This week the media have been carrying the report of an anti-gay pastor who has been “outed” as a closet homosexual. A conservative Lutheran, the minister had been vocal in his opposition to the ELCA’s decision to ordain openly homosexual ministers. He is now being held up to public shame as a person who experiences same-sex attractions.
According to the publishers of a homosexually-oriented magazine, this pastor has been attending a twelve-step program for men who are trying to live celibate lives while experiencing homosexual attractions. The publishers commissioned a reporter to lie his way into the group. The magazine then published several admissions that the pastor is supposed to have made while under what he imagined to be the confidentiality of the program.
The pastor is now being denounced as a hypocrite both by those who are pro-homosexuality and those who are anti-Christianity. His ministry is in jeopardy. Most people seem to think that he is getting exactly what he deserves.
As of this writing, no one has alleged that the pastor ever actually had a sexual relationship with another man. No one has documented an inconsistency between the man’s profession and his conduct. So far, the case is very different from that of Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals who stepped down from his post after being accused of a relationship with a homosexual prostitute.
The purpose of this essay is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the pastor in question. Indeed, the essay will name neither the accused pastor nor the publication that has accused him. The episode does, however, contain certain lessons that Christians need to learn.
Those lessons begin with an acknowledgment that the problem of homosexuality cannot simply be ignored. A generation ago, this conduct was considered such a shameful perversion that it was barely mentioned in public. On the rare occasions that churches actually had to confront homosexuals, such persons were rapidly and summarily excluded. The notion of a ministry to and for homosexuals was unthinkable.
The situation is now exactly the opposite. Within the “official” culture of our civilization, homosexuality is no longer viewed as a perversion, a disease, or even an abnormality. It is simply thought of as another way of doing sex, and sexual liberty has become the most inalienable right. Any opposition to homosexuality is viewed as almost intolerable bigotry.
This change in perspective is going to affect churches for the foreseeable future. More of the people in our civilization will have at least experimented with homosexuality. More of the people in our churches will struggle with homosexuality. We are long overdue for a conversation about how we intend to minister to them.
As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality. Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.
The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.
It is possible for a person with opposite-sex attractions to live a life of chastity in mind and in body. By the same token, it is possible for a person with same-sex attractions to live a life of chastity. It is as wrong to call such a person a homosexual as it is to call a faithfully married man an adulterer.
Homosexuality is not simply a matter of desires but of obsessions and actions. Nor is homosexuality a matter of identity. Virtually everybody experiences sexual desires of some sort. Those desires, however, do not define us. Our identity consists in our relationship to God. If we are God’s children and we are in Christ, then our conduct (including the conduct in which we engage in our own inner world) needs to be brought into line with our identity.
Homosexuality is not who a person is, but what a person does. Someone who chooses not to engage in the conduct is not a homosexual. Someone who chooses to stop engaging in the conduct is no longer a homosexual. It was possible for Paul, discussing homosexuality among other sins, to say, “such were some of you” (1 Cor 6:11) Whatever their desires, these people were now washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit.
A word needs to be said about hypocrisy. One does not become a hypocrite by denouncing what one desires. We all have the experience of desiring what we know is wrong. Labeling a thing wrong when we desire it is not hypocritical. Indeed, it is an act of courage.
We do not even become hypocrites when we indulge in vices that we know and profess to be wrong. Unless someone claims to have achieved sinless perfection, we must all admit that we sometimes actually do what we know to be wrong. This admission is not a confession of hypocrisy, however, but of akrasia [editor’s note: “lack of self control,” 1 Cor. 7:5]. When we sin we are weak, but we are not necessarily hypocrites.
Hypocrisy occurs when we knowingly label good to be evil or evil to be good. To be a hypocrite is to pretend to believe one thing when we actually believe another. Hypocrisy means attempting to excuse our conduct on the basis of a principle that we ourselves do not really hold.
So what about the pastor with whom this discussion began? Should such a person be barred from ministry? Should he be expelled from the church?
My response is that same-sex attractions by themselves are no disqualification from church membership. They are no disqualification from church office. They should be no disqualification from the friendship of God’s people. In fact, same-sex attractions by themselves should not even hinder Christians from entering the marriage covenant and bearing children.
Attractions are things to be managed. They can be rejected, or they can be dwelt upon and acted upon. They can be learned and unlearned. Those who reject them and seek to unlearn them are not to be judged as if they had acted upon them.
Helping Christians learn how to respond to wrong and even perverse inclinations is an important part of discipleship. Given the increasingly positive treatment of homosexuality in our civilization, this is an aspect of discipleship that churches no longer can afford to ignore. We cannot insulate our youth entirely from the influences of our culture. More of our young people are going to find that they experience same-sex attractions.
Also, more of the people we reach will have been touched by homosexual desires and practices. When they become Christians, they will have to deal with the attitudes and activities of their past. So will we. This, too, is an aspect of ministry that churches no longer can afford to ignore.
Easter Hymn
Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)
Death and darkness, get you packing:
Nothing now to man is lacking.
All your triumphs now are ended,
And what Adam marred is mended.
Graves are beds now for the weary;
Death a nap, to wake more merry;
Youth now, full of pious duty,
Seeks in thee for perfect beauty;
The weak and aged, tired with length
Of days, from thee look for new strength;
And infants with thy pangs contest,
As pleasant as if with the breast.
Then unto him who thus hath thrown
Even to contempt thy kingdom down,
And by his blood did us advance
Unto his own inheritance—
To him be glory, power, praise,
From this unto the last of days!
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Discussion
NewAmen. Thanks for the post.
I’ve heard enough sermons demonizing homosexuals and classing them as unsavable reprobates that if I had such attractions there would be no way I would ever tell anyone. Luckily I am in a different environment now where such issues can be discussed. Praise God for this issue being highlighted/
NewArchives
There’s been a tendency in fundamentalism and in parts of the biblical counseling movement to depict the attraction itself as a symptom of something deeply amiss and that believers who experience it should aim to eliminate the temptation entirely from their experience (vs. eliminating yielding to the temptation—which is how we handle everything else)
Part 1 http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/11/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…
Part 2 http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/25/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…
I’ve more recently come to the conclusion that “capacity for particular temptations” is a complex thing. In some cases, it really does reflect a problem of the affections. In others, it may be a genetic thing. And for some, both. So in some cases, we may be able to reduce or wipe out our attraction to particular sins, but the focus of Scripture is on resisting (and prudently avoiding opportunities).
edited to fix link for part 2 -Jay C.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewLink is fixed
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewLust vs. attraction
Lust and attraction are not the same thing. Sins are always choices. They are not necessarily conscious choices, but are always things we can see later that we, in fact, chose. An attraction to something forbidden by God is not the same thing as a choice to covet it or mentally indulge. This is what Jesus was talking about—looking and choosing to indulge mentally.
About the difference between same-sex vs. opposite-sex attraction. It is true that they are not precisely parallel. But the question for believers is what Scripture leads us to believe about the ways they are different. Haven’t reread it, but if memory serves, dealt with that a good bit in part 2.
The discussion in the forum archive might also be helpful. Can’t seem to find the discussions on the 2007 version (the series posted in 2005 and again, revised in 2007). But here are links to the ‘05 discussions
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1192&highlight=thinking+bibl…
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1235&highlight=thinking+bibl…
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
New2007 archived discussion
Part 1 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6022
Part 2 http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6128
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewSome responses
But in the case of Jesus’ statement, if you accept that sin is something chosen (though not necessarily consciously or intentionally, per the Wesleyan view—not saying that), Jesus must be referring to a choice. What else could “lust” mean there?
But I can do better than that. In James 1, James does a little post-mortem on temptation->sin sequence. I don’t have the actual wording in front of me but as I recall the sequence is drawn away by lusts—>enticed—>sin—>death. Everything upstream of “sin” in that scenario is not sin but some kind of antecedent.
Of course, a desire can have a “sinful quality” in the sense that it’s object is something forbidden to us by God but a desire is not an act until it crosses over into indulgence of some kind… an intentionally fed desire. But even then, it’s not the desire that is the sin but the intentional stimulating of it.I deny that any desire is a sinful act. It is not an act at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewKevin T. Bauder wrote: A
NewOff topic... partly
As for preaching against adultery… I have not personally observed that it gets less pulpit attention than homosexuality. It certainly has not in my own ministry. But I’m sure some overemphasize it.
As for barriers to homosexuals coming to Christ, I think we definitely send that signal if we communicate that those involved in it are beyond saving or that those who continue to be tempted by it are “sick, twisted freaks” (to barrow somebody else’s phrase) even when they do not indulge in it (either mentally or physically).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewPartially, yes, but...
My point is the compulsive conversation of the topic of homosexuality as a sin when an almost identical topic which I brought up is brushed off and virtually not discussed. I am definitely not trying to be insulting here Aaron, but you even quickly brushed off the topic by breaking it into the much less controversial ‘divorce’ topic or ‘adultery’ topic, and not keeping the two together with the seriousness with which it matches that of the homosexuality topic. Aaron, please do not take this as an insult for I definitely appreciate a vast majority of you comments. It is just that this white washing of a ‘more acceptable’ event in society aggravates me when it is given such little ‘press time’ (minimal at best) in relation to the homosexual sin. Many homosexuals point this out with zeal to show a ‘hypocrisy’ in the Christian church, as well as many other actions by Christians which should be denounced by Christians (protesting at a person’s funeral?).
Even on this site the topic of homosexuality as a sin gets much more ‘press’ time than the similar sin (in both ongoing nature and number of participants) appears to be accepted. Ultimately, I personally fall back on the idea that the most important aspect of being a Christian is believing in Christ first, with the balance to follow. Just that topic, along with the of the entrance of the Holy Spirit can end up with volumes written on it (oh, there have been volumes written on it ;-)).
NewRPittman][quote=Kevin T.
NewInteresting to note
However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally ‘rewire’ their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It’s a possibility I think we’d be unwise to ignore.
Scenescape Media
NewWhat sin is
It really is a necessary inference. If we are commanded not to sin, it must be something one can choose not to do.
As for coveting, this too, is a choice. Isn’t it pretty obvious that you do not control what merely crosses your mind? You can control what you decide to do mentally with a desire that you experience. When your stomach empties, you experience hunger—the desire for food. You do not choose to be hungry. You can choose to dwell on your hunger, think about sizzling steaks or fudge sundays. Then you are crossing a line into mental indulgence. But desire itself just happens a good bit of the time.
(I will say, though, that there are things we can do indirectly to influence many of our desires and make them stronger or weaker, and more or less frequent. I think it’s likely that Jesus’ statement about looking to lust is, more precisely, a decision to look for the purpose of experiencing desire. In that case, it is the act of inviting a desire that is the sin. This sort of thing is included in what I’m calling mental indulgence.)Covetousness - when you experience a desire for something you should not have and you do not reject the desire, but rather nurture it
Pride - when you choose to believe things about yourself that are not true (you can be proud without knowing it, of course. We usually are. But it is still within our capacity to believe the truth and not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think.)
Lust - literally, lust is desire. I have not seen your answer to my reference to James. James clearly distinguishes lust from sin. But, in a manner of speaking, any desire can become a sin when we start indulging it mentally.
One succinct definition of in in the NT is “sin is transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4) A transgression is something one does—not necessarily outwardly and visibly, of course, but a choice nonetheless.
It’s not a matter of rationalizing anything away. It’s ultimately not possible to define sin in terms of things that happen to us randomly. That view quickly becomes incoherent. How would we obey a command to never want something? You can only obey in reference something chooseable.
Now I don’t want to say the affections don’t matter. We are to believe, do and desire according to God’s will. But affections are things we do not control directly. So they can be sinful as a quality, but they are not sins. There is much I do not yet understand about them, but the affections are not the same thing as physical/emotional appetites. We’re going to have the latter as long as we have unredeemed bodies. Thirst, hunger, sexual drive, fatigue (as in the desire for sleep), and others are built-in realities we will experience no matter how spiritually mature we might be. Isn’t pretty obvious that we cannot call these sins?
No, a sin is what happens when we transgress by acting or thinking contrary to God’s will or failing to think or act according to God’s will. Scripture never says that something that occurs in us emotionally or physiologically is a sin.
My interest in the definition of sin is piqued now so I’ll do a little research and post some results. Iron sharpening iron.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewSome theologies on sin...
But even Strong put’s in terms of choice… “the choice of self.”
J. I. Packer emphasizes sinfulness as a moral feature of man and sinful acts as expressions of that moral feature So Packer certainly allows for desires that are sinful in quality—as I already have—but in his perspective desires are not sinful acts.
It’s a bit hard to find a succinct definition of sin in C T Shedd’s Dogmatc Theology. If somebody knows where one is in there, I’d love to see it.
But really, I think this effort is looking increasingly like a waste of time. I think pretty much everybody is agreed that “sin” can describe a disposition, attitude or desire. But when it does so, it is not a verb. It is not something we do. This is just a feature of language.
But Bauder’s point—and mine as well—is that “attraction” is something that just happens, has a huge physical chemistry component, and is not sin. It’s what we do in response to it or in anticipation of it (which is “response” ahead of time) that can be a sin. I don’t know that KB necessarily means to distinguish “attraction” from “lust,” but for those getting hung up on the term “lust,” a distinction might be helpful. What simply happens to us uninvited, unencouraged and un-nurtured is not sin, that much is sure. If it helps to put that in separate category from “desire,” it seems possible to do that. I don’t personally see the need.
I’m mostly thinking out loud here. It may be that the best way to approach the question is to go back to our innate condition and then distinguish between what comes from our sinful moral character vs. what comes from our sin-cursed bodies. We have responsibility for the former, and varying degrees of influence as we obey. But the latter… we’re just stuck with it until the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8.23).
So the question with regard to same-sex attraction is, does this attraction necessarily come from the sinful character of our being or may it simply come from our bodies? The view that a person who struggles w/SSA is necessarily a spiritual shipwreck requires that we say SSA comes exclusively from our sinful moral character. But this cannot be demonstrated from Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewMen Sin Because They are Sinners
Good for you, brother! Thank you for taking a stand for truth.
The ‘desire’ to rebel against the will of God is sin. It reveals the heart of man which is wholly inclined to evil. Men hate God and their natural desires and inclinations are against Him and His will.
NewProgress.. apparently not
Jesus is forbidding mental indulgence either after desire has occurred or in advance in order to make it occur. It is the mental indulgence that is the sinful act. The desire itself may be sinful, as a quality because it may come from the sinful nature, but it may also come simply from our physical nature. In the latter case, it is only “sinful in quality” because the object is forbidden, not because it originates from inner corruption.Is there any reason not to believe that it does NOT come the same source as every other lust (desire/attraction) (see James 1:14-15)?
OK, I think I’ve already been over this, but “lust” is just desire. Are you suggesting that all desires come from our sinful nature?
Let’s use an illustration.
Little boy loves apples. But he’s already had too many for one day, so his mom says, “Son, no more apples today.” He goes out in the yard where there’s an apple tree. There are several ways he can sin at this point:
(There are no doubt even more ways he can sin in the situation.)
But suppose he avoids the apple tree and a neighbor kid comes over, pulls an apple from his pocket and says, “Hey, want an apple?” The boy’s mouth waters. He desires. He has not at that point sinned. At no time is the desire to eat an apple itself a sin. The desire is sinful in the sense that carrying it out would be wrong. It is desire directed toward a forbidden end. It is probably not sinful in the sense that it arises from his rebellious sinful nature! But either way, he did not commit a sin by salivating or even by wanting the apple.Well, I don’t really need the term. I was trying to make it easier for you to recognize the role of things our bodies do without our permission. Call it whatever you like. Since it’s a reality that we experience desire for things against our will at times, it is probably helpful to coin a term for that. The word “modernism” is not in the Bible either but we all recognize that it is useful in applying Scripture to something we know exists.Well, we have your opinion. But we are not morally responsible/accountable for what is not sin and to decide what is sin, we have to go to Scripture and find out what God’s opinion is. It is not automatically the opposite of every component of “modern attitudes.” (Modern attitudes also include the idea that we shouldn’t engage in dog fighting, for example… so is the “right” view that dog fighting is virtuous?).
[black] James 1:14-15
It helps that you mentioned that. Here’s the text:
Jas 1:14–15 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
The sequence here is: drawn away by desires —> enticed —> birth of sin —> mature sin/death
Now why doesn’t James say drawn away by sin —> death? Because the desire and enticement are not sinful acts. They may or may not arise from our sinful disposition. In the context they are desires for forbidden objects. But the sin happens after the desire and is, therefore, not the desire. An event cannot occur after itself.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewTemptations
It seems to me that we are dealing with the nature of temptation, and in doing so we should address situations such as the temptation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Obviously thoughts passed through His head “I’m hungry”, “I’m tired”, “Ouch”. But He did not follow those thoughts into discontent, covetousness, gluttony, or slothfulness.
However and IMO, there is a significant difference between being tempted by something that is a natural desire- food, comfort, resources, love, etc… and something that is an unnatural desire, such as homosexuality. I’m not going to say that I know where the line is, but I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know it when we cross it. For instance, I remember seeing pictures of Madonna and Britney Spears smooching all over the place at one time, so it follows that the thought of two women kissing goes through one’s head at the sight- but to allow that thought to develop into contemplation… that’s where you’re nurturing a sinful seed. I think the progression that Aaron is pointing out is valid, but I have a problem applying it to something like same-sex attraction because it is a perversion of a natural desire. Hoping that makes sense.
Scenescape Media
NewTransforming Grace
The Lord drew me to Himself when I was 23, and the externals of my life displayed my inner depravity. I am deeply grateful for the transforming power of the gospel of Christ. Someone once shared with me an illustration : “It is not sin when temptation knocks at the door. It is sin when you invite it in and entertain it.” As long as we are on this side of the grave, we will experience temptations and allurements to evil. James reminded us to submit to God, then resist evil.
As we discuss the details, and try to flesh out every possible circumstance of sin and temptation, let us be careful that we do not superimpose upon Scripture details that God has not chosen to address.
The longer I live, the more I am drawn to a phrase credited to John Newton. “I know that I am a great sinner, and that I have a great Savior”
Dick Dayton
NewMinistry
Scenescape Media
NewWould not, could not in the rain, on a train...
I think we can aspire to that in our own lives, and not beat ourselves up because a thought entered our heads or we are bound by the weaknesses and demands of a physical body, but rather learn how to deal with thoughts as they enter, take care of our bodies so that they do not become stumbling blocks, and endeavor to guard our hearts even as we must interact in and minister to this present evil world.
Scenescape Media
NewClarity
The Bible does not teach that a desire that is sinful on account of its object is necessarily sinful in its origin or sinful in any other sense.
The question, again, in the case of what you called “homosexual feelings” (this is actually a useful term in some ways), is whether the presence of these constitutes committing a sin on the part of the one who feels them. More specifically does the Bible teach that a person has sinned by feeling these things or that he has a spiritual condition that is necessarily causing them.
As for your observation that homosexual desire has no non-sinful form of expression because it’s object is always forbidden, this is true. It is also true that adulterous desire has no non-sinful expression because it’s object is always forbidden. The forbiddenness is built into the term.
The difference in the case of homosexual desire is that it is not “natural,” as Paul points out in Romans 1. However, the fact that it isn’t natural, doesn’t prove that it necessarily springs from a person’s corrupt nature (and certainly does not prove that to feel the desire is to commit a sin.)
In the case of Romans 1, those guys were given over to homosexual desire as a form of judgment for their rejection of God. But Paul does not say this is the only way to experience “homosexual feelings.”
Look, we both believe that homosexual desire is “sinful” in the sense of “wanting to do something that is wrong to do.” What I—and KB, assuming I’ve understood him correctly—are saying is that feeling feelings is not committing sin. There is nothing to repent of in feeling a feeling.
I stand by my boy and apple illustration. We are not sinning when a physical or even emotional appetite is stimulated in some way by something around us through no fault of our own.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewRowland,I think you are
I think you are misunderstanding Aaron. Let me try a diferent angle. Let’s say I have been a habitual liar - I even lie about things that don’t matter. I get saved and the Lord starts convicting me. So a few days later, I am late for work. My boss asks me why I am late for work. My first thought is to say, how I was stuck in traffic, but I don’t say that. Instead I admist that I hit the snooze bar. Because of my past sin, my first thought was to sin, but IMO (based on James) I did not sin. Instead, because of God’s grace, He gave me spiritual victory.
I think this is what Aaron and Bauder are talking about. Because of a homosexual’s past, those thoughts will enter in his mind, but I believe that he has not sinned until he starts fantacizing. Notice, I am making a distinction (as is Aaron and Bauder) between a thought coming in your head and entertaining/fantacizing about that thought. I think that is the idea of James’ teaching.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
NewSeriousness of Sin
either in act, disposition, or state” (p. 549). Grudem similarly delineates this lack of conformity as being in act, attitude, or nature (p. 490). Thiessen/Doerksen: “Sin is both an act and a principle, both guilt and pollution” (p.185). If our very disposition or state can indeed be called sin, then even if our thoughts come and we by the grace of God do not act upon that thought, that thought must still be called sin. This may not match what most of us have been taught, or be what we want to hear, however according to multiple texts of the scriptures:
Psalm 32:1 “Blessed is he whose sin is covered!” Not just acts (or a single act) are/is being expiated.
Psalm 51:2, 5 “Cleanse me from my sin … in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Romans 7:17 “So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.”
1 John 3:4 “Sin is lawlessness,” lack of conformity to the law. This could be what one doesn’t do in some cases; lack of acts.
1 John 5:17 “All unrighteousness is sin”
Romans 14:23 “Whatever is not from faith is sin.”
James 4:17 “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
Matthew 15:19 “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries.”
Hebrews 3:12 “An evil, unbelieving heart.”
Isaiah 1:5 “Whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint.”
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else.”
The common objection is that Jesus was tempted, and those thoughts must have came into his mind, however because He was without sin, He did not act upon those thoughts. However the case is that those thoughts would not have came to Christ, “There is no unrighteousness in Him,” John 7:18
The point of my post is not to theologically nitpick or to be argumentative, but my desire is to challenge us to think biblically about our depravity and how desperately we need Christ and His perfect righteousness.
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.
NewDJ, I don't think anyone is
I don’t think anyone is arguing that acts are only sin….I know I am not. What I am distinguishing is a thought coming into my head from meditating and fanticizing about that thought. I believe Scripturally you can make a good case for that.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
NewWhere does the thought come from?
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.
NewI agree that the thought
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
NewRPittman wrote: Alen, I hear
Quickly, before I reply I guess I will clarify my point earlier: Noticing beauty isn’t sinful. Being attracted to another person (at least we would agree in terms of normal heterosexual attraction?) isn’t sinful either. Therefore homosexual exhibitions of the same (noticing beauty, being attracted etc) are not sinful either. In both cases the attraction doesn’t necessarily need to be physical attraction but regardless the point is the same. Homosexual disposition isn’t inherently sinful.
Anyways, you’re saying that homosexual desires are inherently sinful because there is no legitimate fulfillment possible for those desires. Where as I assume you would say the opposite is to be said of heterosexuals in that their desires do indeed have legitimate fulfillment and therefore are not sinful.
I guess the main difference is you equate (if I understand you correctly) the illegitimate desire as an automatic expression of sin (as per your apple example) where as others distinguish between the initial thought and then the meditation upon it, with the later only being sinful. You claim the latter position as a rationalization not based upon scripture, while the former to be a true biblical teaching. Would I be right in my understanding thus far?
I guess the main factor here is our presupposition here of at what point does a thought or desire become sinful. In your case it seems the immediate expression, and others the meditation thereof. Anyways, I look forward to hearing more of what you have to say. If I’m understanding you correctly you seem to be making an interesting point. Anyways..
Now, I’m assuming you are not equating desires with lusting. I am assuming you mean two different things when you say a desire or lust. Which seems to be going against what you have been saying if I understood you thus far. Therefore if you acknowledge there is a difference between this legitimate desire and lust, I agree and would apply the same rules to the one with homosexual desire. The difference being I do not find that their disposition is inherently sinful as you would not class a desire inherently sinful. Anyways..(not sure if I am making sense here..:P)
NewWhere it comes from
To return to my boy and apple illustration, eating an apple is normally not a sin, but the lad’s mom has said “No more apples today.” In this case, an appetite for one more apple does not necessarily arise from something sinful in the boy but from his physicality. In this sense, as Susan pointed out earlier, Jesus was tempted. I personally have no doubt that when Satan said “Turn these stones into bread,” He felt physical longings for some bread (I admit the text does not say so). There would be nothing “sinful” in the sense of “originating from a corrupt nature” about physically hungering for what would be wrong to eat in that situation.
On the other hand, the little boy is also quite capable of hearing his mother’s apple ban, and feeling the ol’ stirring of sinful rebellion and wanting one more apple just because he doesn’t want to be told what to do. In this case, the desire is “sinful” in an entirely different way. It comes from the corrupt part of his being. It is still not a sinful act. He is not comitting a sin, by feeling this desire, but it is sinful in its character—an expression of his inner corruption.
He could also, as Roger pointed out, feel a draw to one more apple because of his past physical habits and/or feel it because of the past habit of disobedience.
So all I’m really saying is that the Bible does not teach that capacity to be tempted by homosexual sin is spiritually and morally different in every case from the capacity to be tempted by anything else that is off limits. As I’ve said, it is different in it’s naturalness.
Unnatural…
Let’s take the boy and apple illustration one step further: suppose rather than apples, the boy has an odd craving for grass. It’s not natural for humans to want to eat grass. The boys parents have sternly warned him that it’s unhealthy and unsafe for him to eat grass. Let’s say he prudently avoids being in the yard alone when he’ll be tempted, but he can’t help the fact that many places he is required to go in life, there’s grass everywhere. He sees it, it appeals to him, but he chooses not to indulge either mentally (yes, I affirm once again that “acts of sin” can be internal as well as external) or physically.
He has not sinned by feeling the attraction to grass, even though it’s quite unnatural. He simply has a defect he must live with.
The controversy in a nutshell
Among biblical counseling practitioners, it’s common to hear/see the view that homosexual desire must always come from inner corruption and cannot be simply unnatural physicality. I have not found the biblical evidence for this to be very solid, so I do not hold to that view.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewA dog is a dog
What I am talking about is that because of our bond to sinful flesh that we are commanded to grapple with and overcome, at what point of the struggle do thoughts and feelings become willful sin? For example, as a woman with four children who has experienced a few instances of severe hormonal imbalance, I know what it is to feel rage for no reason, and be overwhelmed with crippling sadness when I’m actually quite content, and to fall asleep while I am in the middle of a conversation. There are physiological factors to consider when ministering to people, and it is important that church leadership don’t ignore the physical when dealing with the spiritual.
Scenescape Media
NewOur union with damaged bodies
We know that Jesus experienced the kind of temptations that arise from being physical as well as the effects of the curse. He also grew weary and slept, thirsted, hungered, felt pain. Satan appealed to His physicality in the temptations, but also attempted to appeal to inner corrupt nature (bow and I’ll give you the kingdoms of this world)… only there was no inner corrupt nature. But there was a real physical body and Jesus felt all the desires that go with it.
Do we know that everyone who feels tempted by homosexuality does so because the desire comes from his inner corrupt nature as opposed to simply from his physical body? I have not yet seen anyone prove this from Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewAnswered
I’ve explained the role of natural vs. not natural. I’ve pointed out that what we’re doing here is applying Scripture to things we know happen. We know that people experience desires from their corrupt nature but also experience desires that simply have to do with being physical and encountering a stimulus. If you want to try to prove that the latter never happens, best of luck with that.
I’ve also pointed out that in James 1:14-15 the commission of sin is distinct from the desire that the temptation appeals to. In the case of Jesus, He clearly was drawn away and enticed to sin by Satan. This is what Satan does. In the process of that happening, the Devil appealed to both natural appetites and corrupt spiritual appetites. Interestingly, he did not seem to know the latter did not exist in Christ. But we know the former did exist. The text says He was hungry. No. Do you have a a single verse that says they always come from inner spiritual corruption? I have yet to see one.
What we do have is clear teaching (along with abundant personal experience) that temptation can appeal to merely physical desires, whether natural or otherwise.
We also have clear Scripture that temptation and sinning are distinct. So even when a temptation is appealing to a desire rooted in our corrupt sinful nature, feeling that desire is not a sinful act (inward or outward). Makes no difference if it’s a desire to lie, a desire to steal, a desire to murder, a desire to commit adultery. The Bible does not teach that a person is sinning by experiencing temptation.
From a ministry standpoint, I think it’s tragic (and cruel) to tell a person tempted by homosexuality that he is sinning every time he feels tempted or that he is spiritually sick and twisted as long as the temptation continues to occur. That teaching requires a biblical basis and I have yet to see such a basis.About that, in the context Jesus is correcting the Pharisees (et. al.) thinking that the way to be pure is to avoid outside things that are impure. Jesus asserts that the corruption is within. He is not teaching that a temptation cannot appeal to a mere physical appetite.
But again, let’s not get distracted. Whether the desire temptation is appealing to is innately corrupt or not, feeling tempted is not sinning.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewOkey-dokey
I’m funnin’ with ya’ just a bit here. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-merv/groucho.gif But I think we sometimes have an illogical fear of certain sins, and if someone is struggling with a particular weakness or temptation, we want to hide the women and children and bolt the door, especially when it comes to sins of a sexual nature. If we realize that a struggle in this area is NOT always the result of looking at porn and purposefully encouraging a perverted fantasy life (although one could argue that merely going to Walmart can expose one to pornographic images), I think we can be more helpful to folks and a little less hysterical.
And just in case I haven’t made it clear, I agree that there is a difference between struggling with a natural desire and an unnatural one. Homosexuality and related leanings are IMO clearly defined by Scripture as an unnatural affection, just as when a woman can cause harm to or abandon her child- it simply goes against our God-given nature for a woman not to want to protect and nurture her offspring.
Scenescape Media
NewChrist WAS NOT drawn away...
From a ministry standpoint, I think it is tragic to not acknowledge that *everything* we desire, apart from the grace of God and the inner working of the Holy Spirit, is sin.
NewAndrewSuttles wrote: What
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
NewRPittman wrote: Aaron Blumer
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
NewTemptation is Testing; Not Desiring
The boy with the apples, desires to disobey his mother. He despises her command, but does not sin against her for fear of punishment; this is not so with Christ.
NewAndrewSuttles wrote: I fear
Having a sin nature and committing acts of sin, although both bring guilt before God, are two different things. Right now as I type this I have a sin nature, but I am not (consciously at least) committing an act of sin. So it makes no sense to say that simply because desires come from a sinful nature that they are inherently sinful. First, we don’t know which desires come from our sinful nature and which come from simply being human. Second, James couldn’t be more clear that the desire to sin is not sin itself. Yes, the desire may come from a sinful heart, but it does not become sin until acted upon, whether in word, thought, or deed.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
NewAndrewSuttles wrote: What
I don’t think this view is tenable.
As for Christ’s nature, just to be clear, I also affirm His impeccability and maintain that it was impossible for Him to sin. Nothing I’ve said is incompatible with that.
He did, however, have physical appetites and Satan did appeal to them. There is no other way to make sense of Matthew 4 and Luke 4. Now some want to give “drawn away” in James 1 a technical sense that includes a sin principle within. If you take it that way, then yes, you have to say Jesus was not drawn away. But the fact remains that He hungered. The text says so. And the Devil clearly attempted to leverage His hunger.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewApplication
What Kevin’s trying to do here—and I am also—is apply Scripture to experience. If you do not believe the experience in question exists, we probably just don’t have anything to talk about on that subject.
For those of us who believe it exists, we need to try to understand how Scripture speaks to it.
You still can’t show that Scripture teaches anywhere that feeling tempted is sinning. It just isn’t there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewA more systematic response... apologies for triple posting
By the way, for those getting annoyed or bored w/the exchange between Roland and I, I hope you can see we’re not just squabbling here. The questions we’re debating have important implications. How we answer them has alot of impact on how we deal w/brothers and sisters who are struggling with temptation of any kind and of the homosexual kind in particular.
I’ve been tempted (no pun intended) to walk away from the thread, but the subject matter is too important to me to do that yet. And there are still questions here and there I don’t think I’ve answered.We’ll just have to disagree about that. I’m comfortable letting folks read it and see if they think the sequence there is “superficial.”
But I do want to clarify that I have not denied that “the whole process is sinful.” I believe it quite often is, but sometimes is not. In any case, the passage does not say the whole process is sinful. Sin appears after desire gives birth.This is an important question because it helps bring into focus what I am saying and what I am not saying. Being enticed does not require that sin be appealing as sin. In the case of Christ’s temptation—the bread one in particular—you have a desire to eat. Jesus is not in any way attracted to sin, but He is attracted to eating. It’s just very inconvenient for Him that at that moment eating would have been wrong.
But we’re back to the scenario of desire coming from our physicality vs. from our corrupt nature. If you do not believe this ever happens, there is certainly nothing I can do to convince you.
For those who find that experience familiar, it isn’t hard to understand how Jesus was drawn by the desire to eat yet not drawn by any desire to sin.
Personally, I experience this almost daily. I’m trying to lose a little weight. Food appeals to me physically far in excess of what I need to consume. I am not drawn to that thick juicy hamburger because I want to sin, but because it tastes phenomenal (especially at Culvers… you guys in states w/o Culvers do not know how much you are missing… Hardee’s is pretty good, too but I digress. You now see why I have a problem in this area!).
Of course, I can’t prove that my attraction to cheddar butter burgers is not rooted in my sinful nature, but nonetheless, I know it’s really my stomach.
But the more important point is that desiring is not sinning, regardless. That distinction is just more clear when we’re talking about a desire that is just chemistry. At least, I think it’s more clear to most people!He means it is sin to be angry with your brother without cause.
Anger is another interesting case. We can feel a certain amount of anger uninvited, involuntarily. Again, this is common experience. If you believe you’ve never experienced that, I can’t convince you (actually maybe I could… by kicking you in the shins). But this is why Paul says don’t let the sun set on your wrath. The idea is that at some point (hard to precisely define), the anger that simply happens crosses over into anger that we are choosing. When we are choosing it, we are sinning (if it’s “without cause.”) We are indulging. It is an act of inward sin.It does indeed fly directly in the face of Matt 5:28, which is why I don’t take that view. I’ve said that mental indulgence is sin. Desiring is not sinning, choosing to invite that desire, keep it going or increase it—this is sinning. Jesus is talking about an act one commits inwardly.Yes. I don’t think that’s in dispute. The source of sin is within man. This does not deny that sin often involves physical desires.
In the case of Jesus’ temptation again, for example, the sin of turning the stone to bread and eating it (whatever exactly that sin would have been) would have no appeal to anyone without an empty stomach in the scenario. In Jesus’ case that’s its only appeal. Why do you think both Matthew and Luke point out that He was hungry? (Matt 4.2, Luke 4.2)This is very interesting wording… “can be.” Should I infer that you believe sometimes it may not be?
What I’ve been saying from the beinning, (consistently, I hope), is that a desire can be sinful in character. But a desire is not a sinful act (inward). Desire is what makes you want to act (inwardly or outwardly), it is not an act. Of course, folks are free to use the word “desire” more broadly if they wish, and sometimes the Bible does (as in Matt 5), but sometimes it doesn’t (as in James 1).
We need some term to describe the pull we feel toward an act (inward or outward) that precedes the act but is not an act. One reason we need it is because James reveals that this is important for understanding and ultimately resisting temptation. It’s not just a random coincidence that he points out one leading to the other. I personally believe it’s most clear and consistent to call this “desire” and distinguish it from “mental indulgence.” But yes, there are places where desire (translated “lust” usually) refers to the act of mental indulgence.Agreed. But they may also be tempted or not tempted due to other factors also, such as the circumstances of the day (tired, hungry, etc.). Who hasn’t been tempted to snap at an irritating person after not sleeping well and not tempted at all after a good night’s rest?
A summary of my view…
OK… I don’t know if we have a post length limit but if there is one, I must be getting close.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewSome thoughts
2. Rom. 1:26-32. Notice that God is addressing vile or degrading passions and the exchange of the natural physical functions of the sexual relationships. These are individuals who have taken the action of exchanging a normal sexual relationship for an unnatural one and are now burning in their lusts and committing what is shameful. This again seems to be addressing the nature of their sin and is not speaking of a temptation to do so. A “debased mind” doing “those things which are not fitting” participates in immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, strife, etc. How did it begin? By worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. Sexual desires are natural; it, however, is sinful to fulfill them with close relatives, animals, children, the dead, someone you are not married to, and someone of your own gender. When one is tempted to think sexually about someone/thing that is forbidden, one must deal immediately with that temptation, but it seems to be a stretch to say that this temptation to sin is a sin in itself while other temptations to sin are not. This passage is addressing chosen actions and lifestyles not the temptation to sin or reject what God has declared to be right.
It seems like some are making a tempest in a teapot over being tempted. One can be tempted to think about a man or a woman in a way that he should not, but the Bible seems to clearly indicate through our Lord’s example and through the various NT texts that one gets victory over sinning by choosing not to act (in thought or in deed) on the temptation. With every temptation is the way of escape; how can one say that some temptations are the sin?
It seems like some are in a tangle about the words “attraction” or “feeling”. Who cares about that? God doesn’t address it. He does address “temptation”, and that is what we have to deal with regardless of whether there are “feelings” or “attractions” involved. In all temptation there are contributing physiological and mental factors which makes it very important that we set our affections on things above so that these factors are more influenced by Scripture than by the old man.
With regard to “lust”, the issue seems to be similar. It is sin when a desire is expressed (mentally or physically) in a sinful way (i.e. the desire for physical intimacy/fulfillment being expressed with a member of the same gender). To separate temptation to sexual desire expressed toward a member of the same sex as different from the temptation for deviant sexual desires expressed as bestiality, incest, or child molestation seems a stretch.
NewSome thoughts
In my back and forth w/Roland I changed terms several times (in reference to basically the same thing) in an effort to be more clear. So I was hoping to find one that would work better. This seems to contradict what you say earlier in your post, so I’m not sure what you mean. Maybe “expressed” here means “responded to by making a sinful choice”? I don’t think anyone has done that in the thread, but I’m not sure not sure it should be a “given.” In any case, my advice to any believer tempted in these areas would be to deal with it in the same way we deal with heterosexual desires/temptations involving someone you’re not married to. I would advise them to seek to grow in Christ, avoid foolish exposure to tempting circumstances, but not try to untangle inner mysteries involving the causes of their desires/temptations and not to believe that it is their responsibility to make the temptations go away. Rather, the responsibility lies in obedience—inward and outward.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewContext, Context, Context
NewLust is MORE than just desire
NewAaron Blumer wrote: Thanks
NewBig Subject
This is such a big subject it is impossible to hammer out in a few posts. I did want to make a few points.Thanks for bringing up Romans 1:26-32 but I also believe you are misinterpreting the passage..
This is not correct. It began by “God giving them over” in verse 24, 26.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions
The reason for God abandoning them is found in verse 21…
Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
God’s abandonment is the outworking of verse 18-20 “the wrath of God is being revealed”
This abandonment is explained very well in John Murray’s commentary on Romans…There is no Biblical support for viewing same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction on an equal plane. One is clearly described as degrading, dishonoring, vile and unnatural. It is on a lower plane of degeneracy and perversion.
One final point… Why is it that our attractions can be so profoundly influenced by our culture, community, family and ethnic backgrounds, but somehow not influenced by the Gospel? Why is it that the best Christians have to offer someone with same sex attraction is to only counsel them that they should not act on their attractions? This is a weak view of the Gospel. Christianity changes everything beginning with our attractions.
NewEqual planes and unequal planes
A few things from it: one, the text does not teach that a person can only be tempted by/desire homosexuality be rejecting God and being judged by God in this way. Two, the “lower plane” includes a great many things besides homosexual indulgence if you read to the end of the segment. Three, I deal there with with what dishonoring and unnatural mean. Skinny version: they are meant to communicate humiliation in this context.
In summary, Rom.1—as you have pointed out—describes God’s wrath being expressed in judgment on a group of people who rejected Him. It does not teach that a believer who feels tempted by homosexuality is in any kind of especially spiritually ‘lower’ condition (compared to lots of other temptations and sins in the Book).
Roland, about Matt. 5.28.. you keep asking for proof that Jesus was referring to an act of inner indulgence. The evidence is this:
Several of these describe situations where this “desire” is something readers are expected to choose not to experience. Therefore, it is an act. It is desire indulged, but still desire, which is why the word is used. There is nothing in the term that precludes the meaning “committing an inward act of indulgence” in Matt. 5:28.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewThe Gospel
You’d know my answer to this already if you waded through my earlier posts, but I don’t blame you for not wading through them! :D
The Gospel promises to transform us into the likeness of Christ and certainly does. It does not promise that all temptations will cease in this lifetime and it—by inference from multiple passages—promises to not change our bodies until after the resurrection. There’s a beautiful, beautiful summary of this in Rom. 8:12-25. Rom 8.23 says we wait for the redemption of our bodies.
What this means in experience is that desires that arise from our sinful nature will grow weaker, less numerous, etc. as we become more like Christ. But desires that arise from our bodies and collide with our circumstances will continue.
So my reasoning is this:
A. We do not know from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by homosexuality (ie homosexual desire) cannot come merely from physical causes in some cases (We do know that it did not in Rom.1!)
B. We know that the appetites of our bodies are not mitigated by sanctification (though our ability to resist them does grow)
C. Therefore, we cannot rule out on the basis of Scripture that some may experience homosexual desires regardless of their spiritual maturity/Christlikeness
D. In any case, we do not know from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by homosexuality indicates a person is less sanctified/changed by the gospel than another person who is only tempted by adultery or pride or greed or outbursts of anger or laziness, etc.
In summary, this is not a weak view of the gospel. It’s a view that takes into account the fact that the gospel does not include physical transformation until after this life.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewHave to argue with myself a little
A few examples
WeirsbeBaker enc.Matthew HenryGood ol’ Matt Henry.
On the other hand, WGT Shedd emphasizes the corrupt origins of these desires…But note that even he does not deny that this “internal lusting” or “evil desire” is the kind that is chosen… that it is an inward act.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewThanks for the responce
A few more questions…
It seems you have bought fully into the concept that our attractions are primarily biological and would put homosexual attraction on the same plane as cancer or other physical deformities. I think there are many reasons to reject this thinking as an explanation for the vast majority of same sex attraction in the world around us and for Christians.
The pervasiveness of homosexuality in some cultures and the absence of it in others suggests the idea that our attractions are profoundly shaped and influenced by our culture. I spent some time in Zambia in the late 90’s. What American men find attractive in women is different than what African men find attractive in women. In America, thin is in and the anorexic look is seen as ideal. In Zambia, being extremely thin was associated with Aids, while a heavy set women was seen at healthy and wealthy and much more to be desired. I have studied Native American cultures in the Northwest. The Flathead Indians would tie a board around the head of their infants to flatten out their foreheads. The flatter the forehead the more attractive they were. In another tribe, the women would tie rope around their legs to make their legs swell. The more swollen their legs, the more attractive they were. In the US, every generation is attracted to a different type of music while being repulsed by another generation’s music. Even our tastes in food are profoundly affected by our culture varying widely in different ethnic groups. The list can go on and on…
The point I am making is that our attractions are profoundly and deeply affected by our culture.
I believe this is the point of Romans 1. Paul is not talking about a small subset of the world, he is talking about mankind. As man rebels against God’s natural order in the religious sphere by refusing to worship God as God and a refusal to be thankful, God actively gives them over to a complete and total rebellion of God’s natural order culminating in the most aggravated and depraved form of rebellion of the natural order, which is homosexuality. This is why homosexuality is mentioned first. This “giving over” manifest itself in our society’s values and attractions and is more cultural than individual. Christians are a part of our culture and therefore also profoundly influenced by our culture’s values and attractions. These attractions are real and deeply imbedded. Dealing properly with same-sex attraction for a Christian, should first begin with properly understanding what shapes his/her attractions. I believe our attractions are shaped more by culture than biology.
NewClarification from RPittman