Apr 24 2008
Christian TV Host ‘Comes Out,’ Gets Support from Churchgoers
The young host of a Christian music television show has come out publicly as a gay man, and to his surprise he has received more encouraging support than expected from churchgoers.
“I’ve received literally hundreds of emails from everyone around the world and they’re all encouraging,” said Azariah Southworth, host of “The Remix,” in an interview with After Elton, a publication on gay and bisexual men.
While many of the e-mail were also negative, 21-year-old TV host said the “amazing amount of support and encouragement has astounded me.”
“I’ve never received so much encouragement like this, not from the Church,” he added.
Southworth made his announcement last week in Out and About, a Nashville-based LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) publication. He said it was a long time coming and that he now wants to live his life honestly.
“I believe by me living my life honestly and authentically now, I am able to be a better person and a better Christian,” said Southworth.
Southworth personally believes many misunderstand the Bible on what it says about homosexuality. He was inspired by the controversial 2007 documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” which argues that the Bible is misused by fundamentalist Christians and that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality.
Another inspiration for his coming out as gay was Ellen DeGeneres, an award-winning and popular talk show host who came out as a lesbian in 1997.
He’s not alone as a gay Christian, Southworth says. There are many gay people in the Christian industry, he adds, but it’s “hush-hush” and they’re scared to come out.
“I know I will be cut off from many within the Christian community, and if so, then they didn’t get the point of the life of Christ,” he commented. But he hopes the faith community will not push him out for being openly gay.
“I hope that they (Christians) don’t do that, because that is not who Jesus was at all,” he told After Elton. “His closest friends were the prostitutes and the tax collectors and the sinners. They were the low-life people of that time. So I hope they don’t do that.”
Raised a Pentecostal, Southworth currently identifies himself as a follower of Jesus and does not affiliate with any denomination. He attends three different churches in Nashville, Tenn., one of which is led by a gay partnered pastor.
Read about it here.
[From the Bible]
Leviticus 18:22
’Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
I Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:9-10 (NASB)
realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.
[From me]
I support Mr. Southworth as a person and a follower of Jesus. But you can’t be in fellowship with Jesus if you are living in sin. It doesn’t matter what sin it is. Sin is wrong and does not please God. Living in sin is not being who we are in Christ. If I was living contrary to my identity in Christ I would expect it to be pointed out to me. Yesterday I was corrected and that person was right in doing so.
Support? Yes, I will support him and begin to pray that God will point him to the truth. How can he say homosexual behavior is OK according to the Bible. Just those few verses make it pretty clear. And if he is having sex at all gay or straight he is fornicating.
What do you think?
48 responses so far
From my understanding of the Bible’s stance on homosexuality I struggle to see how someone can justify being a Bible-believing Christian and a homosexual at the same time.
But, that said, I think the Bible is just a reflection of the various mysticisms and cultural practices (both good and bad) of the times in which it was written.
And, I’m sorry to say this Kevin, but I think you’re sanctimonious, wilfully ignorant and narrow-minded at times. (Yes, yes, I realise that was an ad-hominem but sometimes in the face of unreason there’s little else left to do but say it as one sees it).
Good points, Kevin. The Bible couldn’t be more clear on this topic. Here’s one of the best sites I’ve seen for those who try to rationalize away God’s views on this topic: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html
I had never heard of this guy until recently but I think it is sad that he will mislead many impressionable kids with his views.
Of course, you don’t need the Bible or religion to point out the problems with homosexual behavior. Just as with abortion you can use secular reasoning to make the point. Of course, people will be quick to call you a hater, homophobe, intolerant, ignorant, etc., but so be it. The real homophobes are those who are so intimidated by the gay lobby that they can’t speak the truth and have a rational discussion about the topic.
Neil’s last blog post..Weekly roundup
Damian,
At least you have an opinion on me. I’m sorry that you don’t accept the Bible. That is my standard to live by.
Neil,
Thanks for the link.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Christian TV Host ‘Comes Out,’ Gets Support from Churchgoers
Kevin,
[a few more laws that I would expect you to revere no less than Leviticus 18:22, especially since you’ve said in earlier posts that you believe that there is no such thing as a ranking of sin]
[here are a few more marching orders… meet again for lunch sometime?
]
[watch out, kids!]
[this is a fairly easy one, right?]
[uh oh… you might need those stones after all…]
[if you don’t do this, then you are as guilty of sin as the homosexuals]
[but there’s still hope, both for homosexuals as well as those who commit sin by refusing to stone them to death]
[and…]
A3,
Great verses. I’m not casting any stones. He has come out & admited he is living in habitual sin. What an unbeliever does is none of Christians business but if a believer is living in sin it must be addressed.
Kevin,
As long as your “narrow-mindedness” remains within the parameters of God’s Word, I’d stay on that straight and narrow road (pun intended).
Anyone that reads your blog for any length of time recognizes your compassion for others and rejection of legalism. I believe some have a difficult time discerning the difference between legalism and obedience to God’s Word. Of course, many reject the bible altogether.
It’s an old argument, and I’d guess that your regular commentors have solidified their stances long ago.
darryl
Darryl’s last blog post..Kids, Clowns, and Compassion . . .
Darryl,
I’ve been struggling with the grace/legalism the last few months. But I talked with my Lead Pastor yesterday about this since he is further on the Grace Journey than me. I asked how do you balance it? He said just share God’s Word. Great advice.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Christian TV Host ‘Comes Out,’ Gets Support from Churchgoers
Kevin,
The lessen in “Casting the first stone” in Joh 8:7 is about the Pharisees requiring others to adhere to laws (adultery in the Joh 8:7 example) while they themselves were guilty of violating other laws (whatever laws the Pharisees were embarrassed of in the Joh 8:7 example). The moral of the Joh 8:7 lessen is to focus on your own sin rather than the sin of others.
Jesus told her to sin no more after he forgave her (on behalf of God). But he also said “neither do I condemn you” (condemnation is an expression of strong disapproval). In light of the consistent beating that gays get from the fundamentalist community (”fundamentalist” rather than “Evangelical” because not all Evangelicals are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalists are Evangelicals), I think it is incumbent upon fundamentalists to make it clear that there is no condemnation in messages about sinning no more. A good metric would be to find out how gays would feel after reading or hearing any particular “sin no more” message (or when that’s not possible, then you’d have to settle for trying to imagine how they would feel).
It is similar to the lesson found in Mat 7:3:
Daryl,
For the record, I do appreciate Kevin’s move from his earlier position that a homosexual could not be considered a follower of Jesus to his more recent position: “I support Mr. Southworth as a person and a follower of Jesus.”
A3,
Nice try. I don’t think that woman was a believer before that incident. I’m not condemning anyone. I am praying for him.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Christian TV Host ‘Comes Out,’ Gets Support from Churchgoers
Being a Christian is hard so hard. So many different interpretations of the Bible etc.We shouldn’t judge. I don’t know what I would do if I were gay. How I would cope and what I would do with my orientation. I mean if I had to change my heterosexual orientation for a homosexual one I just couldn’t do it. I would rather hang myself.And yet thats what some Christians expect the gay person to do. It’ s such a difficult issue. Often the gay person has to go through so much pain so much rejection so much alienation…… just like Jesus did, Sometimes they can be so much more humble more broken and more Christlike than your average straight believer….. On saying that I am divorced and have been celibate for 10 years as I believe sex outside marriage is wrong. And what the Bible says can’t really be twisted… the homosexual act is sin. Period.
IfI have to abstain then so should they!?
Julie
Julie’s last blog post..Gods Frame of Reference
K,
I have to admit that I am struggling with this whole issue. I have softened my stand on homosexuals in the “condemnation department.” In fact, I spoke with one today and plan to go to lunch with him next week once he finds out his work schedule. But as I see it..legalism takes the “you shall nots” as well as the “I believe you shall nots” ( non-essentials) and tries to force them on another but not with love and grace but harshness and sometimes anger and moral superiority. Grace can take even those things that the Bible says are sin and wrong, like homosexuality, and say, “You know, I cannot accept what you are doing or your lifestyle but I will be an example of God’s grace toward you.” I Cor.6:9-11 is pretty plain but I like to emphasize Paul’s phrase “such were some of you.” That same grace is to be extended to the one who had an abortion also. I may be seeing this wrong but to share with someone what the bible says in anger, moral superiority and judgmentalism is legalism. To share that same info with grace, love and wisdom is grace personified.
On a more personal note: this whole thing saddens me because someone has given this young man some very, very poor advice and direction from the Bible.
Bill’s last blog post..The God Who Smokes-Part 2
Julie and Bill,
This man needs prayers as all of us who are sinners. The hypocrisy in any sexual sin is that people justify it. Two unmarried people gay or straight who are engaging in sex are sinning. We can’t just keep quiet because we don’t want to offend them. We have to speak the truth with compassion and love.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Christian TV Host ‘Comes Out,’ Gets Support from Churchgoers
I would absolutely agree with you that we have to speak the truth with compassion and love. I hope I was not seen as saying we shouldn’t. To keep silent is approval.
Bill’s last blog post..The God Who Smokes-Part 2
Let me rephrase that: to keep silent seems to suggest approval.
Bill’s last blog post..The God Who Smokes-Part 2
This is an issue I have been struggling with.
Let me use one sentence from your post as an example:
But you can’t be in fellowship with Jesus if you are living in sin.
Let’s replace the sin of homosexuality with gluttony. Would we hold to the same statement?
Just thinking outloud.
dm
davidbmc’s last blog post..Voyage Radio-Alive & Kicking!
David,
I think you ask a great question. I think any believer who is allowing sin to control them is out of fellowship. Gluttony is misunderstood though. Just because someone is overweight doesn’t mean they are gluttonous. I actually preached on this last year. I think habitually stuffing ourselves @ buffets is a sin. Not just for what it does to our body but also how we deprive those who have nothing.
Kevin,
Was this a response to something I said or is it just an observation?
I do believe you are praying for him if you say you are.
I also believe, based not only on this post, but in the context of your previous posts on homosexuality, that you condemn him for his homosexuality - adding that you are praying for him doesn’t change that. To continue with the example of Jesus and the adulteress that you commented on, note that in John 8:11, when Jesus says to the adulteress: “neither do I condemn thee,” the word for “condemned” is “katakrino,” which means “to judge worthy of punishment.” From what I understand from your posts, you believe that homosexuals because of their homosexual acts are worthy of punishment - you seem to condemn them for their homosexuality.
If it is truly not the case that you don’t condemn homosexuals, that you feel that they are your brothers and sisters (in the Lord, if they are Christians), that their sin is no worse than say, remarried divorcees or gluttons for example, then I think you might be doing any homosexuals that come across this blog a tremendous disservice by tainting your intended message with what comes across as a message of condemnation.
A3,
I don’t condemn anyone. That isn’t my job. Any non-believer can do what they want. I haven’t harped on Ellen Degeneres because she doesn’t claim to be a believer. I think she is funny & doesn’t claim to be an evangelical Christian. The man in the article claims to be a follower of Jesus. I have no reason not to believe him. But the lifestyle he has chosen to live is contrary to the Bible. It is not who he is in Christ. Yes I will pray for him as I do for you every day.
Kevin and Askanatheist:
In reference to Lev. and Deu. scripture quotes, we must remember that laws in the OT come in three forms:
Moral: which are eternal, based upon God’s character and law
Priestly: which were of the OT priesthoods, Levetical and Aaronic…these laws were met with perfection via The High Priest, Jesus, and are no longer applied today
And finally, Theocratic law, which the scripture quotes are examples of. These laws are no longer applicable, as we no longer live in a time of Jewish kingship and theocracy…in worldly terms.
The NT scriptures that atheist provides are very good reminders that we all fall short of the glory of God, but I am unclear of the point you are trying to make in giving them.
The NT quotes that Kevin gives, in my opinion, clearly dictate that “arsenokoites”, mentioned twice in the NT, is a sin.
Like all sin, we must lay it at the foot of the cross and be repentiful. When one continues to live in sin, with a hardened heart, they turn for social, worldly accepatance, instead of turning to God.
No codemnation, simply prayer.
Our prayer for this young man, will be for repentence, to lay the sin down, and lift his eyes toward Jesus.
“But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith,” (1 Tim. 1:5).
DESIRES IN CONFLICT ft. Tonio and Under 5
Romans 1:24-32
From rapper Flame:
Yea, I wanna tell ya’ll this story
It’s a lot of people looking for restoration
And really searching
I met an interesting man
Who confessed some of the struggles within
Brace yourself cause the struggle is deep
Cause the struggle is deep
He wrestles with the very complex thing
And this is what he said to me
You don’t understand my pain
You don’t understand my secret
The type of depression I sleep with
It’s been going on
Every since I was six years old
My greatest fear is still being exposed
My emotions cross wires
Causing a sexual crossfire
Now I have conflicting desires
As a distraction
Same sex attraction
In my actions and emotional breakdown just like fractions
See, people even say that I’m wrong
But people need to leave me alone
Just check Dateline
And the news will even show you
The hate crimes
I would see God but why waste time
I’m so embarrassed
I try to change
But it just won’t work
I felt ashamed when I stepped in the church
I feel isolated
Child of trauma
I try to forget that while dealing with these struggles and setbacks
I been around
Man… it’s got to be tough man
I don’t know what to say
I met an interesting woman
Who confessed some of her struggles within
Brace yourself cause her struggle is deep (cause her struggle is deep)
She wrestles with the very complex thing
And this is what she said to me
You don’t understand my pain
You don’t understand my struggle
Never hearing a man say that I love you
Without something in mind
Yea, I grew up as a classic tomboy
When I was young I used to clown boys
It was so funny
But then the jokes stopped when he grabbed my throat
And I got raped looked around and there was no pops
Then I resented and hated men my friends then
But I never dated men for a long time
When I did I became promiscuous
Involved in sexual experiences
That I shouldn’t been
Never felt feminine til I met a friend
Who really took the time just to understand
It became more than a friendship
One day when her hand slipped
I tried to change but that’s the way that I am
Please accept me for the way that I am
Please, I been around
Wow… that’s deep… um
I don’t know
And when they shared their secrets
It was very hard to speak
But I knew they wanted me to respond (they wanted me to respond)
I closed my eyes and said a prayer to God
Lord please help me speak your mind
I don’t understand your pain (I don’t)
And I don’t and your secrets (I don’t)
The type of depression you sleep with
But I sympathize
I really do
Know it’s gotta be hard
Being you so I try to be true
And I try to empathize
But I know that God wants to express a sacredness
Through opposite sex
Yes through opposite sex
For man and woman to become one
Is the union God wanted to bless
Yes, He wants to bless
It paints a picture of His desire for oneness
With us in a relationship we can be with the Father
He’s always faithful
He’ll never molest or disrespect His sons and daughters
You can bet on this
His love is deeper than the ocean floor
The blood of Jesus is the open door
To forgive us for our sins
And He can restore the void in a woman
And He can restore the men to men from homosexual sin
See a person’s race or ethnicity is sacred
Our sexuality is sacred as well
And it’s a gift from God
We don’t have the right to do with it what we want to
God has an original intent
Just like I can’t go off and participate in any type of sexual act that I want to with
My sexuality pornography premarital sex adultery
So what is it with our sexuality
Concerning homo sexuality
God has established
The divine order
And we must follow
Why do homosexuals have to “come out”? Can’t they just be gay? I guess I need to “come out”….I’m a Christian and I’m prideful.
Being gay is “hip” right now and the “coming out” is a great way to get attention and get some great promo.
If you’re gay, just be gay and avoid the drama.
Camel Rider’s last blog post..Friday is for fotos
Camel Rider,
My first thought is that maybe we only hear (or perhaps remember) the dramatic “comings out.” Perhaps just quietly being gay is indeed the norm.
My second thought is that there may be a few reasons for the “drama.” One might be that many gays probably expect abuse as a result of coming out so the drama may be a way to muster up the courage. The other reason may have nothing to do with being gay - maybe some people, including gays, are more extraverted and dramatic than others.
Bret,
Thanks for bringing this up. This is something I’ve heard this before; I tried to understand the origin of the classification but was unable to. Could you tell me where the classifications come from? Are they in the Bible? If not, who first codified them? Or if you don’t have that info, could you at least explain why we should classify the laws?
I was making a different point than “all fall short.” I juxtaposed Mat 5:28 (adultery of the heart) with Lev 20:10 (adultery with another’s wife) to show that by NT standards, virtually everyone is guilty of adultery - and on a regular basis. I cited Lev 20:13 (man with man, woman with woman) to conflate homosexuality with heterosexual adultery to demonstrate that straights and gays bare the same guilt: constant sexual transgression. I included Joh 8:7 (cast a stone) which admonishes transgressors not to “cast stones” at others transgressors.
The inconsistency I see is when one who transgresses a sexual law (Mat 5:28) feels justified in condemning another who transgresses another sexual law (homosexuality). It’s the self-righteous pointing of the finger, the implicit minimization of one’s own similar guilt relative to the guilt of another. This is quite different than an inclusive admonition - that we should support each other in overcoming our sin. It’s beholding the mote that is in one’s brother’s eye but not considering the beam in one’s own eye. Even the collective prayer for this person can be condescending when there is the implicit message that we, who don’t have this horrible problem, will pray for him. How about asking him (or another gay Christian who does not lust after his neighbors wife) to pray for you?
Do you feel that it is sufficient to say you love someone, or is it necessary to demonstrate it through word (i.e., other words you say other than the claim of love proper) and action?
A3,
Who is condemning?
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Why Does God Allow Suffering?
Kevin,
As I said earlier, I suspect that you are. On one hand, you say you believe that all sin is equal. That not withstanding, you seem more inflexible in your dealing with the subject of homosexuality than other types of sin. The implication of the heightened inflexibility is that there is less forgiveness toward homosexuality. Therefore, unrepentant homosexuals are more worthy of punishment than say, unrepentant remarried divorcees. The judging of worthiness of punishment is what “condemnation” means.
Having had many of these conversations with you, I anticipate that you will respond that you don’t in fact believe that homosexuals are more worthy of punishment than other sinners. I would suggest that your tone regarding homosexuality, and your singling out homosexuality as often as you do, is evidence to the contrary.
Kevin,
Thanks for taking this on, and for being willing to endure the flack that such a post typically generates. You make a great distinction - between the sin of non-believers and that of believers. I’ve finally come to the point that I understand that it’s not our job to call unbelievers on their sin. That’s the ‘conviction’ role of the Holy Spirit. Smacking the lost on the head with your trusty dusty KJV 1611 in no way reflects the love of Christ. (”But we’re savin’ him from the hellfahr! Isn’t that loving?” Uh, no. Leave that to the Spirit of God.)
On the other hand, the role of the body in the discipline of its members is very clear. I don’t particularly care if homosexuality is trendy these days. It’s still clearly called sin, along with pride and arrogance and anything else that interferes with our relationship with the Father. If A3 doesn’t like Old Testament prohibitions, then read the New Tesatament. The laws haven’t changed from OT to NT, but our relationships have, with God and with each other, because of the indwelling Spirit of God.
Steve’s last blog post..A Sub in the Canal
Steve,
What duty do you feel that Christians have toward the lost?
What do you make of the prohibition of eating unclean animals in the OT but the approval of eating unclean animals in the NT? The OT mandates that an adulteress be stoned to death, but Jesus acts to prevent the stoning of the adulteress; did Jesus break the law or was His action an indication of the transformation of the OT mandate?
Atheist:
Could you tell me where the classifications come from? Are they in the Bible?
The three types of laws are biblical in context throughout the OT. In reading any writing, much less the bible, we have to remember to keep it in context (I can probably make the Declaration of Independence into a marxist techinical manual if I spend anough time at it). Many Christians get tripped up by forgetting, or not knowing the context of a specific scripture when it is presented by someone in opposition).
So, for example, the Preistly laws of the OT were meant to be honored in a pure way, as to usher the High Priest, and those laws and traditions are found throughout the OT…obviously moral law, based upon God’s character, is throughout the OT and NT. Theocratic law likewise is found throughout the OT. Is there one scripture that codifies these laws? To my knowledge, no, but again, they run throughout the course of the reading.
I was making a different point than “all fall short.”..Yes, i was aware of your intent, and just mentioned it as a reminder to my myself and other Christians that we all fall short. It wasnt intended as a rebuttal.
The inconsistency I see is when one who transgresses a sexual law (Mat 5:28) feels justified in condemning another who transgresses another sexual law (homosexuality)…..If I appear to be condemning, I apologize…I am unsure if you are inferring I am condemning or not…you may not be. I understand your point in regards to one condemning another when they are guilty of the same transgression…we who do it are in error, no doubt.
Kevin would probably take issue with my belief that one sin does not equates to another sin. I say that because there is only one sin, the unpardonable sin (which I believe to be the refusal of accepting Christ), that places one into eternal damnation. All other sins are covered by the blood of Jesus. I aslo think the specific sin of homosexuality is set aside, this is a reference from Slick at Carm:
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
The “hardening of hearts” is a whole differnet subject, but I think this scripture clearly sets this homosexuality aside from adultery.
“Even the collective prayer for this person can be condescending when there is the implicit message that we, who don’t have this horrible problem, will pray for him. How about asking him (or another gay Christian who does not lust after his neighbors wife) to pray for you?”
I fail to see your logic and would appreciate their prayers…you provide a false premise with your implicit message statement, that we who are praying are condescending…the false premise leads to a non sequitur. I fail to see the inconsitency, and would again appreciate the prayers of those you mention (although I have to question the salvation of someone who is not repentiful, meaning, repentence defined is “second thought” or change of mind that leads to a change in action - -again Kevin would object to this line of thought and it leads to the subject of true salvation, eternal salvation, loss of salvation, etc etc etc)
Do you feel that it is sufficient to say you love someone, or is it necessary to demonstrate it through word (i.e., other words you say other than the claim of love proper) and action?
Great question which will cause me some reflection in the future…i do beleive you can love without action or word….for example, I was just on a blog…prayforcoy….a little premie baby with an amazing story. I love that child…will I ever see him, contact him, etc…probably not….but I love him. The question is how you defince suffecient…suffecient for what? I need you to qualify the question to answer…but I do not beleive there HAS to be action. To the contrary, i work in ministries with people who deperately need help, yet I dont know if I have love for them. Those actions are an expression of love for God, his faithfulness, grace and love for me. Others, that I do love are not neccsarily, but usually, someone I have expressed love for via action.
Great points however, but I have to ask a question: why is it neccesary for an atheist to use the bible to try and dismantle Christianity or more importantly, to support your ideas? Its not meant to be rude, just a questions I have always had.
A3,
I have posted about divorce, embesslement, adultry, etc… Show me an article on gluttony & I will post on it. No condemnation - just correction in love.
A,
Good point. Christ said he came not to do away with the law but to fulfill it. That said, it was transformational, as you point out. Read about Peter’s vision in Acts where all the ‘unclean’ animals were shown to be be acceptable to eat. The point being that it’s not external things that affect the life of the believers, but internal. Eating lobster or pork won’t make you unclean - even though the Law in the OT made that distinction - it’s what comes from within, from the heart, that makes the person unclean.
Those OT restrictions (tassels, dietary laws, etc) weren’t health related, but were to mark the Jews as set apart from the surrounding cultures. I think God used those Laws to show that those laws didn’t bring a people closer to Him. It required a transformed heart. That’s exactly what Christ was about, and what Peter and others struggled against.
Now look at the NT ‘restrictions,’ including homosexuality. The passage at the end of Romans 1 is typically used by the church as being opposed to the behavior. That sin is listed there, with many others:
What does disobedience to parents, envy or gossip have to do with homosexuality? There are all corruptions of a godly relationship, and I would suggest that none is worse than the other.
Steve’s last blog post..A Sub in the Canal
A,
What duty do you feel that Christians have toward the lost?
To show them the what Christlike love is all about. It’s not our job to convict others of their sin, it’s the job of the Holy Spirit. We tend to forget that - a lot.
Steve’s last blog post..A Sub in the Canal
Kevin,
Sadly, I know many believers who have been trapped by the lie of sexual perversion (both homosexual and heterosexual perversions)…and it’s breaking my heart.
Only the Holy Spirit can reach them and bring them to repentance.
Phil Hoover’s last blog post..A Cause for GREAT ALARM…
Bret,
I agree that ther is only one sin that leads to death- not accepting Jesus.
A3,
I your child were about to walk in front of a moving truck would you stop them & maybe even spank them if they disobeyed? What caring person would not correct improper behavior? Bret correct me the other day not by condeming but pointing out my judging. It is correction - not condemnation. Paul did it in the NT.
Bret,
If the classifications are not biblical, then we agree that they are grouped in a way someone happened to classify them. We might just as easily classify them by the remedy (the type of sacrifice required, etc.) or by the punishment (death, etc.) or by any other common attributes. Is there a reason why the moral, priestly, and theocratic classifications are theologically relevant? By the question of relevance, I mean is there a reason that we should presume that each of the theocratic laws or the priestly laws are no longer relevant but the moral laws are? Can we say that none of the priestly or theological laws have a moral basis?
The offer of prayer for this individual notwithstanding, I did not get the overall impression that you were condemning and after your forthright statement, I feel certain that you are not.
Regarding your reading of Rom 1:25-28: I’m assuming from this and previous discussion that you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word (e.g., plenary verbal inspiration … please correct me if I am incorrect and please accept my apology) so let me respond given that assumption. I’m a bit perplexed by your reading of the passage. I think we can agree that beginning with 1:18, Paul is talking about Pagan worshipers who reject the Jesus and the Jewish God in favor of animalesque statues. Is it reasonable to suppose that God actually caused them to violate his laws that prohibit sexual promiscuity? If pagan worship included these types of sexual acts before the time of Jesus, and before itinerant preachers like Paul could have told them about Jesus or the God of the Jews, is it reasonable to believe that the cause of these acts was the rejection of God? Do you believe that God gives us free will? And if so, would actively preventing anyone from seeing the truth that leads to salvation be a violation of free will? Note that many homosexuals see the truth and become saved (and some abandon homosexual sex as a result), despite being homosexual and therefore blind to the truth. Also, why should we presume that this episode represents a principal regarding homosexuality, rather than something that God did to this particular group? One thing we might note is that in general, God doesn’t seem to cause people who worship idols to become sexually promiscuous
That’s not at all surprising since I didn’t mean it as any sort of syllogistic statement
I simply meant that the offer of prayer could imply condescension when the implication of the offer is that the one who prays is more pious then the one being offered, and when the offer itself is a display of piety. I was pointing out that the tone (and in this case where the medium is text, then the context) can make a difference between sounding like a statement of compassion or a statement of piety.
Regarding the sufficiency of love: in my comment, by “love”, I meant the act rather than the emotion. For example, when Jesus commands to love, he is commanding us to act since we have no real control over our emotions. By sufficiency, I meant sufficient so satisfy Jesus’ command or the command in 1 Tim 1:5 that you mentioned earlier. The only reason I asked was to try to better understand what you meant by your earlier comment regarding 1 Tim 1:5.
First, I hope you continue to press me - I don’t find it rude at all and it makes for an interesting and relevant conversation! I’m not in the least offended and I hope you are not offending by my questions either. If I’ve pressed too hard, then I apologize. As I said earlier, tone can make the difference and tone sometimes does not come across well in a text-only medium. So believe me when I say that if we were having this conversation in person, I would be listening thoughtfully and speaking respectfully and often cheerfully.
In general, I don’t feel that dismantling the theory of inerrancy necessarily erodes the Bible’s message or the authority of the message, nor do I feel that it would dismantle Christianity. When the conversation is about whether the Bible is the Inerrant Word, I often cite passages in the Bible that seem at odds with history or that seem self contradictory to illustrate my point (but even then, not to discredit Christianity). However, when exploring why Christians hold a particular belief that is tied to the Bible, my intent is to understand the reason for the belief, and to understand how they reconcile the belief in light of conflicting biblical passages, philosophical considerations, etc. In those cases, I quote the Bible because it is germane to the conversation about the belief, not as an attempt to discredit the Bible. When I feel that the belief leads to harmful behavior, I may argue against the belief as well. An in those cases, quoting the Bible is one way to justify my argument to someone who may only be swayed by ethical arguments that relate to the Bible. However even in those discussion, I make no pretense of believing in the Bible’s authority because I do not want my use of the Bible to be dishonest or patronizing to believers.
All that said, I most often quote the Bible in response to someone else quoting the Bible to make his point.
Steve,
I agree. My point is that the Bible does not seem to single out homosexuality nearly to the extent that the fundamentalist community seems to.
I only asked “What duty do you feel that Christians have toward the lost?” because I wasn’t sure what you meant by your earlier comment, “we’re savin’ him from the hellfahr! Isn’t that loving? Uh, no.” I wasn’t sure what you thought about the command to “preach the gospel to every creature.”
Kevin,
Absolutely.
I honestly believe that Christian homosexuals will not take your admonitions seriously if you insist that they are not in fellowship with Jesus when they believe as strongly as you do that they are - with the exception of course those that already believe that their homosexuality is preventing their fellowship with Jesus - but they probably need encouragement more than persuasion.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever had this discussion with someone like Azariah Southworth about why he believes that he can be a homosexual and a good Christian? Were you able to understand the reasons well enough so that you could articulate them here? I suggest that if you hope to convince people like Azariah Southworth that your understanding of the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is more correct than theirs, you first have to understand why he and people like him believe the way they do.
Kevin,
I’d love to hear more about your gluttony sermon. (Being a glutton. Or at least I thought I was until I read your response, now I’m not sure.)
Also,
I have never been convinced of the moral vs. ceremonial, etc. aspects of the OT law. I’ve heard it for years. But in the NT I read that the Law is fulfilled and over with. I don’t see anywhere where it says the ceremonial aspects of the law are done with but the other is still in tact.
That said, it is my humble opinion that the NT indeed calls homosexuality sin, along with gluttony, pride, greed, envy, etc.
davidbmc’s last blog post..I Suck (Yeah, I Said It)
David,
I’m not sure if this is what you mean but, for the record, I don’t automatically think of people who are overweight as gluttons. In fact, I wasn’t even thinking of food when I mentioned gluttony; I was thinking of people who want more than they really need, just to have more for the sake of having more. That would include most everyone in the middle and upper classes of developed countries. I’m not back paddling here because of your post - that’s really what I meant.
I think you’re right that by saying that the the Law is fulfilled, the implication in the NT is that the purpose or need for the Law from the beginning was to bring about the salvation via Jesus and, once that happens, it is no longer needed and no longer in effect.
Though most NT passages agree with this outlook, I also think the outlook is at odds with some of the passages in the NT about the law not passing away. It is most certainly at odds with the OT itself. Have a look at what the Law says about itself - notice especially statements like “this is an eternal law for all generations”:
Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43
Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3
Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29
Deuteronomy29:28
The ancient Jews saw the Law as an eternal standard by which God expected them to live. Many 1st-century Christians saw the Law as a prelude to Jesus which was no longer necessary. Other 1st-century Christians (the Ebionites for example, and even Peter’s church) continued to see the Law as eternal though they believed that their salvation could only come through Christ. I think the NT reflects various views about the OT.
Thanks Kevin. I agree that gluttony involves more than food. But it certainly involves food. More than enough can fit in there too.
The NT doesnt say the law passes away. It says it is fulfilled. There is a difference. If I get a bill, it doesnt just pass away and not become due anymore. But once it is paid it has been fulfilled.
Jesus paid the bill. It is not due anymore. That’s why I dont think the NT statements are at odds with each other or with the OT statements. The law did not pass away. It was fulfilled. And is now no longer needed.
This is something I have studied pretty extensively because it bugged me for a long time. But I’m always open to changing if I’m wrong. I’ll look anew at the verses you’ve posted.
davidbmc’s last blog post..I Suck (Yeah, I Said It)
I knew I had posted these at another blog somewhere I just had to go find it. Notice there is no distinction in these passages bteween moral and ceremonial aspects of the law. Also notice that if my understanding of the relationship between passingaway vs. fulfillment is correct there is neither contradiction nor tension between the NT and OT:
———————–
On a theological basis regarding “the law”-
GAL 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”
GAL 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
HEB 7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
davidbmc’s last blog post..I Suck (Yeah, I Said It)
David,
What are your thoughts on the passages within the Law itself that indicates that the Law is meant to be obeyed for eternity, compared to NT passages which indicate that particular Laws no longer need to be obeyed?
I think it’s great that he’s receiving some support. It’s important that people realize that what Christianity is really about is love. It’s not about hating people. It’s sad when people pick out certain parts of the Bible and use them as a reason for hate. It’s very sad. Love Love Love. Love is all you need.
Election News’s last blog post..Jeremiah Wright On Bill Moyers
Mr. Atheist,
Most of them have this language:
“This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come.”
WHile I agree that on the surface this sounds terribly permanent. On second look it really isn’t. It doesn’t say it can never stop. It also limits it to the Israelites, who all of these rules were for in the first place.
Other than that, I would need to know specifically which verses you are referring to.
Thanks
dm
davidbmc’s last blog post..I Suck (Yeah, I Said It)
Hi all… Lively discussion here!
I’m wondering what anyone thinks of Paul’s words in 2 Cor 5:16-19, particularly vs. 16, in the context of the rest:
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh . Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Paul says we regard no one according to the flesh. In the context, we do see one another as new creations. Old things have passed away, all things have become new. God has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ.
As someone else said, in 1 Cor 6:9-11 Paul lists some sins and then adds, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”
Paul goes on in vs 12, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” He then talks about sexual immorality and joining oneself with a harlot. “Why do this?, he asks. Don’t you know that you’re joined with Christ! You’re one spirit with Him, for crying out loud!” (My own paraphrase).
What I get out of this is, “Look, we’re not looking at one another any longer according to what is sinful and what is not sinful. You can do whatever the heck you want. All things are lawful. But look, we’re holy now. We’ve been washed. We’ve been sanctified.
Perhaps that’s what we need to do as Christians in regards to one another. If we see someone being brought ‘under the power’ of something that is not helpful or beneficial, or that is contrary to our being joined to the Lord, then we can, in love, discuss these things that are indeed “lawful for us” but that hurt the body of Christ… all the while not judging or condemning or pointing accusing fingers at anyone.
I would just like to add that if “you can’t be in fellowship with Jesus if you are living in sin,” then that would hold some terrible ramifications for the entire body of Christ! All of the verses mentioned in this post (and many more verses) could be used against any one of us! All during my Christian life, I’ve seen all those same verses used against homosexuality. But they dig much deeper, my friends! They make EVERYONE guilty. But fortunately they are talking about what we were, not what we are. We are now new creations (2 Cor 5:17) and partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
Joel Brueseke’s last blog post..God Incorporated
To Bill: You said, “Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28).”
Back up to vss 24-25. “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”
Who is the “them” and the “their” and the “who” that is being spoken of? It’s not at all limited to homosexuals. It’s traced back to verse 18. “ALL the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” If you follow the them’s, their’s, they’s, who’s, etc, all the way through Romans 1:18-31, Paul is talking about the same group of people all the way through: EVERYONE!
Even in verse 26, where Paul says, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions, he still hasn’t mentioned homosexuals up to that point. He’s still talking about “all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” He’s talking about all of mankind. Out of the collective group of mankind, “even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.” And he goes on, it’s the same with men. Not all women did this. Not all men. But some of “their” women and men did this.
We see again that Paul is not just focusing on homosexuals when he gets to verse 28. “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to…” a whole list of sins.
This passage is not about homosexuality… It’s about ALL of the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men! Paul lists many examples. And his point? “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” (Rom 2:1). Paul goes on to give the “bad news” of ALL the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man. Then, finally, in Romans 3:21, he gets back to the point he began to make in 1:16-17.
What he had begun to say was, “For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith…” He then took all the way up to 3:21 to make the case for the unrighteousness of man.
Then, getting back to his overall point, he says, “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
If it’s about our righteousness, we’re doomed. That’s the point he made from Romans 1:18 - 3:20. But the good news… the gospel… is that it has absolutely nothing to do with our righteousness or unrighteousness. It’s all about God’s righteousness that we’ve received freely as a gift. Romans 1 was never meant as a guideline for Christian behavior. It is meant as a sad, sad commentary on ALL the unrighteousness of man, and it is contrasted with the FREE GIFT of righteousness we receive in Christ! We now look at one another through this lens, not through the lens of Rom 1:18-3:20.
Joel Brueseke’s last blog post..God Incorporated
David,
My friends call me AAA or A3
I think it is important to see how this phrases like this are typically used in the OT (and ancient Hebrew in general). I think it would be a mistake for us to place a restriction on ancient texts that, unless it uses specific language to our satisfaction as modern readers, then there is a loophole by which we can understand that it doesn’t really mean “permanent.” To present a somewhat shoddy example, in English we can say “always” to mean eternally. Someone who is completely unfamiliar with the common use of the word might say that it means “all ways” - meaning in all manor, or worse: in every direction.
I think more to the point, would ancient readers understand the language to mean permanent? I think the answer is that they would. What’s more, there is nothing I find in the Law to suggest that it was anything other than a permanent covenant between the Israelites and God - so I agree with you that ancient Jews would have seen the Law as a Law for Jews only. That makes good sense since according to the OT, God (El, and YHVH) is the God of the Jews who will defend them from the goyim (other nations).
Exodus: 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43
Leviticus: 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3
Numbers: 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29
Deuteronomy: 29:28
Joel,
First, I want to say that I feel that your position on homosexuality and its context with other sins is a very good example of not being condemning toward homosexuals, even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin. I point this out because I personally find it to be a very refreshing (and, sadly an all-too-rare) outlook that I wish were more common in the Christian community. And I also point it out because I think your personal example shows more clearly what I have been trying inadequately to express.
Regarding the verses you cited, I think they show that Paul views that the Laws of the OT are no longer applicable and no longer in effect.
A3,
I have noticed that scriptures such as Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 (and others that have been mentioned in this post and subsequent comments) seem to be used by Christians almost exclusively to point out homosexuality as a sin, but it’s as if no one notices what else those scriptures say, along with their context. As you pointed out (I think it was you), if we’re going to cite the abomination of a man lying with a man in Leviticus, then shouldn’t we also point out the abomination of “whatever in the water does not have fins or scales” (Lev. 11:10-12) Can anyone say “Lobster?” Or what about the abomination in Deut. 25:13-16, of having weights of differing measures in your bag! And besides the many abominations, if we are going to cite any given Law at all, then should we really be picking and choosing which ones to disregard? We won’t prostitute our daughter, causing her to be a harlot (Lev 19:29), but yet we seem to be ok with shaving the sides of our heads and having tattoos (completely disregarding vss. 27-28). (Well, there are some who have problems with tattoos but yet will shave the sides of their heads!).
And when it comes to the NT verses, I really think it’s sad that the larger context of the verses get completely missed. I guess I previously mentioned that. But yeah, what’s most important, is that all of what the law says doesn’t pertain to us. I agree with you that Paul made a huge case in several epistles that God “wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us, having nailed it to the cross.” The law was our tutor to lead us to Christ, but once we’ve come to faith, the tutor has done it’s job. Romans 7 even says we had to die to the law in order to be married to Christ. I don’t know if DYING can be made any more clear! - Especially when the scripture makes it just as clear that we’ve now been made ALIVE together with Christ! We’re now in Christ, through faith, and we live not by law but by the very life of Christ in us (again, having died to the law in order to be joined to Christ).
Christians are no longer sinners; we are saints, new creations, joined to the Lord. One who is joined to the Lord can’t be out of fellowship with Him. When Paul lists various sins, he’s pointing out what we were, and he says, “so don’t become slaves to these things.” “All things are lawful. There’s nothing you can do to break fellowship with God. But just remember who you once were, and remember who(se) you now are.
Joel Brueseke’s last blog post..Bizzy weak
Joel,
I agree - I don’t think there is any sound basis for categorizing the OT laws to decide which are still relevant and which are not. I also agree that the overwhelming message in the NT is that the OT Law is no longer in effect.