SAME-SEX ATTRACTION IS NOT JUST SAME-SEX ATTRACTON
SAME-SEX ATTRACTION IS NOT JUST SAME-SEX ATTRACTON
The mere mention of “Same-sex-attraction” drives us to to the topic of homosexuality. What if their same-sex attraction is involuntary? “Same-sex attraction” is one who longs for a ROMANTIC relationship with the same sex. It is not as simplistic as a guy noticing another guy walking along his path and thinks or experiences a simple admiration for him or that he is attractive. It is not simply a twinkle in someone’s eye or the flutter of one’s heart for the same-sex. It is a full-blown longing to enter a relationship with that same sex person. It is a homosexual mind set. It is not involuntary. No part of it is. It is intentional. I cannot imagine that pursuing and longing for a romantic same-sex relationship is involuntary. Additionally, there is a myth that same-sex marriage and romantic relationships are monogamous. Same-sex attraction is not the mindset of a cherub. It is not the pursuit of just one single relationship. No homosexual stays “faithful” to their partner; they continue to be on the prowl. Everyone knows this. It is not an innocent, naïve lifestyle as so cloaked. An average single homosexual male can have upwards of 300 sexual encounters annually. It is a way of life, not an involuntary impulse.
CIRCLES, SOURCES, RESOURCES AND TERMINOLOGY
I am now drawn back to my views on the matter upon which I became satisfied from my research some years ago. The conjecture that same-sex attraction is involuntary is what I believe to be a postulate that is extremely popular these days and a relatively recycled phenomenon. When I read various Christian authors and contributors, I see that they all source one another for their authority on the subject. It seems to me that there is a lot of confirmation bias.
No one can know everything about everything. We do rely on other people and trust them to supply solid answers to issues that we have not been able to conquer ourselves. We tend to learn broadly and then ascend to a pinnacle of pea size expertise. I suspect that this could be the case with this same-sex attraction issue. Some biblical counselors and pastors have ascended and contribute their expertise to those of us who pinnacled in another realm.
Some have dabbled on the topic more than others and have gained a following. They have become the “go-to people” for the answers and in some cases their contributions have seemed successful; or, at least in a myopic sense. It has become too easy to just source one’s confirmation bias since all one really wants is a way to handle and contain an issue that is uncontainable. There is some satisfaction to getting an answer, “now”; especially, if everyone agrees. There is a pressure to agree.
One seeks and finds the most popular answers that seem to work best in our circle and pass it along. After all, who has the time to go but so deep into solutions to cultural issues that never stand still? We are compelled to grab the best answers to problems from within our circle…trusting that our circle has done their homework in their expertise. Who can be blamed for doing that? I do the same. We endear watchmen.
One snag with confining ourselves to “in house” popular sourced opinions is that it is myopic and too often confirms our own bias’. It can be a popular “cradle to grave” solution, and not always be a biblical “cradle to cradle”, generational remedy. That seems to be what happens when university knowledge makes it to the streets for expedient relief.
My other problem is the terms or labels that are derived for levels of sinful patterns in people. The label, “same-sex attraction” is weak and misleading. It is just an echo of the world. Actually, the term, “PROHIBITED ATTRACTION” would be more suitable and biblical for this behavior and much more solution based when helping people to be overcomers. This term is applicable to ANY desire that is prohibited. It broadcasts right away that something is wrong, and something must be done about it. It settles the foggy issue with sin and really offers more hope. We can lead them into identifying this attraction as prohibited. When they agree, as they should, then we lead them to victory from sinful passions. Often, victory from sin depends on just how far one wants to be delivered from their passions. Or do they just want to be delivered from the consequences of their passions? After all, it’s more than just an attraction for the same sex.
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY
One may ask about same-sex attraction/prohibited attraction as though it was a proven fact that it is involuntary. What is involuntary about it? This is a real can of worms to me. Not everyone goes along with this “involuntary” position. I believe it does in only some circles in which one feels comfortable. It’s an easy answer to give to someone who is in the throes of whatever level of homosexuality they are entrapped.
Maybe it makes them feel better and not so threatened by some religious, obnoxious ranting traditionalists that won’t turn them off to what help they may receive from a counselor. It could be a much friendlier posture. Perhaps - or not.
Maybe it will make it under the radar in some countries like Canada or even in states like California where “deprogramming homosexuals” is illegal and “reprogramming” heterosexuals is compelled. But eventually, the truth must be told.
Please, apply that same “involuntary” standard to any and every “sin”. Or would one say that if it is involuntary then it is not sinful? If one can say that embracing sin can be involuntary then I can probably procure relief for a lot of people in the pangs of guilt about any sin they suffer. Applying the same rule to other sins is only fair. Why can’t we just re-brand it for what it really is, “Prohibited attraction” and there would be no doubt as to its nature?
When I was a cop many years ago, I would arrest people for various crimes. Some were crimes for fighting, domestic abuse, burglary, murder, rape, to name a few. Many of the suspects were intoxicated. When they stood before the judge, they would tell him that they committed the more heinous crime because they were drunk.
The judge would immediately respond, “Voluntary intoxication is no excuse for breaking the law.” They tried to say that they were not guilty of the crime they had committed because they were drunk prior to the event.
Of course, there was no excuse. If all this is involuntary, as pertains to the “same-sex” tempted individual, what possible voluntary behavior(s) could have predisposed the one to be attracted to that which is prohibited?
Regarding same-sex behavior, I don’t think that a non-Christian cares one way or the other as to the state of their soul…unless they are under God’s conviction. Else, they just seek to live a life with fewer negative consequences from their choices. If they are under God’s conviction, and they seek Christian help, then whether “voluntary or involuntary”, they are under conviction.
It is sin to them. Just the fact that they would be concerned that they have same-sex attraction means it is voluntary and questionable behavior to them; otherwise, we wouldn’t know about it. Why would Christian counselors try to convince or rather, “un-convince” them that what they think is sin is not sin. That’s kooky isn’t it? The only way one knows if someone “suffers” same-sex attraction is when they are under God’s conviction and seek counsel for it. And when they seek counsel for it, they are encouraged to disregard their conviction that it is sinful. Are those under conviction for same-sex attraction legalists that need to be set free?
My preference is to proceed with the conviction that same-sex attraction is sinful and voluntary. It is prohibited. I just cannot sign on to the position that it is “factually” involuntary; thus, not sin.
In honesty, can I apply that same standard to myself if I saw another woman who is not my wife and desired to have a romantic relationship with her? Can I justify this desire as involuntary? Can I flirt with her and lead her on involuntarily? Can I covet my neighbor’s wife involuntarily and not be in an immoral state of mind? However, I can imagine a semi-involuntary thought if I notice she is just one of the prettier creations of God’s handiwork and give glory to God, it is not sinful. Yet, it is best to even avoid that coalescence.
As Paul Washer would state, the old saying, “One can prevent a bird from building a nest in his hair, but cannot stop the bird from flying over his head”, is NONSENSE.
If I had voluntarily toyed in my thought life previously to my attraction for any woman not my wife, just as one who is same-sex attracted, then I have propped myself up to have voluntarily failed before I was ever tempted. I have voluntarily built a resource of prohibited thought life that will inevitably lead to prohibited behavior. Both are sinful. An adulterous heart is adulterous all the time, not just during the physical act of adultery. An adulterous heart is always on the prowl for the next act. The same with a lustful heart under the urges of prohibited attractions, it is always on the prowl to execute a prohibited act.
The only way to win the fight of sighting and desiring prohibited attraction is to tame the horse before it leaves the barn. One wins the battle of prohibited attraction before it occurs by a greater passion and attraction for Christ. And to make mention of the obvious, the Fear of God assuages a thousand stray thoughts.
SPECIAL SINS
When I research inside this popular circle, most sermons I hear and writings I read on the topic of homosexuality spends great effort in pressing the listener to embrace the thought that every sin is the same, and that homosexuality is no greater than the sin of anger or eating too much, gossiping or lying. If that is the case, then we must not treat homosexuality as though it were a special class sin. Some popular pastors have mentioned that God only whispers about homosexuality and shouts about covetousness and sins of that kind.
BUT we do treat it as though it is a special class sin by creating special accommodations for it by not counting one responsible for their various levels of participation in it. We tell them that it’s okay to desire a romantic same-sex relationship, but don’t act on it. Do we tell the same thing to those who covet? Do we tell them it is not sinful to covet but just don’t act on it? Do we teach them that coveting something that God has not given them or something that God has prohibited is involuntary and not sinful? Coveting is a behavior. Coveting a same-sex relationship is a behavior.
The only thing “involuntary” about sin is that we were conceived in it. The rest is in my purview of responsibility. Can I be angry at someone and “involuntarily” punch him in the nose? Or will I bear the guilt of being pugnacious? And lesser, if I allow wrath, anger, clamor, slander and bitterness to take a foot hold in my heart, it will sooner or later lead to a regretful act. Maybe hatred in my heart will not end in fist fighting but it will exist in a demonstration of hostility instead of love. Which is easier to control, the behavioral act or the heart that leads to the act? I think it’s easier to constrain behavior than to kill the desire for it. Ask any Pharisee.
That, I believe, may be why we show mercy to the desire of prohibited attraction than to the actual behavior. We can measure the act, but we can’t the deceitful heart.
We say the desire is not sinful, but the behavior is sinful. It’s hard to gain victory over the heart’s desires so we overlook it to gain a measurable amount of behavioral restraint when in fact the individual is dying inside. What should be dying is the sin in the heart, not the sinner.
We may well be condoning those with homosexual desires to be righteous Pharisees. But in the end, the limit of desire will cross the threshold into behavioral action. It is already a behavior of the mind.
Why can’t anyone in some depth of sinful mental enslavement be free at some level of responsibility just as the same sex attracted individual seeking a romantic relationship with their same sex? We are not treating all sins equally.
1 Thess 4.3
For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;
(doesn’t this verse include desires? Or is there an exception for the desire and/or pursuit of same-sex romance?)
I worry that the new base line is that same-sex attraction or those seeking a romantic relationship with the same sex is not counted as immoral. If there is a biblical standard that we are neglecting, then we are creating a new standard.
I remember the days when objective valid case studies would yield substantive evidence for a proposition. Whether the studies were in a laboratory, a clinic, university, or psychological group analysis and evaluations, evidence would be gathered, and a conclusion would be documented and presented. They would also be published and objectively reviewed by peers.
When Obama spearheaded the nation to accept same-sex marriage and the supreme court finally ruled against state laws preventing same sex marriage, I began to gather information on any objective studies that would link homosexuality to genetic origins. If people were “born this way”, then “Why can’t we marry the one we love?”. I would have to concede that there was an element of “involuntary” behavior of homosexuals or same-sex persons seeking romantic involvement with their sex. The feeling of love is concrete proof to the world that one was actually drawn to an involuntary romantic same-sex relationship.
During the Obama era, I studied many cases and journals and produced my findings on several of them, some from 5 years ago and some back to 30 years ago.
I can push you some of my power point presentations I derived from my research if you ever get the hankering, but it’s tedious stuff:
1. Genetic Patterns of DNA: Findings at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore
2. Genetics of Homosexuality with findings from three prominent studies: Simon Levay’s study on the brain, Twins study by Bailey and Pilliard, and Dean Hamers study on the XY Chromosomes
3. What is Epigenetics?
Certainly, I can’t expect you to take the time to sift through it all or any of it at all. My research has satisfied my own questions as to whether or not same-sex behavior is voluntary-consequential to our behavior, or involuntary-determined at conception.
In no way did I find any evidence that there was a “gay gene” or proof that mankind could be born with a genetic DNA into a special community or race of a homosexual people group. I did not find any proof that homosexuality, thought or behavior, was “involuntary”.
DECLARATIONS
This leads me to make a statement as to a trend I have observed in the way we deal with declarations, particularly with those who say that a special sin is not their choice.
I suppose much of what I’ve observed bleeds in from a post-modern, and now, post-truth mindset. There was a time when we used data and research to prove things.
And these things were duplicative and supported in broad circles of observers – verifying and validating the outcome of research. There was no peer-to-peer agreement in the “gay gene” studies I had completed. Every study attempting to prove involuntary behavior was refuted by their own peers in science.
Eventually, society has digressed to proving the existence of something, not by empirical data, but by personal experience. We treat what someone says and feels with the same validity as what another has objectively proven.
Now, feelings, emotions and personal experience are the same as facts based on data. All one needs is to make a declarative statement and it is true. Well, one can even compose a song and it becomes fact…such as Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way”
(Note: Her song is the only absolute, universal source that I have found to which one may turn for pure theological documentation for birthright homosexuality, gender dysphoria, same-sex behavior, or transsexual development. See the authorized version of Lady Gaga’s musical thesis, “Born This Way” at the end of this paper for lyrics)
For instance, in a book titled, Mere Sexuality, by Todd Wilson, the author quotes an individual declaring that they knew they were born in the wrong body or at least were “gay” when they were two years old. The male simply made a statement that he identified as a female or homosexual and new it from the age of two years old. The author conceded as though it was fact. Afterall, how can someone refute the supreme experience of another?
Also, the author recounts a member in his congregation who is in his early sixties says he wakes up every morning wishing he were a woman. He has had these desires most of his life starting when he was just five years old. The author on the previous page of his book stated that we need to cast a vision for mere sexuality to reverse the downward slide of evangelical Christianity into a neo-pagan sexuality.
He states that we need to speak convincingly into our contemporary culture. Yet, he refers to this man as a “lovely” gentleman, a godly man. (p135-36) How is it that the author can accept what seems to be a polar position to his own? On the one hand, he wants to prevent pagan sexuality, on the other hand, identifies a man in his congregation who has wished all his life to be a woman and yet refers to him as a lovely, godly man.
How can this author/pastor refer to someone as a lovely, godly man who allows their prohibited inner psychological desires to rule their entire life to the extent that they claim an inauthentic existence? Paraphrasing Carl Trueman, the author is condoning a world of metaphysical assumptions that grants inner convictions over biological reality.The author, doing what he is trying to prevent, promotes neo-pagan sexuality. The answer to this question is found in the framework of ones trusted biased circle, not in universal absolute truth.
This method of argument and the argument itself is predominating society now. Some Christian leaders have embraced it. This argument is mainstream. It has been around for a long time and is not only used in sexual orientation, but in race, status, and community.
If someone claims they have involuntary same-sex attraction, then how can someone say it’s not true? It is now fact. This pervasive supposition has its origins from the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (Eph 2.1-2).
I disagree with this method of declaration. I simply will not accept that someone can reach back in their memory when they were two-years-old and know then they were born in the wrong sexed body. I refuse to accept any reality that says a man can reach back in their mind to an age of 5 years old and establish – back then – that he was supposed to be a woman. There. I have made a personal declarative statement and now it cannot be refuted! Everyone else is now wrong.
There is another point I’d like to include in resisting the popular authority of personal declarations. My position is that there is not a “First Time Realization” that one claims to have awareness of their same-sex attraction. There is only a “First Time Resolve” to yield to their same-sex attraction. They have resisted same-sex attraction due to a normal, God-given conscience, and have finally resolved to stop resisting it. They are confused about the issue of “Firsts”. There is no event that one all of a sudden becomes aware that they are not what they were born to be, as though the dawn strikes the horizon, rather it is a long process of losing one’s resolve to resist what is wrong and falling to the lust of the flesh.
I will confess that in all that is depraved, we live in a society that trains their consciences in wickedness – not Truth. There are parents and guardians who wish to change the “sex” of their children at very early ages. We even have a president now who believes that an 8-year-old child can change the outer sex/gender from their birth sex to what gender they truly are inside. This ungodly age in which we live probably prevents a wholesome progress of good conscience; thus, those who resolve to resist their good consciences are less and less. (2 Pet 2.4-16)
And, I have done my study and there is no objective evidence that anyone is born in the wrong body. Sure, in some very rare cases, there are intersexed persons that have chromosomal disparities and bodies born with a mixed matched set of sexual genitals or organs of the opposite sex. These are an anomaly due to genetic breakdowns from a fallen world, and they are predominately one sex, but that is what medical help is for. They are still binary. Medical help is not for “changing” sex organs and introducing HRT to those who believe they were born in the wrong sexed body.
These are false narratives: “I was born this way”, “I knew I was born in the wrong body when I was two years old”, “I knew there was something wrong with me as far back as I can remember”, “I am a woman in a man’s body”, “I am a man in a woman’s body”, “I am resisting these cultural restrictions that society has placed upon me”, “I must be authentic and true to myself”, or in an apologetic sense, “When did you choose to be heterosexual?”, etc., etc.
What is really at hand with these declarative statements is a type of clef note apologetic dispensed to lost, eager minds that reject universal absolute truth. There is a litany of mantras that work in most venues. They are simply stock answers.
It is a prescript directly from the library of the prince of the power of the air. It works well for people who need an excuse to imbibe in autonomy. It is from a worldly reservoir of fictitious clichés provided to an eager audience to accept and propagate homosexuality.
There are solid, iconic homosexual figures that contribute these bullet statements to entrap uncertain hearts that are fighting against prohibited attractions. At the same time, some Christian leaders are unwittingly (and that’s being kind) doing the same thing by using “world-speak” instead of biblical terminology and not providing greater daylight for those entrapped.
Christian leaders ought to stop borrowing from a corrupt data base of clichés that enable coping mechanisms for homosexuals. Stop echoing the world.
We’ve seen similar pursuits of methodology in other areas of opinion. For instance, since the previous centuries, the evolutionists have sought to find raw data and physical evidence on earth that we evolved from lower forms of life, or from nothing. They have not been able to find it and to disprove that we have accountability to a Creator. So, by method, in the past decades they have been looking for origins of life off this planet. They search the heavens for some kind of element that sustains life in order to refute the existence of a Creator. They earnestly seek oxygen and ice or proof of water on other planets. Their desperation is clear when they actualize the existence of UFO’s and alien life forms. At least, for some stretch, they try to use science, but resort to speculation. They’ve abandoned raw data.
EASY PREY
Back to sexual development….
Satan attacks young people through the world who are developing maturity in their emotional stature with the message that they are homosexual if they like or admire someone of the same sex. It is embedded in educational institutions from kindergarten to university to question one’s sexual identity.
The best time to enslave someone into sexual perplexity is at their earliest youth. There is a tidal wave of hormonal influxes taking place in the pre-teen that creates normal confusion.
Lies from satan himself convinces a young, impressionable mind that they are attracted to the same sex if they feel sexually aroused when they are stimulated by an anatomy that is like their own. A lie. Any young child that experiences a sexual episode, no matter the sexual anatomy that stimulated their mind, is just sexually stimulated. They are not same sex attracted!
I remember one of the first times a homosexual tried to “pick me up”. I wasn’t even a teen. After it happened, I thought there was something wrong with me. “Why did he approach me?”, “Why was I targeted?”, “Did he think I was a homosexual?” Were it not for some Christian base I had, I would have worried and would have become confused. I soon realized that they are sharks always looking for prey. Children are soft targets.
There is simple “same-sex” confusion that a simple dose of universal absolute truth stabilizes and cures, and is best when administered under the watchful, protection of loving parents; thus, exists an all-out war on the family institution. One can see how confused our young children may become at their earliest age when we see the state of affairs for the family:
Depending on where one gets their stats, America is at about 50% of its children born without married parents…out of wedlock.
29% of White Children are born out of wedlock.
53% of Hispanic Children are born out of wedlock.
73-80% of Black Children are born out of wedlock.
And uniquely, Asian children, less than 12%.
How can our children escape the torrential lies that are engrained into their little minds from grade school when core families rarely exist, and when Christian leaders are offering solutions that echo the world? Just as concerning are blended families with stepfathers, mothers and step-brothers and sisters. How can children who do have “original core” family units see the interaction of mom and dad, male and female, when they spend all day in a day care center and come home to see mom and dad for an hour or so before another repeat day?
WORLDLY BRANDING
The Christian leadership community wants to protect the dignity of all mankind and that ought to be, but in my opinion, they are assisting the tsunamic homosexual schema by tipping the hat to the “gay” community when speaking their language. When we use the world’s branding for diverse sexual sins, e.g., “Gender-dysphoria”, “trans-sexual”, “gay”, “same-sex attraction”, etc., we lend legitimacy and dignity to immorality, not to a person. We are not showing them dignity and are solidifying their perception of identity. We even acknowledge individuals that claim Christ as their Savoir yet claim proudly to be “celibate gay Christians”.
We are feeding poison along with the potion. Consider again, branding the coined phrase for what it really is, not same-sex attraction, but “PROHIBITED ATTRACTION”.
In a smaller arena of argument, there is the sense of branding and labeling that needs to be considered if the Christian community yields to the “gender dysphoria” confusion, lending credibility to the branding, then they are not promoting truth to a culture of confusion. Should we continue to allow these terms and labeling to go unchallenged, then we might be in a position to state that the Bible is no longer relevant, and Jesus has no answer.
We cannot let go unchallenged a notion that the Bible does not address some kind of new human development that has never on earth been seen before. The world gushes with new terms to brand its sin, but the Bible is solid and relevant in labeling what is destructive and what is not. One cannot be a Christian homosexual. He is one or the other.
DESIRES AND BEHAVIOR
Some “Christians” have even come onboard to accept that multiple gender identities are actual, valid, pervasive status’ that one’s gender does not match their biological sex. They also surrender to the agenda that gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction is not a choice.
And, even more disturbing to me is that they isolate the sin of homosexuality to be sinful only if it leads to actual homosexual behavior; wherein, homosexual attraction and desires are not sinful and are completely acceptable. Who is the judge that resides when a desire transitions into behavior? Behavior is not just a visible act. Homosexual desire is a behavior.
I recall listening to a podcast from William Law Craig when he answered a question from a student asking if homosexuality is a sin. He said that being a homosexual and having same-sex cravings was not sinful but acting on them was. We continue to lower the bar.
Apart from what I believe to be the truth about all of this, I wish William Law Craig and all the other Christian Leaders would just personalize their ideology – flesh out their podiums, books and writings. I challenge them to hire a young man with same-sex cravings to babysit their sons for the summer. The young babysitter says that he only has same-sex attraction, and it is involuntary. He says that he stopped behaving like a homosexual months ago! Would William Law Craig and others let their ideology enter into real life? Ask the Boy Scouts of America and the camps of the YMCA about ideology and real life.
Diverting slightly to other sins in order to apply the same principle: Let the Theorists apply their grandeur positions in their own homes. Expand the principle to that of the lecturer who allows a rapist, who is a handyman, work on a project at his house when his wife or daughters are home alone. The rapist promised you that he was no longer a practicing rapist. When will the theorist put his feet on the ground?
Back to the homosexual: Ask churches and educational institutions about the network of sordid behavior in their midst from loose ideological positions. Their ideological rubber never hits the real road. Why would it not be acceptable and tolerable if one was born that way? This line of logic has already been applied to homosexual advocates in California of a more insidious law to accept and tolerate pedophilia. With just a little more tweaking of social imagery, pedophiles will soon be accepted as the victimized instead of victimizers. We are seeing this trickle in when we hear about "MAP" (Minor Attracted Persons). It is a slow ingestion of poison that numbs us to the awfulness of sexual cravings.
As well, Biden has appointed a trans-sexual to be the cabinet head of health and human services whose primary concern is for people to have safe sex during COVID. He had also placed a reprobate to be in charge of our national nuclear waste (has since been arrested for perversion) and a "Transexual" as Commander of Space Force.
This past week Biden mandated that males who identify as females can dress in the locker room with your daughter. This is not going away and too many Christians have made space for it.
WHAT PART OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS VOLUNTARY AND WHAT PART IS INVOLUNTARY?
Now, back to the “same-sex attraction is involuntary or not their choice” (if that be wrong) …
Of course, it is a choice. Choices are always voluntary. I will grant that for most, it is not a one-step choice. But I will contend that it is a volitional, multi-step choice that ultimately ended up in a same-sex/homosexual existence.
For many trapped in strongholds of sin, no one suddenly realizes that they are lost in the middle of the forest. We have gotten lost somehow and from somewhere we knew. We have taken many steps outside of well-marked boundaries before we do not recognize where we are now. That is where I think they are – not one step, but many steps, straying into oblivion. They say that they did not choose their inclinations or their same-sex attractions, but they voluntarily took numerous steps into that lifestyle and had to ignore many warnings on their way to a wilderness of dysphoria. Put another way, they stared at and ignored and passed a thousand “do not trespass” signs. These signs are God’s evangelical gospel proclamations by His people and easily accessible resources, merciful biblical and natural warnings, and physical and emotional consequences.
Too, I think that when they say that their attractions are involuntary, they can’t stop doing it no matter how hard they try, or that they “did not chose this” … what they don’t realize, or they do but don’t admit it, is that they are speaking of the outcome of their previous volitional choices. The “involuntary ‘this” are the consequences that were derived from many choices they did choose.
The “this” of which they speak is the enslavement and consequences from their choices, not the endorphins and dopamine they relished from the immoral thought-life and behavior. All of life is just so consequential. What is voluntary are the choices. What is involuntary are the consequences.
They willingly chose in a thousand little choices a life of autonomy with no bounds and it is the outcome that they did not choose. The consequences were the only thing that was involuntary in their choices, not the desires they voluntarily embraced.
Intentionally, they chose a lifestyle of autonomy that was eventually manifested in homosexuality, but instead of autonomy, they found slavery, confusion, misery and death – this is what they did not choose. They are now caught as is the fish that only meant to nibble the bait but was soon hooked. The fish did not choose the hook, only the bait.
Again, it is not that they chose homosexuality to achieve autonomy – they chose autonomy and reaped the hopeless despair of homosexuality. And, even still, find some solace in their misery that they have freed themselves of sexual boundaries. Man is not a fish.
We are created in the image of God. We know there is a hook but refuse to acknowledge what is beyond the lure. They craved the road to enslavement rather than the discipline of freedom.
There goes a little story of a train that wanted to be free from its tracks. It ran from east to west and west to east - into the rising and the setting sun - longing to jump the tracks and be free. One day, the train found the will and a way to leap from its tracks and skidded to a halt in a mangled mess on the rocky tundra. Years later, many other trains traveling by could glance over to the ripped and rusted hulk and hear its' cry, “I’m free, I’m free”.
And, at the core of any sin is covetousness. One has decided that one will do what one has no right to do. One will take what one has no right to take; that’s what sin is.
Why do we continue to dismiss the obvious statement from Jesus that even in the simplest longing there is sin as though same-sex attraction was some protected, exclusionary out of this world phenomenon that can’t be addressed like common sin?
Matthew 5, “If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he’s committed adultery in his heart.”
You hear people today say, “Well, you know, I’m a same-sex attracted person, but that’s not sinful in and of itself.” Well, of course it is. Opposite sex attraction/lust is sinful, same-sex attraction/lust is sinful, because it’s a reflection in the heart of a longing for what one doesn’t have the right to have or for that which is prohibited… “Prohibited attraction”.
My question, “Is same-sex attraction prohibited by God or is it favored by God?” Have we really come to having to ask such a question?
OFFERING VICTORY
Can a Christian counselor honestly say that craving a romantic same-sex relationship is wholesome and encouraged? I believe that we are only left with this option if the counselor states that the prohibited desire is not sinful.
It is not a righteous desire or choice. Anyone who claims that same-sex attraction is not sinful in and of itself, must preclude, then, that it is a righteous desire. Unless, of course, there are “amoral”, sexual desires or neutral cravings that reside in safe havens.
Can a Christian counselor honestly give that kind of biblical advice and still offer them hope out of the wilderness? Can a Christian honestly acknowledge that of all the sins for which Christ died, that prohibited same-sex attraction is not one of them…if it be not sin?
Can they really and honestly say that prohibited attraction is not sinful – that it is a righteous, holy, God-honoring desire?
Why are Christian pastors and counselors only offering ways to cope with sin and not offering victory from it? Why do we offer a Holy Spirit who is not able to save from the power of sin?
Everyone knows that the Holy Spirit can deliver us from the power of sin, though everyone knows that we still struggle with sin while in the flesh but why do we skip the sanctification part with the Holy Spirit when people come to us enslaved in sin? We can’t just keep telling them that what they suffer is not their fault or is not sin.
If all we offer them is that their prohibited attractions are involuntary and/or not sinful, then they are only managing it. Is it possible that we have so little deliverance from our own sinful plague that we fear to offer deliverance to others? Could we be fearful to take someone by the hand enslaved to sexual sin and lead them out of it because we have found so little victory from sin in our own lives? One can only take another in Christ as far as one has gone himself.
I must ask this hard question, “Christian, What difference does being a Christian make when you are confronted with sinful passions”? Is there anything you have to offer one who is struggling with sin or are you so weak in your sinful resistance that being a Christian makes no difference? Are you a marginal Christian?
Sexual identity is a binary choice despite a culture that regurgitates a mantra that there is a multitude of non-binary choices and none of them are wrong. There are no other answers to give someone who is “suffering” same-sex romantic attraction. 1). It is either sinful or not, 2). They can learn to cope with it, or they can kill it and have victory over it. I put suffering in quotes because if it’s not voluntary or sinful, then one is not suffering.
I know I go against the grain with my position and that some would say that this issue is not binary. I know that counselors will contradict me and disagree with me or dismiss me and say that it is not as simple as a sinful or non-sinful choice. They will say I only have a pittance of experience dealing with these matters…leave the heavy lifting to us.
I just wonder what a counselor has to offer a same-sex attracted person seeking a romantic relationship if there is nothing wrong with it or if it is simply a perpetual involuntary impulse. I also wonder if the counselor would offer the same solution to anyone suffering in any other sin.
If the Christian counselor does not counsel the same-sex attracted romanticist that there is freedom from their same-sex pursuit, then all he can offer to one who may seek freedom in Christ is that he literally must end his life. Only in glory will he ultimately be set free. Until then, one must agonize in lonely despair. This line is directly from the book Mere Sexuality. This is all one contributor in his book had to offer to the one who is trapped in the same-sex dilemma. The contributor’s highest hope is to exist as a “lonely gay Christian celibate until death”.
There is no hope of victory in Christ. There is no power of victorious life in the Holy Spirit. It is a gloomy ray of hope to die in order to be delivered. There is a blaring marquis that beacons to the homosexual, “Come to Christ, continue to relish your sinful passions, but never find satiation in them nor victory from them – Woe is me.”
In fact, the book attributes a considerable amount of guilt upon the individual who lives a life of purity in contrast to the one who suffers impurity. I would gander that he wants some sort of retributive justice to be reckoned against those who may have voluntarily chosen another road – a narrow road that leads to life on which to walk. The author has given a new dimension to oppression.
So, what is the truth about “gender dysphoria” and the like?
Simply…it’s idolatry. (Principle from G.K. Beale’s book We become what we worship)
We are imaging creatures and were designed to image our Creator. We image what we worship. When we worship the creation, and not the Creator, we image and reflect that which is a product of our rebellion. When we desire this fallen world, we reflect it. We will be left to our own devices. We will find the abandonment of God. (Job 8.4; Ps 81.12; 115.8)
LADY GAGA’S “BORN THIS WAY” LYRICS
( http://www.metrolyrics.com/born-this-way-lyrics-lady-gaga.html )
It doesn't matter if you love him or capital H-I-M
Just put your paws up
'Cause you were born this way, baby
My mama told me when I was young
We are all born superstars
She rolled my hair and put my lipstick on
In the glass of her boudoir
There's nothin' wrong with lovin' who you are
She said, 'cause He made you perfect, babe
So hold your head up,
girl and you'll go far
Listen to me when I say
I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way, born this way
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
Baby, I was born this way
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way
Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Give yourself prudence and love your friends
Subway kid, rejoice of truth
In the religion of the insecure
I must be myself, respect my youth
A different lover is not a sin
Believe capital H-I-M
I love my life, I love this record and
Mi amore vole fe yah
I'm beautiful in my way,
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Don't hide yourself in regret,
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
Baby, I was born this way
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way
Don't be drag, just be a queen
Whether you're broke or evergreen
You're black, white, beige, chola descent
You're Lebanese, you're orient
Whether life's disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
'Cause baby, you were born this way
No matter gay, straight or bi
Lesbian, transgendered life
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born to be brave
I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Don't hide yourself in regret,
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way, yeah
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
Baby, I was born this way
Ooh, there ain't no other way, baby, I was born this way
I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way
I was born this way, hey
I was born this way, hey
I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way, hey
I was born this way, hey
I was born this way, hey
I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way, hey
Comments
Post a Comment