kinsey posited that 10% of the male population between 15 & 55 is exclusively homosexual. Further groups of 8% were seen as being exclusively homosexual for at least a three-year period of their lives and 4% were exclusively homosexual throughout their whole life.
Kinsey further posited that sex between adults and children is “not likely to do the child any appreciable harm if the child’s parents do not become disturbed.” He claimed this statement to be based upon “scientific observations” involving some 317 children aged 2 to 15 who were sexually molested by adults in the name of science. The data was contained in graph tables that illustrate adult attempts to bring children to orgasm.
The study goes on to state that sex between humans and animals is normal. While, he states such is not common in the urban environment it is normal and generally acceptable in the rural environment.
It is not difficult to see how these “scientific” findings were and are very disturbing to normal society. But, the question cannot be asked or answered in terms of the emotional response of human beings, normal or otherwise. Rather the questioning of this study has to be undertaken in terms of its “scientific” bases.
The first point of examination in determining the validity of any research is the criteria and sample that is involved in the study. If a sample is to be valid when results are to discuss a population the sample must be representative of that population and the criteria must be such that they would lead to a determination of the norms for the whole population.
Immediately the Kinsey “research” runs into problems. 25% of the sample was comprised of prison inmates, many of whom were incarcerated for sexual offences while, at the time of the study, prison inmates as a whole, let alone being incarcerated for sexual offences, made up less than 1% of the general population. Of these inmates, 25% were further either homosexual or heavily exposed to homosexuality.
The sample was further comprised of “volunteers” who were prostitutes (200 were male prostitutes), pimps, bootleggers, thieves, and hold-up men. And, many subjects were recruited at sex lectures they were attending to deal with sexual problems.
Religious people were seriously underrepresented. Wardell Pomeroy (Kinsey researcher) “As types, those who took the most romantic view of sex were, understandably, people who were most religious - clergymen and their wives especially. Those who were bubbling over to tell us everything they could were usually homosexuals, particularly when they discovered that we were on their side.” It is not difficult to see the predisposition of the study contained in these remarks.
Further, there was considerable intimidation of the subjects. Interviewers were told to goad their subjects into response, especially if the “desired” results were not being obtained. This method was particularly effective as a threat to inmates who would have to return to their cells if they were not cooperative. Kinsey, while admitting the unusual nature of the approach, claimed it was necessary to get the “needed” results.
Kinsey’s personal bias can be seen in the study where heterosexual marital intercourse is given 1/3 of the space dedicated to homosexual relations. When discussing the Old Testament’s and the Talmud’s injunctions against homosexuality and sexual relations with animals Kinsey states, “The student of human folkways is inclined to see a considerable body of superstition in the origins of all such taboos…”
In 1954 The Commission on Statistical Standards of the American Statistical Association concluded, “Kinsey should have been more cautious in boldly drawing precise conclusions from their limited sample.” In 1989 The National Academy of Sciences warned that the sampling flaws limited, “the comparability and appropriateness of the Kinsey data as a basis for calculating the prevalence of any form of sexual conduct.”
To add to the denigration of the Kinsey Study, current studies show that less than 6% of the population has any homosexual experience and less than 1% is exclusively homosexual. In 1988 the US Census Bureau surveyed 50,000 men and found less than a 3% experience rate (<1.5% of women in another study).
A 1991/2 government study undertaken in France involving 20,055 adults found:
A 1990/1 British Survey of 18,876 adults aged 16-59 showed that 1.4% of men had homosexual experience in the previous 5 years and 6.1% had any lifetime homosexual experience.
A 1981 random sampling in Norway involving 6,155 adults 18-60 gave the following results:
A 1989 Danish stratified random sampling of 3,178 adults 18-59 showed 2.7% of males had experienced homosexual intercourse in their lifetime with 1.0% being exclusively homosexual throughout their lives.
A 1989 nationwide sample of 1,537 adults over 18 years of age undertaken un the USA by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago showed:
A 1986/7 US Stratified Cluster Sample from Minnesota Adolescent Health Center sampling of 36,741 public school students from 7th grade through 12th grade showed:
A Canadian Nationwide Cluster Random Sampling of 5,514 first year College students under the age of 25 showed 98% definitely heterosexual; 1% bisexual; and 1% homosexual.
Thus, it is clear that not only was the Kinsey Research flawed and bordering upon, if not invading, the immoral but also does not stand the test of ongoing research. It is clear that the findings of the Kinsey Report are not to be considered in determining any form of genetic relationship for any propensity toward homosexuality.
b. Simon LeVay Research – August 1991
Simon LeVay a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California performed a study based upon a tiny region of the brain known as the hypothalamus. This is a part of the brain that controls body temperature, blood pressure, pulse rate, hormone reproduction, and sex drive. LeVay focused upon a very small portion of the hypothalamus, no larger than a rain of sand, known as the interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus or the INAH-3 that seems to be naturally larger in men than in women.
LeVay’s speculation was that this part of the hypothalamus is that part of the brain that controls sexual orientation.
In order to perform his research LeVay required cavers as it was necessary to physically dissect the brain to perform the study. He used 19 male bodies whose medical records showed that they were homosexual (one was bisexual). Another 16 cadavers were those of individuals who had no indication of homosexuality on their medical records and were therefore “presumed to be heterosexual.” And a control group of six female cadavers of similarly “presumably heterosexual” women was also used.
Following his studies, LeVay concluded that the nINAH-3 was the controlling factor for sexual orientation. He based this upon findings that this tiny portion of the brain was only half the size in females and homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals. His conclusion was that homosexuality is a product of a biological condition in the brain. He confidently stated, “The finding indicates the INAH-3 is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.”
However, there are many problems with the study. In the first place there is no independent determination that the INAH-3 has anything to with determining sexual orientation. Hence, while the findings in these cadavers could be true, the conclusion is not commensurate with any such substantiation for that portion of the brain being thus involved.
Further there is a problem with the presumption that the second group was actually heterosexual. Remember that they were only presumed to be such because there was no mention of homosexuality in their records. But 6 of the 16 actually died of AIDS. Further, 1 of the “heterosexual” women had died of aids as well and the total group’s heterosexuality was “presumed” because of there being no medical record of their being homosexual. All of the 19 in the homosexual group had died of AIDS or complications resulting from AIDS. Thus, there is considerable question concerning the validity of the groups studied.
The actual study also finds that some of the homosexual men (2) nad larger INAH-3 than some of those presumed to be heterosexual. And some of the “presumed” heterosexual men (3) had smaller INAH-3 nuclei than the homosexual men.
A further complication arises from a study performed by Byne and Parsons. Their research has shown that AIDS and AIDS complications can actually affect the very part of the brain being studied.
Thus the findings are at best inconclusive. No attempt was made to determine whether the size of the INAH-3 caused the homosexuality or if the size was caused by the presence of AIDS. Further, the study lacks replication. And the sample size is far too small to draw any firm conclusions.
Dr. Charles Socarides, Professor of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York considers the assumption preposterous - “I believe this theory is completely erroneous. There’s no possibility of someone developing homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes, Its just impossible.. a cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual object choice. We know that or fact.”
It was interesting how, at the time, the liberal press, homosexual groups, and generally uninformed politicians jumped upon the flimsy bandwagon claiming conclusive proof of biological cause for homosexuality before they had studied the criteria of the study and the predetermined goals of the researcher.
c. National Institute of Health “Fruit Fly Study” – 1995
The US National Institute of Health undertook a rather interesting (bizarre) study in 1995. The study undertook to reduce the chemical serotonim by superheating the environment in which the fruit flies existed. While the reactions of the female fruit flies was unaltered, the males went into a frenzy and would mate with anything – even other males. On the other hand, unaltered males in a totally male environment resisted for up to two hours before succumbing to to mating with each other.
The observed conclusion of this study was that environment is more important than heredity in determining homosexual action.
Aside from the obvious concerns with this study, it also fails to acknowledge that the unaltered males in both cases outnumbered the altered by ratios of up to four to one.
d. Bailey & Pillard Study of Twins
These researchers undertook a study of twins to determine the incidence and cause of both twins being homosexual when one was homosexual. Their results indicated as follows:
The conclusion to this study was that there was an indication of a genetic link to the presence of homosexuality. This conclusion looked to the significantly higher incidence in identical twins when compared to the other sets of twins and brothers. It did not try to explain the finding of a higher incidence of homosexuality in adopted siblings when compared to non-twin biological brothers.
Of course there are many problems with this study right from the outset that invalidate any of the conclusions of the researchers.
Firstly, the sample was obtained through advertisements in homosexual magazines. This would skew the sample toward the incidence of homosexuality at the outset.
Second, The object of the study was not blind to the participants. Hence, they could easily be taken up with the purpose of the study and its hoped for findings that would, in turn, encourage responses tending to prove that object.
Third, the fact that the twins had been brought up together each in a single-family environment failed to remove the environmental factors that could be contributing to the resultant homosexuality.
Fourth, it was erroneously “assumed” that, because they were brought up each in the same environment, that their environmental effects were identical.
Fifth, if a genetic cause of the homosexuality were extant, one would want to see a 100% incidence of both being homosexual in the identical twins.
Sixth, The study fails to indicate what biological mechanisms are assumed to be theoretically functioning.
Seventh, the samples used in the study were so insignificant as to invalidate any findings. There were only 161 males and 147 females involved. Hence the “indications” of the study are indicative of very little and conclusive of nothing.
Again, the study of Bailey and Pillard is of interest but does not prove anything to be true or false. The high rates are interesting in the light of the generally accepted figures of 1% - 3% of the total population being homosexual.
This Bailey and Pillard Study also runs into problems when its results are compared to those of a similar 1992 British Study by King and McDonald where the findings are as follows:
Thus, the British Study does certainly not replicate the Bailey and Pillard study. Further, the closeness of the percentages for identical and fraternal twins tends to eliminate the genetic factor.
Also, this British Study found that early sexual experience between same-sex-co-twins (especially identical twins) was higher than for non-twins. This points to more to experiential than biological (genetic) factors.
In any case, the British Study totally weakens the already deficient Bailey and Pillard Study.
e. Dean Hamer Genetic Linkage Study - 1993
The Dean Hamer Genetic Linkage Study as reported in the July 1993 issue of Science undertook to study 114 families of homosexual men using DNA linkage studies.
The “key” findings of this study were:
The conclusion of the study was that there is a statistical confidence level of 99% that male homosexuality is genetically influenced.
While simply reading the conclusion would tend to produce a sense of proof amongst those who would like to find such (the homosexual lobby, politicians, judicial system, the press, etc.) and would not be likely to go into any depth of analysis to validate the findings, there are many obvious flaws in this study.
The sample used was really too small to produce any realistic or conclusive evidence of anything. Further, they were not randomly selected and do not represent the whole homosexual population. And if such genetic driveness were to be concluded there would need to be an explanation of the 7% of the insignificant sample that did not meet the criteria.
But the study had even more condemning aspects that should have precluded even publishing these results. There was no study of a parallel heterosexual control group for comparison to the theoretical conclusions regarding homosexuality. And the study, despite its use of DNA, does not produce even a speculation of any single gene that would determine homosexuality. Finally, nothing in the study rules out non-biological factors related to life experience.
f. Hormonal Studies
There have been several attempts at producing hormonal studies to prove driveness toward homosexuality due to hormonal balances.
The theory; “The prenatal hormonal hypothesis of human sexual orientation holds that male heterosexuality and female homosexuality result from prenatal exposure to high levels of testicular hormones, while homosexual males and heterosexual females are exposed to lower levels and thus retain a female pattern of brain organisation.”
The major problem with this study is that it has been entirely based upon test on animals. And the animal kingdom is noted for no known strictly homosexual behaviour within a species despite the random display of episodes of homosexual activity.
Further, if hormones were a determining factor in sexual orientation it would be highly probable that those men who experienced prenatal androgen deficiencies or insensitivity, and women with prenatal androgen excess, would demonstrate a large percentage of homosexuality. Research does not support this expectation.
As can be clearly seen from the outline material shown above, much of the study in this field has been conclusion driven. Despite the clear problems with all of the so-called research the generally unlearned press, politicians, judiciary, and determined homosexual lobby have jumped on the highly suspect research and presented to an unsuspecting population as fact.
In short, there is no conclusive science presenting proof of any form of genetic (biological) cause of homosexuality. Again, quoting Byne and Parsons, “While behaviour must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favouring a biologic theory to be lacking.”
The Homosexual lobby, in its attempt to characterize homosexuality as being a minority group in the same vein as race or culture, tries to stay away from the health problems (physical and psychological) generated by the fact of being homosexual. Yet the resultant difficulties are clear indications that homosexuality is against the natural law governing the human species.
While it is difficult to discuss “what homosexuals do” it is an inherent factor in the presentation of this material.
Homosexuals claim the right to physical love “in the same manner” as heterosexuals. Further, their claim is that physical love for them is just as “natural” as that of heterosexuals. While Holy Scripture in itself would disprove this such must be left to a later section of this paper and merely the physical actions and resultant problems must be herein examined.
This needs to be analyzed for male homosexuals and female homosexuals separately.
Since human face-to-face lovemaking – a factor that is exclusive to human beings but not necessarily the only form of lovemaking – is absolutely impossible for the male homosexual community, substitute forms of mutual sexual involvement must be found. Aside from mutual masturbation or oral penal stimulation, the anus becomes the object of sexual pleasure for the male homosexual. Such involves such things as anal intercourse (sodomy), the introduction of foreign objects into the anus (corn cobs, light bulbs, vibrators, soda bottles, wooden sticks, etc), fisting, and rimming (anilingus).
The resultant health problems caused by these unnatural activities are many. When dealing with the abnormal utilisation of the anus one is opening the door to problems caused by bacteria and feces lodged in the lower bowel together with bacteria and refuse feces in indiscernible quantities around the anus.
Further, whereas the female vagina is created to receive the introduction of the male penis the anus is not so designed by the Creator God. Hence, it is not as flexible as the vagina and the introduction of the non-intended items listed above, amongst others, causes fissures, ulcers, boils, precancerous lesions, and bacterial infections.
The resultant health problems for male homosexuals are myriad. 80% of homosexuals have suffered from at least one STD. Gonorrhoea and Syphilis of the throat are prevalent as are intestinal infections amongst the homosexual community. While homosexuals as a whole comprise less than 3% of the total population homosexual males account for 50% of these diseases.
Studies have shown that homosexual males average 26.9 partners per year. Yet 75% of male homosexuals do not use condoms. Further studies show that between 50% and 75% of homosexual and bisexual males will contract the always eventually fatal AIDS.
These figures are further supported by findings published in “Not Afraid to Come Out – A Celebration of Freedom from Homosexuality” by Matt Kauffman as follows:
Promises notwithstanding, homosexuality is widely associated with behavior best described as compulsive. Numerous studies have found that the average male homosexual is fantastically promiscuous. One of the most extensive studies, by researchers A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, found that over the course of a lifetime:
Hepatitis B is 20 to 50 times more prevalent in homosexual males as compared to heterosexual males. Some studies indicate that between 50% and 75% of homosexual males have had this disease at one time or another. This sometimes fatal disease is a major health problem.
Gay Bowel Syndrome (both amebiasis and giardiasis) is another major disease caused by the activity of homosexual males. It is caused by organisms being introduced into and lodging in the bowel usually as a result of some form of anal intercourse.
What has to be understood is that these are not simply matters of private affairs between consenting adults. They are health hazards. As such they affect us all either through casual sexual contact (a problem in itself) or through the rising costs of the health care system.
Female homosexuality finds it even more difficult to experience sexual pleasure than male homosexuals due the lack of natural penile instrumentation. This is overcome through the use of vaginal or anal oral sex and the use of dildos, vibrators, fingers, fists, etc. The resultant diseases are similar and equally as devastating.
It can be said that a faithful homosexual community would reduce the number of such health problems. But, such is not the norm. Homosexuals, while longing for faithful lasting unions are not so predisposed as experience illustrates.
This study has not delved into the psychological factors entering into the homosexual union. However, it would be simple to postulate that the frequency of changing partners and the wilful search for a multiplicity of partners has to do with the inner knowledge that such is unnatural and can only be justified by increased thrills gained from a multiplicity of partners. IN so undertaking constantly new and different experiences the individual is able to keep the mind from contemplating the ramifications of going against the natural strain of human sexual relationships.
One of the greatest blots on human history that has made itself well known in this day and age is that of the molestation of young children by adults. These people are preying upon the innocence and gullibility of children in addition to the high profile events where abduction, rape, and murder are the key characteristics.
The records clearly illustrate that homosexuals play a major role in the perpetration of such crimes against humanity. The homosexual lobby will quite correctly state that there are far more heterosexuals charged with such crimes. In fact heterosexuals leaving homosexual persons the perpetrators of a mere 33% undertake a full 67% of such heinous actions.
However, this is in itself a distorted vision of the true situation. Raw numbers are not the damning item in this circumstance. It is when the statistical fact that the homosexual community comprises less than a mere 3% of society that the commission of 33% of such crimes against children truly comes into focus. It clearly illustrates the large proportion of crimes of pedophilia are committed by such a small proportion of society. It is in this realisation that the horror of the whole situation comes to the fore.
In a study produced by Dr. Paul Cameron for the Family Research Institute and published in November 2002 the following two charts were produced:
The study is mainly concerned about the use of homosexual couples, male and female, as foster parents. However, it does serve to further solidify the statements made above.
The study is worth a read as it highlights the problems that are clearly and statistically present with such moves. However, in their zeal to be fair and non-discriminatory, those with political responsibility together with those involved in child welfare not only turn a blind eye but also perform far less follow-up on placements with homosexual couples for fear of facing charges of prejudice and discrimination.
Some members of the homosexual community also openly not only support but also advocate “intergenerational se.” The March 26, 1992 issue of Sentinel (a San Francisco, California Homosexual Magazine) openly endorses such paedophilic activity. In 1990 an issue of the Journal of Homosexuality was entirely devoted to the theme “Male Intergenerational Intimacy.” In that magazine issue #2 David Thorstad of the North American Man/Boy Love Association wrote “ The issue of man/boy love has intersected the gay movement since the nineteenth century.” He goes on to complain that paedophilia is being suppressed by the “gay movement,” which “seeks to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream”
Lester Kirkendall, a sex education pioneer and Kinsey colleague predicted in a 1985 professional journal that once our sense of guilt diminishes, cross-generational (adult-child) sex and other forms of sexual expression “will become legitimate.”
On the Larry King show with Larry Flint (owner & publisher of Hustler Magazine) and Pastor Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell predicted that child sexual relations will be legalized in the USA before our generation passes away. And, can there be any doubt, especially in Canada where there is such a demonic urgency being exercised in both our governments, our judicial system, and even in some of mainline denominational our Churches to legitimize homosexuality with all its problems that can be seated in thise unnatural behaviour, that such will ultimately be the case.
Can any of us deny that this is a good possibility given the recent decisions of the instruments of Satan in our society - government, courts, Churches etc. that as the homosexual lobby continues to push back the barriers further and further that all their desires will ultimately be granted. Of course, all would say that such will not and cannot happen at this point. However, it must be remembered that many apathetic Christians said this about many things, including this dilemma, in the past. We may have “governmental assurances” as in the past but know only too well how they are conveniently forgotten when it suits the perpetrators of these changes.
It is time that the governments, the courts, and the Churches realised the dangers of the legitimizing of this lifestyle. It is time that the responsible institutions began to take actions to protect both the main stream of society and those who are mercilessly trapped in the horrors of the unnatural lifestyle wrapped up in the homosexual community.
The governments and the judicial system have been completely duped into viewing the homosexual lobby and its desires in the sense of “rights” a community being discriminated against. And these members of the Canadian dictatorships are turning from their responsibilities toward democracy in violating natural, cultural, and spiritual laws and mores of the majority of the people in the country in order to pass on unhealthy “rights” to this group when they should be concerned about their health and well-being administered in love and respect.
The mainline Church leaderships are even more culpable as they are turning a blind eye to the Holy Word of God in advocating the legitimization of that which is therein stated as being an Abomination to the Lord. However, this liberal leadership finds friendship with the secular world far more appealing.
In the early days of the conflict there was a strong move afoot to justify the homosexual lobby by revisiting and reinterpreting the Holy Scriptures. However, such has now gone by the wayside as writers such as Dr. Walter Wink in his work Homosexuality and the Bible maintain. In this line of thought it is conceded that the Bible, throughout its writings, does not support and actually condemns the homosexual lifestyle. However, as it is the human responsibility to adjust according to the day and age and to interpret the intentions of God for that age, it is good and correct to ignore these passages of Holy Scripture in order to uphold the “love” admonitions of Jesus and accept all people as they are.
While this argument is full of weakness, it is difficult to argue against it as the immediate admonition, often administered by shouting down one who stands for the Holy Scripture, is that one who does argue is homophobic and totally unloving and unaccepting of God’s people. Of course, none of this is true. But it can be effective in that one who does not agree with the liberal stance then has trouble getting the floor again.
The truth is, in the light of the information given in this paper, that the only true and real loving action is that of holding out the hand of Christ in love and care in inviting the homosexual into the realm of salvation and forgiveness in Jesus. When a parent sees a child entering into a dangerous event in life that parent in total love takes every possible step to deter the child , forcibly if necessary, from the brink of disaster. Likewise, if one is determined to commit suicide, the loving Christian reaches out by first preventing the act and then attempting to show that individual the real value of life lived in Jesus Christ. So the goal of the Christian must be to lovingly and caringly bring the homosexual individual into the love of Christ and offer the healing power of Jesus to overcome the sin and walk the fulfilled life lived in Jesus Christ.
The whole matter, though, comes down to the place of the Holy Scriptures in Christianity. The liberal thinkers see the Holy Bible as a book about God as seen by man over the ages. It is not authoritative save when its words support their arguments. Hence the love passages of Jesus, or those supporting the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, etc. are accepted. But the miracles of God, the supernatural actions seen throughout Holy Scripture, etc. are all explained away as being pre-scientific and not applicable to today’s world.
The passages dealing with homosexuality are variously explained as being irrelevant to today’s society and situation. Many are explained as being “cultural” statements only valid in that day and age. Others are erroneously explained as being only applicable when applied to cultic worship. Others are seen as being “non-responsive” to the needs of today’s society.
Others challenge the Holy Scriptures as being the product of a paternalistic society. As such, they are seen as unfair and unreasonable toward women and homosexuals.
Others try to have the words of the original languages reinterpreted with variant meanings so as to be friendlier to homosexuals.
However, it is cut, the real argument comes back to the place of Holy Scripture in today’s world and in the faith of the Church. Traditionally the Church has seen the Holy Bible as God’s Written Word to Mankind. It is important to understand that the Bible is not a book about God. Rather it is God’s teachings and proclamations to humanity. It is the book that reveals God’s purposes in Creation and humankind’s place in that Creation. In short, the Holy Scriptures are the Holy Word of God infallibly given under the guidance of The Holy Spirit of God.
Throughout the books contained within this Book God is seen as Holy and His Word is seen as unchanging (Malachi 3:6; St. Matthew 24:35; St. Mark 13:31; St. Luke 21:33; Hebrews 13:8). God’s teaching is that, when Christians are dealing with Him through the Holy Spirit they must discern responses being received to insure they are from God. The way this is done is comparison to the Holy Scriptures. And if anything violates the unchangeable teachings of Scripture they are not of God.
Christians, in their Baptism, are brought under the sovereignty of God’s Holy Word. The Anglican Church teaches in the 39 Articles that not even the Church can teach or revise this Holy Word of God by teaching things repugnant to God’s Word.
The liberals, in their friendship with the world, have tried to get around this requirement by removing the matter from being a theological concern to being a pastoral concern. However, because God’s Word speaks so strongly in these matters, such an approach is not valid and merely serves to provide obeisance to the Father of Lies. True \Christian Love, as shown above, requires that all people be offered the Salvation of God in Jesus and be brought under the direct admonitions of the Holy Word of God written in the Scriptures and Living in Jesus Christ Who will never violate the Written Word of God.
Then it is necessary to see what the Holy Scriptures have to say about love and marriage. It is only as lived under the Will of God the human life and human love can be sanctified.
In Genesis 1:27 it is seen that God created humankind male and female. And as male and female they are told to be fruitful and fill the earth. It is further seen that humankind (male and female) is made in the image and likeness of Almighty God to reflect His Divine Presence and Will to the whole world. Genesis 2 carries on to show that God took a personal interest in the forming (moulding) of man from the dust of the earth. God then made a helpmate for man from his side (rib, personality) who had specific characteristics that provided for the maintenance and development of the human race. He brought male and female together with the instruction that “A man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two should become one flesh.” The Creation plan was complete with regard to humanity. And the oneness of male and female in living in unity was established.
In this teaching, it is seen that humankind is completed in the two becoming one flesh. And Jesus, without stating that celibacy was wrong, quoted this portion of Scripture in his discourse on marriage recorded in St. Matthew 19:4.
Hence, in God’s plan, it is male and female that is specifically brought together to live in spiritual and physical unity. It is in this spiritual and physical (sexual) that the two can become one flesh under God.
However, the argument cannot be made that Holy Scripture never addresses the subject of sexual unions aside from marriage. Both male and female homosexuality are clearly addressed together with that of bestiality.
Leviticus 18:22 specifically states that a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination to the Lord. While the liberal view takes the word translated abomination and tries to have it mean only when such is undertaken in acts of idolatry the error is cleared when seen in the light and interpretation of the people of the time and in the eyes of the early Church. When seen in this light it becomes clear that the act of a man lying with a man as with a woman is in itself an act of idolatry – a worshipping of something other than Almighty God.
Leviticus 20:13 clears the matter up when it states that homosexual action is so serious that the perpetrators are to be cut-off from the people of God. IN this case, being a desert situation, cut-off is interpreted to mean put to death. In other words, the sin of homosexuality is seen as bearing the same consequences as premeditated murder.
Leviticus 18:23 similarly deals with the matter of bestiality.
Both male and female homosexuality are condemned in the Romans 1:18ff where the idolatrous act is seen as man committing indecent acts with other men and women doing unnatural things with other women. The Greek word used in Romans 1:27 is interpreted total indecency.
The liberal homosexual friendly reinterpretation of this passage wants to say that this only applies to heterosexuals undertaking homosexual acts. But the context is clear in itself. And when read in the light of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the meaning is even clearer..
The Romans passage goes on in verse 32 to clearly point out that undertaking these acts is bad enough but such people carry the abomination even further in teaching others to perform the same abominable acts.
St. Paul also discusses the matter briefly in 1 Corinthians 6:9. This verse condemns both male prostitutes and homosexual offenders and includes them in the list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word interpreted male prostitutes literally means effeminate lovers of finery and/or voluptuous male persons. The term translated homosexuals literally means sodomites. And these latter return directly to the male homosexual action involving anal intercourse.
Numerous other passages talking about the exclusion of the sexually immoral from the Kingdom of God, which would naturally include homosexual activity as abominations to the Lord, are found throughout the Holy Scriptures. But these have been noted to illustrate the sufficiency of God’s Word in this area.
Thus, in order to find homosexuality as being acceptable to God and His Church, it is obvious that it is necessary to explain away, or eliminate, much of God’s Holy Word as contained in the Holy bible.
Further illustration about sexual obedience to God can be found in the article Obedience and Human Sexuality found on this site.
The modern propensity to “revisit” Holy Scripture with a view to reinterpreting the meanings of the words used in the original language is very dangerous. This action can be the ultimate in modern day ego concerning the ability to know things not known by the more simplistic of an earlier age.
For instance, it is often thought that, as more information comes forth on the meanings of words in ancient times, we are more able to find the correct meaning than the people of the day, naturally being more simplistic, would be able comprehend. This is often asserted, even if the newly revised meaning of the word totally opposes the understanding of that day of the people to whom the work was addressed.
Some of the work of the revisionist groups would change words for homosexuality to be read “sexual preference.”
Entering into the non-scriptural world, those who do not agree with homosexuality are automatically labelled “homophobes” or “homo haters.” Such totally fails to take into account that opponents to homosexuality may be doing so with the greatest of love and care in their hearts. Further, they may have no fear at all concerning homosexuals other than the fear of loss of the souls of the homosexuals who remain in their sin.
In the Scriptural world again, there is a marked effort to pervert the original words of Holy Scripture in order to satisfy the needs of the feminist and homosexual lobbies, sometimes one and the same, the masculine words applied to God are summarily altered to read Father as Mother. This is in direct contravention to the manner in which God has chosen to reveal Himself. Hence such action is an abomination in the sense of idol worship in itself.
In the revisionist world the Gospel is relegated to that of a “feel good” mentality that does not talk about sin or repentance. The talk about the embracing all of humanity is used in a sense that destroys the concept that Christ died for all and His benefits come to all who consciously accept Him as Saviour and Lord. The revisionist view of being for all reaches to everyone regardless of their acceptance of Jesus. Simply stated the Gospel is reduced from “repent, believe, and obey” to one of “accept yourself as you are and God will honour your devotion to yourself.”
Pastoral care in this concept is changed from bringing people into the love of Jesus to encouraging people to accept all alternatives as being good. In short the liberal form of so-called theology really comes down to accepting the new tolerance in place of the love and tolerance wrapped up in Jesus as He is seen in the Holy Word of god.
The question then arises, “Can a homosexual person be healed of his/her condition?” It seems like a simple question. And yet the answer is really quite complex.
The homosexual community would have it believed that any “healing” of the condition is impossible. The rationale behind that is, of course, that the condition is inbred and genetic in nature. Therefore any attempt to change the individual’s orientation would be fighting against nature itself. The homosexual community, despite the failure to prove such, holds to the concept that a person is homosexual from birth. The orientation is genetically and/or biologically driven (Genetics overlaps many different branches of biology and many other sciences; e.g., chemistry, physics, mathematics, sociology, psychology, and medicine. Microbiologists who study inheritance in micro organisms are called microbial geneticists; cytologists who study the genetics of cells are called cytogeneticists. Biochemical, or molecular, geneticists investigate the chemical nature of the gene and its methods of action – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003 article on Genetics). So change, if achieved, is forced and unwise.
The homosexual community further states that homosexuals do not want to change. Any individual seeking to change is merely succumbing to the pressure of the homophobic heterosexual community.
The homosexual community will do all it can to prevent such change occurring and will discredit those who have been healed by saying that they couldn’t have really changed. Thus such is counterfeit. Further they will say that one who has changed is really not cured. Rather he/she has merely become celibate.
Focus on the Family hosts Love Won Out conferences that illustrate the ability to change with the Healing Power of Jesus. Invariably, when a conference is scheduled for any given city homosexual activists undertake to block the conference by picketing or undertaking diversionary tactics. IN some instances the leaders of the conferences have even had communications from the homosexual community involving death threats or threats of bodily harm if the conference goes on.
The following report prior to the Pasadena, California Love Won Out Conference to be led by John Paulk in August 2002 has the following information concerning the homosexual group opposition to the conference being held, “Paulk, himself a former homosexual, responds, "Focus on the Family believes in offering a choice to those who desire it. Unfortunately, many who have struggled out of homosexuality have been subjected to ridicule, vitriolic attacks and even death threats for sharing this option with others. We continue to offer hope to the families who have been devastated by homosexuality and to the individuals who feel trapped by it."”
Such myopic reaction illustrates the homosexual lobby’s true dedication to tolerance. While demanding total tolerance, acceptance, and affirmation of their own lifestyle the homosexual lobby is known for taking every action to muzzle any opposition to their cause.
Yet, the real answer to the question, “Can Homosexuality be healed?” is a resounding “YES!” When homosexuality is seen as a sinful activity that is wilfully undertaken resulting from some event in life, forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus Christ just as for any other sin.
Dr. David Smith, in his paper Scripture and Homosexual Experience refers to the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Moberly concerning the homosexual orientation. Dr. Smith points out that Dr. Moberly is of the opinion and done research to confirm the same, has its root in early childhood development. Dr. Moberly concludes that homosexual orientation (same-sex love) is an action undertaken in an attempt to make–up for a deficiency in that kind of love in early childhood and that such is simply another manifestation of the human fallen condition. She further concludes that genital stimulation in same-sex relationships is a matter of attempting to satisfy a non-erotic need through participation in an erotic solution. And for this reason, she does not advocate the legitimizing of homosexual relationships in the Church. Dr. Smith also points out the Dr. Moberly also does not advocate minimizing homosexual orientation. Rather she advocates therapy and healing friendships to help meet the real and healthy need for same-sex relationships present in the individual with homosexual orientation – a need that she argues must be met for the sake of wholeness.
In concert with Dr. Moberly many other studies have shown that homosexual orientation can be the result of the above mentioned difficulties with a same-sex parent. There is a high incidence of homosexual orientation in persons who were brought up in a single parent home with an overprotective parental figure. Also, homosexual orientation can result from traumatic sexual experience at a young age. Further, children who have been placed in an environment with same-sex persons as authority figures who are seriously sexually involved have a strong likelihood of becoming homosexual themselves.
While the psycho-Christian option is very real and available to any and all homosexuals, the healing process requires the individual to come to the point of realising the total lack of fulfillment found in the ungodly homosexual lifestyle and the need for redemption from that lifestyle and a lifting into the lifestyle God had intended in his/her Creation. In short, as in so many other situations in life needing healing, the individual must “bottom out” before the salvation route to healing can be undertaken.
But, given such a desire in the homosexually oriented individual, the power of Christ can lead the cooperative and desirous person out of the fallen state of homosexual practice into the uplifting life lived in the presence of Jesus Christ.
However, while such sounds easy and simple it is not! The individual will face the threats and coercion undertaken by his/her former friends to drag him/her back into the state of the fallen human condition and its inherent separation from Almighty God. In times of pain and difficulty there will be a great temptation to fall back into the previous form of life. Any smoker can detail the problems faced in escaping this physical and psychological condition. And the difficulties for recovering homosexuals are similar and at least as strong if not stronger.
The cure for a homosexual requires his/her determination to return to the life God intends for him/her. But it also requires a skilled leading toward Christ. A same-sex friend who truly cares for the individual is essential. And Christian Psychotherapy is a must in leading the homosexual to the land of wholeness and completeness under God.
Unfortunately, the statistical success rate is not 100%. In fact the rate is about the same as that for the recovery of alcoholics – about 20% - 60%. But, it is worth all the effort, pain, and commitment for the thousands of homosexuals who have been saved from that separation from Almighty God.
The essential thing to remember is that “with God, all things are possible!”
It is obvious from Holy Scripture that active homosexuality cannot be tolerated by Christians as being an alternate form of life within the “saved” community of Jesus Christ. God has stated as sin that is morally disgusting and that will not lead to membership in the Kingdom of God. There can be no controversy concerning this fact. In fact, it would appear that even considering anything contrary to God’s Word is, in itself, an act of idolatry.
However, Christians cannot use this basic principle as a reason for hating, despising, or wishing harm to person of homosexual orientation. Nothing could be farther from the Gospel of Jesus Christ than such acts lacking in the love of Christ. As with persons involved in the practice of any other sinful activity, Christians must love the sinner while hating the sin that is separating that individual from the Salvation of Jesus Christ.
The previously mentioned documents concerning the lead up to the Love Won Out conferences which have mentioned the strong active opposition by homosexual groups there area also references to opposition from “Christian” groups. While some of these can be discounted as they emanate from the liberal wings of some main-line denominations that wish to retain the label “Christian” while acting in direct contravention of the Holy Word of God by supporting the homosexual lobby, others are quite disconcerting. These latter are “Bible believing” groups of Christians who have somehow come to the conclusion that God has abandoned practicing homosexuals and summarily condemned them to hell without any opportunity for repentance and Salvation in Christ. Such is not supportable from the Holy Word of God and cannot be accepted as being a Christian activity.
As with all other sin practiced by all other sinners, God is constantly reaching out in His Divine Love. He is calling homosexuals, along with all other sinners, into the Forgiveness and Salvation that comes with Repentance and Dedication of Life to Jesus Christ!
Thus, Christians must welcome all homosexuals into their midst who wish to either search for the Love of God about which they have heard or enter into their healing from homosexuality in the Love of Christ through Repentance and receiving of the wholeness of Christ into their lives. Christians cannot diminish the Gospel. On the other hand, neither can they restrict the Gospel’s reach.
While maintaining a vision of the horror of the sin of homosexuality Christians must become the real and true Body of Christ reaching out in patient love and tenderness characteristic of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. All Christians were once under the same condemnation as all sinners. It is only in the Love of God extended in Jesus Christ that life is now lived by the power of God’s Holy Spirit as members of His Body - the Church. As conversion is simple but life changing has been difficult for all Christians, so life changing is very difficult for the homosexual. The patient persistent Love of Christ in His Body is most essential for such a transformation to occur.
Thus, the reforming homosexual must be accepted into all aspects of the Church’s life. Worship, prayer groups, Bible Studies, participation in the sacraments/ordinances commanded by Christ, etc. must all be available to the reforming homosexual. In short, as with all who have come to Christ and are in the process of sanctification (reforming) the wholeness of the Body of Christ must be made available.
The Christian Church must also be ready to joyfully receive the presence of the seeking homosexual. Such a person is recognising the deficiency in his/her life and is searching out the true and meaningful life. As Jesus was available to all people who would know of Him with the goals of possible coming to Him, so the Body of Christ must be receptive, patient, and loving. To be otherwise would be to be Pharisaic and unacceptable to God Himself. This does not mean accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a norm within Christianity. Rather it means reaching out in love to anyone who would seek to truly know Jesus, which would ultimately lead to a renouncing of homosexual practice and coming into the Forgiveness of the Cross and Salvation in the Risen, Ascended and Glorified Lord Jesus the Christ of God.
Once the homosexual realises that he/she has been using a Satan falsehood involved in same-sex genital sexual relationship in order to cover-up rather than heal a wounded past and has come to Jesus for healing the easy part has been achieved. Now comes the really difficult walk for the individual and for the Christians involved with that person.
When the Christian walk is considered, a small picture of the approaching problems can be understood to some level. The Christian journey travels through the point of Justification, onward through the process of Sanctification, and forward into Glorification. The first is a major step taken in the conscious coming to Jesus and humbly acknowledging the absolute need for His Loving Gift of Eternal Life. The Last is the point where the Christian passes from this life into the glorious heavenly life lived in the Divine Presence of Almighty God.
In between is the process not recognised or truly lived by many Christians – the process of Sanctification. In this progression the Christian is constantly overcoming sin in self and the world around. In this process the Christian is seeking to become more and more Christ like. It is a frustrating progression that involves set backs and magnificent steps forward. It involves new revelations concerning sin in an individual’s life and the glorious joy of over coming that sin. For any Christian this is a frustrating, exasperating, wearisome, exciting, joyful, overcoming experiencing of the fullness of the presence of Christ who gives Life in all its Fullness. It is a walk in which the love and care of the Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit working through that Body is an essential for the individual to live and grow toward the glorious ultimate Sanctification.
This walk is one that is extremely difficult for the reforming homosexual. His/her plight is similar to that of a drug addict, an alcoholic, etc. There are constant temptations to return to that which is known and familiar despite its understood sinfulness. There is the added continuous coercive action from the homosexual community to “stop denying that which cannot be controlled (their false and misleading party line.” Erroneous actions by well-meaning Christians will also trigger negative responses to the walk that has been undertaken.
All Christians experience the sense of, “If I am a new person in Christ, how come the old person keeps sitting up?” The recovering redeemed homosexual may receive these temptations in double intensity. Thus, it is essential for the whole Christian Community to make itself available to the person walking in the early stages of the process of Sanctification. Far too often the Church sees Justification as the goal and sits back after that decision has been made. However, the Body of Christ is a Community that needs to live together and walk together being constantly available to and for each other throughout the Christian Walk of Sanctification. This is nowhere more necessary than in being there for the redeemed homosexual in his/her walk through that same process.
Those who would accept homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle constantly accuse Bible Believing Christians of being unloving because they do not so accept a fellow child of God. Aside from a child of God being one who has accepted His Son Jesus and all that goes with it, true love comes in being concerned about the Salvation of an individual through Jesus Christ. Just as truly loving one’s own child often requires the more cult road involving admonition and training toward correctness so in the Christian walk it is often necessary to show sinfulness in order to bring a person to true righteousness in Jesus Christ.
Bible Believing Christians are always ready to undertake this more difficult walk. The whole process is wrapped up in faithfulness to the Great Commission of Jesus. Jesus always pointed out that the true walk would not be accepted by the world. But that the true walk is in Christ to the Glory of God the Father and by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Such is the Christian walk with relationship to the sin of homosexuality and the bringing of the sinner to Salvation in Jesus!
While the case against the viability of Christians accepting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle seems extremely clear and incontrovertible, there are still major dangers for Christians extant in secular and “religious” society. The science, the psychology, the Holy Scriptures are clearly indicative that such cannot be so. But, the secular and pseudo-religious world are not so guided in their politically and emotionally driven decision making process.
AS has been most evident in Canada over the past few years, all that seems immoral and unacceptable in the Christian lifestyle is being made normal and acceptable by the justice system and the legislative system. Judgments, while later being reversed or modified, have been made in favour of the child pornography lobby in treating some forms as having artistic value. The homosexual lifestyle of less than 3% of the population has been given rights far surpassing that of the limits of morality. And now the very definition of marriage is being threatened in the judicial and parliamentary arena that are characterized by their amoral attitudes.
The judicial system, political system, and even the religious system is attacking the morality of Almighty God in justifying homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Decisions are being based upon poor and misleading information and a complete ignoring of God’s Holy Word. Emotional and political necessity are taking precedence over sound knowledge and logic.
Further, since the political arena is favouring homosexuality as being a norm, it is filtering down into the educational system where it is being taught as a normal way of life. Even Christian children who attend the public school system are required to receive this illicit and immoral propaganda. In our this so-called democratic society such immorality is forced upon the young people of today based upon accessions to less than 3% of society while the Judaeo/Christian morality of the majority of society is forbidden and barred from the classroom. It is difficult for Christians living under the rule of such an dictatorship that exists under the guise of a democracy.
The problem is further exasperated by a movement in the political and judicial system to make speaking against homosexuality a hate crime and books, that could easily include the Bible, that speak against homosexuality would be deemed hate literature. While the Prime Minister and his minions have guaranteed the protection of the Churches, this is a promise that could go the way of the dodo bird just as so many of this governments affirmations have previously disappeared and gone unacknowledged.
The attack on the definition of marriage carries the same difficulties for Christians. While such a change has been guaranteed not to effect Christians, it is easy to see how, under the guise of the Charter of Rights, it would not be long before the homosexual lobby would be demanding and receiving the right to to require Christians to accede to their demands.
This day and age is a trial to the whole moral fabric of Christianity. And it is all based upon the unknowing or uncaring acceptance of bad science, misinformation, and political will supplanting the moral will. It is a matter in which the Christian Community cannot be apathetic and take no action, as its history has been that has led up to this crisis. In the past the Body of Christ has abrogated its responsibility in the Church, in the political arenas, and in the schools. Such cannot be the case now. A firm stand for Christ must be taken and upheld in all areas. Misinformation, bad science, and ignorance of Scripture must be in the past if Canada is to survive as a country in the free world.
It is true that the church of God will survive. It has overcome many persecutions in the past by the power of God’s Holy Spirit. And so it will today. The problem is in how it will survive in this country and how our country will survive as a nation under God despite the godless minions of Satan functioning in today’s leadership. The responsibility belongs to all Christians everywhere.