Pride Month: Evolution Of Homosexuality In India And Its Next Step

            The appalling practice of homosexuality has been in existence since time immemorial. But its lengthy existence for centuries in the past has not made it either legitimate or honorable, for the God of the Bible unequivocally condemns the practice of homosexuality (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7).

            We need to remind ourselves that the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality and not its orientation. One can possess homosexual orientation, but if he/she resists that orientation through prayer and godly counsel, he/she is not in sin.

            I strive to obey the Bible, for I believe it is absolutely the Word of God. I have no doubts! Hence, I consider homosexuality to be an abnormal or a sinful practice. Significantly, I do not have the power to declassify a sin. So when God has deemed homosexuality to be a sin, I merely obey.

            Homosexuality has been legal in India since 6^th September 2018. So homosexuality is no longer a crime in India. This obviously implies that the practice of homosexuality was regarded as a crime in India prior to 2018.

            Until the 90s, Indian television and the movie industry were highly conservative. Erotic scenes were diligently censored. Today it is not so. Erotic scenes are no longer taboo! 

            Few web series portray homosexuality as a natural phenomenon, thus corrupting minds in the process. Homosexuality piggybacks on the theme of ‘tolerance.’

            So what’s next for homosexuality in India? How would homosexuality further evolve in India?

            At some point in time in the future, Indian society will endorse homosexuality. Homosexual marriages would be as common and as approved as heterosexual marriage (although a minority subscribing to Historic Christianity would continue to oppose this evil).

            This is when another problem (not new) will rear its ugly head. The young generation, especially the biblically illiterate, will passionately believe that homosexuality is not a sin. They would also believe that homosexuality is normal behavior.

            Now, while homosexuality continues to gain a stronger foothold over minds, unfortunately, a vast majority of churches are losing their battle against this evil. These churches are not preparing their congregation, especially the young generation, to fight this evil.

            The ruler of the kingdom of the air will continue to work in the minds of the disobedient. But this is not the end of this story. A minority would continue to prayerfully raise their voices against this evil.

            Are you one among this prayerful minority? 

What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.¹ Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).²

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]³

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

²http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

³https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16^th November 2020.

Pope Francis Approves Homosexual Marriages? (Can A Catholic Disagree With Pope Francis?)

             Recently, Pope Francis called for a civil union law that legally protects same-sex marriages. Pope Francis claimed that gay couples have an inherent right to this protection because they are God’s children, ““Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it...””¹

            In this context, two antecedent events are remarkable.

            First, in the past, Pope Francis did not approve of a civil union law for gay couples. He characterized the civil union law for gay couples, if implemented, as an anthropological regression, “In the 2013 book “On Heaven and Earth,” Pope Francis did not reject the possibility of civil unions outright, but did say that laws “assimilating” homosexual relationships to marriage are “an anthropological regression,” and he expressed concern that if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”²

            Second, the official Catholic teaching opposes the practice of homosexuality and the implementation of a civil law for gay couples, “In 2003, under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and at the direction of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith taught that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions…” “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity…” “Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase,” the document said.”³ [Emphasis Mine].

            This then is the problem.

            Advocating for a civil union law to protect gay marriages is synonymous with endorsing the homosexual practice. Furthermore, this may sway young Catholics towards accepting and practicing homosexuality.

            The theological stumbling block is this: God, through the Bible, deemed homosexuality as a sin. But Pope Francis seems to have declassified homosexuality as an acceptable practice before God.

            Only God has the authority to classify a practice as a sin. So if a practice ought to be declassified from sin to an acceptable practice, then it is God who should exercise HIS authority to execute the declassification. 

            Essentially, Pope Francis has played God again.

            The temptation to play God could be a consequence of ‘Papal Infallibility.’

            Anything that the Pope says or does would have consequences to the Catholic community. In this context, would the radical shift in Pope Francis’ perception of gay marriages influence the Catholic Church to change its stance on gay marriages? Alternatively, should the Pope’s opinion change or detrimentally influence the doctrinal stand of a catholic?

            In order to arrive at an answer to these questions, we need to understand the concept of ‘Papal Infallibility.’ In other words, did the pope assume infallibility while making such comments?

            To understand Papal Infallibility, we need to understand a few technical terms:

            1. The Magisterium is the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian faith and life…⁴

            2. The Extraordinary Magisterium “is exercised when a doctrine pertaining to Faith and morals is proclaimed as definitive and infallible:

                      1. by the pope alone or

                      2. by the pope and an Ecumenical Council with him.

            The pope makes infallible pronouncements when he speaks “ex cáthedra” (Latin:    from the throne), i.e. with the full weight of his office.”⁵

            3. The Ordinary Magisterium “is exercised when the pope or the bishops in communion with him propose, without pronouncing in a definitive manner, a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of Faith and morals.” ⁶

            Ed Feser, one of the best contemporary writers in Philosophy, explains Papal Infallibility well. This, interestingly, is in response to a question if the pope, in theory, could reverse the Church’s teaching about homosexuality.

            Feser puts forth the following points in his blog entitled “Papal fallibility (Updated)” [Emphasis Mine]:⁷

A. “Some people think that Catholic teaching is that a pope is infallible not only when making ex cathedra declarations, but in everything he does and says.  That is also simply not the case.  Catholic doctrine allows that popes can make grave mistakes, even mistakes that touch on doctrinal matters in certain ways.”

B. “Some think that a Catholic is obliged to accept the teaching of a pope only when that teaching is put forward by him as infallible.  That too is not the case… Others think that a Catholic is obliged to agree more or less with every view or decision of a pope regarding matters of theology, philosophy, politics, etc. even when it is not put forward as infallible.  And that too is not the case.” 

C. There are “several conditions for the exercise of this extraordinary Magisterium.  First, the pope must appeal to his supreme teaching authority as the successor of Peter, as opposed to speaking merely as a private theologian, or making off-the-cuff remarks, or the like.  An exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium would, accordingly, typically involve some formal and solemn declaration.  Second, he must be addressing some matter of doctrine concerning faith or morals…Third, he must be “defining” some doctrine in the sense of putting it forward as official teaching that is binding on the entire Church.  The extraordinary Magisterium doesn’t pertain to teaching that concerns merely local or contingent circumstances.”

D. The pope cannot contradict the Scripture.

E. Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept.  It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine.  Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine.  If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken.

F. Popes could err. In his blog, Feser mentions instances of errant popes, some in an extremely serious way. Feser writes, “if popes can err gravely even on matters touching on doctrine and the governance of the Church, it goes without saying that they can err gravely with respect to matters of politics, science, economics, and the like.”

G. Why do popes err? Feser predicates papal error upon free will, “The sober truth is that Christ sometimes lets his Vicar err, only within definite limits but sometimes gravely.  Why?  In part because popes, like all of us, have free will.  But in part, precisely to show that (as Cardinal Ratzinger put it) “the thing cannot be totally ruined” -- not even by a pope.”

            Thanks to Ed Feser, it’s quite obvious that Pope Francis did not exercise extraordinary magisterium when he spoke about the civil law for gay marriages. Moreover, since the Bible is extremely explicit about homosexuality being a sin, Pope Francis cannot, and is not authorized to, contradict the Bible to declassify homosexuality from being a sin to an acceptable practice. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that popes have erred and can err. So Pope Francis has indeed erred.

            So we infer that Pope Francis’ opinion about civil laws for gay couples cannot influence or change the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

            Therefore, a Catholic need not consider Pope Francis’ statement to be infallible. But can legitimately disagree with the pope and continue to do what the Bible says i.e. do not practice or endorse homosexuality because it is a sin (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/05/29/the-magisterium-defined/

⁵CCC 891;  http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁶CCC 892; http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁷http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Websites last accessed on 1^st November 2020. 

Can A Celibate Gay Be A Christian?

            Celibacy refers to abstaining from sexual relations. Celibate gay refers to a person who is attracted towards same sex people but does not indulge in same sex sexual intercourse. When Christianity, which deems homosexuality as a sin, is brought into this context, a pertinent question is whether a Christian with homosexual orientation, but not practicing homosexuality, claim to be a genuine Christian?

Critical Definitions

            Homosexual Orientation: A person who is attracted to members of his own sex.

            Homosexual Behavior / Practice: A person who practices sex with members of his own sex. 

            Homosexual: (A homosexual could address himself / herself so by virtue of his / her sexual orientation or by virtue of his / her sexual behavior.) From a Christian standpoint, a person is a homosexual when he engages in homosexual behavior (practices homosexual acts). A person with heterosexual tendencies could also be a homosexual. In other words, a heterosexual person could have homosexual orientation to practice homosexuality.

            A person desiring to rob another person is not a thief. A person who physically robs another person is a thief. A person who desires to rob merely has the potency or the capacity to become a thief. Until he / she physically robs another person, this person cannot be termed as a thief. Just as how a thief is a thief only when he physically robs his victim, a homosexual is a homosexual only when he engages in homosexual behavior.

Why Can A Practicing Homosexual NOT Be A Christian?

            The Bible deems homosexuality as a sin. Hence Christians cannot practice homosexuality. A practicing gay person cannot be a Christian, for the simple reason that sins cannot be legitimized and a Christian cannot volitionally live a sinful life.  

            The Bible does not condemn homosexual orientation. But the Bible categorizes certain actions as sins. So they remain to be sins irrespective of any compulsions – sociological or biological or whatever. When Christians endorse homosexuality, they declassify homosexuality as a sin. This is a problem. Why?

            Certain actions (and thoughts too) have been classified as sins by God. Sins such as homosexuality or child sex cannot be declassified as sins by man. Fundamentally, sins are an assault on God (i.e. HIS commands). Hence God alone has the authority to declassify a sin. Since the Bible, which is the Word of God, does not declassify homosexuality as a sin, homosexual practice is a sin.

            If a gay person claims to be a Christian, he or she has taken the prerogative of declassifying homosexuality as a sin (by twisting the relevant verses in the Bible). Since man has no authority to declassify a sin; man’s declassification of homosexuality as a sin is moot. Therefore, Christians cannot practice homosexuality.

Can A Celibate Gay Be A Christian?

            A genuine Christian recognizes sins and keeps them in their proper place. Sins are a part and parcel of a Christian life in the sense that the Christian could be a victim of sporadic or constant temptation.  

            From the perspective of temptation, a Christian is oriented to sin when he is tempted. But when a Christian is tempted, he may or may not sin. (When the Christian sins, he confesses his sins to God and repents.) If a Christian does not sin, he is not a sinner per se. Hence, even if a Christian is oriented to sin, he is not a sinner unless he performs that sinful deed.

            A married woman may be sexually attracted to a man, who is not her husband. But if she controls her sexual attraction, by the grace of God, she remains sinless in this context. Similarly, Christians with homosexual orientation would remain sinless, if they control their sinful urge, by the grace of God, and do not indulge in sinful sexual practice with members of their own sex. So a person with homosexual orientation but not practicing homosexuality can surely be a Christian.

Orientation Need Not Translate Into Sins

            If a person was brutally deceived by his friend, he could be oriented to attack the deceiver (the attack need not necessarily be a physical attack). But the Bible mandates us to love our enemies. So even if we are oriented to deceive or injure the person who betrayed us, we are called to suppress that orientation by the grace of God so to not indulge in sin. Similarly homosexual orientation or the sexual attraction to members of same sex could be suppressed by the grace of God.

Could Christians Embrace Celibacy?

            Celibacy certainly has its place among Christians, “…Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, rather than two persons of the same sex. In Matthew 19:4–5, Jesus connects the phenomenon of marriage with the fact of our having been created male and female. Marriage is predicated on gender difference; it’s because we’re male and female that we have this thing called marriage. Jesus then goes on to show that the only godly alternative to marriage is singleness. When the disciples balk at the intended lifelong implications of marriage (v. 10), Jesus points them to the example of the eunuchs—the long-term singles of his day (vv. 11–12). If marriage is too much commitment, there’s the option of celibacy. Jesus gives no third alternative, whether cohabitation or some alternative construal of marriage.

            For marriage to be a parable of Christ and the church, it must be between like and unlike, male and female. Change this arrangement, and you end up distorting the spiritual reality to which it points. Alter marriage, and you end up distorting a picture of the gospel itself…So if this is the ultimate purpose of marriage, where does that leave singleness? Are those of us who are celibate wasting our sexuality by not giving expression to our sexual desires?

            It means singleness, like marriage, has a unique way of testifying to the gospel of grace. Jesus said there will be no marriage in the new creation. In that respect we’ll be like the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). We will have the reality; we will no longer need the signpost.

            By foregoing marriage now, singleness is a way of both anticipating this reality and testifying to its goodness. It’s a way of saying this future reality is so certain that we can live according to it now. If marriage shows us the shape of the gospel, singleness shows us its sufficiency. It’s a way of declaring to a world obsessed with sexual and romantic intimacy that these things are not ultimate, and that in Christ we possess what is.

            This doesn’t mean our sexual feelings are redundant, dangling unfulfilled like the equivalent of an appendix. The consummation our sexual feelings long for can (if we let them) point us to a greater consummation to come. They remind us that what we forego on a temporal plane now, we will enjoy in fullness in the new creation for eternity. Sexual unfulfillment itself becomes a means of deepening our sense of the fuller, deeper satisfaction we await in Jesus. It helps us to hunger more for him. We skip the appetizer, but we await the entrée.

            Celibacy isn’t a waste of our sexuality; it’s a wonderful way of fulfilling it. It’s allowing our sexual feelings to point us to the reality of the gospel. We will never ultimately make sense of what our sexuality is unless we know what it is for—to point us to God’s love for us in Christ.”¹

Dangers in Celibate Gay Christian Movement

            Celibate gay Christian movement, as the name suggests, is a growing movement of celibate gay and lesbian Christians, who teach gay people to use their same sex attraction to serve God. Hence, on this view, the celibate gay Christian movement purports the sinlessness of same sex attraction because of their celibacy.

            There are two innate dangers in the conceptualization of this movement:

            (1) Flawed Identity: The members of this group need not be identified as celibate gay Christians. Instead, they could identify themselves as celibate Christians, who struggle(d) with gay attraction.

            Christians are identified as the disciples of the Lord Jesus and the children of the living God. Identifying ourselves based on our sinful proclivities is unnecessary, for we are redeemed people.

            (2) Flawed Thought Process: If a Christian wife is sexually attracted to a man, who is not her husband, and if she does not control her sexual urge, she has sinned in her thoughts. The engagement of this sexual attraction, even in thought, is sinful. Hence, this sinful thought ought to be confessed to God and repented to gain HIS forgiveness and liberation from this sinful thought process.

            Similarly, Professor Denny Burk posits the sinfulness of same sex attraction (SSA), “The defining element of same-sex attraction is desire for a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Once that desire is removed, it is no longer SSA. It is just friendship. In that sense, same-sex attraction is not a means to better, more holy friendships. It is an impediment to them. When one feels himself desiring a sexual relationship with a person of the same-sex, the only appropriate response is repentance from sin (2 Tim. 2:22). It is not right or helpful to think of that sinful attraction as the foundation for building holy friendships. It is not.”²

            Just as how the Christian wife struggling with her sinful sexual attraction cannot legitimize her sin by claiming that she is hardwired to be sexually attracted to men, Christians struggling with same sex attraction cannot legitimize their sinful same sex attraction. Just as how a Christian with sinful thought process ought to repent and claim forgiveness, the celibate Christians struggling with same sex attraction ought to repent and claim forgiveness, so to continue living as normal people and not as gay people.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-celibacy-can-fulfill-your-sexuality

²http://www.christianity.com/christian-life/political-and-social-issues/celibate-gay-christians-is-that-biblical.html    

What’s Wrong If The Church Marries Gay Couples?

            Some Christian denominations marry same-sex couples whereas others do not [1]. Evidently, denominations endorsing same-sex marriages justify their stand through several methods; a common tactic is to misinterpret Scripture passages that condemn homosexuality.

            For instance, Genesis 2: 18-25 is misinterpreted. The word “helper” in this section is twisted to import an illicit understanding that Eve was a mere helper or companion to Adam. So anyone can choose anyone else as their helper or companion irrespective of their gender.

            Beware of “The Reformation Project” [2] – another recent deception of Satan masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11: 14-15). This deceptive venture is camouflaged as Bible-centered and Gospel-based to advocate endorsement of gay marriages from a Christian perspective, whereas in reality, they are far away from God and Bible.

            Many Christian denominations, being swayed by such false hypothesis, endorse same sex marriages at an alarming rate in the USA.

            However, certain Christian denominations refuse to endorse same-sex marriages. Pastors of these churches will either face arrests or pay exorbitant fines if they do not perform same-sex marriages. 

            Given this backdrop, a pertinent question is “What’s wrong if the church marries gay couples?”

            Bible unequivocally deems homosexual practice as sin. (Leviticus 18: 20-22, 20: 13; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-11 et al). So the teaching that same-sex marriages are biblical is a devious deception.

            Consider the misinterpretation of Genesis 2: 18-25. Deceptive teaching based on this passage conveniently conceals two most important facts:

            A. God intentionally created Eve as a female companion to the male Adam. (The chief function of marriage is procreation. The reproductive systems of male and female are created to complement each other for procreation.)

            B. Eve was created so that Adam and Eve would become “one flesh,” which denotes a lifelong marital union between the male Adam & the female Eve.

            Christ speaking from within the context of marriage appealed to Genesis 2: 24 to reinforce the teaching that heterosexual marriage is God’s only plan for marriage – “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            When God intended marriages solely between male and female, churches performing same-sex marriages disobey God consciously. No well-meaning Christian or Christian church would disobey God intentionally.

            The church obeys God by obeying God’s word – the Bible. God, through HIS word, revealed the sinfulness of homosexual practice. Hence genuine Christians and Christian churches would not marry same-sex couples.

            Disobedience to God is the primary problem when the church marries gay couples.

            Endorsement of sin is the other problem.

            The Bible mentions the sin of homosexuality together with sexual immorality, adultery, theft, drunkenness, etc (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). When churches marry same-sex couples, the sin of homosexuality is blessed.

            When churches bless a particular sin, what prevents them from blessing other sins? If churches marry homosexuals, by implication shouldn’t the church bless adultery, theft, drunkenness and all the other sins?

            Sin removes people from God. When churches bless homosexual marriages, the church removes itself from God’s presence and leads others away from God.

            The face of the church is its pastor. Pastors know that it is easier to preach than practice.

            When popular culture opposes Christ and Bible through its affirmation of homosexuality, pastors will have to either stand for or against Christ. Pastors standing for Christ will refuse to marry same-sex couples. Thus they will be under intense scrutiny and persecution.

            These are difficult times for pastors aspiring to obey Christ. The threat is genuine. Fear of shame, imprisonment, and joblessness will be intense. Pressure from their families could destabilize these pastors to accommodate the demands of contemporary culture over Christ.  

            The dialogue between the serpent and Eve in Genesis 3 would become an intense reality in the lives of these pastors. The plaguing doubt in them would be the serpent’s question to Eve, “did God really say…?”

            Did God really say that homosexuality is a sin?

            Variant questions prompted by Satan into the minds of these pastors would be: what if homosexuality is not a sin? What if my understanding - that homosexuality is a sin - is incorrect? Have I misunderstood the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality?

            To stand firm or to doubt God’s word is the first temptation that should be overcome by pastors.

            Crisis situations should not alter our understanding of God’s Word. Our understanding of God’s word during peaceful moments of our life cannot change during moments of crisis.

            If we change our theological position during crisis or due to popular demands of culture, then we allow crisis and/or culture to supersede God. We sin against God when we relegate HIM to a secondary position in our lives.

            There surely is no merit whatsoever to doubt our understanding of God’s word during calamity and due to cultural demands.

            The second temptation that ought to be overcome is whether to live for Christ or ourselves. When suffering and pain is an imminent prospect, the disciple of Christ could selfishly protect himself than face the wrath of the world.

            When our lives are committed to Christ, our lives are surrendered to HIS Lordship. Selfishness cannot exist if Christ is the Lord of our lives. When a disciple backslides into selfishness, Christ’s Lordship reduces or ceases. A selfish disciple of Christ commits to being politically and culturally correct by denying Christ.

            If a pastor protects himself by denying Christ, he rejects the Lord and HIS calling in his life. This is another spiritually dangerous situation for the pastor to be in, for he trusts himself more than Christ, which is effectively to not trust in the Lord.

            To live for Christ is to deny the world. To live for Christ is to deny our material comfort and security. To live for Christ is to love the Lord our God more than anyone or anything else.

            It’s easier said than done.

            Not everyone will inherit the kingdom of God. Those who are en route to inherit God’s kingdom should “set your minds on things above, not on earthly things” (Colossians 3: 2, NIV). Therefore, we ought to pray for those pastors who desire to stand firm with Christ.

            Mere prayers would not suffice. Our constant physical support and our encouraging presence ought to be with them during their trials. This is the need of the hour.

            The Bible categorically asserts that our allegiance to God cannot be compromised, “If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us” (2 Timothy 2: 11-12, NIV).

            May the Lord grant us the strength to live for HIM and HIM alone.

Endnotes:

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

&

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/

[2] For a profound refutation of the “The Reformation Project” please read:

http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/Aug%202015%20The%20Reformation%20the%20Church%20Doesn't%20Need%20Part%201-1.pdf

&

http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/Solid%20Ground%209-2015%20Reformation%20the%20Church%20Doesn't%20Need%20Pt.%202-1-1.pdf