sin Archives

Christianity 101: The Lost Art of Repentance

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near!” (Matthew 3:1-2)

This was the cry of John the Baptist.

This was also the plea from Jesus.

“The time has come,” [Jesus] said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news!” (Mark1:15)

John’s entire message was of repentance.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4

So, what is repentance and why is it so important?

Definitions are always a good place to start.

The Bible does not split up these definitions as the Merriam-Webster dictionary does, but rather combines them. In other words, to repent in the biblical sense means to change one’s mind regarding certain actions or behaviors that prompt feelings of regret and contrition, by doing away with and rejecting all rationalizations of such behaviors, and accepting one’s humble duty to commit themselves to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life. When John baptized his followers, he immersed them completely under water. Baptism represented a complete submission and immersion unto a person’s teachings. Baptism represented a long-term committed lifestyle change. A lifestyle of repentance meant always admitting when you’re wrong, make peace with those you’ve wronged, always be quick to ask God for mercy and forgiveness, and do whatever you can to turn away from committing the same sin again. It represented a complete change in lifestyle. It was not a one-time admittance of one’s imperfections.

No one likes to talk about sin. No one likes it when their own faults are pointed out to them. It’s never enjoyable. It’s never pleasant. And yet, John was never lacking in disciples. Many came to him to be baptized.

Who were these people, these followers of John? I suspect they were “sinners”. They were those who felt burdened by their guilty consciences. They were those who felt “too far gone” for God to forgive them. They had been ensnared by sinful habits: drunkenness, thievery, prostitution, adultery, the love of money, petty resentments, envy, jealousy, malice, debauchery, … well, you get the picture. They had done wicked things… and they knew it. But… they were not proud of it. Far from it. They were ashamed. But they also felt as if they had no hope.

John had preached a message of hope. Confess your sins to God, repent, commit to change, and God will forgive you all your sins.

It probably wasn’t an easy message for these folks. No one likes to talk about the things they are secretly ashamed or embarrassed about. Especially to God. If anything, we are more apt to get defensive and make excuses for our actions in order to avoid feelings of guilt or shame. But John preached that admitting wrongdoing in spite of the feelings of vulnerability and humiliation confession might stir up, is the only way we can be cleansed. This is how we are made new, by confessing our sins to God and to one another. It is never a “fun” experience, by any means. It goes against our human pride. We want to feel strong, confident, and in control. We want to feel good about ourselves. Talking about our doubts, fears, faults and weaknesses takes vulnerability. And it never feels good. Not at the time. But there is a strange irony that occurs when we do admit our faults and failures. A burden feels lifted. We realize we’re not alone. And we feel… changed. It is by talking about our weaknesses that we are truly cleansed. We’re more apt to put the past behind us. And this is why God wants us to confess our sins and failures. He knows what’s best for us. And His heart, being full of love, will never turn anyone away, no matter what that person has done.

Many of John’s followers asked John for advice. No doubt, they were feeling wretched. Would they ever be able to atone for all the evil they had done? Perhaps, they didn’t even trust themselves to know how to change from old behaviors.

My impression of John’s followers is this: in their hearts, they wanted to please God, but deep down, they felt horribly inadequate. They weren’t sure if they were even capable of doing it. They wanted to believe it was possible. They confessed their sins, they allowed themselves to be baptized by John, and hoped that John was right, that God would indeed forgive them of all their mistakes.

It is important to note that the Pharisees and Jewish leaders were preaching a message that suggested that one could earn righteousness by checking all the boxes and obeying the Old Testament Law. They emphasized outward actions, however, as if that was all God cared about. And people understood sin based on what the Pharisees had taught them. Thus, these people who became John’s followers were most likely those who were the obvious criminals: prostitutes, thieves, adulterers, etc., and others who felt weighed down by the burden and shame of personal guilt of sin.

In order to confess sin, you have to know what sin is. As I mentioned earlier, people during that time period knew what sin was based on what they were told by the Jewish religious leaders. People in general didn’t have copies of the Torah or the Septuagint laying around in their homes. You have to understand – this was 2000 years ago. The printing press hadn’t even been invented yet. Books were rare. They were written by hand. There were no computers, no internet servers, no Bible apps, nor audio books. A lot of people didn’t even know how to read. But the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Jewish leaders, and the teachers of the Law, certainly did know how to read, and they read Scriptures often. And so, everyone assumed these folks knew all the answers and were teaching them everything they needed to know. But then this Jesus fellow comes along… and puts them all to shame.

It is extremely important to understand one critical fact: everything Jesus taught was already there in the Old Testament. It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to say that Jesus taught something anything different from what was already explicitly stated, or at least alluded to, in the Old Testament.

Over and over again, in the Old Testament, God asked that his people give him their hearts. Over and over again, it was revealed that God sees into people’s hearts and knows our innermost thoughts and motives. God sees what no one else sees. And this was Jesus’ entire point when he stood up before thousands and said, “You have heard it said, do not commit adultery. But I tell you, if you look upon a woman who is not your wife with lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart.” In other words, Jesus was explaining to people what sin is in God’s point of view. He was explaining to them that sin included those secret thoughts and motives in the heart. Sin included those things we do in secret, that we keep hidden from our friends, our family. And this must have been a shock to the crowd of people listening to His message. They had been duped into believing it was all about appearances because that was what the Jewish leaders were preaching. As long as you kept your nose outwardly clean and your reputation untarnished, you’re okay. And Jesus had to ruin all that.

I’m sure most people who listened were stunned. Those who already felt burdened by their sinfulness – the prostitutes, thieves, and those who abused their authority – well, they were probably feeling even worse. They already knew they were sinners. Now they knew just how far off the mark they really were! And those who thought they had checked all the boxes… well, they were feeling quite ashamed of themselves. How can any heart and mind be completely pure and unblemished?

The point of Jesus message came down to this: Every person is in need of repentance. Not a single person is without sin. We all need to repent of something.

John encouraged his followers to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. That is, don’t turn back to your old ways! Stay focused on directing your life towards God and what pleases Him, and you will store up for yourself treasures in heaven.

While it is fine and good and wonderful to preach the message of the Cross – that is, that Christ bore the wrath of God upon His body when He died upon the Cross so that we might be redeemed in the sight of God and win favor with an eternal reward of life in heaven – the message of the Cross has no value apart from the message of repentance. There is a beautiful irony here. The more one is aware of the impurity within their own selves, the more one appreciates the gift of Redemption. And the more one appreciates the gift of Redemption, the more one desires to commit to a life pleasing to God. It is in this way, God slowly changes us, from the inside out. While it may be uncomfortable initially to stand under God’s pure light since it will by its very nature reveal the impurity of our own souls, it is vital to resist the temptation to run away and hide, as Adam and Eve did. Let God’s holy light do its holy work in transforming us into His holy people, willing servants to do His holy will.

“For you were bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” – 1 Corinthians 6:20

Glorify God by living a life in keeping with repentance. Live a life in keeping with the message of the Cross – that our crown of future heavenly glory is an unmerited gift, reserved for us, not because we’ve somehow earned it by living “perfect” lives, but because Christ earned it by His perfect life, death, and miraculous resurrection, and gives it away freely as a gift to all those who believe in Him. Do these two things simultaneously and you will bear fruit worthy of a true disciple of the Lord.

Sin and Grace

How do you react to sin? How do you respond when someone in your family, your office, your work, sins against you? How do you respond when you are betrayed, gossiped about, insulted, slandered, or persecuted? Do you feel hurt, angry, or resentful? What if the person who wronged you was someone you loved and cared about? If you feel hurt when someone wrongs you, how do you think God feels?

In the beginning, God created Adam. God told Adam if he ate of the tree of Knowledge he would surely die. When Adam ate of the forbidden tree, it surely must have broke God’s heart. He loved Adam. He had created him. He had cared for him like a father. He gave Adam everything he could possibly need or desire. He gave him a paradise to live in, a place of ease and tranquility. A paradise on earth. But Adam wasn’t happy. He wanted more. He thought God was holding something back. It didn’t occur to him that God may have been hiding something from him for a reason. For his own benefit, God didn’t want Adam to discover evil. Surely, God felt the sting of betrayal. He had been like a father to Adam and Adam broke his promise to never eat of the forbidden tree. God could have easily sought revenge, but he didn’t. In fact, it was within his right to snuff out the life of Adam right then and there. He did warn Adam that if ate of the tree, he would surely die. But God’s heart welled with compassion. Adam and Eve had yet to bear any children. If God took away their lives, human history would have ended before it had a chance to begin. In his mercy, he did not slay Adam right then and there, even though God had every right to do so. Instead, God sent Adam away to a place where life would no longer be easy for him. From that moment on, Adam would have to grow his crops in a place full of weeds. He’d have to learn to survive through hard work and suffering. God’s actions were an expression of mercy. God could have killed off the human race right then and there, but he chose not to. Instead, he allowed Adam to live a long life. In fact, Adam lived to see nine generations of his offspring. Wow! What a blessing! How many people do you know have lived 900 years old?

Is it then any wonder that life was so highly prized by those of faith in the Old Testament?

Life was deemed precious by the faithful. Every breath of life was not only a blessing, but an act of mercy from God. Surely, as sinners, we all deserve death, just as Adam did. Surely, God has every right to slay us all. But he doesn’t. Why? He mercifully gives us life so that we may acknowledge him, the giver of life. Whether life is hard or easy, we have breath in our lungs. And that’s a gift.

Luke 13 begins with a group of people who tell Jesus about some Galileans who were brutally killed by the Romans. Apparently, these individuals thought the Galileans got what was coming to them – God allowed them to die a brutal death because of their sin. But Jesus puts them in their place. “Do you think they died because their sin was greater than yours?” He asks them. “No, that’s not why they perished.” Apparently, these people considered themselves holier than thou. They thought of some people more deserving of death and punishment than themselves. They wagged their fingers, claiming those Galileans got what they deserved. But Jesus turned the tables on them. He tells them that the sins of “those people” are no worse than their own. Ouch! And if they don’t repent, the same fate will happen to them. What was Jesus saying? He was saying that because of their sin, they all deserve the same fate as the Galileans they were so busily wagging their fingers against. But God decided not to slay them, as he did the Galileans, even though that’s what they deserved. He chose instead to allow them to live. And this was an act of grace. An act of mercy. God was under no obligation to save anyone, but he chose to allow some to live anyway. And if those of whom he restores, saves, and protects, do not recognize God’s act of mercy and repent of their sins, God will allow the same harsh judgment to fall upon them. The fate of the Galileans was meant as a warning to those still living. They were to repent and acknowledge God for his mercy, for preserving their lives.

There are two things that God requires of us: thankfulness for his goodness towards us, and to always trustingly call upon his Name in times of trouble. To call upon his Name means to recall to mind God’s character. And what do we know of his character? We know his character is one who is eager to show mercy. And when he shows mercy by answering our prayer, what should we do? We should thank him for his mercy!

How does this tie into sin?

I have often heard it said that God is a covenant making God, who is always faithful even we are not. But this frankly isn’t true, for two reasons. For one thing, covenants were made between pagan peoples. It was a pagan practice to perform covenant between two peoples. For another, covenants require swearing oaths, and Jesus commanded his followers not to swear oaths, but to simply let your yes be yes and your no be no. Thirdly, God has no need for oaths. Everything God says is true; therefore, if he says something is going to happen, it will. If everything he says is true, then all his promises are true. There’s no reason why he’d have any need to swear an oath. So why did he make covenant with his people? It is likely God condescended to make vows with men according to man’s customs at the time, so that people who lived in that time and culture might understand the seriousness of God’s intentions. God condescends to speak to us in the manner and language that is most meaningful. That is what he did in the Old Testament. But he had no need to “make covenant”. His promises were true regardless of whether or not he had sworn an oath. The other issue I have is that once a covenant has been broken, the other party is under no obligation to fulfill their end of the bargain. That is, God might have been faithful to his promises to the Israelites in spite of their unfaithfulness to their Mosaic covenantal vows, but God was under no obligation to do so. He was faithful, not because of covenantal vows which are based on conditional promises which had been broken time and time again by the nation of Israel, but because of God’s purity of character. God repeatedly told the Israelites that it was on the account of his Name that he’d forgive the Israelites their sins and fulfill his promises to them. His Name refers to his character and reputation. In describing his relationship with the nation of Israel, God described himself as a husband married to an unfaithful wife. And Jesus claimed that the only valid reason for a man to divorce his wife is unfaithfulness. Thus, God had every right to “divorce” Israel and attach himself to some other people group. It was out of his consistent character of all surpassing grace, mercy, and love, that God chose to fulfill his promises to Israel even when they sinned against him, not because of covenantal obligations which had been nullified the moment Israel broke their vows.

A year ago, I participated in a Bible study of the Old Testament. Specifically, we studied the Hebrew people during the time when their kingdom was divided into Israel and Judah. The nation of Israel had one wicked king after the other. The nation of Judah had a sprinkling of kings who were faithful to God, but they were not much better. During these turbulent years, God sent prophet after prophet to warn the Hebrew people that they needed to turn back to God. And over and over again, they were rejected. Jeremiah was one of the last of these prophets. For forty years he warned the people that God would punish them by allowing their enemies to conquer their nations, massacre their people, and send the survivors into exile. But no one believed him. No one believed him because it went against God’s covenantal promise to always place a descendent of Judah as ruler over the people. Jeremiah would have been reminded by the people that God had specified that this was an eternal promise. Therefore, God would always protect the nation of Judah. Always. Forever. He would never allow Judah to fall. It was inconceivable for them to think otherwise. God had always kept his promises. Why would he suddenly stop? But God did abandon them, and both Israel and Judah fell to their enemies.

When our class ended, we discussed why God abandoned them. And it was agreed that they were abandoned because of their sin. But this conclusion defies logic. Clearly, both nations sinned greatly against the Lord long before they were destroyed. God gave them many chances to turn away from their wickedness, but they refused. And it gets worse. God accuses them of committing greater sins than that of the pagan nations around them! If it was sin, God should have struck them down long before things got out of hand. But he didn’t. Why? Because love covers a multitude of sins. In God’s loving nature, God forgave them, over and over again. God loved his people. But his people did not recognize him. They did not give him honor or thanksgiving. They never grieved over their sins, and they took God’s merciful nature completely for granted. God was willing to give his people chance after chance after chance to confess their sins and turn away from their wickedness. But like stubborn children, they continued doing whatever they were doing before, without a care in the world that there might be consequences. At one point in the book of Jeremiah, God acts like a frustrated father, at the end of his rope. He lists their numerous sins and his growing wrath. But then he does something unexpected. He tells them (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Ok, guys. You all have turned against me. You could care less about the laws and precepts I gave you. You insist on going your own way. Fine. Whatever. I am at my wits end and have given up hope of you embracing my laws anymore. So, I’ll make you a deal. If you do this one thing for me – just this one thing – I promise to relent on my anger. I won’t punish you for your wickedness. I will forgive you and cancel the debt.” It’s like a parent telling an unruly child, “Ok, I give up! Day after day I’ve been after you over something. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Any time I ask you to do something, you do just the opposite. I am done with having any high expectations from you anymore! So, I’ll make a deal with you. If you do this one thing for me, just this one thing, I’ll be happy. That’s how low my expectations are right now. Clean your room and all will be forgiven!” Israel’s sins were great. Surely, they deserved punishment. It was out of grace that they weren’t. God chose to abandon Israel after they refused to do that one thing (in this case, God asked them to release their Hebrew slaves). God had asked them to obey a single command – and they couldn’t even do that right. God hadn’t abandoned the people; the people had abandoned him. And it was only then that God turned away from his own people and let them fall under the hands of their enemies.

So, what do we learn from this? We learn that God will not reject us because of sin. But he will reject us if we take God completely for granted. If we assume he does not care if we do as we please. If we assume he must not care about our actions if no just punishment falls upon us (yet).

Does that mean God is a legalist? That he expects perfection? No. God simply wants us to be contrite about our sins. To view sin and wickedness for what it is. It is evil. And it is abhorrent to God. To embrace the wisdom to love that which is good and to reject that which is evil. If we love God, then we love the things that God loves. If we love God, all evil becomes repugnant. When we find ourselves doing the evil we do not want to do, we are reminded of Saint Paul’s remarks in Romans 7. We no longer love the part of ourselves that does evil, but we are reminded that our sins have been crucified with Christ on the cross. When our hearts agree that God’s law is good, that our own deeds have conflicted with God’s law, and believe that Christ endured the punishment that should have been ours, the full wrath of God, God will not only have mercy with regards to our sins, but grant us a new resurrected life with him. And if our hearts are in agreement with all of that, then gratitude will naturally bubble up inside of us. We are no longer afraid when we sin. We see God as a god of mercy and goodness, and not a merciless taskmaster. We see our lives as glorious gifts from God and not a curse or a torment. Sin may persist, but as long as we still have breath and life, we live under God’s redeeming grace. Thus, Saint Paul was right when he said, when sin increases, God’s grace increases all the more!

The question is, are you thankful? Are you grateful? Are you grateful for your life and all the good things God has given you? Are you grateful for God’s great gift, the gift of his Son? Are you thankful for the sacrifice He made on your behalf? Will you give him your thankfulness, devotion, and praise? Will you trust in his mercy in your time of need? Will you praise him with your heart when he delivers you? Or will you go on your way, doing whatever you were doing before, giving him neither your acknowledgement nor praise, nor one shred of your obedience?

Homosexuality: Sin Or Not?

Much is being said about the United Methodist Church General Conference. The bigger question is why has the issue of homosexuality become a divisive one for the church?

First, some background should be noted on the social change that has occurred in the United States over the last thirty years.

I grew up in the 80’s. At the time, AIDS was a nameless untreatable pestilence that was rampantly spreading among gay men. To be afflicted with the disease meant certain death. Scientists and medical professionals tried to sound an alarm. They tried to push for government grants to investigate the disease. Time after time their requests were denied. They were denied when government officials were told that the only people coming down with the disease were gay men. The only reason why the grants were finally approved is because one scientist warned that it was inevitable that the disease would eventually spread to heterosexuals too. That scientist went on to discover the HIV virus and finally gave the disease a name – AIDS.

At that time, gays were social pariahs. They were not talked about within social circles. They were not represented on TV or in movies. Gays in general were treated as if they didn’t exist. They just weren’t talked about at all.

But as time went on, the media started to shine a light on the AIDS epidemic, and in doing so, they also shone a light on the gay victims of the disease. As they documented the afflictions of AIDS patients, they couldn’t help but notice other forms of suffering these men were already going through. If an AIDS patient was rendered incapable of caring for himself and had a life partner, that partner had no legal say on his lover’s medical care. Hospitals had no other legal choice but to call the closest living relatives, who, more often than not, had disowned that person years or even decades before because of the man’s gay lifestyle. Well-meaning relatives didn’t have a clue on knowing what the patient’s best interests might be; at the same time, they were often completely closed to what the patient’s partner would suggest.

The whole situation seemed grossly unfair. If a homosexual man is too ill to make decisions on his own, shouldn’t his partner have a say in his treatment and care? A gay man’s partner was often also his best friend, someone who would know more intimately than anyone else what would be in the best interests of his sick lover. There seemed to be a loophole in the law, a situation the law never considered. Meanwhile, heartless family members, who could care less about the person afflicted with the disease, were making all the decisions.

I remember watching such profiles and feeling a sense of compassion and sympathy for these men. It was hard not to feel for them.

And yet, there were plenty of other Christians I knew that didn’t have that compassion. It is shameful to say it, but I remember hearing Christians making statements that implied homosexuals were “getting what they deserve” as if God were punishing them for their homosexual lifestyles.

I remember feeling greatly disturbed by these statements. As Christians, we believe every person is a sinner, and therefore, deserving of death and eternal punishment. But because of God’s great love, He chooses not to punish us. If God’s love is great enough to cover our sins and remove from us the punishment we deserve, then why should it not be great enough to cover the sins of others? God takes no joy in our sufferings. Neither should we take any measure of satisfaction in the suffering of others, regardless of what sins we believe they’ve committed.

And thus the social conscious of both secular and social thought began to change. However, change did not happen without a decent amount of friction. As more and more gay men and women started coming out of the closet, there were equally a number of stories of outright hatred against homosexuals. Even worse, were the hate mail sent to some openly gay individuals who claimed to be Christian.

Some good came out of the change. Christians now I think understand where they went wrong. They had used Scripture as an excuse to oppress a particular subgroup of individuals, much as they had to blacks, women, Jews, and others. They had treated homosexuals as if they were less than human, not worthy of the same rights as others. Even worse, they had seen them as committing a vile sin that, at least in their eyes, is somehow greater than everyone else’s, and beyond redemption.

Scripture used in this sense is ALWAYS wrong! We should NEVER use Scripture to justify hate or oppression.

And while all this may be true, does that necessarily mean we should condone homosexual sex acts? If you believe homosexual sex acts are sinful, then no, we cannot. To marry a homosexual couple would be like wedding any other couple in which sex is flatly forbidden, such as marrying two of close relations: a man and his daughter; a brother and his aunt; etc. But if you believe homosexual sex acts aren’t sinful, then marriage and pastoral ordination should be accepted.

And this goes to the crux of the matter: Is homosexuality a sin?

There are those who believe strongly that, yes, it is a sin. This view has a lot of biblical backing. There are at least 6 different verses within Scripture that mention homosexual acts, and all of them condemn these acts as sin. In all cases in which marriage is described, it is always in the context of a union between a man and a woman. Keep in mind, too, these verses are found in both the Old and New Testaments. In the only Scripture in which sexual desire is intimately described, in the Song of Solomon, it is described in the context of the passion between a man and a woman. God also commanded in the Old Testament that mankind should “be fruitful and multiply”, something that cannot be achieved naturally through homosexual partnerships. These facts cannot be denied. It seems clear taking all these verses together that God intended sexual partnerships to exist solely within the context of marriage between a man and a woman, not just for sexual intimacy, but for the purposes of procreation.

But wait! This seems unfair. Why should a monogamous homosexual partnership, committed to mutual fidelity, be considered “bad” and a heterosexual one be considered “good”? Why would God view one partnership as “sin” and the other not sin? If God is just, this seems very unjust. If each dedicated partner also confesses Christ, what difference does it make?

Well, you have to admit, there are an endless number of human relationships in which it would be very inappropriate to add sex into the mix. Leviticus 18 lists numerous laws that define sexual immorality, not just for the people of the Old Covenant, but for modern society. I think most people of modern secular society would agree that sex between a brother and a sister is wrong, or between a father and his daughter, or a man and his mother, or a man and an animal. Wedged within the mix of what much of modern society would mutually agree as morally repugnant sins is this one: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Hmm. Well. Considering this, we must consider also the question: why would such an act be viewed as “detestable”? More to the point, considering these were laws directly passed down by God Himself, why would GOD view such an act “detestable”?

Here is a possible explanation, or at least one I’ve heard mentioned by some: The Old Testament contained many laws about cleanliness. Many of these laws are no longer considered relevant to the New Covenant. For instance, the Old Testament law forbidding the consumption of meats from certain animals because of their uncleanliness was superseded by Saint Peter’s vision in which God declared all living things within His creation as clean. Jesus Himself was often criticized by the Pharisees for hanging out with “sinners”, or those deemed too “unclean” to socialize with because of their sins. Jesus also approached, touched, and also healed lepers and those ostracized because of the “uncleanliness” of their disease. He also criticized the Pharisees for being “white washed tombs” who ardently followed the laws of outward cleanliness while possessing hearts that were either cold or dead. Taking all these things together, as followers of Christ and the New Covenant, “cleanliness” laws no longer seem to have any relevance. And so, it is perhaps possible that the Levitical law forbidding sex between two men was placed there because such relations were deemed as unclean.

This would be a valid argument if it weren’t for the passages in the New Testament that also condemn homosexual relations. Romans 1:24-27 describes an undeniably harsh and damning view of those enslaved by sexual lust, especially lusts involving homosexual relations. Of course, one has to also consider the context of these passages. Saint Paul had visited places that literally worshipped the Greek goddess of love, and who practiced such “worship” with all forms of prostitution and sexual depravity. It is very likely that many of these individuals became also victims of sexually transmitted diseases. This would engender disgust in any morally conscious individual. It is why Saint Paul so ardently implored new believers to honor their bodies as holy temples of the Spirit of God by living free from all sexual impurity.

Also, as a Pharisee and one knowledgeable in Levitical law, he would naturally consider also homosexual relations as sexually immoral. That may be true, but he nullifies the argument that his aversion to homosexuality had anything to do with cleanliness. He claims those who engage in homosexual relations have “exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones.” Hmm. Okay. Let us ponder on this one for a bit. What could he mean by that?

Homosexual partnerships, by their very nature, cannot procreate. It is undeniable that human beings would not have been able to procreate since the days of Adam and Eve if not for the benefit of heterosexual relations in conceiving children. Remember the words of the Old Testament – be fruitful and multiply. Women were honored by the number of children they conceived. Test tube babies aside, it would be biologically impossible for the human race to survive into a new generation if everyone were homosexual. By “natural relations” Saint Paul could be literally meaning “of nature”, or consistent with Creation, gender roles, and our biological need to procreate.

The language Saint Paul uses implies that indulging in homosexual relations is a choice. But there are those who argue that homosexuals are “born that way” – that is, there is something inborn in their biology that causes them to lust after those of their own gender. Let us then consider this view. If it is inborn, what would that look like? If human biology was designed by God in part for procreation, why would “nature” allow for homosexual relations? If it did, it would be considered a biological abnormality, since what is biologically normal require relations that encourage the natural conception of human life. This would also imply that homosexual behavior is the result of some kind of biological flaw. But I don’t see too many people advocating that. If it were considered a defect, why aren’t doctors trying to find a cure?

Perhaps there are those who consider it a biological abnormality, but a harmless one.

If you had watched television during the 80s and 90s, you would have seen the stories, the various stories of men who felt forced by society into leading double lives, one devoted to their wives, and another life, hidden from their families, in which they let loose their secret homosexual urges in closeted affairs with men. We who lived during that time frame would have seen them all on TV – both in fiction and in documentaries – of how families were destroyed once they find out the truth. It forced people to wonder that perhaps such men would have been better off in an openly gay monogamous relationship, a relationship that would be both sexually satisfying and without the hypocrisy.

I agree that such men would be happier, and heterosexual women would also better off by simply knowing which men are not worth investing their time in.

The Bible does say, that if two people can’t control their urges, they should marry, lest they burn with passion. So, if two men burn with passion for one another, why should they not marry?

Our U.S. Constitution states that everyone has the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” If having the right to marry makes homosexuals happy, why is that a bad thing? And doesn’t this bring equality to both heterosexual and homosexual couples?

From a legal standpoint, and a constitutional standpoint, there can be no argument made that would justify denying homosexuals of the same rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. Like I mentioned earlier, the denial of rights to homosexual partners came at a great cost during the AIDS epidemic. Regardless of how you feel about such partnerships, we have a social and moral responsibility to provide these individuals the same respect as human beings and citizens of this country.

But while I may have compassion on them in that respect, I am unconvinced that it is not a sin.

While people who prefer like-gender relations would certainly be happier in a physical and emotional sense, does that earthly happiness necessarily mean that God approves of such unions? Saint Paul indicates that God will “give over” those who seek sexual relations with those of their own gender. That is, God will not stop them. He will do nothing to prevent them from pursuing and indulging their lusts. In fact, He will hand them over to be enslaved by them. If they become enslaved, they can have no part with God.

Is this the doom we want homosexuals to endure? Do we want homosexuals to be doomed to an eternity apart from God? As Christians, do we not value and esteem our relationship with God over any other relationship? Isn’t it better to be miserable in this life by denying ourselves of certain earthly pleasures for the sake of an eternity with our Lord? Or are we being unreasonably harsh, unfair, and unrealistic to expect homosexuals to be celibate for the sake of our Lord? You might as well also say Jesus was being unrealistic, unreasonable, and unfair when He tells us to love our enemies, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, to give a thief your cloak after he just stole from you another one. (I am of the belief that to love as Jesus asks us to love can only be achieved with the power of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the Holy Spirit, we cannot genuinely love our enemies.)

To truly dedicate oneself to God, you must rely on the Holy Spirit. Without Him, we can do nothing.

Do not members of Alcoholics Anonymous seek the strength of a Higher Power to overcome their addictions? And aren’t such programs been proven successful in breaking people’s addictions, including those who may have a biologically genetic disposition towards addictive behaviors (born that way)? Do not “sinners” everywhere seek the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to let go and overcome their sinful weaknesses? Do we believe God can empower a person to overcome even sexual behaviors that are deemed displeasing to God? Or is our faith too weak to believe such a thing can happen? Or do we believe that, because a person slips again and again into indulging his sexual desires, that he must be “beyond hope” of ever changing? Do we then, at that point, when faced with the reality that the person may never change, decide we must have been in the wrong for encouraging that person to change in the first place? God forbid we adjust our thinking on what is right and what is wrong based on the difficulty a person endures in trying to adjust their lifestyle to that change! While we may have compassion and great mercy on that person as they go through that adjustment of realigning their lives according to what Christ would desire of them, we must still point out their wrong, but in a loving way that still builds them up with the courage to press on. No one said removing sinful desires from our lives would be easy! It’s a lifelong process.

Jesus makes it clear – we cannot love anything or anyone more than Himself. We cannot love any human relationship, even with our spouse, our children, our friends, above that of our relationship with Him. If we pursue any relationship at the risk of losing our relationship with God, then we are in trouble. We are playing with fire. It is one thing to sin and stumble from time to time. It is quite another to become enslaved and addicted to a relationship God does not approve of.