Haggard and the Gay Debate
Reuters claims "Evangelist's therapy fuels 'gay debate.'" They are referring to the recent emergence of Ted Haggard from a few weeks of counseling to declare himself a heterosexual. Apparently his three-year engagement in anal sex with a male prostitute was merely an "acting out," and was by no means "a constant thing," said one of his assigned counselors. I wonder what then defines "constant?"
I don't know that there is any genuine "debate" - at least no debate of any significance. Especially when compared with the scandals of yesteryear involving Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Larry Lea. For some odd reason the scandal surrounding Ted Haggard is relatively quiet. You have to wonder why.
Maybe the level of tolerance for sin is so high in both the church and society that most people are simply unmoved. Or, maybe the fact that Haggard's transgression is homosexuality there is trepidation due to the present political debate over such issues as "gay rights." For example, were Haggard to be involved in a three-year affair with a woman, would it make a difference?
We know the liberal lines of mainstream evangelicalism are quite comfortable with sodomites for leaders. In fact, they may even be rejoicing at Haggard's revelation. You can bet that new alliances will be formed between Haggard and the Christian-sodomites, and that a profound "compassion" will soon overwhelm Mr. and Mrs. Haggard as they embark on their new careers as Christian psychologists. It's a ruse, however. This is only a means of shielding themselves from criticism.
Part of this debate is the critique by former homosexual Christians that insist the transition to purity is a long process. Frank Worthen of New Hope Ministries estimates the transition period to be between five to eight years, but Haggard came to the realization of a secure heterosexuality in a few weeks.
The crux of the debate is, according to Reuters, whether people are created homosexual. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, "The entire underpinning of America's anti-gay industry is that homosexuality is a choice and they can never move off of that position because if they do, everything crumbles around them."
This is laughable. First, I wasn't aware there was an "anti-gay industry." If there is, I haven't seen a dime of that money. Second, and more seriously, not everyone that believes homosexuality is sinful necessarily holds to the idea of "choice." For instance, if children can be born with multiple appendages, debilitating diseases, and gross deformities, I'm not surprised that some prefer sodomy or desire to dress like women. This also presupposes naturalism on both sides of the issue. Rarely is the spiritual discussed. We cannot forget the demonic legions of hell that routinely inspire some of man's must illustrious sins. Perversions can also be the result of a lifetime of demonic control.
However, this in no way changes the foundation of the Christian position: sodomy is sin. Homosexuality is a clear violation of the Scriptures. To assume, as Mr. Foreman does, that the entire Christian position is established upon choice, presupposes that man is not born sinful - that God "creates" men as adulterers, pedophiles, bestialists, and homosexuals. If it's not a choice, it's somehow endorsed by God and permissive? This is nonsense.
Psalm 19:12 declares, "Who can understand his errors?" The prophet Jeremiah states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) The Biblical position is that man's sinfulness cannot be known. It's only known by God, as Jeremiah declares in verse 10: "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to HIS ways, and according the fruit of HIS doings."
Sin is man's doing because it is man's way, and the Bible is clear that man cannot understand his own way. In other words, man sins because he's sinful, but he cannot decipher the reason nor the origin for his particular brand of sin. Only the Lord knows the wicked heart of man, and He will recompense man for his evil ways.
Since man cannot understand his ways, it is useless to debate the origins of sins such as homosexuality. You cannot understand your own errors (Ps. 19:2). Psychology is premised upon the investigation into origins as means to freedom. Freudians examine youth while Darwinians examine matter. Neither position addresses the doctrine of total depravity nor the noetic effects of sin.
What is the end to all this? The Scriptures:
Conservative Christians have given over ground if their entire position is established upon homosexuality as a choice. I believe Mr. Foreman is incorrect in this assessment, however. Most conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. These same Christians, against their better judgment, are foolish to allow the debate to be framed around origins. The Christian position is one of faithful gospel-preaching centered around the cross of Christ and His sure resurrection. It is also sealed with a clear command to repentance (Acts 17:30). The Christian position must never allow itself to deteriorate to a psychological debate over the natural order. Yet, it seems the Biblical position is steadily losing ground in the theological playground of modern evangelicalism.
I don't know that there is any genuine "debate" - at least no debate of any significance. Especially when compared with the scandals of yesteryear involving Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Larry Lea. For some odd reason the scandal surrounding Ted Haggard is relatively quiet. You have to wonder why.
Maybe the level of tolerance for sin is so high in both the church and society that most people are simply unmoved. Or, maybe the fact that Haggard's transgression is homosexuality there is trepidation due to the present political debate over such issues as "gay rights." For example, were Haggard to be involved in a three-year affair with a woman, would it make a difference?
We know the liberal lines of mainstream evangelicalism are quite comfortable with sodomites for leaders. In fact, they may even be rejoicing at Haggard's revelation. You can bet that new alliances will be formed between Haggard and the Christian-sodomites, and that a profound "compassion" will soon overwhelm Mr. and Mrs. Haggard as they embark on their new careers as Christian psychologists. It's a ruse, however. This is only a means of shielding themselves from criticism.
Part of this debate is the critique by former homosexual Christians that insist the transition to purity is a long process. Frank Worthen of New Hope Ministries estimates the transition period to be between five to eight years, but Haggard came to the realization of a secure heterosexuality in a few weeks.
The crux of the debate is, according to Reuters, whether people are created homosexual. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, "The entire underpinning of America's anti-gay industry is that homosexuality is a choice and they can never move off of that position because if they do, everything crumbles around them."
This is laughable. First, I wasn't aware there was an "anti-gay industry." If there is, I haven't seen a dime of that money. Second, and more seriously, not everyone that believes homosexuality is sinful necessarily holds to the idea of "choice." For instance, if children can be born with multiple appendages, debilitating diseases, and gross deformities, I'm not surprised that some prefer sodomy or desire to dress like women. This also presupposes naturalism on both sides of the issue. Rarely is the spiritual discussed. We cannot forget the demonic legions of hell that routinely inspire some of man's must illustrious sins. Perversions can also be the result of a lifetime of demonic control.
However, this in no way changes the foundation of the Christian position: sodomy is sin. Homosexuality is a clear violation of the Scriptures. To assume, as Mr. Foreman does, that the entire Christian position is established upon choice, presupposes that man is not born sinful - that God "creates" men as adulterers, pedophiles, bestialists, and homosexuals. If it's not a choice, it's somehow endorsed by God and permissive? This is nonsense.
Psalm 19:12 declares, "Who can understand his errors?" The prophet Jeremiah states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) The Biblical position is that man's sinfulness cannot be known. It's only known by God, as Jeremiah declares in verse 10: "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to HIS ways, and according the fruit of HIS doings."
Sin is man's doing because it is man's way, and the Bible is clear that man cannot understand his own way. In other words, man sins because he's sinful, but he cannot decipher the reason nor the origin for his particular brand of sin. Only the Lord knows the wicked heart of man, and He will recompense man for his evil ways.
Since man cannot understand his ways, it is useless to debate the origins of sins such as homosexuality. You cannot understand your own errors (Ps. 19:2). Psychology is premised upon the investigation into origins as means to freedom. Freudians examine youth while Darwinians examine matter. Neither position addresses the doctrine of total depravity nor the noetic effects of sin.
What is the end to all this? The Scriptures:
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)The issue is not whether one is born homosexual, or chooses that orientation. The issue is whether homosexuality is sinful and forbidden by the Scriptures. Since it is clearly condemned in the Scriptures, homosexuals must cease their perversions in the same manner as one given to promiscuity with women must cease his immorality. Otherwise, what do you tell the pedophile and bestialist? Are they not also told to restrain themselves with threat of punishment?
Conservative Christians have given over ground if their entire position is established upon homosexuality as a choice. I believe Mr. Foreman is incorrect in this assessment, however. Most conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. These same Christians, against their better judgment, are foolish to allow the debate to be framed around origins. The Christian position is one of faithful gospel-preaching centered around the cross of Christ and His sure resurrection. It is also sealed with a clear command to repentance (Acts 17:30). The Christian position must never allow itself to deteriorate to a psychological debate over the natural order. Yet, it seems the Biblical position is steadily losing ground in the theological playground of modern evangelicalism.
