... in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Through the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord
Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen. Glory
to You, our God, Glory to You.
O Heavenly King,
the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, You are everywhere and fill all things, Treasury
of blessings, and Giver of life: come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every
impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal,
have mercy on us (three times).
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it is now, was in the beginning, and ever
shall be, world without end. Amen.
Warning: Please do not read the following paper if you are at all squeamish
about sexual discussion or sexual language.
The following discussion contains explicit and frank discussion of
sexual issues using the correct scientific terms, as well as some illustrative
terms taken from the vernacular. On the
other hand, we take Paul’s admonition very seriously that these things “set on
fire [with] desire.” Words that
generate lascivious fire, in and of themselves, or which may be linked to
websites that are provocative of sensual heat, have been removed. We have no wish to offend anyone. We have no desire to hurt anyone. Please do not continue reading if you will
only be hurt or offended.
The
Epistle
Romans 1:26-32
(authors translation)
26Through this, God surrendered them to suffering
of dishonor, for which even their females exchanged the natural use for that beside
nature. 27Even likewise, also
the males, departing from the natural use of the female, were set on fire in
their desire for one another, males in males, accomplishing twisted actions,
and taking away in themselves the punishment, which is the liability of their
straying.
28Just as they did not prove[1] to have God in
understanding, God surrendered them to an unproved[2] mind, to do that which is
not acceptable[3]; 29Being
filled with all injustice, misery, plunder, and rottenness: full of envy,
murder, quarreling, fraud, and rotten moral standards; whisperers, 30character
assassins, God-haters, thugs, show-offs, braggarts, finders of rotten things; to
parents, apathetic; 31conflicted, renegades, cold-blooded, merciless[4].[5]
32who having understood the justness of God,
that the ones practicing such
things are worthy of death; not only are doing, but also are approving the ones
practicing them.[6]
Homosexuality
As with the previous section Paul
draws his explanation from previous verses. Homosexuality, according to Paul, is the
direct result of idolatry; since the result of idolatry, necessarily also the
result of demonism.[7] Consequently, this section on homosexuality
has the same problems as the section on idolatry: men either wish to add to
Paul’s words, or subtract from them.
Let’s begin by noting some things that this section does not teach. This is not a claim that other issues are not
addressed by Paul or others elsewhere.
Nor is it in anyway a criticism of conclusions made by The Church on
these or similar matters. It is exactly
what it appears to be: an honest effort to confine the discussion to what Paul
says here in Romans 1 as precisely as possible.
We have imported one necessary idea from Corinthians: idolatry finds its
roots in demonism.
Paul does not address sins of fornication or adultery in this section,
not at all; even though he does address these issues elsewhere.[8]
This section does not teach that people are to be branded because of
what they think, the temptations they face, or how they look. Others should not brand them, nor should they
brand themselves. The Scarlet
Letter did not float with Hawthorn;[9] neither should it fly with
us.
People are not to be convicted in the court of innuendo. This means, among other things, that a person
is not a homosexual simply because they have homosexual temptations.
In fact we protest the application of the brand, homosexual, to people
at all, under any circumstances. People
are people. Homosexuality, describes a
set of acts. A person may be guilty of
committing homosexual acts: they should still not be branded a homosexual. The possibility of repentance, and becoming
an absolved and forgiven ex-homosexual still exists. As long as this possibility exists no person
should be compelled to wear the scarlet H, in any form, or by any suggestion. This is not a retreat, back into the closet;
it is the honest denouncing and renouncing of acts which are clearly sin. We denounce and renounce sinful acts within
The Church. We do not denounce or renounce
people within The Church.
This section does not teach that any government should or should not control,
punish, or regulate homosexual acts.
This section is not concerned with civil law at all. This section is concerned with behavior in
The Church, and the right response of The Church to homosexual acts. What civil governments chose to do with
homosexual acts, is the business of those civil governments and The Church as
represented on earth has no place in interfering with civil government, except
through the lawful acts of its members as citizens. We vote our consciences within the public
arena. Our consciences cannot permit us
as Christians to accept, approve, or condone homosexual acts or unions anywhere;
or to see such acts and unions as anything other than the corruption of society.
Nor does civil government have any place
in interfering with The Church as represented on earth. That being said, the day will most certainly
come when all civil governments will be judged; on that day all civil governments
will have to answer to The Church for their acts; being condemned or forgiven
accordingly.
This section does not teach that secular society has a moral
responsibility to demean, mistreat, persecute, or shun homosexuals. This passage is simply silent when it comes
to this, and many other similar matters.
Above all, this section has absolutely nothing to say about civil
homosexual unions, by whatever name they may be called. Paul is silent about this matter. He neither blesses nor curses civil
homosexual unions. He only addresses homosexual
behavior within The Church. By this very
standard, it is impossible for The Church to bless homosexual unions. Those who bless homosexual unions cannot be
associated with The Church. If society
compels churches to bless homosexual unions, such blessings have no standing in
The Church. It is not merely difficult
or painful, it is impossible for The Church to bless homosexual unions.
We have no right to quote Romans 1 in justification of such matters,
when in fact Paul is silent about them.
Other passages may speak to such issues, but Paul does not; not at least
in Romans 1.
Having observed what Paul does not say, what he does say is painfully
clear.
† Homosexual or sodomite acts
are clearly defined as “male in male”. This
definition needs no further clarification.
It is drawn from the physis, not from Old Testament law, which Greco-Roman
Christians are not likely to understand.
† Homosexual or sodomite acts
between females are defined by the logical extension of the definition for
males. The wording, “even their females exchanged
the natural use for that beside nature,” makes this logical extension
inescapable. It is equally clear, and
drawn from the physis as well.
† Homosexual or sodomite acts
within The Church are clearly intolerable.
This leads to widespread conclusions about how such acts must be dealt with
within The Church, and how The Church must respond to such acts in general
society and culture. The Church has no
choice in these matters; they are not open to discussion, negotiation, or
change; The Church openly condemns all such acts, it always has, and it always
will.
† Homosexual acts are the
direct result of God letting humanity continue to fall in idolatry and demonism;
therefore, homosexual acts are also acts of idolatry and demonism, in and of
themselves. Christianity is about
freeing people from demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality.
† Homosexual acts bring
suffering on those who practice such acts; and on their friends struggling with
them against such acts, while pleading for mercy and redemption. Christianity is about relieving people from
the suffering caused by demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality.
† Homosexual acts are dishonorable:
they are unworthy of any applause, or praise, or recognition in society. They are absolutely without honor; which is
to say that they are without honor in every sphere: civil, cultural, private,
public, religious. Paul does not limit
this property of dishonor to acts committed within churches. Homosexual acts are nothing to be proud of
even in the privacy and secrecy of one’s own residence. Christianity is about restoring dignity and
honor to all sorts of people, especially those trapped in demonism, idolatry,
and homosexuality.
† Homosexual acts inflame
the normal appetites, and set the soul on fire with desire. This property of fire in human sexuality is
extremely important. It is the reason we
commonly declare that certain individuals are or are not hot. If we are attracted to another person merely
because they are hot, we are acting out of lust, not out of love. It is a certain fact of life that people who play
with fire are always burned. This is
more than mere play in the ordinary sense.
This is about drinking fire into the body. The results are horrific. Christianity is about providing hospital
services and healing, even to those who are already severely burned by
demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality.
† Homosexual acts are twisted
acts. Christianity is about recovering
an un-perverted or untwisted life, even for those who are already severely distorted
by demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality.
† Homosexual acts cause
and create their own punishments.
Christianity is about removing punishment from all who are guilty of
demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality, or any other acts of sin.
† Homosexual acts are
straying: that is from God’s purpose for life.
Christianity is about setting people on a good path even when they have
previously walked on the paths of demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality, or any
other acts of sin.
† As idolatry leads to the
corruption of the mind; so homosexual acts are the result of corruption of the
mind. Christianity is about the reviving
of a right mind for those corrupted by demonism, idolatry, and homosexuality,
or any other acts of sin.
† Homosexual acts are the
first of a set of acts that are unacceptable.
Christianity is about removing what is unacceptable.
Paul does not cite homosexual acts as breaches of God’s Law, even
though he might have done so. Paul’s
entire argument rests on the fact that homosexual acts are breaches of that
which is natural. Paul condemns female
and male homosexual acts equally, there is no sexual bias in his argument.
Let’s look at this idea of what is natural or unnatural more closely. Since we have observed that Paul only
addresses homosexual acts or behaviors: we are also compelled to investigate
the grounds for whatever Paul has to say about homosexual acts.
These grounds for defining homosexual acts as offensive; as well as
why, and to whom they must be offensive are wrapped up in the Greek word phusis
or physis (φύσις) in its various forms as Paul uses them in
this section.[10] This is so important that Paul repeats the word
three times in two verses.[11] Physis is similar, but not exactly the same
as our word physical. Physis speaks, in
modern concepts and language, to the design intent of a thing. The obvious design intent of the human male and
female primary external genitalia are for copulation with each other. Their only other design function is the
disposal of fluid waste, which appears to be a flushing, purification, or self-cleaning
mechanism: for urine, being a sterile fluid, washes away some of the more
intimate debris associated with copulation, or debris gathered accidentally. Bathing takes away the more external
debris. The design intent of the primary
external genitalia for each other clearly shows that these are not for other
uses: uses or acts committed with the anus, hand, mouth, tongue; with other
animals; or with sex toys. The argument
from the physis makes all such activities sin.
Consequently, homosexual acts, in any form are both sinful and
idolatrous, as solely derived from the argument from the physis.
Now wait a minute. See here. Let’s be fair about this argument of
Paul’s. Paul’s argument condemns far
more than homosexual acts. It equally
condemns masturbation, both male and female.
It also condemns acts, which are possible to perform within marriage: sodomy and masturbation in any form,
inside or outside of marriage. Married
couples may no more practice such acts than same sex individuals may practice
them. All such practice is sin. All such practice is condemned.
We may not condemn as homosexual such acts as here defined, then in
hypocrisy approve the same acts as marital acts. The clear design intent of the primary
external genitalia is for copulation between one man and one woman, at least one
at a time. Such copulation is physically
impossible between a man and another man; or between a woman and another
woman. This gift of God in human
sexuality should not be abused.
If Christians, expect to change society, then Christians must begin
with repentance within the family and within the churches. We must “cast out the log in our own eye
first.”[12] It is the height of hypocrisy for us to
expect others to cease their sinful behavior, while we are determined to
continue such behavior among ourselves.
Even so, many counselors, even so-called Christian counselors condone
this wicked behavior; some even recommend it as good and healthy. This is bad council. Sodomy is not love, not in any shape or form,
in marriage or out of marriage. We pride
ourselves in including ex-homosexuals in our congregations. Very well then, let us be what we claim to be
and condemn all acts of sodomy, and put them away from us. Let us submit to Paul’s argument, denouncing
and renouncing all acts of sodomy within Christianity, let us seek genuine
repentance, absolution, and restoration.
Then, and only then, as ex-sodomites will we be free to pray for the
healing of those outside of our churches.
“Judgment must begin at the house of God.”[13]
We like what the Methodists used to say. “The practice of homosexual acts is not consistent
with the practice of the Christian religion.”
There are other, more specific issues we must address.
† Since acts of
masturbation, sodomy, and homosexuality are so clearly condemned within The
Church, none of our churches have any right to give communion to self-declared
masturbaters, sodomites, or homosexuals, or to those who have been publicly
caught in such sins and remain unrepentant and unabsolved.
† None of our churches
have any right to approve of such behavior.
† None of our churches
have any right to bless such behavior by calling or installing its public
practitioners in church office.
† Churches that do such
things have excommunicated themselves and no longer have any right to call
themselves Christian churches.
† Those who have taken a
person accused of committing homosexual acts, and tied that person to a post,
beating him to death, are guilty of an act of murder. There is no place for unrepentant murderers
within The Church either.
† Those who have dragged a
man to death behind their truck for whatever reason have also committed an act
of murder.
† The person who submits
to a so-called sex change surgery has not changed their sex at all. Instead, they have mutilated their own God
given physis. If they commit sexual acts with those of the
same sex as they were prior to their mutilation, it is a homosexual act. No one can change their God given sexuality;
they can only destroy it.
† Counselors, from any
discipline, who convince people that they should commit acts of masturbation,
sodomy, or homosexuality are committing a very grievous sin.
† Counselors, from any
discipline, who convince people that their inner psychological sexuality is in
conflict with their physical sexuality have also committed a very perverse sin.
We must examine the God given physical
structure and not be tempted to alter it because of corrupted thinking. It is what it is, and that must be embraced
without shame or doubt. We should not
hesitate to teach little boys to be masculine; or to teach little girls to be
feminine. The idea that males and
females are fundamentally identical except for a few organs has been exposed
for the lie it is. Males and females are
fundamentally different: from their emotional structure, from the way they think,
from the way they learn, to the way they react to disease, and down to the way
they metabolize medications.
The issue of hermaphroditism must be
addressed. True hermaphroditism is
difficult to pin down statistically.[14] According to this article true
hermaphroditism is extremely rare and there are no instances where both sets of
organs are functional. According to
another source, which I have since unfortunately misplaced, hermaphroditism is
statistically on the same order of occurrence as conjoined or Siamese twins.[15] This is a dubious statistic: since conjoined
twins are the immediate subject of world news.
Whereas, true hermaphrodites are unheard of. This indicates that either true
hermaphroditism caries so much social stigma that it is hidden, or the
statistic is completely false and greatly exaggerated, making true
hermaphroditism an extremely rare problem.
Equally false are those urban legends claiming that a true hermaphrodite
can have coitus with him/herself and produce a baby: this is simply unknown to
have ever occurred in the history of man.
Moving beyond the statistical nature
of both conjoined twining and true
hermaphroditism, we suspect that both have similar causes and similar medical
treatments. Both are considered sever
abnormalities and extreme physical limitations.
In virtually all cases most people believe that the pair would be better
off if they could live separate lives.
This is not always possible to achieve medically. In the case of conjoined twining, two individuals are clearly
distinguished. In the case of true
hermaphroditism it appears that something similar to twinning has gone really
bad. However, two individuals are not distinguished in true
hermaphroditism. Moreover, one set of
organs appears to be either useless or dead.
We leave the medical decisions to separate or not separate conjoined
twins; to remove or not remove the non-functioning organs in the hands of the
medical team, the parents, and the individuals involved. Our compassions and prayers are with them as
they make the necessary decisions in the best interests of the children.
In no case can true hermaphroditism
be compared with the person who has one set of organs, yet believes that they
psychologically are members of the opposite sex. That is just a rationalized attempt to deny
the condition of the actual physis,
mutilate that physis, and conspire to commit homosexual acts as though the
person were really a member of the opposite sex.
We reiterate the old Methodist assertion. “The practice of homosexual acts is not
consistent with the practice of the Christian religion.”
Other
Consequences
Paul moves on to a litany of other
sins and corruptions, which also appear to stem from the root cause of idolatry
and demonism.[16] We will not attempt to deal with these
individually, except to point out that each of them is equally wicked, and on
par with homosexual acts and sodomy. It
is a crime, a heinous and hypocritical sin to single homosexual acts out from
this list and place emphasis on such acts beyond the emphasis provided by
Paul. All too often we put words in
Paul’s mouth.
What we need to say about this
litany of sins is the same in every case.
If anyone is interested in further explanation concerning any of the
sins in this litany, they may simply take the word of interest and use it to
replace every occurrence of the words homosexual or homosexuality in the above
discussion.
“The practice of any sin is not consistent with the practice of the
Christian religion.”
This word practice, as we have noted before, is critical to our meaning
here. We have drawn a clear distinction
between practice and stumbling. Whatever
is said here of idolatry may be said of any other sin.
“This section of
Romans 1 is not about the occasional stumbling in sin, of which all are guilty;
it is about the practice of idolatry.
Practice involves determination to sin, stubbornness of will, defiance
of God, and regular ongoing deliberate repetition of acts of idolatry. Practice is being at premeditated war with
God. Practice, the practice of idolatry
is clearly condemned.”[17]
Conclusion
“The practice of any sin is not consistent with the practice of the
Christian religion.”
According to Paul, we have no right
to bring demonic, idolatrous, homosexual, or any of the rest of this litany of
sins into The Church. Yet the Church is
filled with ex-demoniacs, ex-idolaters, ex-homosexuals, and ex-sinners of every
kind. Nor are any of these ex-sinners
completely free from sin. What makes
them ex-sinners is not their perfection, but their commitment to wage war
against their own sins out of love for God.
Such ex-sinners readily denounce and
renounce their former way of life, hating and forsaking their former sins. Nor are these sins overcome instantly.
Conversion to Christianity is like a
sunrise. In the first dim rays of light
large obstacles, obvious sins are seen, avoided, and forsaken. As the light increases, other sins come into
view and are engaged; by grace these are also vanquished. As the sun reaches the full brightness of
noon it is seen that even the air is full of the dust of sin.[18]
It is because of this dust that a
life of confession, humiliation, absolution, and restoration is so necessary.
Temptations, sins of the thought
life continue, they are seemingly uncontrollable.
We cannot stop the birds from flying
overhead, but we do not have to let them build a nest in our hair.[19]
We are not defenseless against
temptations. We have a built-in alert
system warning us of attack. Temptations
of lust immediately “set the soul on fire.”
As soon as we sense the fire we must know that we are under attack. Marriage is a major line of defense against
such flaming attack. We have prayer; all
sorts of prayers suppress temptations. Under
intense attack the Jesus Prayer may be very helpful. We also have fasting, giving, and honest
labor, all of which help bring the passions under control: for God uses such
things as instruments of His grace.
Confession and pastoral counsel can also be great aids.
We hope that people who stumble in
homosexual, or sodomite acts, and other sins, within The Church will realize
that they are under demonic attack and seek immediate help. We also hope that people who practice
homosexual, or sodomite acts, and other sins, outside The Church will realize
that they are under demonic attack and know that the doors of The Church are
open for their healing. However, the
sins must be left outside. The baptism
of the Holy Ghost is God’s means of removing sins from sinners at the door of
The Church. The Church is a hospital for
sinners, not a fortress for the sinless.
Every provision has been made for
life. The failure to embrace this
provision is worthy of death. The
self-condemned person, who turns away from such healing has only themselves to
blame when their sin is cast into the Lake of Fire, while they still cling
tenaciously to that sin, are dragged along with it.
We have claimed that churches
establishing themselves in the practice and approval of sin have excommunicated
themselves. On the other hand, it is not
impossible for whole churches to repent.
[1]
Literally test, or battle test. The
failure to test spiritually does not merely show that the test was never
performed at all, which was sometimes the case; but rather that the spiritual
test was entered in a halfhearted and slovenly manner. That “they did not test God” means that they
failed to trust His promises, which are battle tested. Thus they failed to enter into the spiritual
conflict in any real way.
[2]
Literally untested. Mental failure in
this verse is the result of failing the test and being rejected by it; not
merely the result of leaving the test undone.
Mankind lapsed into idolatry, homosexuality, and the like, by
self-conscious choice, not by accident.
The inevitable and ongoing result of such failure is increasing insanity
or madness. The mind never fully
develops because it is not engaged in conversation with God.
[3]
That which is not up to Kingdom standards: wood, hay, and stubble; rather than
gold, silver, precious gems (1 Corinthians 3:12).
[4]
This is the description of one who is dead on the inside, catatonic, possibly
morose, or even morbid; not one who is wildly wicked.
[5] I
like what the Revised Standard Version did with these last four words, “foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless,” even if it misses the
precise meaning a little.
[6] While Paul certainly has Exodus
20 in mind here; he is also leaning heavily on the Law written on the heart
(Romans 2:11-16), that which the Greco-Romans would have understood as their
ethos.
[7] 1
Corinthians 10:19-21
[8] 1
Corinthians 7:1-7
[9] Hawthorn,
a child of the Puritans, is very critical of sin among his Puritan ancestors,
as well he might be, and rightfully so.
The loving way to deal with sin is to confront it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter
[10] Φυσικὴν, feminine accusative
singular adjective φυσικός, ή, όν
from φύω: to grow in the ordinary state;
connotatively: to be common, natural, ordinary; φυσικός:
the state in which they were born or created; native, natural, ordinary,
original, physical. Romans 1:26, 27; 2
Peter 2:12. See Jude 10.
Φύσιν,
feminine accusative singular noun φύσις, εως, ἡ
from φύω: to grow etc.; φύσις: native, natural, ordinary, original. Romans 1:26; 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24, 24, 24; 1
Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15; 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; James 3:7, 7; 2 Peter
1:4.
There is no room left here for genetic causality: for Paul
clearly says “leaving the natural.” If
genetic causality were a factor in Paul’s logic structure, he would create an
internal contradiction by stating “leaving the natural.” This is impossible. Genetic causality may exist, but it is not
natural.
The φύω (our physical) is a Greek idea,
foreign to the Bible. It has no real
Hebrew equivalent: for the Old Testament emphasizes creation, rather than
nature. The φύω speaks to the design intent of creation, the way things grow,
function, live, reproduce, and die. Paul
might have argued from the Law on this point; instead, he proves the Law from
science. Paul contends from the basis of
science that the obvious design of male genitalia is for female genitalia, and
vice versa: and that, only with creatures of the same kind. Any other use in competition (parallel) with
the scientific design intent is disgusting and perverted: this includes
bestiality, homosexuality, pedophilia, and sodomy in all their many variations.
See Köster,
Helmut, TDNT, volume 9, page 273.
[11]
Verses 26-27: “natural … nature … natural….”
[12]
Matthew 7:1-5
[13] 1
Peter 4:15-18
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins
[16]
The phrase, “Just as they did not prove
to have God in understanding,” appears to connect to and continue verse 25.
[17]
From our paper “Romans 1, Idolatry” http://swantec-ro.blogspot.com/2014/10/ romans-1-idolatry.html
[18] I
first heard this explanation comparing sin to the dirt and dust exposed by
light from Zane Hodges, then professor of Greek New Testament at Dallas
Theological Seminary (1971-72).
[19]
This explanation of the nature of sin came from USAF Chaplain Girdley at Kadena
AFB, Okinawa (1968-69).
[20] If
you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment