« Links Mentioned on the 11/18/14 Show | Main | Hannah More: Guided by Christian Convictions »

November 19, 2014

Comments

"gay Christian"

A contradiction in terms. Al Mohler's wrote a terrific article (with a re-post of an earlier piece he had written) on this topic:

Sexual Orientation And The Gospel of Jesus Christ

But you don’t have to abandon Scripture’s moral position in order to maintain a loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay.

But Alan, you again are being "wishy-washy" on this topic. You haven't answered the question as to what constitutes a "loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay."

Bottom line, the Scriptures are clear that the first and foremost identifier of such a relationship is that you share the Gospel with them. And the true Gospel is that the homosexual, like every other unbeliever, is lost in his/her sin, has no hope if left to fend for themselves, and only believing on Christ can save them. And then, true belief in Christ will result in repentance from sin, including homosexual behavior and desires, and thence a life lived for Christ and not themselves.

An absence of this also constitutes "[abandoning] Scripture's moral position"!

Alan, disagreeing with you on how you interpret the Bible's various passages regarding sexuality doesn't mean anyone has "abandoned the authority of Scripture." Insisting that this is the case just alienates people from wanting to have a real conversation.

This isn't a gay versus straight issue. This is an issue of our actions. Sin, regardless of the form it takes is just that, sin.

If we regard sin as something that all of us have committed and will so continue to do then this discussion can be reduced to how we deal with sin.

Mark 2:15 NIV

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.

If we approach each other from the perspective of us all being sinners, all having fallen short of the glory of God, then we behave in a commensurate manner.

We can be consistent with scripture in treating sinners with love and compassion without glossing over or condoning the sin. Jesus did not become the Word made flesh for the righteous few.

The issue at hand is whether or not we have the ability to measure out which sins deserve our disdain and condemnation.

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

So while scripture affirms the appropriateness, and or inappropriateness of various behaviors it does not provide us with a mechanism for wrath or judgement.

We are called to love the sinners even is we despise the sin. Hence it is perfectly consistent to have friends that commit what we believe as sins that are unique and different to our own. In fact, we all do.

"Alan, disagreeing with you on how you interpret the Bible's various passages regarding sexuality doesn't mean anyone has 'abandoned the authority of Scripture.' Insisting that this is the case just alienates people from wanting to have a real conversation."

brgulker, if there was any ambiguity in these passages I think you'd have a good point. Since there is none, Alan's characterization seems spot on. Additionally, you don't have to search long to see a large percentage of folks on the "gay-affirming" side say things like, "well, Paul had his views but JESUS never said..." which doesn't exactly treat the Epistles (for instance) as truly "authoritative." Further, there also seems to be a strong correlation in "gay-affirmation" and "universalism." This should not be a surprise. Once you question the Bible's *authority* in one area it's much easier to do so in other areas.

The answer is clear.


God needs to be expelled from the church for having an unchristian attitude.

An excellent post. Thank you! Standing firm for the Holy Word of God in a world opposed is challenging and we need to remember Jesus has called us to follow Him well. Mercy without Truth, is no Truth at all.

I highly recommend Alan's booklet "Ambassador's Guide to Homosexuality". and "Is God Anti-Gay" by Sam Allberry.

They are accurate and balanced.

To love someone is not to encourage or affirm them in behavior or inclinations that are morally wrong and counter to biblical teachings. In the area of sexual ethics, this applies whether to adultery, fornication, masturbation or homosexuality. As seems to be more and more prevalent today, to mask love as wholesale tolerance and acceptance, regardless of the behavior and inclination, is not truly and faithfully loving.

Those who reject the moral wrongness of homosexuality - or adultery, fornication or masturbation - do so in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches and provides as a guide toward a life in Christ.

In all of the areas of sexual ethics, we must love the sinner by leading them to Christ, and ultimately to a life in Christ, not by encouraging or affirming their disordered and sinful behavior and inclinations. But, as the article says so well, we must always do so with love, correcting and guiding each other with the love of Christ, and leading others to Him, as our motivation.

The key question is: How can we condemn homosexual behavior in a way that doesn't amount to bullying or treating with contempt?

In your other post you mentioned inviting homosexuals to one's home and being friendly. It reminds me of Jesus dining with the tax-collectors.

That was nice and all, but how can we condemn homosexuality while still being nice?

Should we just say it? You might be eating a meal together and say, "Oh by the way, remember that homosexuality is a sin." And if people do some overt homosexual activity, you can tell them to stop. Is that enough of a condemnation?

Or do we need laws against homosexuals? Do we need to condemn homosexuals through the government too? Or would that be contemptuous bullying?

Hi “g”

I agree with you regarding the term “gay Christian.” I don’t use that term. Notice I said that Vines “calls himself a gay Christian.”

Regarding your other comment about me being “wishy-washy,” I pretty much agree with your comments that follow. In terms of explaining what it looks like to have a loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay, I gave an example in the link found in the same paragraph.

Hope that helps,
Alan

"but how can we condemn homosexuality while still being nice?"

I condemn my children's behavior regularly. My wife and I clearly convey that we completely disapprove of their acts of lying, cheating, or hurting others. Yet they know without a doubt that we love them.

I think it's easy because I have a close relationship with my kids. What about my kid's friends who come to the house and hurt others or steal? I think I have made it quite clear that we completely disapprove of those behaviors. But do they know we love them? Perhaps not, because we don't have a close relationship with them.

So I wonder if it's not much of an issue for those with whom we have established close relationships. The rub may come when we want to walk around our church or town or internet and condemn those with whom we have made little or no effort to establish a relationship. Then the "I love you" message is much harder to convey, hear, or even really mean.

@Alan: Thanks for another good post. @Brian and @John: The kid analogy, while always appreciated doesn't seem to track in this instance. You have authority over your kids and their behavior. You are actually expected to condemn their bad behavior. However, you don't get such authority with full grown adults. Indeed a person's sexual choices are their choices alone, so perhaps starting with "how to condemn a behavior" is not the key question? Maybe the key question is: "How can I express love to my neighbor?" or "Why am I letting my neighbor's sin keep me from loving them?" If you're loving them in such a way that begs the question "why" or "how" the question will be asked and you'll have the Gospel as an answer. If you help a person grow in the Gospel, the Holy Spirit can do the condemning.

We need to be careful about the "gay Christian" label. Due to what I think is largely a generational gap, a lot of us are using this and similar labels to simply mean "Christian who experiences same-sex attraction." When discussing why this conversation is particularly relevant to our lives, we need to use words. I find that "gay" has less baggage than phrases like "same-sex attraction" in most cases when I'm talking to someone who isn't staunchly conservative on sexuality. Refusing to use labels like "gay Christian" is just a way to needlessly alienate people, and that kind of label is not really that different than other adjectives people use when relevant.

I disagree with Matthew Vines about theology, but I don't think the label is really the issue. Making it the issue is needlessly bringing in extra-biblical ideas that distract from the real questions at hand.

This post is follows every other attacking article based on the underlying belief that the Bible is not to be questioned, it is inerrant, and doubt is bad. To say there is not ambiguity in scripture is ridiculous, especially regarding this topic. Please educate your readers with true scholarship and not face value scripture reading. There is tremendous debate about the original Hebrew and Greek words that translate as homosexuals. And sexual identity is a complicated subject that can't simply be reduced to a "sin" like lying. The Bible is a wonderful collection of testimony written men trying convey their experience in their own time. Please don't pluck some verse out and say "this is what the church is facing today." It's poor interpretation and lazy application.

"Regarding your other comment about me being “wishy-washy,” I pretty much agree with your comments that follow. In terms of explaining what it looks like to have a loving relationship with someone who identifies as gay, I gave an example in the link found in the same paragraph."

I've read that article previously, and found it to be along the same vein. In the article, you say, "But truth and compassion is about Christians balancing their convictions with a love towards homosexual men and women. It doesn’t mean compromise, although it might not be easy to practice either."

You then go on to cite an example of two parents who provide a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration, I assume as an example of "balancing their convictions with a love". You sum this stance up by writing, "Frankly, it was refreshing to hear how this couple is living a healthy balance between truth and compassion. They are uncompromising on their moral stance and relentless in their love for their daughter and this community."

Am I to assume then that they routinely and consistently and repeatedly share the Gospel, call their homosexual friends to repentance of their sin and to belief in Christ? That, frankly, is the only possible course of action that could even possibly constitute "love and compassion".

See, truth and compassion is not about "balancing their convictions with a love towards homosexual men and women." The most loving thing a person can do to demonstrate Godly love toward a homosexual is to share the unvarnished Gospel! And if we can't grasp that, let's consider that's exactly what Christ did, "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He did so all the while we were despising Him and hating Him for what He was doing and were kicking and screaming against the Gospel He proclaimed. If He had taken the stance of your "truth and compassion", and thought, "Well, I better not risk offending them", then we would have no atonement for sins and no hope before a holy God.

The point being, you talk and write a lot about morals and compassion when you engage in this topic, but very rarely do you have much Gospel content. We live in a culture where Christians are becoming so self-deprecating in our quest to not offend sinners that we risk losing the Biblical mandate of repentance of sins in our so-called "gospel". The true Gospel is more than the mere nicety of a lovely Thanksgiving dinner; it's a call to a belief in Christ that results in a life of repentance.

I'll highlight once more Al Mohler's article in the top post as the best Biblical view on this subject.

I agree with you "g", thanks for your input...what do you make of this scripture? Does it apply to your stance with Alan?

"1Co 5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

1Co 5:10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

1Co 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

1Co 5:13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Oh, and by the way, we can all move along...there's nothing to see here, Matthew has put an end to this nonsense.

"Please don't pluck some verse out and say "this is what the church is facing today." It's poor interpretation and lazy application."

I suggest you at STR cut out the laziness, its getting the natives all riled up.

>> In your other post you mentioned inviting homosexuals to one's home and being friendly. It reminds me of Jesus dining with the tax-collectors.

That was nice and all, but how can we condemn homosexuality while still being nice?

The thought lacks one point, the goal of Jesus' eating with tax-collectors and "sinners." In dealing with Matthew's banquet for Jesus, the disciple was using this vehicle for two purposes, 1) to announce his cessation of his role as a Roman publicani, and 2) to introduce to his friends (the social outcasts who wedded themselves to the Roman culture more than Judaism) to Jesus, whose offer of Gospel granted them the issues of repentance and forgiveness denied them by the official religious organization.

So the thought of Jesus' association with these types is better thought of as commiseration rather than acceptance. He was the Good Shepherd in search of the lost sheep, those who stray from the flock. It leads me to ask, "If Jesus ate today with LGBT's, what would He have said to them?"

I only know that Matthew left his lifestyle behind after the dinner.

I only know that in Matthew Vine's gay-theology, there is a lightness in dealing with sin, an appeal to the speck and beam of Matt. 7: 3-5. This is the duty of the hetero, but Vine's insistence that we focus on our sin, when will Vine address his?

I only know that in following Jesus, there is cost, there is loss. The rich young ruler (Mk. 10: 17ff) was asked to forsake wealth, much as the tax-collector Matthew. Paul tossed aside a career as a rising star in the Sanhedrin to follow Christ. What in today's culture and lifestyle is worth scrapping?

I agree with you "g", thanks for your input...what do you make of this scripture? Does it apply to your stance with Alan?

No, 1 Cor. 5 doesn't apply directly, meaning, that passage deals with those who are part of a church congregation and are living an unrepentant lifestyle that is incompatible with a life changed by the Gospel.

More applicable would be passages such as Ezek 3:17-21:

Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.

While it would take much more space than we have here to properly exegete this passage, we can see a clear command to warn others of their sin, both the righteous AND the wicked, and the responsibility incurred by the "watchman" should he/she fail to do so. The fact that some offense might be taken at such a warning isn't the fault of the "watchman"; in fact, to shy away from that responsibility under the auspices of "love" or "compassion" actually incurs condemnation upon the "watchman"!

It seems to me that this runs contrary to the OP here as well as the linked article mentioned...

As a side note, whether it's intended or not in this case, (and I suspect it's not intended), but often the result of this issue is to end up diminishing the sin of homosexuality by "reducing" it to something "just like other sins".

In fact, the opposite should happen. This should increase our repugnance and abhorrence of sin. And homosexuality is among the grossest of sins in the Bible: "grossest" in terms of the disgusting-ness of the behavior, and more importantly, "grossest" in terms of the gravity of the sin against God.

When we realize that, one side effect should be if we are going to say something like "well, all sin is bad, not just homosexuality" (which I agree with), we should then view other sins with more repugnance, instead of viewing homosexuality with less repugnance.

Neither Jesus not does the Bible teach us to be nice. So throw that particular word out of the conversation. I have a family member whom I love dearly, that is gay and they will always be lived and cared for deeply by me and this family. The issue seems to lie in much very real controversy.

When any gay person expects or demands that they are correct and refuses to accept the simple truth of scripture, they are in error. We live in times where good is being called evil and evil is being called good. Loving gay people is not the issue, condoning their lifestyle as a gay person is not the issue.

Being obedient to God, living according to His word and holding scripture to be the truth are the issue. No amount of compromise regarding any sin is acceptable to God, period. Our challenge is to live the truth of the gospel not reform it. No reformation of the word is necessary.

@Matthew, 11/19 8:29PM:

"There is tremendous debate about the original Hebrew and Greek words that translate as homosexuals." Is this debate primarily founded in exegesis, reading meaning out of the text, or in eisegesis, reading meaning into the text?

"The Bible is a wonderful collection of testimony written (by?) men trying convey their experience in their own time." At the center of the biblical text, and its ultimate meaning for mankind, is the transcendent truth of God, not ". . . convey[ing] their experiences in their own time."

Much modern biblical scholarship is an attempt to read current experiences, desires, and needs into the text, eisegesis, not to read the meaning of the text out of the text, exegesis.

The past should be our guide as we deal with our current experiences in OUR own time.

As a heterosexual I'm naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'm not allowed to move beyond the line God has drawn for me not to cross. Why is it any different for Gays? There is a line they also do not cross. The only difference is that allowances like dating and marriage exist behind the line for heteros whereas those practices are off limits to gays. But if we put Christ first, we never cross the lines, either for straights or gays, or make concessions for them.

I personally believe much of the pedophile priest problem comes from gays who try in their own strength not to cross the line and choose celibacy in good faith, but collapse under the pressures, from having their faith rooted in the Church rather than in Christ.

dave, it is not a "pedophile priest problem," the sexual abuse in the Church has been predominately ephebophilia, or more accurately hebephilia, an attraction toward post-pubescent children, in this instance predominately teenage boys.

According to the John Jay study, 83% of the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2000 involved male sexual abuser and male sexual abuse victim. The median age of the abuse victim was 14/15. The sexual abuse, therefore, is not accurately characterized as a "pedophile priest problem."

I would also add that the line that God has drawn for us not to cross involves the clear distinction between (1) male-female and (2) male-male or female-female sexual relations.

As a Catholic, I do take a bit of offense (not that much, actually) that you would characterize the fallen nature of the 1 to 2% of Catholic priests who have committed abuse as based on "having their faith rooted in the Church rather than in Christ." No doubt, their failure to follow Christ is evident; the reason for this failure, however, I believe, is Man's inclination to sin, which priests, and Popes for that matter, share with us all. This sinful nature is also true in other religious denominations and traditions, which have similar abuse rates among their clergy.

To Matthew:

Your entire post was utter nonsense. A) No one here reads the Bible in a non-questioning way here, quite the opposite. Shows you haven't engaged with utterly anything here or listened to any STR podcast B) There isn't debate among scholars about the meaning of homosexual that is meaningful. For the most part, there is a broad consensus about what the meaning of those passages is. Just pick up any translation and you will find that they agree for the most part. C) Scripture is 100 percent unambiguous on this topic and the only way to say otherwise is to twist scripture in impossible ways. If you would like to challenge us here on that one we will show you that you are dead wrong and I will gladly do so as I read Hebrew and Greek and have read on several journal articles on these subjects. "Please don't pick some verse out..." he can gladly make that comparison since the verse from Timothy is exactly what as happening today. It is exactly parallel as in the first century and is hardly lazy application since it's the same sort of situation. Everything you wrote is all twisted and upside down.

@ TomD;

Please excuse my carelessness in terms. Lets' say the "ephebophilia, or more accurately hebephilia" problem in the Catholic Church, and occurrences in other denominations, stem from a weakness from having a misplaced faith. In the Catholic Church faith is placed in the dictates and rituals of the church instead of Christ who alone can conquer our depravity, as well as in Evangelicalism and any other sect that shifts faith from Christ alone to the meeting of a conditions (including decisions to believe) for salvation.

It takes far more than will power, which is all that's left, if it is our "will" that ultimately saves us.

What I find interesting is the claim by the gay-theology folks that they are trying to reform Christianity the way Luther did.

In Luther's day the Church was working under the load of centuries of syncretism with the paganism that existed before Christianity came and that continued to have influences.

Many of the excesses, though not all, that Luther decried was the result of this syncretism.

The siren call of syncretism is that you will somehow lure people into the arms of Christ by making Christianity look just a little bit like their false god. What really happens is that you don't actually convert any non-Christians, you have a lot of lost souls walking around calling themselves Christians and you confuse and bewilder those that were already Christian before you painted the idol so that it looked like Christ.

But pro-gay theologians are not decrying syncretism. They are syncretists.

Pro-gay theologians probably will succeed (for now) in getting most groups styling themselves as Christian churches to twist Scripture. And it won't stop with that. Virtually all sexual sin will, ultimately, be viewed as a bad interpretation of Scripture. We seem to be bound and determined to construct our shrine to Aphrodite against the walls of the Temple and call it church when we bow down to her.

This will not result in gay people or other sexual sinners repenting and turning to Christ. Quite the opposite in fact, it will make it virtually impossible for them to repent, since they won't even know that they are sinning.

God will have to raise up another reformation to undo the damage they are doing.

And, another article sort of related to this topic posted by John MacArthur today:

Persecution and Boldness

While it deals with a different context of persecution, these two paragraphs at least still apply to this post:

In the face of severe persecution, Peter didn’t soften or tamp down the truth of the gospel. He remained bold and direct, in spite of the consequences. Why? Because for the gospel to take hold in a person’s life, sin must be exposed and confronted.

Some people will tell you that softening the harsh edges of the gospel—and particularly the truth about sin and hell—is a good way to make the truth more acceptable to the world. That it would make Christians less off-putting and more relatable if we just “love on people” instead of being so confrontational. But that approach only shows the world that we’re willing to compromise, and that the gospel isn’t so exclusive after all.

Pro-gay theologians probably will succeed (for now) in getting most groups styling themselves as Christian churches to twist Scripture. And it won't stop with that. Virtually all sexual sin will, ultimately, be viewed as a bad interpretation of Scripture. We seem to be bound and determined to construct our shrine to Aphrodite against the walls of the Temple and call it church when we bow down to her.

Hmmm...makes me rethink my dis-association to Brad B.'s question about 1 Cor. 5...the first thought that popped into my mind when I read WL's quote above was "Welcome to 1st century Corinth!"

@dave, 11/21/2014 3:47AM

"In the Catholic Church faith is placed in the dictates and rituals of the church instead of Christ . . ."

Without wanting to go to far astray from the topic at hand, or wishing to perpetuate an on-going discussion of the "wrongness" of Catholicism, this is, with all due respect, a generalization and characterization of Catholics that is both inaccurate in its scope and misleading in its conclusion.

We must find ways for orthodox believers in Christ to find, and to act on, common ground against the rampant secularism that surrounds us . . . and not perpetuate stereotypes among ourselves. This applies to both Catholics and Evangelicals. If we do not do this, the unity of the secular movement will, in this world, overwhelm the lack of unity in Christ.

Re: TomD;

"orthodox believers"? There is such a thing apart from the Roman Catholic Church?

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

@dave:

Yes, I, along with many orthodox Catholics, am willing to contend, no matter what has been said or written in the past, that there are orthodox believers within the broad Christian family. Dave, we must find a way to move forward, rather than contend about the past and reflexively move from one point of contention to another. As we cite, for instance, what happened in 1215, or any action from the past, the secular culture is overtaking us in the present day.

Here is an example of the way forward:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/05/evangelicals--catholics-together-the-christian-mission-in-the-third-millennium-2

@ TomD;

Unity? But what if the Papacy is the Antichrist as the Reformers and many who paid with their lives at the stake affirmed?

Yes, I, along with many orthodox Catholics, am willing to contend, no matter what has been said or written in the past, that there are orthodox believers within the broad Christian family.
Thanks for the consideration, but on your own view of church, why should your view or that of any other Roman Catholic individuals count for a hill of beans? All that matters is what the Church Hierarchy thinks. Isn't it?

I mean, if you were Protestant, that would be different. Right? But you aren't.

Thank you for the clarity and forthrightness of your words concerning this present day assault upon the Word of God. If you have a few moments, I entreat you to visit my new Apologetics site in which I am directly refuting the video Mr Vines is circulating: "God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" I have a son who is gay and has been influenced by this video, and I have been approaching him with love and compassion while proving THAT Mr. Vines is wrong so that I can prove WHY he is wrong. If we have the mind of Christ, we can welcome LGBT people into our hearts and churches to emphasize not so much the threat of Hell but the promise of Salvation. My site is:

https://batheinthelight.wordpress.com/

Thank you for your time and patience, and for sharing the truth of God's word in a way that can be easily understood!

I think people need to realize that we need a solid foundation for our belief in order to do something correctly. Any foundation that we use, will determine who we are and what really matter for us. As Christian, I believe that God's word is the most valuable source to looking for the truth and foundation of our action. Again, as Christian we should define term LOVE and JUDGEMENT. Jesus teaching us that to love God and loving other are the highest law in which other law hang on to. But do we really want to say that we love others when we see them destroying their own life? if people called gay or lesbian as new lifestyle that everyone has right to choose, let me ask why do you even call this as life style when you know that gay sexuality brings many destructive things, either physically or our nature as God's creation. Talk about judgement, yes indeed no one in the earth has any right to judge people either they will go into hell or heaven. That is God's decision. But can I say that I want to warn people from bad thing, not because I am better than them, but because I know that what they are doing is wrong, destructive and killing themselves. Can I also call that as my expression to love others? GBU

So many people assume that they are doing something right by protecting someone's right to be homosexual. But is it really a right thing to do? Same-sex marriage even was still a taboo thing for our society before 20th century. It started to getting more popular since 1990s. If our society (which based on secular code value) thinks that it is not a right thing to do, how about our Bible? Since in Old testament, in Leviticus, a man who lies with another male will be put on death because it is an abomination in the eyes of God. Even we talk about this any further, we will find out that homosexuality is one of the main activity in Sodom and Gomora. And we all know what happen to Sodom. So, again, if we talk about protecting someone's right, let me ask you whats our right to questioning God's standard? do you really love someone if you give them a confirmation to do something that against God's will? That is not a "loving-others" action that God wants from us. In fact, we have to realize that it is a sexual dissorder, a valid proof that we are depraved as God's creation because of sin. And we, as Christian, have to help others to get out from homosexuality circle, cope their struggle and overcome their past.

The comments to this entry are closed.