Best to leave it to the experts.

In response to Loud and proud complementarians: John Piper and Nick Roen. commenter Crude wrote:

I used to accept a version of what Piper and Roen talked about re: homophobia. That idea that you had to criticize gay marriage and sodomy for the *right* reasons – have all your philosophical and biblical t’s crossed and i’s dotted immaculately – or else your motivations were wrong and your position hard to defend.

Then I realized I had been had.

For one thing: no one ever demands that we scrupulously, with abundant biblical references, justify our giving to charity, helping the poor, being courteous and kind. No one ever says that if you help someone just because it feels nice to then you’re a wicked, poorly motivated person, and what you REALLY need is a plethora of biblical references and some philosophical grounding in Aquinas to even THINK about helping the poor. No one demands this for our inveighing against alcoholism, drug use, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, those are seen as just-plain-right views to have, admirable acts to engage in when they’re good acts, or proper things to condemn when they’re bad ones.

It’s only for very specific (and trendy!) sins that we had damn well better have all of our motivations in perfect accord, on pain of our entire motivation being wrong.

What a horror. Some people may find anal sex to be repulsive *without an exhaustive biblical rationale to back them up*. How wicked. It sure SEEMS like a natural inclination to regard sin as sin, but no, it’s wicked!

…Yeah, for that and other reasons I finally realized it was all a pantload, cooked up by Christian cowards.

While it is true that our heart matters in all things, the goal is clearly to tie traditional Christians up in a web of a thousand legalistic details in order to prove that they aren’t being legalistic.  The goal is to make it so complex to confront the sin of homosexuality that ordinary Christians become exhausted and decide to leave it to the experts.  Conveniently, complementarians have a team of Christian gay rights experts standing by for just such an occasion!

This is the same model complementarians followed for feminism, and it is a devastatingly effective tactic.  When dealing with activist charges of sexism/abuse, you need a Christian women’s studies major or professor to take on the highly technical job of fighting feminism by explaining that the Bible was coincidentally feminist all along!  We just didn’t discover this fact until the 60s came along and enlightened us.  Likewise, when dealing with charges of homophobia and how intersectional theory should be incorporated into your biblical world view, you need a Christian gay activist who knows how to navigate this byzantine landscape.

For an example of this, see Rosaria Butterfield’s Desiring God article Gay Rights, Hate Speech, and Hospitality (LONGINGS OF A FORMER LESBIAN)

Originally, intersectionality dealt with material, structural oppressions — highlighting how race and class and the glass ceiling of sexism weigh heavy in a society made up of sinners. But when feminism shifted allegiance from Marx to Freud, when it turned from numbers to feelings, sexual orientation and gender identity took on new forms.

When ideas like “dignitary harm” (the harm accrued to your dignity by someone’s refusal to approve of your sin) found its place in civil law, intersectionality unleashed a monster. And with that monster came a message: homosexuality is not a sin; it is an aesthetic, an erotic orientation or way of looking at the world and everything in it. Today, the gospel is on a collision course with this message.

So sit back, put your feet up, and let our gay rights activists handle the culture war against their gay rights activists.  Just be sure to support God’s team in this exciting contest, as you cheer them on from the sidelines!

See Also: She holds an authority you cannot hold.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Dr. John Piper, Loud and proud complementarians, New Morality, Rebellion, Rosaria Butterfield, Social Justice Warriors, Traditional Conservatives, Women's Studies. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Best to leave it to the experts.

  1. David J. says:

    Dalrock: Crude made some excellent points. Your elaboration also makes excellent points. Roen’s article on the Desiring God site is troubling, at the least. But Rosaria Butterfield’s article on the same site is not more of the same; it’s actually contradictory to Roen’s article. The passage you quote is a critique of intersectionality, not an endorsement. Elsewhere in the same article she says, “The real problem is not what the world thinks, but rather that parts of the evangelical church are allowing the world to preach to it about personhood and identity — about who people really and ontologically are, and what they need to flourish. Many tragedies occur when the world preaches to the church (and the church listens), and one is that false conversions multiply.”

    I’ve read two of Butterfield’s books, read many articles by her, and heard her speak many times. She is rock solid in her opposition to any apologetics for homosexuality and to the idea of a gay or SSA identity for a Christian. (Our identity is in Christ; that’s it.) She should not be to assumed to agree with Roen because she was formerly homosexual.

  2. The Question says:

    All you need to do to end the discussion is adamantly insist they adhere to the same thorough process when confronting “racists.”

  3. David J. says:

    Butterfield further criticizes intersectionality in the church: “Yes, intersectionality has found its foothold today, not only in the wider culture, but also in some segments of the evangelical church. It’s a worldview that comes with ultimatums (“love me, love my dog”). It’s a worldview that rests on unbiblical notions of ontology (who people are). It rejects that original sin is really sinful, preferring to regard this sin that registers in our hearts before we take our first breath as merely a form of aesthetic difference.”

  4. Damn Crackers says:

    What’s amazing is that homosexual SSA is allowed in Christianity if it follows the heresy of courtly love.

  5. Damn Crackers says:

    @The Question – There is a good argument that racism isn’t even a sin since, unlike homosexuality, it isn’t mentioned in the Bible.

  6. The right is crippled by this requirement, it’s always looking for its own magical nagroes to criticize blacks voting Democrat, AA, etc.

    I think it’s a profound insecurity of some kind, like the kind a highly unpopular dork has.

  7. The Question says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    Exactly. That is why they don’t like applying the same process, and in my experience the conversation quickly ends when I demand it. i think of it as a Voight-Kampff test for flushing out SJWs.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @David J.

    Dalrock: Crude made some excellent points. Your elaboration also makes excellent points. Roen’s article on the Desiring God site is troubling, at the least. But Rosaria Butterfield’s article on the same site is not more of the same; it’s actually contradictory to Roen’s article.

    You are missing the larger point. That our gay rights activists will at times disagree with their gay rights activists isn’t the issue. The issue is the belief that we need conservative Christian gay rights activists like Rosaria Butterfield to enter the gay rights frame for us, and point out the right kind of gay rights activism. Once you’ve ceded that, it is all done. This is what complementarians did with feminism, and they are replaying the same script with homosexuality.

  9. Crude says:

    The right is crippled by this requirement

    Aside from the would-be experts Dalrock’s rightly pointing out – conservatives are burdened with some people for whom ceaseless debate is either a dream job, or worse, a social outlet. So when that lot has would-be leaders assigning them piles of moral paperwork, they’re kind of thrilled, because that happens to be their specialty.

  10. Crude says:

    Actually, following up on what I said: Butterfield’s post seems to be exactly what I meant when I talked about ‘ceaseless debate as a social outlet’:

    Ken leaned in, a warm mug of weakly percolated decaf coffee in hand, and asked the question that put our opposing worldviews into perspective: “Do you believe that what is true determines what is ethical? Or do you believe that what is ethical determines what is true?”

    Instead of mocking or attempting to destroy each other on social media, we pondered our differences, and brought a hot dish to the next Thursday night meal. This response helped us to let some offenses slide and focus instead on the big picture. It encouraged us to regard each other as human beings — not blank slates filled by competing ideologies and power relations.

    When you gather around the table with your perceived cultural enemy, not once, but weekly, you show that culture is not king. Jesus is. Ask good questions and listen to people’s answers. Perhaps you could start with this one: Do you believe that what is true determines what is ethical, or do you believe that what is ethical determines what is true?

    Week after week of exhaustive, intricate debate over coffee and potluck lunch, forever. Dante should have had that as a circle of hell.

    There’s a time and a place for debate and discussion. But eventually, that time runs out. Hence Matthew 10:14-14 – If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

    We’ve got more options and responsibilities than this.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Crude

    Actually, following up on what I said: Butterfield’s post seems to be exactly what I meant when I talked about ‘ceaseless debate as a social outlet’…

    Week after week of exhaustive, intricate debate over coffee and potluck lunch, forever. Dante should have had that as a circle of hell.

    Exactly. Add to that a never ending discussion on the precise moment temptation turns into sin, so we can ignore the fact that we are welcoming a cadre of professional gay activists. What other sin grants moral authority the way that feminist rebellion and homosexuality does?

  12. Lexet Blog says:

    I tossed out everything I had on Piper when he said he would be in sin to call 911 if his wife was being raped. He literally wrote those words. For a man, and an elder, to declare he wouldn’t protect his own wife, or even report it to the police, is disgusting.

    Here are some more reasons to criticize him.
    http://www.therealjohnpiper.com/john-piper-hedonist-theologian/

  13. Lexet Blog says:

    Good Samaritan story. Also woman at the well.
    And every good Old Testament story involving people being wiped out

  14. Just so you know, God’s team already lost.
    This is like calling a Hail Mary pass for a touchdown with no timeouts, 00:05 on the clock, 4th and 27 from your 4 yard line.
    And the score is 0-49.
    The stadium is already empty folks.
    Just like the Church pews.

    It was nice while it lasted.

    I will always remember with fondness the smell of hot morning coffee, candles burning and the unusual mixture of both men’s cologne and female perfume in the church vestibule area before taking our seats at the commencement of Lutheran Church Services.

  15. Cane Caldo says:

    @Crude

    Aside from the would-be experts Dalrock’s rightly pointing out – conservatives are burdened with some people for whom ceaseless debate is either a dream job, or worse, a social outlet. So when that lot has would-be leaders assigning them piles of moral paperwork, they’re kind of thrilled, because that happens to be their specialty.

    Yes! These are those to whom I referred in my comment to you here.

    Though ceaseless debate is not limited to conservatives. We are just closer to the conservative masters.

  16. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    “What other sin grants moral authority the way that feminist rebellion and homosexuality does?”

    Pedophilia. Just wait. We’ve already seen them discreetly portrayed as victims who should be pitied. And since romantic love is the basis for morality, that is how it will be framed. Add to that the way they’re softening up society to the idea of kids being capable of consent by having them decide to be chemically castrated and “switch genders,” that will be the next step.

    And I’m sure that when the time comes, they will argue that Jesus was sexually attracted to adolescents by pointing to the verse “suffer the little children unto me and do not hinder them,” and argue that Mary was a child married to an old man.

    The worst the church leaders will offer then is mealy-mouthed, spineless protests as they bend over backwards to explain how they’re not being legalistic and judgmental.

  17. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    You are missing the larger point. That our gay rights activists will at times disagree with their gay rights activists isn’t the issue. The issue is the belief that we need conservative Christian gay rights activists like Rosaria Butterfield to enter the gay rights frame for us, and point out the right kind of gay rights activism. Once you’ve ceded that, it is all done. This is what complementarians did with feminism, and they are replaying the same script with homosexuality.

    And it’s bigger than just feminism. It’s just democracy playing itself out because no one is accepts authority is a real thing.

    For this reason, so-called political conservatives like to send each other transcripts and video clips of some white guy giving a liberal the business, but they LOVE most of all clip of a black man or a woman giving liberals the business because that proves…something. Likewise, it is no different than Wilson’s Aromamancy by which he says we can divine that a husband is good by how well and often that man’s wife lets out the appropriate smells. By which he means: If mama tells us that her husband is happy with the way she lets him run things, then he better be.

    All it proves those is that they have an incoherent and overriding commitment to liberalism[1] and the exercise of democracy above all else; because democracy is most observable when a person of (say) Team Black upholds something that is usually put forth by Team White. Now Team White can crow that the democracy has spoken and therefore they have the incoherent authority in our authority-free system. Somehow this is supposed to be way better than living under the authority of someone who decrees that things be done in a right and just manner.

    ——————————————————————————–
    [1]If I have my Zippy Catholic right.

  18. David J. says:

    @Dalrock: “You are missing the larger point. That our gay rights activists will at times disagree with their gay rights activists isn’t the issue. The issue is the belief that we need conservative Christian gay rights activists like Rosaria Butterfield to enter the gay rights frame for us, and point out the right kind of gay rights activism. Once you’ve ceded that, it is all done. This is what complementarians did with feminism, and they are replaying the same script with homosexuality.”

    You’re right, I wasn’t picking up on that being the point of quoting from Butterfield’s article. Now that I understand your point, I agree completely that the biblical truth about homosexuality and about sanctification for a converted homosexual/SSA person is equally the truth whether spoken by a heterosexual white male or a formerly lesbian minority woman. While not being necessary, however, the latter certainly can have effectiveness benefits when it’s available. But the heterosexual white male should not cede the frame to such and should continue to oppose gay rights activism regardless.

  19. David J. says:

    @Crude (1:25 pm): But Butterfield’s conversion is the opposite of “ceaseless debate as a social outlet.” It is instead a very good example of patient, intentional, and (thank God) effective evangelism. The small church pastor initiated the relationship and stuck with it until Butterfield repented and put her faith in Christ for salvation. After a non-ceaseless period of time (IIRC, something like 6-12 months), the debate ended and Christ won. In our rightful opposition to the wrong ways to engage gay rights activists and the Christians who don’t engage them biblically, let’s not blindly mock individual Christians who biblically love their neighbors and win them to genuine faith over a period of time (resulting in the convert’s abandoning the homosexual lifestyle and identity, marrying (a heterosexual), having kids, and testifying about God’s grace manifested through their Christian neighbor’s love).

  20. GW says:

    A more thorough critique of Piper’s “Christian hedonism” is found below. In summary, Piper has elevated one element of Christian duty (delighting oneself in the LORD–Psalm 37) and in doing so downplayed other obligations.

    It’s a great read.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080513234516/http:/www.metropolitantabernacle.org/?page=articles&id=3

  21. Dalrock says:

    @David J

    You’re right, I wasn’t picking up on that being the point of quoting from Butterfield’s article. Now that I understand your point, I agree completely that the biblical truth about homosexuality and about sanctification for a converted homosexual/SSA person is equally the truth whether spoken by a heterosexual white male or a formerly lesbian minority woman. While not being necessary, however, the latter certainly can have effectiveness benefits when it’s available. But the heterosexual white male should not cede the frame to such and should continue to oppose gay rights activism regardless.

    Like the gay activists you are assuming the only goal is to convert gays and lesbians. The church is under assault, yet this is the only concern. It is just like complementarians worrying about “abuse” to the exclusion of all else. It worked in one sense, in that it accomplished the feminist goal. But it didn’t stop the charges of abuse. Butterfield wants to make sure that other people like her feel welcomed in the church. That isn’t surprising, but she shows a remarkable lack of concern to protect the church and Christian families from the very obvious attack.

  22. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Conveniently, complementarians have a team of Christian gay rights experts standing by for just such an occasion!

    In what sense are pro-gay Christians “complementarian”? Men and women are said to complement each other, like a plug and socket. But two plugs are not complementary. Nor two sockets.

  23. Crude says:

    Cane,

    My experience is that leftists tend to use debate to establish a beach-head, and they abandon it viciously the moment they have what they want.

    So, leftists will demand that any organization staunchly opposed to what they want at least hear them out ad nauseum, until the very moment the organization gives in. At which point they announce that the debate on that point is now over and decided on, and it’s time to move on.

    Conservatives will debate a surprising number of things, and will establish their credentials as thoughtful, open-minded people by showing just who they’re willing to call not only their debate partner, but their good friend and moral paragon besides. It’s not unusual for a pro-lifer to talk up their pro-abortion debate partner as a good, loving, caring person – indeed, someone who the pro-lifer looks up to, and that they don’t let their disagreement come in the way of their friendship.

    This has limits, of course. Usually but not always set by the liberal dictating what would be beyond the pale to treat as a topic open to debate. Funny how that works.

    David J,

    But Butterfield’s conversion is the opposite of “ceaseless debate as a social outlet.” It is instead a very good example of patient, intentional, and (thank God) effective evangelism.

    It is precisely ‘ceaseless debate as a social outlet’. She outlines a regimen of week after week of getting together and debating these topics. She wrote a book centered around the idea that your home is supposed to be where you’re constantly hosting people who disagree with you to talk to them ad nauseum about what they disagree with.

    And I see no reason to believe it’s effective, and I see plenty of reason to believe it’s not. Countering ‘She was a lesbian and now she’s not!’ as the proof of the effectiveness and justification of this kind of approach just doesn’t go very far. Francis Collins supposedly had a revelation about the coherence of the trinity (and thus the validity of Christianity) by looking at a waterfall splitting on some rocks. Anyone who reads that testimony and decides that the key to converting people is to build more waterfalls is making a mistake.

    Four points.

    First, I’ve lost interest with the fetishism of over-clinging to the outliers: the outspoken New Atheist who found God, the feminist atheist who became a Christian, the gay man who nevertheless endorses the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Their arguments and actions need to stand or fall on their own merits. Treating their identity (past or present) as keenly valuable is a mistake, usually blinding us to their faults, and/or building their egos.

    Second, the exhortation for Christians to ceaselessly talk, engage, debate, and befriend non-Christians or even anti-Christians is anti-biblical, not to mention exhausting. The direction of the NT centers heavily around instruction on how to build a Christian community, what to expect out of members of it, and on what terms someone should be expelled from it.

    Third, Butterfield does a common routine with people who seem to ‘specialize’ in witnessing to LGBT people: she ignores the worst parts of the community, and instead emphasizes and exaggerates the good. Partly because, if she actually addresses the serious harm LGBT subcultures cause – not only to themselves, but to others – the ‘dialog’ she craves and encourages would actually stop, and without that, she’s just another Christian. But dialog isn’t that valuable.

    Fourth, it’s not even particularly unusual for self-identified lesbians to leave behind their lesbianism, with or without Christ. Kudos to Butterfield for getting over it, but the idea that it’s a miracle which requires the transformative power of Christ to pull off just isn’t so for many.

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    she ignores the worst parts of the community, and instead emphasizes and exaggerates the good.

    Throughout the 1990s, Hollywood was careful to depict gay men as asexual. Yes, you knew they were gay, but they never got even slightly physical onscreen. They were always squeaky clean, polite, warm, friendly, loyal, wise … almost 1950s in their depiction. Think Will and Grace or My Best Friend’s Wedding.

  25. Paul says:

    @Dalrock : “The issue is the belief that we need conservative Christian gay rights activists like Rosaria Butterfield to enter the gay rights frame for us, and point out the right kind of gay rights activism.”

    I don’t read that in the article of Butterfield. She gives credit to her pastor (NOT a gay), who invested into friendship with her (who at that time was gay), and talked with her on Christianity, INCLUDING his stance against lesbianism. At the end of the article she encourage other Christians to do the same, which is basically encouraging the same approach as her non-gay pastor.

    You might disagree with her viewpoint, but I don’t recognize a belief that we need gay rights activists to push forward the frame.

    I’m interested to hear if I miss something.

  26. Scrutiniser says:

    Meanwhile, this piece by Sean Doherty can be found on the website of Living Out, the ministry of one of The Gospel Coalition’s editors and Desiring God author Sam Allberry (both TGC and DG are linked closely to John Piper):

    http://www.livingout.org/resources/celibate-same-sex-couples

    “People want to know: if we stop the sexual side of our relationship, how far is it OK to go in terms of physical affection for one another? If sex as such is off the agenda, what about stuff that isn’t sex but expresses the love between them, like kissing? In the terms of the age-old youth group question, how far can you go before it ‘counts’ as sex?

    It’s a fair question! And the answer, I think, is simple in theory but hard to get our heads around in our culture. Sexual activity and intimacy is obviously about a lot more than sex itself. So, my take on this is: the right thing to do, and ultimately the best thing for you individually and as a couple, would be to hold back from sexual intimacy as a whole, not just sex itself. That is, including romantic/sexual kissing, touching one another sexually, etc.

    But, and this takes me back to my first point, holding back from sexual intimacy doesn’t spell an end to physical intimacy, not for a moment. Our culture finds it hard to distinguish between the two. But there are wonderful ways to be physically close to other people without being sexually close to them. We hug and kiss our friends and relatives in non-sexual ways. We hold hands with children. Some people (especially guys?) love to play fight (my sons love to do this with me – personally, I would prefer to cuddle them, but I have to play fight with them, because it is a way they give and receive physical affection!). None of these things necessarily have anything to do with sex, but they have much to do with physical affection and intimacy – as St Paul puts it, greet one another with a holy kiss (2 Corinthians 13:12). We need both bits of his description – it is a holy kiss, and it is a holy kiss.

    Of course, it may take time and a bit of trial and error for a couple to redefine the boundaries and work out how they can best remain physically close to one another, without crossing the line again into sexual intimacy. But I believe this is worth working at, in order both to honour God by not crossing that line, and to honour him by sharing healthy physical affection with the people he has given you to and to you.”

  27. Dalrock says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    Conveniently, complementarians have a team of Christian gay rights experts standing by for just such an occasion!

    In what sense are pro-gay Christians “complementarian”? Men and women are said to complement each other, like a plug and socket. But two plugs are not complementary. Nor two sockets.

    I use the term complementarian because of the astounding overlap between the heavy hitters in complementarianism and the promoters of this latest round of culture war surrender. I covered Piper in my first post on the topic, but he is only one of many.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Paul

    I don’t read that in the article of Butterfield. She gives credit to her pastor (NOT a gay), who invested into friendship with her (who at that time was gay), and talked with her on Christianity, INCLUDING his stance against lesbianism. At the end of the article she encourage other Christians to do the same, which is basically encouraging the same approach as her non-gay pastor.

    You might disagree with her viewpoint, but I don’t recognize a belief that we need gay rights activists to push forward the frame.

    I’m interested to hear if I miss something.

    Butterfield doesn’t say only gays speaking SJW speak should fight the culture war. Piper is the one giving this message, by presenting Butterfield and others like her as the people with the authority to speak on the issue. My point is that most people won’t notice this. It will seem normal. That seems to be your point to me, isn’t it? It seems perfectly normal to you. My point is it shouldn’t feel normal to you. Part of the reason it does feel normal is this is what Piper and company did with feminism. They brought in feminists like Kassian to speak the feminist language and show us all that if you read it correctly the Bible is actually in harmony with most of feminism.

  29. SirHamster says:

    In what sense are pro-gay Christians “complementarian”?

    They complement the false teachings of feminism or homosexuality and further the Devil’s work.

  30. Crude says:

    Red Pill Latecomer,

    Yeah, I notice gay men in particular are often depicted as the most monogamous people on the planet in a lot of media, about as often as lesbians are depicted as attractive and quite thin, despite all available evidence to the contrary.

    The fact that Christians – even very conservative Christians – go along with that charade so often is a heck of a thing.

  31. Pingback: Best to leave it to the experts. | Reaction Times

  32. thedeti says:

    Crude

    Good point. But the reason Christians go along with the charade that gay men are mostly monogamous and that lesbians are always thin and attractive, is because they’re accused of hating and judging gay men and lesbians when they do this. Christians don’t ever want to be seen as hating people or judging people, because we’re supposed to be all about “love” and “no judging” and if we tell gay people they’re sinning, we’re hating on them and judging them.

    To complementarians and 95% of the entire Christian world, talking about the gay lifestyle as unattractive or unseemly, much less sinful and incompatible with Christian teaching, is hatespeech and thoughtcrime. You are not allowed to say these things. You’re not allowed even to think these things. It’s wrong for you to think or say these things.

  33. GW says:

    “My point is that most people won’t notice this. It will seem normal. That seems to be your point to me, isn’t it? It seems perfectly normal to you. My point is it shouldn’t feel normal to you.”

    In other words, evangelicals have become comfortable replacing the Bible as the center of truth and evangelistic outreach for a safe, cultural alternative. Thus we have to have Voddie Baucham decrying rap music or urban black culture but no other popular teacher as it would be seen as “racist” if a white guy gave a message against gang violence. Or we have to have Kathy Keller join her husband in writing a book about marriage from a biblical perspective; without her perspective biblical marriage might be seen as too patriarchal. Churches look for excuses to feature women all the time. When was the last time a man spoke at a Women’s Bible conference at your church? Presumably the pastor that teaches to the entire congregation (men and women) would be fine in teaching to half of them on certain occasions (assuming Women’s Bible conferences are themselves biblical).

    This stems from a lack of faith in the power of God’s word. Scripture is sharper than any two-edged sword, but when the church is unfaithful the first thing she does is seek to dull its power so as not to offend the world.

  34. Paul says:

    @Dalrock : “Butterfield doesn’t say only gays speaking SJW speak should fight the culture war. Piper is the one giving this message, by presenting Butterfield and others like her as the people with the authority to speak on the issue. ”

    I didn’t catch from that link that that is Piper’s message, so are you referring to a different article where Piper does that?

  35. Dalrock says:

    @Paul

    I didn’t catch from that link that that is Piper’s message, so are you referring to a different article where Piper does that?

    The article I linked to at Desiring God is written by Butterfield, but Piper published it and the one I linked to from Roen as part of his ministry. From the Desiring God About page:

    In 1980, sensing an irresistible call of the Lord to preach, John became the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he ministered for almost 33 years.

    Desiring God began inauspiciously in 1994 when John handed off the church’s tape ministry to his assistant, Jon Bloom.

    What started with tapes and John’s books, Desiring God has blossomed into an international web ministry with 12,000+ free resources and 3.5+million monthly users. Today, John serves as lead teacher for the ministry.

  36. Paul says:

    @Dalrock : “The article I linked to at Desiring God is written by Butterfield, but Piper published it as part of his ministry.”

    I’m trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the mere fact that Butterfield (and “others like her”) was allowed to publish an article on Piper’s website, proves that they are pushed forward by him as the only people having authority to speak on homosexuality?

    I tried to verify of which writers (“others like her”) John Piper publishes articles on his website on homosexuality, I found at least ten different authors: Christopher Yuan, Douglas Wilson, Albert Mohler, Tony Reinke, Jonathan Parnell, Nick Roen, Sam Allberry, John Piper, Jackie Hill Perry, and Phillip Holmes. Although some of these authors experience SSA (which is logical if you want to write an article from an ‘inside’ perspective), not all of them are gay (hence, not “like her”?).

    I also read an overview article (of Piper?) in which he clarifies his approach:
    https://www.desiringgod.org/topics/homosexuality

    “In our fallen world, we all struggle with inclinations to express our sexuality in sinful ways. Christ has come to rescue homosexual people, no less than heterosexual people, from their soul-killing idolatry so that we might live forgiven, joyful, obedient, and triumphant lives as disciples of Jesus.

    What the Bible Says About Homosexuality

    God created marriage, which he defines as the lifelong and exclusive covenant of one man and woman. Same-sex desires and same-sex orientation are part of our broken and disordered sexuality owing to God’s subjection of the created order to futility because of man’s sin.”

    Fighting Same-Sex Desire with the Surpassing Worth of Christ

    The good news of Jesus is that God saves heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners who trust Jesus, by both fully accepting them in Christ, despite their sin, and helping them through his Spirit to resist sin and live pleasing to him.

    Redeemed Sinners Helping Redeemed Sinners

    “One of the most powerful things we can do is fold into our churches men and women who have same-sex attraction and surround them with a bigger vision of life and love and relationships that make it possible for them to flourish in families and friendships.”

    Loving Unbelievers with Truth and Grace

    Christians cannot truly love those who identify as homosexuals without believing, and being honest with them, that such behavior is sin and will lead to destruction and eternal death.

    Bearing Witness in the Public Square

    Christians represent Christ and should not carelessly express their opinions without a sense of sobriety and responsibility for why we hold them, what effects they will have, and what truth they might encourage or discourage.”

    I cannot find fault with this overview; it is straightforward, calls homosexuality sin, and talks about the need to fight same-sex attraction, as well as encouraging Christians to be honest with homosexuals that their behavior is sin.

    So maybe it’s me, but I don’t get your point.

  37. BillyS says:

    Paul,

    You cannot see the big picture, something Dalrock has stated a few times in this thread.

    It is the same reason you get hung up condemning any remarriage instead of seeing the point Jesus was making when a point related to that was noted.

    Learn to step back and see the whole picture, not just one part. How many who weren’t homosexuals are posting on Piper’s site is another thing to look at?

  38. info says:

    @TheQuestion
    ”And I’m sure that when the time comes, they will argue that Jesus was sexually attracted to adolescents by pointing to the verse “suffer the little children unto me and do not hinder them,” and argue that Mary was a child married to an old man. ”

    Do you think adolescents actually married in Ancient Hebrew society?

  39. Elspeth says:

    A friend introduced me to Rosario Butterflied via a recording of her testimony about 3 months ago. Up until then I’d never heard of her, but she is a highly regarded anti-gay messenger in the evangelical world. She is a married mother, if that matters. It probably doesn’t because women aren’t the same as men sexually.

    When I listened to the recording, I didn’t get the impression at all that she was whitewashing homosexuality. She was inviting Christians to be open to gently rebuking gays while introducing the gospel.

  40. Peter says:

    This is just as true with all the arguments about “migrants”. Forget the complexity, they are illegal criminals here to steal your and your children’s and their children’s birthrights.

  41. Spike says:

    One theme consistent in the Bible is the avoidance of idolatry. it’s avoided because it separates us from God. It goes hand-in-hand with sexual immorality.
    When Moses came off Mt Sinai, the Israelites were engaged in idolatry and sexual immorality.God punished them for it
    In Deuteronomy, Moses warns Israel just before they enter the Promised land, to avoid idolatry and sexual immorality. They didn’t and God punished them for it.
    In Solomon’s time, when the King had a heart for God, the nation was the greatest on earth. The king fell into idolatry, and God punished them for it.
    fast forward to the New Testament, Jesus warned His disciples against idolatry.
    The early church told Gentile converts at the Council of Jerusalem to ”avoid food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality”.
    In the Book of Revelation, Jesus exhorts the church who have embraced the teachings of ”that woman Jezebel”, who teaches ”food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality”.

    Idolatry and sexual immorality go together hand in hand. They are probably the reason why the generation of 18-35 year olds do not attend church. Should a person have an encounter with the risen lord Jesus Christ, then immediately they know to abandon their sexual immorality. They will struggle with this, but they know it’s wrong and that they must get rid of it.
    in short, they know that sexual immorality is an idol that has to get left outside to wither of neglect in order to follow Jesus.

    Not so our feminists or our gay friends. Their philosophy and sexual immorality has to be brought with them into the church, and acceptance of it is demanded. It is their idol, and they must master it, separate themselves from it, and put it out of their lives.
    We have, in the case of the idols we have found hard to give up. It has been our personal struggle, whatever it was.

    So must they.

  42. David J. says:

    @Dalrock (3:55 pm): “Like the gay activists you are assuming the only goal is to convert gays and lesbians. The church is under assault, yet this is the only concern. It is just like complementarians worrying about “abuse” to the exclusion of all else. It worked in one sense, in that it accomplished the feminist goal. But it didn’t stop the charges of abuse. Butterfield wants to make sure that other people like her feel welcomed in the church. That isn’t surprising, but she shows a remarkable lack of concern to protect the church and Christian families from the very obvious attack.”

    Back the truck up, man. I neither assumed nor said that the only goal is to convert homosexuals. In fact, the portion of my earlier comment that you quoted just before the above response explicitly includes opposing gay activism, not just promoting evangelism. Further, Butterfield doesn’t confine herself merely to evangelizing homosexuals, not even in the article of hers that you linked. I agree that the church is under assault and that more than evangelism is needed — BUT NEVER LESS (contra, apparently, Crude). And Butterfield’s article has nothing to do with a practicing homosexual’s welcome in church; she’s talking about how she was treated in someone’s home. Even then, she was confronted explicitly and repeatedly with the truth about sin (including her specific external sin, which she describes elsewhere (accurately) as merely her manifestation of everyone’s sin — pride and the insistence that we live the way we want to) and salvation. All she’s reporting (and promoting) in the article you linked is speaking the TRUTH in LOVE (Eph. 4:15). If you think Butterfield hasn’t sufficiently shown concern to protect the church and Christian families from gay activism, you either haven’t read much of her material or you’re determined to see her words (and mine) through a particular spin that you want to force her into. With any number of other “Christian” gay activists, you’d be right. I’m just saying you’re not right to see her that way or to tell others that about her. Your overarching point is valid and there are plenty of valid examples. Insisting on using her as one of them actually undermines your point, and your credibility. You don’t lose any of the persuasive power of your overall point to concede that some Christian ex-gays get it right, even though many more get it wrong (or aren’t actually Christian in the first place) — or simply to leave the Christian ex-gays who get it right out of the conversation entirely.

    With genuine respect, man.

  43. Sharkly says:

    @Lexet Blog
    I tossed out everything I had on Piper when he said he would be in sin to call 911 if his wife was being raped. He literally wrote those words. For a man, and an elder, to declare he wouldn’t protect his own wife, or even report it to the police, is disgusting.

    Is she any good looking?
    I’m just asking for a friend.

  44. Dalrock says:

    @David J

    If you think Butterfield hasn’t sufficiently shown concern to protect the church and Christian families from gay activism, you either haven’t read much of her material or you’re determined to see her words (and mine) through a particular spin that you want to force her into.

    I haven’t been digging on this topic very long. But what jumps out at me is how insistent the Christian gay activists are about getting access to other people’s children. Roen did it in the article I linked to Saturday. Butterfield wants Christians to give gays keys to their homes so they can (among other things) help their children with their homework. A colleague of Butterfield named Sam Allberry shares her obsession and preaches that Christian families need to bring gays like him into their homes to put the kids to bed.

  45. info says:

    I think there was a picture of a drag queen reading to children to the library that is emblematic of this issue.

  46. info says:

    Ignore my earlier comment prior to this.

  47. info says:

    *My 1st comment prior to this on this page

  48. Burner Prime says:

    In other news, the Big Gay Hate Machine is on the warpath to replace normal politicians with degenerate tranny-friendly ones. Like Roosh says, “They are coming for your kids…” Normalizing degeneracy, grooming kids, pedophilia is on the docket. Slowly but surely they have made depravity normal. As others have pointed out, at first they framed it as simply wanting to be left alone, then it was equality, now it’s superiority and displacement. Guard your kids if you can. Even then the State has the final say how they are raised, and can take them away from you on trumped up accusations.
    thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/419504-tv-producer-ryan-murphy-announces-multi-million-dollar

  49. Sharkly says:

    Some things I believe:
    The Church is to be the gathering of believers. It is not to be a weekly evangelistic event. You are not to bring your unsaved friends to Church, you are to bring them to the Lord. If you don’t know how to share your witness of the Lord, you need to learn. If your church is designed to be an inviting and appealing place for an unbeliever to loiter, your church is not a church at all, but, perhaps it is still an evangelistic ministry.

    I find lesbians to be revolting. I find faggots to be even more of an abomination. I believe it is because by our creation with a conscience we all innately know, on a subconscious level, that men are created in the image of their creator, our Father God, and faggotry is a vile blasphemy against God’s own image, which sears our consciences. We bear God our Father’s image and we know it!

    Luke 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

    Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. … 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

    We know by creation that we need to honor God in our bodies and give thanks to Him for creating us in His image. We don’t need to make graven images of God, we men are images of God in flesh. Faggotry is a most vile blasphemy against God and His glory that we bear. It debases men to such an extent, that it is part of its own due penalty.
    We men bear a glory that we don’t understand, blinded by sin, we are men, princes, gods.

    Psalm 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
    John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

    If men are not honored in “church”, it is because it is the bride(helper) of Satan; who still seeks to deceive women and debase men. The true church, the bride of Christ, is a place where morally straight men are loved and honored.
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    We need to practice showing other men honor for the image and glory of God that they posses, though veiled in flesh. And Godly women of the church should honor man’s power over them by veiling their heads, “the glory of man”, because God’s word tells them to, on account of the angels.

    The glory of man is not some other dude’s hairy buttocks, don’t let Nick Roen lead you there, into debasing our son’s generation like he has debased himself. Chuck that dirty blasphemous faggot out of the church, back to his master, the devil.(a debased former angel of God) Don’t let them debase any more men. Celebrate the image of God in man rightly. Glorify God in your bodies, Fear God and flee from evil! Especially flee from immorality, a sin against your body, the temple of the Spirit of God. All hail our king Jesus and our fellow saints who are all(male & female) to be conformed to His image in the eternal life to come, when we prevail by the blood of Jesus, over Satan and Nick Roen, a bloody asshole with a bloody asshole, part of the due penalty for that abominable fart-fucker. When Nick says, “Get thee behind me Satan”, that’s his queer bridal mystic fantasy Freudianly slipping. Crazy colon-corker, sphincter-swab, derrière-dildo.

    I hear that those dirty faggots end up ingesting so much of each others shit, that you can’t even become one if you’re allergic to corn.

  50. ranger says:

    The whole issue of “gay marriage” quite apart from the morality of gay relationships, is that it is an oxymoron.

    Marriage is, by ancient definition, quite predating the state’s certification of marriage or even the Church’s treatment of it, the act by which one person gives to another a public, permanent, and irrevocable consent to those acts which, by their nature, are apt to the generation of offspring.

    That’s it. Everything else attached to marriage flows from that. It is why gay marriage is impossible. It is why marital rape is impossible. It is why a husband cannot, without her consent, sodomize a wife, or vice-versa, or force her to perform oral sex on him (here I am ignoring whether sodomy with consent from both partners is morally correct or not. I am merely pointing out that, even within a marriage, a husband cannot sodomize his wife against her will, for she has not given any public consent to that).

    Once what marriage MEANS was forgotten even by the Church (the Catholic Church, for instance, changed its definition in Canon Law from what I posted above to some New Age gooey thing like “a holistic communion of life”), the recognition of “gay marriage” by the state and, eventually, by the churches, was inevitable. Why did the definiton change? Why, so wives could refuse their husbands without guilt, of course!

  51. Paul says:

    @BillyS : “How many who weren’t homosexuals are posting on Piper’s site is another thing to look at?”

    You might think I’m missing the bigger picture, but you apparently miss the ability to carefully read; in the exact same post of mine you respond too, I mentioned that I looked at that, and found at least ten different authors, of which at least some are certainly not homosexuals. Furthermore, the website clearly condemns homosexuality and encourages ALL Christians (not just the homosexual ones) to discuss that homosexuality is sin with their homosexual friends.

    So it might be true that Piper thinks as Dalrock mentions “So sit back, put your feet up, and let our gay rights activists handle the culture war against their gay rights activists.”, but I can’t see the evidence in the article of Butterfield, nor in the selection of authors Piper allows to post on his site, nor in his direct instructions to Christians.

  52. info says:

    @Dalrock
    Here is the article about the drag queen reading to children:
    ”It happened at the Obama library for the “Drag Queen Story Hour,” a part of a collaboration between the LBPL, the LGBTQ Center of Long Beach, the Genders and Sexualities Alliance Network and the LGBTQ nonprofit Imperial Court of Long Beach, according to the Long Beach Public Library’s calendar.”

    https://mobile.wnd.com/2017/10/drag-queen-demon-reads-to-kids-at-michelle-obama-library/#1vfr5sI36O6JBJww.99

    The picture couldn’t get through the spam filter.

  53. Cane Caldo says:

    @Paul

    So it might be true that Piper thinks as Dalrock mentions “So sit back, put your feet up, and let our gay rights activists handle the culture war against their gay rights activists.”, but I can’t see the evidence in the article of Butterfield, nor in the selection of authors Piper allows to post on his site, nor in his direct instructions to Christians.

    The sum of the advice on desiringgod.com is that Christians should be quiet while sodomites and their defenders rage. This is accomplished with a strategy of a multi-part attack on Christians with normal revulsions to homosexual behavior.

    You quoted an “overview” of homosexuality. That overview is the face of the operation, which has the appearance of good. You should have read the linked articles under the overview of each section because as our grandparents should have taught us, the Devil is in the details. I picked one and read it titled “Does Same Sex Attraction Disqualify Someone From Ministry?” In it the author writes:

    Third, we need to distinguish between same-sex sexual activity (“men who practice homosexuality”) and same-sex attraction. Someone attracted to the same sex, like someone attracted to the opposite sex, does not mean giving themselves over to sinful lust or to sinful sexual activity outside of the God-ordained covenant of marriage.

    That is a false statement. If it’s not, then tell me which lust experienced by those who have same-sex attraction not sinful? Notice too the parenthetical statement inserted in the midst of the defense of “innocent” lust for those of the same sex. Desiringgod.com has post after post warning straight men who lust after a woman that they are in sin. Suddenly, when we must confront same sex attraction lust becomes a neutral aspect of life; nothing intrinsically disordered to be seen here, you brute! The whole article goes on like this; berating Christians who have been given a common grace revulsion to homosexuality.

    Meanwhile, Nick Roen writes on Piper’s site that we straights had better check ourselves for a bloodless and austere decision to be against homosexuality on purely rational grounds revealed under the light of scripture alone…while he pets his feelings for other men.

    Nick Roen (and Dave Zuleger) argue that homosexual desires are just natural desires that need minor tweaks. If we homophobic brutes would just put our minds to it, then we could put away the homophobia.. If we know what’s good for us we better because there’s (and here I quote Roen’s post title) “No Place for Homophobia in the Church”. If we don’t get rid of our disdain for homosexual activity then we have to leave and make room for the same sex attracted people. See, we have to change because they’re not going to. We must not demand homosexuals simply decide to repent of their perverse desires because–unlike straights–their feelings are real and permanent manifestations of God’s design. Our revulsion to homosexuality is just rural stupidity, you see.

    Butterfield’s job is to soothe us back to sleep. She writes:

    So, Christian, how can you begin to constructively engage with your (edit: homosexual) neighbors? Know your culture, take membership vows in a biblically faithful church, and return to a practice of privacy.

    In other words: You Christian straights don’t have to give up your beliefs. Hey, I’m with you! You won me over! Just, you know, be quiet about it. The homosexuals are to be warmly accepted–even as pastors–, but heterosexuals are to only privately share their sexual ethics, as God intended, with snacks.

    Surely the reversal here is plain to see? No? American churches used to rebuke homosexuals. Then we decided to accept them as long as they kept it private in their homes. Now we must accept homosexuals, and if we want to be allowed to speak in the future it should be only in the privacy of our homes while being the most gracious of hosts. Butterfield wants to put us in the closet.

  54. Opus says:

    There are two and only two sexual taboos; Incest and Homosexuality: neither were imposed by men but imposed by nature and both for the purpose of exogamy. It is thus no more natural to treat Homosexuality as normal than it is to likewise treat Incest.

    ‘Gay’ is not about sexual freedom between two people who love each other – Homosexuality is in any event about multiple promiscuity of the sort that a Casanova or Roissy could only gape at – but as with Feminism is a grab for political power under the guise of victimhood where often those promoting Homosexuality have never so indulged but seek to morally grandstand over normal people in what in their pursuit of power is an attack on normal men, families and thus (along with Christianity) civilisation.

    I will now eat a hearty breakfast before being led out to Madame Guillotine to pay for my crimes against right-think.

  55. Dave says:

    There is a good argument that racism isn’t even a sin since, unlike homosexuality, it isn’t mentioned in the Bible.

    I disagree. Racism is everywhere mentioned in the Bible. It was called “injustice”, and God hates it. A similar argument may be advanced by a smoker: cigarettes were never mentioned in the Bible, so it might be OK to smoke. Well, if you know where to look, you’ll see cigarette smoking everywhere condemned in Scripture. It was called by another name (e.g. dishonoring the body, which is God’s temple, etc).

  56. Paul says:

    @CC: Thanks for your reply, I will delve deeper into this to see if I can follow your argument.

    For now some initial reactions:
    “Someone attracted to the same sex, like someone attracted to the opposite sex, does not mean giving themselves over to sinful lust or to sinful sexual activity outside of the God-ordained covenant of marriage. That is a false statement.”

    I disagree. The fact that one is seduced to sin, is not in itself sin.
    As for attraction, that is just an inner feeling, which in itself does involve an act of the will.
    It might have multiple causes (including some past sin), but what counts is how one acts according to that attraction. God might or might not take the attraction away from you, it’s up to you to resist any sinful action.

    And yes, I think “looking lustfully at a woman” is applied much too often to the feeling of attraction you might experience when you notice a beautiful woman.

    To summarize: attraction does not equal lust.

    The OT makes this distinction too: homosexual acts are condemned, but nothing is said about the emotional motivation for such acts.

  57. Paul says:

    correction: does NOT involve an act of the will

  58. Paul says:

    @CC: “We must not demand homosexuals simply decide to repent of their perverse desires because–unlike straights–their feelings are real and permanent manifestations of God’s design. ”

    And I agree that we should not demand the repenting of desires. But I disagree with the reason you mention; these desires are NOT manifestations of God’s design, and we should therefore not treat it as a “natural” desire. In my opinion part of it can be due to complex psychological developmental situations. Some people develop it as part of a reaction to being abused as a child.

    Isn’t the issue we’re discussing in the end not really about SSA being sinful or not? I think Piper and his associated think SSA is not sinful, and I agree with him.

  59. Anon says:

    Surely the reversal here is plain to see? No? American churches used to rebuke homosexuals. Then we decided to accept them as long as they kept it private in their homes. Now we must accept homosexuals, and if we want to be allowed to speak in the future it should be only in the privacy of our homes while being the most gracious of hosts. Butterfield wants to put us in the closet.

    This process is already complete in the secular world, and the last few battles in the church are being wrapped up.

    If you have a job, there is most certainly a sexual harassment/equal opportunity policy that governs your interactions with coworkers even outside the workplace. Whether you know it or not.

    If you run into your colleague and their partner at the grocery store and you ask them not to identify themselves as “married” in front of your children, they can probably bring it up at work and have you fired.

    Me have moved from “hey, you can be into whatever you want, and me and my wife and kids will do it our way over here” to “don’t you dare express your preference for your way over mine lest I have to point out to our supervisor that your beliefs present a hostile work environment for me.”

  60. Sharkly says:

    I disagree. Racism is everywhere mentioned in the Bible. God commanded it. Kill them all, spare none.(genocide) Don’t intermarry.(maintain racial purity) Don’t allow them in the temple.(Segregation) The moral of the Tower of Babel(Don’t unite against God). Genealogies galore.(get to know your stock) God even treats various races/kindreds differently, He tells us so. The Jews in Jesus day were practicing racists, and Jesus called them out for other things instead.

    I’m not trying to advocate for more racism, or less, I’m just pointing out that God’s word is full of racial discrimination, by God Himself. Why did He have a chosen race of people? It sounds like God predesigned the various families/races/peoples/nations, for a reason, and intends that we be judged by both our collective and individual behavior. Jesus called my kind “Gentile”, but I’m OK being one of the non-chosen races. And I’m thankful my kind/race has been allowed to be belatedly grafted into the “Family of God”.

  61. Opus says:

    I would like to add that the Taboos against Incest and Homosexuality are breakable but with difficulty – what Novaseeker calls the icky factor – but once breached then like Adam and Eve having eaten the wrong sort of apple they can never unknow what they have become and then like an alcoholic can never live a normal life. Homosexuality is mental aids. In the tale of Oedipus the eponymous hero having committed incest with his mother on discovering the same puts out his own eyes and goes to live in a cave for the purpose of attempting though vainly to expunge his guilt – and that even though he had been unaware of the identity of his mother. Homosexual Pride is merely an attempt to pretend that the shame is not there*

    *One Saturday night when I was in Chicago and for I know not what reason I and some acquaintances entered a Church – presumably Roman Catholic. In that church we found a large group of men, on their knees, in tears, ashamed of their homosexual behaviour. To have told those poor men to put on gaudily coloured attire and prance around as is now done is the turning of those unfortunate people and for our own unspoken amusement into the equivalent of Circus Freaks.

    I also think of that ex-gf of mine who had been incestuous with her own father from whom she could not escape – emotionally, I mean – and perhaps sexually too – wildly promiscuous she could never settle. I dumped her.

  62. Daniel says:

    I find fault with the Desiring God topical survey on homosexuality. It is full of language which is not Biblical.

    We all struggle with inclinations to express our sexuality in sinful ways

    Fornication (all kinds) is not a way to express yourself.

    homosexual people, no less than heterosexual people

    There are not these two kinds of people. The unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom, and such were some of you. Past tense. Some of you were paramours, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, drunkards and extortioners. And just as a man who no longer steals is not a thief any more, someone who no longer commits sodomy is not a “homosexual person.”

    Same-sex desires and same-sex orientation

    Why is it not called the lusts of their hearts, dishonorable passions, or inflamed in their craving for one another? “Orientation” implies that sexual appetite is like a compass that turns on a dial, and who can fault someone for confusing directions?

    heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners

    Implying that heterosexual appetites are just as sinful as homosexual appetites.

    men and women who have same-sex attraction

    Its not something to “have.” It is a temptation that plagues people.

    those who identify as homosexuals

    It is not an identity to be claimed. It is a lust to flee from.

    Finally, the litmus test of changing the sin to another one:

    inclinations to express our adultery … adulterous people, no less than faithful people … adulterous orientation … faithful sinners and adulterous sinners … men an women who have adulterous attraction … those who identify as adulterers

    Ridiculous.

  63. info says:

    @Sharkly
    ”God commanded it. Kill them all, spare none.(genocide) Don’t intermarry.(maintain racial purity) Don’t allow them in the temple.(Segregation) ”

    Its the maintenance of religious purity:

    Deuteronomy 7:1-4
    ”1When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess, and He drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you to defeat them, then you must completely destroy thema . Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.

    3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4because they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and He will swiftly destroy you. ”

    If racial purity is so important then the Canaanite Woman Rahab and the Moabitess Ruth wouldn’t have been able to intermarry with the Israelites and contribute to the Messianic Line.

  64. BillyS says:

    Good points Cade.

    I still remember when “keep your nose out of my bedroom” was the main message. Now it is “don’t be bothered as I shove my bedroom in your nose and expect you to rejoice about it.”

  65. BillyS says:

    Dave,

    What exactly is “racism”?

    I bet most who oppose it think of KKK caricatures, but end up opposing rational behavior based on how groups behave.

  66. Jack Russell says:

    Pastor “under fire” for expelling male cross-dresser out of church service. That means Jesus and Paul and the other apostles are bigots etc. At least he has gonads and doesn’t put up with this. I would like to see this cross dresser try that in Russia.
    https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/11/19/pastor-under-fire-for-kicking-cross-dressing-male-member-out-of-church-service/

  67. Once you’ve ceded that, it is all done.

    It IS all done.
    Thine will be done.
    I know this is sad and dispiriting for many of you, but what we are observing is slow, methodical Fall of the Body of Christ.
    We are talking about ceding ground, or not fighting on.
    But understand, Pharisees – ordained men of God – tried desperately to stop the Nazarene. They failed in a decisive fashion.

    We need to have our eyes open. Maybe something else is at play here that we don’t understand.
    Why stand in the way of what God intended all along?
    Or do any of you doubt the ultimate outcome. I don’t think you should.

    1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
    Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor males who have sex with males, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor the verbally abusive, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

  68. Frank K says:

    Now it is “don’t be bothered as I shove my bedroom in your nose and expect you to rejoice about it.”

    And my secular acquaintances wonder why I don’t watch TV.

  69. BillyS says:

    Sharkly,

    God only commanded Israel to kill all the Caananites, not all who were not Jewish. Different issue.

    (This is likely due to the mixing of angels and humans that produced men like Goliath, but that is an argument for another site.)

    God’s call for Israel to be separate is an appropriate focus, but He never called them to be arrogant or scornful of those who Gentiles. He also clearly overrode any claims of non-association with His message to Peter early in the Book of Acts.

    This doesn’t mean we all need to be some mixed entity, but that the hostility is not appropriate.

    I note that in Revelation we are told people of all tribes, etc. were in front of The Throne. That would not be clear unless the groups were still grouped apart. Otherwise it would be impossible to see who was present.

    That is not sufficient for proof, but it is what I see.

  70. Frank K says:

    In other news, the Big Gay Hate Machine is on the warpath to replace normal politicians with degenerate tranny-friendly ones. Like Roosh says, “They are coming for your kids…”

    Don’t remind me, as we just elected an openly homosexual candidate to the the governor’s mansion in Colorado.

    What blew me away about that campaign was the size of the homo’s war chest. He ran ads 24/7 everywhere: TV, radio, youtube, etc. He claimed to not take money from special interests yet I wondered just where did his war chest come from.

    I fear this is going happen in every blue state.

  71. Frank K says:

    If you have a job, there is most certainly a sexual harassment/equal opportunity policy that governs your interactions with coworkers even outside the workplace.

    Fortunately, I live far from the office so I don’t bump into coworkers off hours.

    But yes, you need to closet yourself at the office, otherwise you will be ostracized or worse.

  72. Damn Crackers says:

    @Spike – Exactly. Sexual immorality IS idolatry. Whether going to the pagan temple to worship Aphrodite by sleeping with prostitutes or worshipping the LGBT Rainbow by forcing your child to transition, it’s all idolatry.

  73. JRob says:

    BillyS,
    Not at all intended to start a debate about the Nephilim…God ordered the destruction of Canaanites due total sin, heinous sin, and to protect the future. They practiced child sacrifice to Molech and other false Gods; absolute sexual depravity; etc. He destroyed sin, and did not capriciously order genocide just for the sake of it. This is widely taught, and makes sense.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html

    https://biblereadingarcheology.com/2016/05/13/did-the-canaanites-sacrifice-their-children/

  74. Stryker7200 says:

    There is a reason most Christians ignore 1st Corinthians 11: 1-16. It’s all we need to know that sodomy is a sin, for it is unnatural.

    You also make a great point Dalrock about how the trendy sins are handled. We “have to be kind and show love”. Do we do that with the alcoholic over there? Or the guy that fornicated?

    The insistence that we need to know a gay Christians viewpoint on it to really know how to handle it is bogus as well. Do we ask an adulterer how to handle people that commit adultry?? We know it is wrong and that is enough.

  75. anonymous_ng says:

    @Sharkly The Church is to be the gathering of believers. It is not to be a weekly evangelistic event.

    And in that belief, which I share, we are outside of the mainstream of Christian thought and practice, even in the Orthodox church. In fact, almost the worst charge you can level against a church is that they exist for the support of the membership.

    @Frank K, the incoming governor spent heavily from his own tech company money – https://coloradosun.com/2018/09/14/jared-polis-campaign-spending-governor-race-2018/

  76. Lexet Blog says:

    I agree, but would add that for many, rather than rely on the word of god as their authority, they kick the can to an ex-gay because that person has some unchallengeable “moral authority” to speak.

  77. Lexet Blog says:

    Modern Christians don’t want to spread the gospel. Instead, they cite to a science article, or a moral authority, or a popular person, when they should be saying “thus sayeth the lord…”

  78. Cane Caldo says:

    @Paul

    And yes, I think “looking lustfully at a woman” is applied much too often to the feeling of attraction you might experience when you notice a beautiful woman.

    To summarize: attraction does not equal lust.

    The point I made there specifically was that desiringgod.com presents one argument for heterosexuals that all lust is evil even when left undone, and another argument for homosexuals that their lust is neutral unless acted upon. This demonstrates desiringgod.com’s authors preference for homosexual behavior over heterosexual.

    Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that all attractions are neutral, or that they are all equal. Homosexual desire is a more disordered thing; it’s wrong in more ways than heterosexual desires. I believe the same is true those who sexually desire children, animals, etc.

    Sharkly is correct that church is for the body of believers and not for evangelism. We should use more caution when those people are allowed into the church. This is just good sense. For example: If we shouldn’t put a heterosexual man alone with a heterosexual woman for the sake of propriety and temptation, then what do we do with a homosexual man who is trying to develop attraction for women? We can’t leave him alone with anyone.

    I’m not saying someone who is attracted to the same sex can’t be a Christian. I’m saying they require the same humility that a compulsive gambler must have when he is told that, no, he cannot be the treasurer for reasons of good order. One demonstration of that humility would be to keep silent about their homosexual desires or except as confessions of sin.

    What Roen, Zuleger, and Butterfield push for–with Piper’s blessing–is for Christians to get in the closet and leave sexuality to the “homosexual experts”; just as Dalrock said.

  79. Lexet Blog says:

    Absent the merits of his comments, it is incredibly stupid to be a public figure, and broadcast your personal defense, or lack thereof.

  80. Lexet Blog says:

    Ditto.

    I swear, one of these days, I’m going to walk into the lobby of my church and say all the men are effeminate fags, and the women are harlots, followed by Dave chapelles impersonation of Howard dean’s byaaah moment

  81. feeriker says:

    Dave says:
    December 4, 2018 at 5:43 am

    Congratulations, and thank you: you’ve just provided a perfect demonstration of legalism in action (i.e., stretching, twisting, and contorting Scripture in ways unimaginable to the original scribes so as to justify extra-scriptural prohibition of socially-frowned-upon activities that God didn’t choose to include in His list of sins).

  82. Lexet Blog says:

    The theology of these people (Piper and the pipers homos) is that sanctification doesn’t exist, and who you are at the point of salvation is who you will always be.

  83. Paul says:

    @CC : “Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that all attractions are neutral, or that they are all equal. Homosexual desire is a more disordered thing; it’s wrong in more ways than heterosexual desires. ”

    I agree. But I’m willing to be very gracious towards people who experience these feelings, but realize they cannot act them out without entering into sin. That is a real struggle for some people, and the church should support them in their struggle.

    Gal 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

  84. Cane Caldo says:

    @Paul

    Gal 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

    We carry those burdens when we take authority over them.

  85. feeriker says:

    In fact, almost the worst charge you can level against a church is that they exist for the support of the membership.

    Churches today being little more than thinly disguised businesses, “the membership” is never large enough to keep profits (i.e., collections) at levels needed to sustain the executive bureaucracy. Thus the efforts (usually spectacularly unsuccessful) to continue growing the size of the membership, usually in ways that inevitably neglect the existing membership. In other words, most churches follow DirecTV’s business model.

  86. Dave says:

    BillyS:

    God only commanded Israel to kill all the Caananites, not all who were not Jewish. Different issue.

    Well said. Plus, God never commanded anyone to kill another person because of the latter’s race or ethnicity; it was always because of some heinous sin that could not be stopped in any other way. God made all races uniquely (not equally), and values each one. Heaven will not be complete if any race is missing.

    In the OT He wanted the Jews to remain apart from all others because they had two main jobs to do: give the world the Messiah, and preserve the Scriptures. Both jobs have now been fulfilled.

    The Church is now the “special race”, which in turn consists of men and women of all races.

    1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
    But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

    Racism is unjust and ungodly in all its forms. It consists in relating to people, not based on what they deserved, but because of bias for or against them. Racism has a corrosive effect on society as a whole. A racist judge can not be a good judge, because his decisions will be colored by his bias, not based on the facts before him. A racist person cannot evaluate another correctly for the same reason. That is why a racist referee, teacher, police officer, etc, is as destructive to society as termites are to a wooden building. Even the very foundations of God’s Kingdom cannot survive injustice. That is why He made Justice the habitation of His throne (Psalm 89:14).
    It is surprising that anyone who professes faith in Christ could defend racism against anyone.

  87. info says:

    ”Not at all intended to start a debate about the Nephilim…God ordered the destruction of Canaanites due total sin, heinous sin, and to protect the future. They practiced child sacrifice to Molech and other false Gods; absolute sexual depravity; etc. He destroyed sin, and did not capriciously order genocide just for the sake of it. This is widely taught, and makes sense.”

    God gave 400 years until the sin of the Canaanites was full. By that point the contamination of sin is so great that only total destruction would have preserve the purity of Hebrew Religion.

  88. Anon says:

    Dave wants everyone to know that he is really really really really not “racist.”

    God doesn’t seem particularly bothered by man’s natural proclivity to form, maintain and associate within homogeneous groups. Even if one of the dimensions upon which they align are racial/ethnic. Provided certain base-level conditions for ensuring the humane and just treatment of outsiders are met.

    For some reason, this is super hard to understand for a lot of people.

  89. info says:

    @Anon
    ”God doesn’t seem particularly bothered by man’s natural proclivity to form, maintain and associate within homogeneous groups. Even if one of the dimensions upon which they align are racial/ethnic. Provided certain base-level conditions for ensuring the humane and just treatment of outsiders are met.”

    God is neither a ethnic purist nor is he anti-homogeneity. He rebukes Aaron and Miriam for going against Moses for marrying outside his ethnic group.

    Likewise God created instincts as you have outlined.

    A man is as welcome to marrying his like as he is to marry other ethnicities. So long as they are of similar culture to smooth whatever difficulties may arise and of the Christian Faith. To oppose either is making sin what is not a sin in the 1st place which God condemned in Aaron and Miriam.

  90. Pingback: The guard in the tower shouts “Lower the drawbridge and unbolt the door!” | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.