God's Plan for the Gay Agenda by John MacArthur

If you've been watching the headlines over the last couple years, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it's at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That's an indication of the success of the gay agenda. And some Christians,including somenational church leaders, have wavered on the issue even recently. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality--calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)--they do so at the expense of many souls.

How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals with hostility and disdain?

In reality, the Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions--condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that's something the homosexual sinner desperately needs.

Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality--and many of them know--they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens--as you come close, you see right through them.

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)

- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)

- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God's fundamental design for human relationships--a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, "Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil" (John 3:19-20).

As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality--ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning "made them male and female" (Matthew 19:4).

Don't allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning--their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

So, what is God's response to the homosexual agenda?

Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible's condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners--and that's through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don't need healing--homosexuality is not a disease. They don't need therapy--homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

I don't know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer--"gay." Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reasonRomans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a "degrading passion." It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul--and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality--but there's good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who "will not inherit the kingdom of God," Paul said, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11).

God's plan for many homosexuals is that they come to salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul's day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. With regenerated hearts, they sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response--confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response--confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

~ John MacArthur   Source (bold, red, my emphasis)

God's Plan for the Gay Agenda by John MacArthur

Time to re-post.

God's Plan for the Gay Agenda by John MacArthur

If you've been watching the headlines over the last couple years, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it's at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That's an indication of the success of the gay agenda. And some Christians,including somenational church leaders, have wavered on the issue even recently. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality--calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)--they do so at the expense of many souls.

How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals with hostility and disdain?

In reality, the Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions--condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that's something the homosexual sinner desperately needs.

Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality--and many of them know--they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens--as you come close, you see right through them.

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)

- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)

- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God's fundamental design for human relationships--a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, "Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil" (John 3:19-20).

As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality--ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning "made them male and female" (Matthew 19:4).

Don't allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning--their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

So, what is God's response to the homosexual agenda?

Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible's condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners--and that's through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don't need healing--homosexuality is not a disease. They don't need therapy--homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

I don't know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer--"gay." Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reasonRomans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a "degrading passion." It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul--and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality--but there's good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who "will not inherit the kingdom of God," Paul said, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11).

God's plan for many homosexuals is that they come to salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul's day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. With regenerated hearts, they sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response--confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response--confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

~ John MacArthur   Source (bold, red, my emphasis)

Tim Keller on preaching about homosexuality: “Ummm…its just…its just think about it…you know…you know…

**UPDATE**
"Keller clarified that "you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal."" ~ Huffington Post



Excerpts from: BalyBlog (two Presbyterian pastors): (emphasis, mine)


Tim Keller on preaching about homosexuality: “Ummm…its just…its just think about it…you know…you know…”

(Tim, w/thanks to a faithful man) By now, when the President of our own Covenant Theological Seminary invites Tim Keller to model pastoral ministry to his students over in St. Louis, he should know precisely what he's going to get and not be left batting cleanup for him. But take a listen to this exchange from one of Keller's recent visits, there. [Denise's note: I couldn't get the link to the audio, however the original article to which I do link above, still has the audio.]

It's a Q & A session in front of men preparing for pastoral ministry. A Covenant student asks the Rev. Dr. Tim Keller this question: "How do you think the church is or should be proactive with regard to the issue of homosexuality? I see the prevalence of homosexuality, yet the church seems to be afraid to touch the issue. How do we actively speak to believers about this topic in truth and in love?"

Which question launched the Keller/Chapell duo into this session of semantic dodge ball, with protective pads and helmets.

Was Tim Keller's answer bad?

Yes, his answer was bad…..

CHAPELL: [CTS student question] How do you think the church is or should be proactive with regard to the issue of homosexuality? I see the prevalence of homosexuality, yet the church seems to be afraid to touch the issue. How do we actively speak to believers about this topic in truth and in love?

KELLER: Uhhhh….well…(sigh)…The church is afraid to touch the topic? I….it may…….it..its possible…that….in the 20 yrs that I’ve seen that this issue has actually not.…ummm. it..uh…it hasn’t gone away its really gotten to be much much more..socially….

CHAPELL: Sure. Rural church, Sparta Illinois, 1985. I can tell the first Sunday I used the word ‘homosexuality’ and my wife wondered if I would have a job the next week. I mean, it was that scary of a subject at the time. So, if…now again, that’s rural Illinois but I’m guessing even now the church questions..now there’s all kinds of reasons for the fear. One, are you going to say something that your people are going to get mad at you about? Second, is the subject going to be so hot that the people who are struggling with an issue of of gender or sexuality, that I can’t even say in a public setting the kind of things I want to say to minister privately to this person. So how do I do this?

KELLER: Well, it’s much, much, much easier to to have private conversations about it. I think…..uh…I can make this short. I…I believe in general that if you preach on why homosexuality is a sin,..uhhh….there are……at least in my…in my..in my..in my church I know there’s lots and lots of folks who have same sex attraction who know that that’s not….as a Christian, I can’t do that. I’m not gonna go there. There’s a good number of them. I’ve got a lot of non-Christians who are present who are friends of gay people but are not gay. Uhhh…and then uhh there’d be a number of people with same sex attraction who…are there. And generally speaking, it’s almost impossible to preach a sermon and hit all 3 or 4 of those constituencies equally well. Ummmm.. it’s just.. it’s just think about..you know..you know…you’re a communicator. You know you need to…well, what’s my goal? Who are my audience and..wow! it’s like a conundrum you can’t solve. So, the best thing has always been for me..[CONSPICUOUS COUGH]…to not do the public teaching as much as segment my audience through…ummm [CONSPICUOUS COUGH]..Books, through classes, through one-on-ones, and so on. I think the time is probably coming in which we’re going to have be more public in how we talk about homosexuality. And I haven’t….I’m actually thinking quite a lot about it. Uhhh.. as to how I will go about it or how we should go about it but I’m not prepared to give you 3 bullet points.

CHAPELL: have you been able to say…again, very different congregations and cultures…Couldyou would you say from the pulpit at Redeemer, ‘Same-sex attraction, if it leads to activity that is same-sex oriented is a sin’?

KELLER: O yeah..well, you have to because you get to it and you’re preaching and you do. sure. But..what I’m saying is if you go…if you make it the subject of your sermon, uhhhh… it’s uhhhh..uh an entire sermon on it would not be an easy thing to get..you..you…you have to say what the Bible says and nobody at Redeemer doubts where we are. But for me to do teaching in the worship service, I am now going to give you the re…you know….the biblical teaching on homosexuality, that has been a hard thing to do when my audience is so diverse. I would have to say the average church, the audience isn’t nearly that diverse. And…so….I have not…made that the main place in which I’ve taught. But…we…we’ve done a fair amount of teaching inside amongst our leaders, our counselors, our undershepherds, our elders. We talk about it. Nobody doubts where we are. But I think that preaching on a Sunday about it…uhhhh…making public statements is…kind of in the cards because I think it’s gonna be a very, very divisive issue in the future.

CHAPELL: Good.

EISENBACH:…. You go to the Bible quite often and there are many evangelicals who would say it is listed as a sin in the Bible [KELLER: sin in the Bible, right.]…and these people are going to Hell.

KELLER: Right. Now…What you..first…ughhhh…Let’s talk about my church again [nervous laughter]. Let’s go back here. What we would say is…I think it’s unavoidable. I think most Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox Christians over the years have said, you read the Bible and the Bible has reservations. The Bible says homosexuality is not God’s original design for sexuality. Ok? There we are…you have it. The Bible also says, ‘Love your neighbor’. The Bible…in fact, The Good Samaritan parable which is how Jesus tells us to love our neighbor…you put a Jew and a Samaritan there. So, what Jesus is trying to say is everybody is your neighbor. Gay people are your neighbors. Uhhh…people who are of other faiths are your neighbors. People of other….. other…uhhhh….uhhh…races are your neighbors. And it’s the job of a Christian to do what Jesus did on the cross which was to give himself for people who were opposing Him and people who were diff….believe….didn’t believe in Him even. And so, a Christian is supposed to say, ‘I serve the needs and interests of all of my neighbors in the city, whether gay or straight, whether Hindu or Muslim. I mean Hindus, for example, don’t believe in the Trinity. It’s a different view than what the Bible says. Gay people have a different view of sexuality than generally what you see in the NT. I’m supposed to love my neighbors. So, what I don’t see is…at this point, I see some churches that are…basically, ignoring the places in the Bible that talk about homosexuality in order to love their gay neighbor. And I see other Christian churches taking very seriously what the Bible says about homosexuality but in a very self-righteous way. So, they actually do single out gay people. I mean, there are a number of conservative churches that will love their Hindu neighbors and will love their Muslim neighbors, and not their gay neighbors. And I really don’t think there is any excuse for that. So…that’s what [EISENBACH: Is…is] I mean, I…I….Therefore, I have to take some responsibility for being a member of the Christian Church for the oppression of homosexuals.

EISENBACH: Are committing homosexual acts sin….against God?

KELLER: uhhhh….What do you mean by ‘sin’? The answer is ‘yes’.

EISENBACH: Yes.

KELLER: Now see. Here’s the problem with that. You don’t go to Hell for being a homosexual…..

EISENBACH: …..but committing homosexual acts will get you to go to Hell?

KELLER: Noooo. Wait a minute. Wait, wait [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER].

EISENBACH: well, you know. Some people say, ‘Well, it’s not the homosexuality or being gay. It’s being/doing gay stuff that’s the problem’.

KELLER: No, no. First of all, heterosexuality does not get you to heaven. I happen to know this [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER/CLAPPING]. So, how in the world could homosexuality send you to Hell? And actually…uhhh…The Bible…Listen…..This is…this is true. Jesus talks about greed 10x more than he talks about adultery, for example. Now, one of the problems Christians have here is partly…let’s be nice to Christians. You know when you’re committing adultery. I mean you don’t say, ‘Ohhh, you’re not my wife’ [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]. I mean you know when you are committing adultery. But, almost nobody knows when they’re greedy. Nobody admits…thinks they’re greedy. You know cause everybody is comparing yourself to other people and so, it’s a frog in the kettle kind of thing. Ahhh….however, the fact of the matter is…the Bible is much harder on greed/materialism. It’s a horrible sin, terrible sin. Will greed send you to Hell? No! What sends you to Hell is self-righteousness – thinking that you can be your own savior and lord. What sends you to heaven is getting a connection with Christ because you realize you’re a sinner and you need intervention from outside. That’s why it is very misleading actually to say, even to say, ‘Homosexuality is a sin’ because most people…Yes, of course homosexuality is a sin because greed is a sin, because all kinds of things are sins. But what most Christians mean when they say that and certainly what non-Christians think they hear when they hear that is ‘If you’re gay, you are going to Hell for being gay’. It’s just not true. Absolutely not true.

EISENBACH: So then, what’s….then how is homosexuality a ‘sin’. I’m not….

KELLER: ….Well, homo…[sigh]..Greed is a sin. In other words, it doesn’t help human flourishing. Basically, Christianity has an account of what we think human beings were built to do and what will therefore, help human flourishing. So, we would say if you spend all of your money on yourself, that’s bad….not only for your own soul, but for everybody elses. We would say homosexuality is not the original design for sexuality. Therefore, it’s not good for human flourishing. We want people to do things that are good for human flourishing. But that’s not what sends you to heaven or Hell. Now, there…maybe we ought to talk about that [NERVOUS LAUGHTER]. What sends you to heaven or Hell really has to do with your faith in the Gospel which is that you can’t….uhhh…be your own savior through your performance and your good works. Now here, I’m coming at this like a protestant now. You know…ummm…everybody’s gotta be a particular kind of Christian and there’s differences of opinion within Christianity about this. But uhhhh…no. being gay doesn’t send you to hell and sin doesn’t send you to Hell like that. The sin underneath the sin is, ‘I am my own savior and my lord’. And that’s the reason why pharisaism, moralism, Bible-believing people who are proud and think God is going to take people to heaven because they’re good…that’s sending them to Hell. I mean, I know that this is a lot to take in at once.

End quote.

Scripture states:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Luk 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Act 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,

Mat 11:24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Co 6:11 And such WERE some of you. BUT you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

"Conservatives" Leaders Are Embracing Homosexuality

Today's "Conservatives":

Rush Limbaugh pays $1 million to Elton John to sing at his fourth wedding.

Ann Coulter is speaking at an event that is hosted by GOPROUD, a homosexual "conservative" group. She went bullistic on Farah for Worldnetdaily's dropping her from their upcoming "Taking America Back National Conference". She throws ad homs and personally attacks him, which tells me someone that angry is very defensive.

I noticed Coulter going down this road a few years ago, making some statement about how the GOP is big enough to include homosexuals.

Homosexuality, besides being unbiblical, is against good morals. This is why its shunned by true conservatives. Its not personal, its principles. I'll just be honest. Homosexuality is a sin.

I left the GOP a few years ago because it has gotten quite liberal while I'm going in the opposite direction. Its becoming so that there's little difference between the two parties anymore, either morally or fiscally. I know. I live in California. Enough said, eh? =/

Then there's Glen Beck who also thinks that while America is going down the tubes, homosexuality isn't a threat. Say what?

I'm fearful that Glen Beck is also head the same direction as Coulter, because he made it very clear that dealing with immorality like homosexuality isn't "what he does" yet he says American is going down in flames. Well, one need merely to look at Romans 1 in Scripture to see this happening, and homosexuality IS an enemy on a multitude of levels---whether morally, financially (big socialist programs), or shutting down the rights of those who oppose them (the intolerance of the tolerant left). So we'll see which way Beck will end up. Time will tell. It already has with Ann Coulter, sadly.

In dealing with Beck in a different article, WND quotes Joseph Farah, editor and founder, "When conservative leaders like Beck shrug off the ramifications of same-sex "marriage," they unwittingly reject traditional marriage's biblical ordination and its history as the bedrock protector of women, children and a free, self-governing society, said Farah."

The article goes on to note the hypocrisy of Beck who's trying to show the infiltration of Marxism in our country.

Quote:

Kupelian outlines the unforeseen and far-reaching consequences of legalizing safe-sex marriage, including:

*schools required to teach that homosexuality is normal and acceptable;
*the criminalization of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality as pastors and rabbis fear preaching their faith's core moral values;
*the inevitable legalization of polygamy and other new and bizarre forms of "marriage"

...After all, from the Marxist perspective, if you're serious about transforming America – from a land of limited government and individual liberty rooted in a transcendent, faith-based moral code to a population of compliant, needy people dependent on a god-like government – you simply must separate the population from Judeo-Christian values and morality."

"Glenn," he adds, directly addressing the popular Fox host, "the three founders you picture daily on your Fox TV show under the heading Faith. Hope. Charity – namely Sam Adams, George Washington and Ben Franklin – would have been horrified, appalled and aghast at the mere thought of men marrying men and women marrying women."

End quote.

Dave Kupelian and Joseph Farah are right. These "conservatives" are playing right into the hands of the Left.


Now we can't forget Dick Cheney's endorsement of same-sex "marriage"; the timing shows it was likely due to his daughter deciding to become a lesbian.

Then there's Cindy McCain and her daughter (Meghan, who works holds a little elephant figurine....how quaint) who support same-sex marriage--by posing for a print ad for "NOH8".

As well as Laura Bush. She thinks same-sex "marriage" should be legal, and abortion should remain legal.

Conservative? How, exactly?

Christian? Not at all.

Joseph Farah also writes on this issue of how "Conservatives" are actually liberal, and how disheartening it is to be in the minority of those who know that homosexuality, for instance, is a sin and should be shunned. (Note: I can't endorse all of the WND site b/c I do have some doctrinal problems with some of the contributors, so always read with caution).

Dan Kimball

Recently Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio and A Little Leaven has paraded his new friendship with Emergent Church Movement (ECM) leader Dan Kimball on Facebook complete with multiple photos. Kimball is supposed to be more conservative than some other ECM leaders. Because Rosebrough was considered by many to be sound doctrinally as he has exposed some error in the ECM, Word of Faith movement, etc. it came as a surprise that not only did he befriend Kimball, but sees nothing heretical in Kimball at all. This is the same issue of Piper/Driscoll and Piper/Warren. And it stinks to high Heaven.

Has Kimball become more moderate in his views? Has he repented of his leading thousands astray in the unholy Emergent movement?

No.

Promoting the ECM Catalyst conference for 2011 under the heading "Some of the Events I am Part Of", Kimball also was at this year's conference in which he applauded his fellow Emergent leaders. In addition he mentions the other Emergent conferences he's involved with along with applauding even more Emergent leaders:

Quote:

I had the joy of speaking at Catalyst West Coast last year and will be speaking at it again this year. I'll be speaking at a "Lab" which is the first day of the event. You have to register for the Lab day in addition to the main event. Catalyst is having an Origins* tract and myself, Scot McKnight (I have done research on McKnight) and Margaret Feinberg will be leading Origins labs. Chris Tomlin is leading worship music.

Last year was the first Catalyst event I ever went to and I was really amazed at the incredible way they put on the event. This year the list of speakers includes Andy Stanley, Donald Miller, Mark Driscoll, Erwin McManus, Dallas Willard, Louie Giglio and a bunch others you can read on the Catalyst West Coast web site.


There are so many exciting events coming up this year.... and it is hard to simply highlight one. A couple others are in July I will be part of MissionShift Conference and also on the "Framers" team with Tim Keller, Ed Stetzer, Alan Hirsch, Linda B. and others. The Framers team will be working on a "Missional Manifesto" document which is going to help give some definition to what is "missional". So I am thrilled to be part of that as I believe it is something that is needed and will be helpful in the missional conversation.

In July we also will be putting on our first formal Origins event. It will be Saturday, July 24. it will be in Los Angeles - we will be announcing details soon. Erwin, myself, Dave Gibbons, Scot McKnight, Amena Brown, Margaret Feinberg and several others and some unique speakers we will be announcing soon will be part of this. It will likely be more for west coasters since it is a one-day event. Next summer in 2011 we will put on a several day festival event in Pasadena.

End quote.

Current on Kimball's website he has this on the right sidebar regarding Origins:


"Origins: New Network/Community
Sign up on this link for new network/community Erwin McManus, Dave Gibbons, Scot McKnight, Rick McKinley and some others (see link) are in the beginning process of forming a new community/network based around a passion for evangelism, Scripture and innovation for mission. Go to the above link to sign up for updates as it is formed."

Origins is chalk full of Emergents. Mosaic "gathering" (aka "church") is an Emergent church headed up by Emergent leader Erwin McManus, and is one of the three "core churches" of Origins. Another Mosaic leader is also part of the "Origins Team",

Then there is the post of 3 days with NT Wright.... Catalyst West Coast.... Beauty from Ashes :

Quote:

It is a "Consultation with Bishop NT Wright" (what they call it) with about 20 people. NT Wright is the featured speaker for Wheaton's annual theology event happening later that week. But they formed this pre-event before that big one. NT Wright will be presenting some things about Jesus, Paul and evangelism - and then we have discussion about it, some roundtable discussions and panels.

I am thrilled to be there at this and it is a very unique and diverse mix of 20 people who are going to be there. Myself, Alan Hirsch, Mike Frost, Phyllis Tickle, Shane Claiborne, Rick McKinley, Darrell Guder, Dave Ferguson.... Should be some very fascinating discussions.

I am staying over Thursday night and going to hang out in Chicago with Alan Hirsch and Rick McKinley, so that should be quite fun as well whatever we end up doing.

End quote.

Again, notice the Emergent leaders he lists and he finds this "thrilling". NT Wright is a promoter of the "New Perspective on Paul" which is heresy and has issues with the doctrine of Imputation.

The other day Kimball (who Rosebrough and others claim is not like his Emergent brothers in arms), posted this on homosexuality:


"The reason I invited Deb to speak was from a night I was over Alan and Deb Hirsch's home in LA for dinner last summer. As we were hanging out, we ended up talking about the need for moderate voices in the homosexuality/church discussion. By moderate I mean people who may hold the historical view of sexuality and what we believe God's original intent and design for sexuality is as revealed in the Scriptures. But while holding these views, they do not speak with rhetoric of fear, anger, non-compassion, unintelligence about Scripture or without love. Alan and Deb's theological viewpoint is the same as mine and our church's leadership which would be the church's historical view. But it is important to note, that this is not just a doctrine or theology we are talking about with this. This is lives we are talking about. Hopes, dreams, real people - not merely a doctrinal puzzle to solve or theological discussion. "

The issue of homosexuality is never to be debated. Scripture is very clear on this:

1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 11 And such WERE some of you. BUT you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This issue was not new during Paul's life or that of Jesus' or of Abraham's. How did Paul deal with sexual immorality? 1Cor. 5 is very clear on how he dealt with the Corinithian church. He was angry at their "tolerance" and told them to throw out the professing brother, from the church. Immediate action was to be taken. Later we see that the man did repent and was granted back into the fellowship in 2Cor. But the immediate issue is about the leaven among the people.

Kimball said, " As we were hanging out, we ended up talking about the need for moderate voices in the homosexuality/church discussion. By moderate I mean people who may hold the historical view of sexuality and what we believe God's original intent and design for sexuality is as revealed in the Scriptures. But while holding these views, they do not speak with rhetoric of fear, anger, non-compassion, unintelligence about Scripture or without love. "

Ok look at how this is presented. Scripture is never "moderate" on the issue of homosexuality nor homosexuals. "Moderate" connotes a more "balanced" view as if the view of rejecting whole heartedly homosexuality from every aspect is somehow unbalanced. Its a subtle, but nonetheless attack on those who hold boldly to the authority of Scripture.

Whenever people say they hold to biblical doctrine, and follow that by "but", that's where you need to zero in. And really, we have to question what they mean when they claim their view is "biblical" anyway. But for arguement's sake let's say their profession is in line with the biblical view. There shouldn't be "but" followed by that. What this is, is a way to tone down the harsh dealings against sin.

Kimball is also making an assumption that Christians are NOT dealing with homosexuality without "intellegence about Scripture" or "without love". How they define love will be very different from that of Scripture. Of this I'm sure. And what about fear? Liberals think that anger = fear, and I guarantee that's EXACTLY what's going on here. Rather, we should fear to offend our thrice holy God; we should fear for the souls of men and women in bondage to such deviant behavior of sin and unbelief. We should be angry against those who claim to be Christians and yet are homosexuals. No one can be both, according to Scripture. We should be angry against those who bring shame to HIS name by their unnatural lifestyles. We should be angry that people dare call Jesus "Lord" but refuse to submit to HIM. You see what I mean?

Another thing to note: Kimball says , "Alan and Deb's theological viewpoint is the same as mine and our church's leadership which would be the church's historical view. " Do they have homosexuals sitting in their pews? Are they disciplining the homosexuals if there are? Leadership vs. the rest of the congregation---one group holds to a "biblical view" (and what does he mean by that exactly?) while its ok if the members are in that sin or have a different view? See, there's the Post-modern loophole. And frankly, its all unconvincing. I'll go even a step further. If you REALLY have a biblical view of homosexuality, you will not be debating it or minimizing it (aka humanizing it, tolerating it), but you will strongly preach against it and then your actions as pastor will be strongly against it also (ie, church discipline). The actions or non-actions bear out if one really is being biblical.

In further research I found this regarding Kimball by Lighthouse Trails Research (the book by Kimball which LTR deals with in the article, is heavily promoted at his own website even as I write this.)

Excerpt:

Sexuality in the New Reformation :

...One example of this new reformation mindset on sexuality can be found in Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church. Kimball devotes an entire chapter (called “The Church is Homophobic”) to homosexuality and says that Christians need to reinterpret what we thought the Bible says about homosexuality.

He states:

Because this is such a huge issue in our culture, and because all of the tension and discussion on this issue is over what the Bible says about it, we can no longer just regurgitate what we have been taught about homosexuality.… We cannot do that any longer … We must approach the Bible with humility, prayer, and sensitivity, taking into consideration the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words and looking into the historical contexts in which passages were written.… we can no longer with integrity merely quote a few isolated verses and say “case closed.”1

Kimball elaborates:

Quite honestly, and some people might get mad at me for saying this, I sometimes wish this [homosexuality] weren’t a sin issue, because I have met gay people who are the most kind, loving, solid, and supportive people I have ever met. As I talk to them and hear their stories and get to know them, I come to understand that their sexual orientation isn’t something they can just turn off. Homosexual attraction is not something people simply choose to have, as is quite often erroneously taught from many pulpits.2

Kimball does not stand alone within the ranks of the emerging church in his permissive, accepting view of homosexuality.....

Notes:1. Dan Kimball, They Like Jesus but Not the Church, op. cit., p. 137.
2. Ibid., p. 138.

End quote.

First of all, as noted, Scripture indeed does say its a choice by those who refuse to submit to God and worship Him alone. Secondly there's no such thing as being born a homosexual. This idea is the notion that is "quite often erroneously taught" by the liberals. Go here and here to find out why there's no such thing as a homosexual gene.

Cloaking liberalism in Christianese doesn't work for those of us who know the Truth well and our power of discernment from the Lord Jesus Christ has been sharpened by constant use of the Sword of the Spirit by the Holy Spirit in our lives as we diligently study the Word and believe it. There is NO doubt that Kimball is indeed trying to get homosexuality accepted by Christians. Incrimentalism is the tool being used. But it still smells to high Heaven.

Clamouring for "Fair and balanced" (aka "moderate") views usually means a little leaven is ok. Not in God's eternal and perfect Book.

Preston Sprinkle On Sodomy and Christians

In Febrary 2016 at the Christ Hold Fast conference, reformer Preston Sprinkle's session on the first night was based on his book, "People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just An Issue". The review  of the book is at "The 'Gospel' Coalition" by Trevin Wax. As expected the book is dumbing down the issue of sodomy from a biblical perspective combined with church-shaming. That is to say, it's just another social justice restructuring of biblical Christianity's understanding and treatment of sodomy. It seems to be an echo of all the other articles written over at "Desiring 'God' Ministries" as well as what comes out of Tim Keller (as I've previously written about on this blog). In other words, it takes the Post-Modern view that truth is not clear, mixes it with some truth about the error of sodomy, and then slams Christians for not dealing with sodomy the way he thinks they should. "Same sex attraction" and sexual identity are also brought in as if that clouds the issue (it doesn't). Interestingly Wax had this to say in his review:

The first half of this book is a journey with Preston through the Scriptures, as he leads us to “lay aside our assumptions and genuinely seek to know what the Bible, not our tradition, says about homosexuality” (10). Preston is a Bible-guy, and a Reformation-guy as well, meaning that he believes Scripture stands over tradition, and so he returns to the text in order to understand and resubmit himself to the Word of God.

Most helpful in Preston’s survey of the Bible is the attention he places on creation, on God’s making of humanity male and female, on marriage, and how our relationships shine light on the gospel. He also does the historical work of showing what same-sex relationships were like in ancient times. And he makes a vitally important point when discussing Jesus’ sexual ethic:

“If we say that Christians should endorse same-sex relations, then we will need to recreate a rather un-Jewish Jesus and an un-Jewish New Testament” (68).

Indeed. And that is why some are making the case today that Jesus then was bound by his Jewish upbringing and held ancient perspectives on sexuality, but that Jesus now would affirm what 21scentury revisionists say is the way forward.

In some places, I disagreed with Preston’s biblical exegesis, most notably his claim that homosexuality (at least as we understand it today) is not in view in the account Sodom and Gomorrah. Preston is right that there were multiple sins at work in Sodom’s wickedness, as the Scriptures indicate, but we shouldn’t overlook the interpretive support throughout Jewish and Church history for the idea that homosexual practice was one of those sins. (Preston interacts with Kevin DeYoung on this topic. For further reading, check out the chapter “Sodom’s Sins” in Unchanging Witness.)

In places like this, I found that Preston’s “Bible-only” or “Bible vs. Tradition” mindset hindered rather than helped his project. When he claims that “for many years, the church stood on the wrong side of the question of slavery,” he is oversimplifying the subject in a way that distorts the true picture.

End quote. (Bold, my emphasis)

As in typical fashion, however, the reformer doesn't hold to Scripture only. He mixes the culture (and science it seems likely) as part of his exegeting Scripture. In other words, he doesn't go to Scripture alone for God's clear teaching against sodomy, he appeals to culture, first the Jewish one and then the current American one. The issue isn't so much how Jews and Gentiles in ancient or modern times viewed homosexuality (and trying to blur the issue by use of "same-sex attraction" labels and nonsense along with "sexuality identity", but rather that these things have been around for millennia and Scripture alone is sufficient to destroy every argument that sets itself up against Christ and His Word. To set aside biblical thinking on the horrific and perverted view of sodomy as if either there's some "new" way of understanding sexuality today, or presuming that it's wrong to start off with biblical presuppositions, is wrong. I would go so far as to say that the disgust at sodomy is actually normal because God is disgusted with it.

I consider this book and author and teaching to be another attempt at shaming Christians for their rightful disdain for sodomy. It is an attempt at trying to shame a normal reaction to such utter perverted wickedness such as sodomy (and in increasingly with pedophilia). It is to side with the world on this, even if he claims that he's in the "non-affirming" camp. That, by the way, isn't the same as rejecting all of homosexuality. It's a step down to seem more "balanced" and not as sharply against it. God however, is against sodomy and sodomites: it is a damning sin and one so wicked and perverted that He destroyed entire cities (at least three or four) because of it.

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

God says that even the desires of homosexuality is perverted (see Romans 1).

In Matt. 5 Jesus says that the lusts in the heart are tantamount to doing the sin with the body before God. Moreover in Romans 1 sodomy is listed as "LUSTS of their HEARTS" that God finally turned those who refused to acknowledge Him, over to; that He gave them up to "a debase MIND".Scripture also lists sodomy as "unnatural", "dishonorable passions", and"consumed with passion for one another". Such is the description of those who refuse to acknowledge God as Creator. For those in Christ, they DO acknowledge Him as Creator and moreover, love and obey Him, therefore they don't suffer such hardness of hearts. They have a NEW heart at regeneration. Previously I posted on God's plan for the homosexual agenda. In it I quoted John MacArthur and I think it bears repeating: God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age. - In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28) - In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) - In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50) - In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8) So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy. They try to use "science" and psychology, and even try to equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered). The sins of Sodom and Gommorah were sexual in nature and therefore earned God's special judgement. If He destroyed not only those two cities, but the surrounding ones because of such heinous sexual immorality, then how in the WORLD can "Christians" think He's any less angry and less holy now with sodomy? Both the Old and New Testaments show God's absolute consistency regarding sexual immorality. Or do these "Christians" fancy themselves more tolerant and "loving" than the HOLY HOLY HOLY God of Israel Himself? If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology, the great sin-equalizer, and victimization.

More on articles I've posted on the issue of sodomy and Evangelicalism here.

The other issue is, as the liberals in the world do, Sprinkle apparently tries to equate slavery with sodomy and condemn Christians for both in their treatment of both. To equate these two is totally ridiculous. Scripture never equates the two and yet it addresses both. In fact, Scripture never calls for social justice regarding slavery. It doesn't tell Christians to protest their government, walk off the plantation, riot, or disobey in any way slave masters. Quite the opposite:

1Pe 2:18  Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19  For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20  For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21  For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 

If a person had the opportunity to be set free, Scripture states the believer should take it:

1Co 7:20  Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 

1Co 7:21  Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 

1Co 7:22  For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 

1Co 7:23  You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 

1Co 7:24  So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. 

The letter "Philemon" deals with a run away slave by that name, who got saved through Paul's evangelism. Instead of keeping Philemon with him (thus "social justice"), Paul did the right thing and sent him back with instructions to his master to treat him as fellow heir of Christ and to forgive Philemon of anything wrong he caused or any debt he incurred (Paul was willing to have all if charged to his account). 

Yet in all cases homosexuality and it's lusts of the heart are condemned throughout all of Scripture. It is a damnable sin according to  1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8.

So neither in regard to slavery or homosexuality, does Scripture demand social justice (of course today's view of social justice isn't justice but vengeance, homofascism, and acceptance of such sin).

Also, if Sprinkle equates sodomy (or as some like to call it same-sex-attraction - and yes it is the same perversion as a result of not acknowledging God as Creator per Rom. 1), with any other sin, that too would be wrong. Not all sin is equal. And while one sin earns Hell, not all sin is equally henious. I've discussed this here:

So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy.  They try to use "science", psychology, and even equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered). The sins of Sodom and Gommorah were sexual in nature and therefore earned God's special judgement. If He destroyed not only those two cities, but the surrounding ones because of such heinous sexual immorality, then how in the WORLD can "Christians" think He's any less angry and less holy now with sodomy? Both the Old and New Testaments show God's absolute consistency regarding sexual immorality. Or do these "Christians" fancy themselves more tolerant and "loving" than the HOLY HOLY HOLY God of Israel Himself?

If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by  a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology,  the great sin-equalizer, and victimization.

 It is precisely because of man's sin that some choose sodomy. Respect for a person being a human being is limited in scope and application.  I suggest reading the Old Testament and Revelation to see how much emphasis God places on these people He made in His image and whether that affected His judgement against them or deflected His holy wrath.

The "Gospel" Coalition Pushes Sodomy

The "Gospel" Coalition continues to push acceptance of homosexuality by attempting to subtlely (although it isn't subtle at all) blur the lines between "attraction" and action of sodomy. It seeks to remove the labels and claims Scripture places on homosexual desires and behavior (Romans 1) by re-naming it as "non-straight Christians" and appealing to emotions (they just see beauty in the same sex). This is another attempt at guilting Christians away from "traditional" views of sodomy and to one of acceptance. It is the same old argument of recent years that one can be a homosexual of the heart and yet be a Christian. This is  a lie according to Romans 1. Moreover, it has the flavor of the Hegelian dialectic method; that is, Mao's Law of the Unity and Struggle of Opposites.  "Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change.” This is also used by Rick Warren in his inter-faith attempts.

Here are some excerpts from TGC's article by Ed Shaw reviewing a new book from Nate Collins in All But Invisible: Exploring Identity Questions at the Intersection of Faith, Gender, and Sexuality. It's worth noting the article bio of Shaw: "Ed Shaw is the pastor of Emmanuel City Centre in Bristol, England, and part of the editorial team at Living Out. He loves his family and friends, church and city, gin and tonic, and music and books. He is the author of Same-Sex Attraction and the Church: The Surprising Plausibility of the Celibate Life (IVP)"

Quote:

These complex and subtle differences require deep thought, and Collins’s book is an important entry in this category. He provides new vistas in this conversation which deserve our attention. Though he lands in some different places than we do (for instance, in how we choose to label our sexual orientation), we both benefited from reading his book....

The most important idea is Collins’s presentation of aesthetic orientation. He argues that viewing gayness and straightness through the primary lens of sex urges misrepresents the experience of gay people and furthers the stereotypes of gays and lesbians as sexual deviants. Instead, he proposes placing the locus [sic]of orientation in beauty, rather than sex. This move has at least two strong positives that are desperately needed in the conservative church.

First, it militates against both shame and stereotype: we don’t need to feel guilty when we notice God-given same-gender beauty; we do need to confess sin when we imagine having sex with the beautiful person in question. Moral culpability is rightly placed on our response to temptation, not on the presence of temptation itself.

Second, it rightly captures the nuance of attraction. That pull toward another human is so much more than physical, and those of us who experience same-sex attraction deal with this pull in many ways.

However, the label of “aesthetic orientation” also presents some mild problems. It relies heavily on the subjective experience of each person’s attraction, and may overemphasize the difference between straight and gay responses to beauty on this basis...

End quote.

He also says,

Notably, Collins acknowledges that “one of [his] main arguments in this book is that being gay (understood as an aesthetic orientation) is not sinful in itself” (303). 

The biggest weakness of All But Invisible is its academic tone.

End quote.

I have said previously on this issue:

I consider this book and author and teaching to be another attempt at shaming Christians for their rightful disdain for sodomy. It is an attempt at trying to shame a normal reaction to such utter perverted wickedness such as sodomy (and in increasingly with pedophilia). It is to side with the world on this, even if he claims that he's in the "non-affirming" camp. That, by the way, isn't the same as rejecting all of homosexuality. It's a step down to seem more "balanced" and not as sharply against it. God however, is against sodomy and sodomites: it is a damning sin and one so wicked and perverted that He destroyed entire cities (at least three or four) because of it.

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age.

- In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
- In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
- In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

God says that even the desires of homosexuality is perverted (see Romans 1).

In Matt. 5 Jesus says that the lusts in the heart are tantamount to doing the sin with the body before God. Moreover in Romans 1 sodomy is listed as "LUSTS of their HEARTS" that God finally turned those who refused to acknowledge Him, over to; that He gave them up to "a debase MIND".Scripture also lists sodomy as "unnatural", "dishonorable passions", and"consumed with passion for one another". Such is the description of those who refuse to acknowledge God as Creator. For those in Christ, they DO acknowledge Him as Creator and moreover, love and obey Him, therefore they don't suffer such hardness of hearts. They have a NEW heart at regeneration. Previously I posted on God's plan for the homosexual agenda. In it I quoted John MacArthur [his note of where Scripture condemns homosexuality] and I think it bears repeating: God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear--He opposes it in every age. - In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28) - In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) - In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50) - In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

So if God is so clear on homosexuality, there is no way to accept it on any level, but that's what the liberals are doing as they secretly sneak in among us and then redefine things by trying to cloud the issue regarding sodomy. They try to use "science" and psychology, and even try to equalize the unnatural passion and lust of sodomy as if its like any other sin. That way they can play the victim and say it's merely a struggle like, say, drinking (eternal victimhood is a play right out of psychology's playbook---you never have victory over the sin or its desire but rather always struggle, thus always "recovering" but never recovered).... If liberals can't get sodomy into the churches by full frontal attack, they'll do it by a more subtle means--incrementalism, psychology, the great sin-equalizer, and victimization....

Yet in all cases homosexuality and it's lusts of the heart are condemned throughout all of Scripture. It is a damnable sin according to  1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8.

More on articles I've posted on the issue of sodomy and Evangelicalism here.

~ Preston Sprinkle On Sodomy and Christians

Here I posted on the sin of sodomy desires.

The Gospel Coalition should be renamed The Great Compromise. It no longer stands for the biblical Gospel and frankly it hasn't for quite some time.