Acceptable Abominations

Know ye not that the unrigtous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers
of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit
the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I Cor. 6:9-11

The HOLMAN BIBLE DICTIONARY article on homosexuality says, among other things that;
“Only heterosexual preference and behavior patterns are approved in Scripture as conforming to God's plan in the creation of man and woman. Moreover, all sexual behavior is to take place in the context of marriage. Sex is considered good so long as it takes place within these parameters. Homosexual behavior is strongly condemned as a deviation from God's will for human beings. Therefore, it stands to reason that any homosexual inclination, feeling, or desire must be seriously dealt with as a potentially dangerous temptation much like those temptations of a heterosexual nature such as the desire to commit fornication or adultery. In the Holiness Code of Leviticus, homosexuality is considered an abomination (Lev.18:22), and such behavior was to be punished by death (Lev. 20:13). Romans 1:26-27 considers homosexuality to be a sign of God's wrath upon blind sinfulness. Such behavior is considered a degrading passion, unnatural, an indecent act, and an error, even worthy of death (Rom. 1:32).”

This article accurately summarizes this controversial issue for the Christian believer, and my own observations and comments serve merely to Amen!  what it says.

Tom Ragan, a writer for the Associated Press wrote an article titled "Church Shunned for Gay Acceptance" the dateline was Tuesday, November 4, 1997. It is an interesting article both for what it says about the Mennonite Church and homosexuals on the one hand, and on the other hand for what it does not say concerning what are the real issues in this matter.

Ragan begins by relating the story of an AIDS victim in California, an active  homosexual who found a welcome in the Germantown Mennonite Church.  The point of the article is that the Regional Conference of the Mennonite Church has expelled this congregation from their fellowship because of their "unconditional acceptance" of homosexuals. The official position of the denomination since 1987 has been to allow celibate, i.e. non-active homosexuals only. (This is also the official position of the Roman Catholic Church). The Germantown church has accepted those who are in what is called "covenanted relationships" a euphemism for what the participants in these relationships see as tantamount to same sex marriages.

The pastor, who is about to be stripped of his ordination credentials attributes the action of the denomination to a "general cultural fear of sexuality". Apparently some of the membership, both homosexual and heterosexual consider the official policy hypocritical. One member said ``Sure, we could have one of those situations where the homosexuals could come but never tell and we would never ask or be open about it, we could just assume that they're celibate. But the problem is we'd never make those requirements of heterosexual couples". The Germantown church has served as a refuge for homosexuals for a decade. Another man (apparently a homosexual) who grew up as a Mennonite, joined because he heard the congregation accepted homosexuals and he wanted to return to the religious environment he left as a teen-ager.

The acceptance of practicing homosexuals is a growing phenomenon and with it so is the debate. With the propaganda from the homosexual community, the charge of "homophobe" is becoming nearly equal to, and almost as common as, the charge of "racist", people are afraid to speak their mind unless that speech is "politically correct".

For me, the most striking line in the article is the statement I underlined and put in italics above, which was attributed to a heterosexual, namely that this congregation would "never make those requirements of heterosexual couples"

Herein lies the problem, it is a matter of the words that are utilized and the true sense of what they mean. Often even people that declare themselves to be Christians cannot understand that the comparison is not between homosexuals and married couples as the Church member seems to imply, but rather between homosexuals and fornicators, between homosexuals and adulterers, between homosexuals and thieves, and between homosexuals and those who do abominable practices.  I cannot believe that any Christian church order of discipline would sanction sex outside of marriage. They must at least "frown" upon such conduct and declare it to be contrary to God's Word. This man's argument, i.e. that the true Church winks at heterosexual perversion is a common defense of those who appeal for homosexual tolerance or outright approval.  Perhaps the church is guilty of being too permissive. Perhaps we do often give reluctant approval for various sins simply because they are so prevalent. But that is not the correct position to take. That is not the Christian thing to do. That is not what Christ taught.

Polls show that a very high percentage of Christian youth are now becoming sexually active prior to marriage. I do not doubt the statistics because sin has a way of "snowballing" so that as we progress (sic) to more and more gross sin, and the so called "lesser" sins become more and more tolerable. A similar pattern may be seen in our criminal justice system, where those crimes which once shocked a nation have become so commonplace that we pay no attention to the daily reports of carnage coming over our television sets and radios.  Everyone in the (so called) "gay" movement knows that "Gay rights" is not their ultimate goal, but only the door opener. Approval for relationships with children and animals is also on the agenda. (I personally like to reserve the word "gay" for its proper use, meaning one who is happy and carefree.  Homosexuals, like all who are actively sinning should not be so defined)

A fornicator who repents and does not fornicate, is a former fornicator, and therefore acceptable in the assembly. An alcoholic who stays sober is a former drunk from our point of view, and is accepted in the assembly as if he never touched a drop. (No intention here to contradict the Alcoholics Anonymous desire that members continue to confess that they are alcoholics) A thief who steals no more is considered our brother in Christ. Even one guilty of consenting to the murder of Stephen could become the great Apostle Paul. A homosexual that repents and does not "homosex", is a former homosexual, and therefore acceptable in the assembly.  The Church is to be a hospital for sin sick souls, not a monastery to isolate us from the world. We are all gross sinners. Those who do not call sin "sin" exclude themselves from His Mercy, Grace and Forgiveness. We do a disservice to the guilty party when we compromise God's Word to fit the world’s scheme of things. 

And such were some of you: but ye are washed,
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God

I Cor. 6:11

(Father God, forgive me for my many trespasses and sins.  Cleanse me daily, remove the dust that I pick up traveling through this world. By the prescious blood of Jesus and in His holy name.  Amen!)

  My purpose today is not to try to prove from the Scriptures that men lying with men or with animals is sin. The Bible is not ambiguous on this point but is rather abundantly clear. To take the contrary position requires an obvious distortion of the clear teaching of Scripture. Rather, my message is that you must not fall victim to the doublespeak that floods the news and entertainment media, saying that homosexuality is nothing more nor less than an "alternate lifestyle". Or even beyond that until it becomes the preferred lifestyle. It reminds me of the Menendez brothers' trial of some years ago when one of the female jurors was asked about her position on the guilt of the two men. She was in tears because these boys were "orphans"!  She was oblivious to the fact that they were orphans only because they murdered their parents! The guilt for the crime (or sin) is totally obviated by the circumstances. The poor that steal because they are hungry are excused as victims. The mother who aborts her child is practicing choice. The politician that lies is considered shrewd. But God is not mocked. We are hastening towards His judgment.  Do your best to snatch as many as you can from the fire. 

  I would like to see Scullville Bible Church become a haven for homosexuals … and fornicators ... and adulterers ... and thieves ... and blasphemers ... and gossips ... (gossips? ... yes gossips!)  ... and backbiters ... and prostitutes and moneychangers and etc. and etc.,  all of whom have gazed upon our Lord,  believed our report, acknowledged the Savior,  confessed their sin,  repented and changed their direction,  and are willing to walk in the Spirit of God, and not satisfy the flesh.  This is why our Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross, and these are the kinds of people for whom He died.

  But we must be faithful to declare what God really says about sin. And above all, we must not allow ourselves to be fooled.

Remember Little children, let no man deceive you: he
that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.