A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing
This week the media have been carrying the report of an anti-gay pastor who has been “outed” as a closet homosexual. A conservative Lutheran, the minister had been vocal in his opposition to the ELCA’s decision to ordain openly homosexual ministers. He is now being held up to public shame as a person who experiences same-sex attractions.
According to the publishers of a homosexually-oriented magazine, this pastor has been attending a twelve-step program for men who are trying to live celibate lives while experiencing homosexual attractions. The publishers commissioned a reporter to lie his way into the group. The magazine then published several admissions that the pastor is supposed to have made while under what he imagined to be the confidentiality of the program.
The pastor is now being denounced as a hypocrite both by those who are pro-homosexuality and those who are anti-Christianity. His ministry is in jeopardy. Most people seem to think that he is getting exactly what he deserves.
As of this writing, no one has alleged that the pastor ever actually had a sexual relationship with another man. No one has documented an inconsistency between the man’s profession and his conduct. So far, the case is very different from that of Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals who stepped down from his post after being accused of a relationship with a homosexual prostitute.
The purpose of this essay is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the pastor in question. Indeed, the essay will name neither the accused pastor nor the publication that has accused him. The episode does, however, contain certain lessons that Christians need to learn.
Those lessons begin with an acknowledgment that the problem of homosexuality cannot simply be ignored. A generation ago, this conduct was considered such a shameful perversion that it was barely mentioned in public. On the rare occasions that churches actually had to confront homosexuals, such persons were rapidly and summarily excluded. The notion of a ministry to and for homosexuals was unthinkable.
The situation is now exactly the opposite. Within the “official” culture of our civilization, homosexuality is no longer viewed as a perversion, a disease, or even an abnormality. It is simply thought of as another way of doing sex, and sexual liberty has become the most inalienable right. Any opposition to homosexuality is viewed as almost intolerable bigotry.
This change in perspective is going to affect churches for the foreseeable future. More of the people in our civilization will have at least experimented with homosexuality. More of the people in our churches will struggle with homosexuality. We are long overdue for a conversation about how we intend to minister to them.
As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality. Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.
The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.
It is possible for a person with opposite-sex attractions to live a life of chastity in mind and in body. By the same token, it is possible for a person with same-sex attractions to live a life of chastity. It is as wrong to call such a person a homosexual as it is to call a faithfully married man an adulterer.
Homosexuality is not simply a matter of desires but of obsessions and actions. Nor is homosexuality a matter of identity. Virtually everybody experiences sexual desires of some sort. Those desires, however, do not define us. Our identity consists in our relationship to God. If we are God’s children and we are in Christ, then our conduct (including the conduct in which we engage in our own inner world) needs to be brought into line with our identity.
Homosexuality is not who a person is, but what a person does. Someone who chooses not to engage in the conduct is not a homosexual. Someone who chooses to stop engaging in the conduct is no longer a homosexual. It was possible for Paul, discussing homosexuality among other sins, to say, “such were some of you” (1 Cor 6:11) Whatever their desires, these people were now washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit.
A word needs to be said about hypocrisy. One does not become a hypocrite by denouncing what one desires. We all have the experience of desiring what we know is wrong. Labeling a thing wrong when we desire it is not hypocritical. Indeed, it is an act of courage.
We do not even become hypocrites when we indulge in vices that we know and profess to be wrong. Unless someone claims to have achieved sinless perfection, we must all admit that we sometimes actually do what we know to be wrong. This admission is not a confession of hypocrisy, however, but of akrasia [editor’s note: “lack of self control,” 1 Cor. 7:5]. When we sin we are weak, but we are not necessarily hypocrites.
Hypocrisy occurs when we knowingly label good to be evil or evil to be good. To be a hypocrite is to pretend to believe one thing when we actually believe another. Hypocrisy means attempting to excuse our conduct on the basis of a principle that we ourselves do not really hold.
So what about the pastor with whom this discussion began? Should such a person be barred from ministry? Should he be expelled from the church?
My response is that same-sex attractions by themselves are no disqualification from church membership. They are no disqualification from church office. They should be no disqualification from the friendship of God’s people. In fact, same-sex attractions by themselves should not even hinder Christians from entering the marriage covenant and bearing children.
Attractions are things to be managed. They can be rejected, or they can be dwelt upon and acted upon. They can be learned and unlearned. Those who reject them and seek to unlearn them are not to be judged as if they had acted upon them.
Helping Christians learn how to respond to wrong and even perverse inclinations is an important part of discipleship. Given the increasingly positive treatment of homosexuality in our civilization, this is an aspect of discipleship that churches no longer can afford to ignore. We cannot insulate our youth entirely from the influences of our culture. More of our young people are going to find that they experience same-sex attractions.
Also, more of the people we reach will have been touched by homosexual desires and practices. When they become Christians, they will have to deal with the attitudes and activities of their past. So will we. This, too, is an aspect of ministry that churches no longer can afford to ignore.
Easter Hymn
Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)
Death and darkness, get you packing:
Nothing now to man is lacking.
All your triumphs now are ended,
And what Adam marred is mended.
Graves are beds now for the weary;
Death a nap, to wake more merry;
Youth now, full of pious duty,
Seeks in thee for perfect beauty;
The weak and aged, tired with length
Of days, from thee look for new strength;
And infants with thy pangs contest,
As pleasant as if with the breast.
Then unto him who thus hath thrown
Even to contempt thy kingdom down,
And by his blood did us advance
Unto his own inheritance—
To him be glory, power, praise,
From this unto the last of days!
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 11 views
It seems to me that we are dealing with the nature of temptation, and in doing so we should address situations such as the temptation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Obviously thoughts passed through His head “I’m hungry”, “I’m tired”, “Ouch”. But He did not follow those thoughts into discontent, covetousness, gluttony, or slothfulness.
However and IMO, there is a significant difference between being tempted by something that is a natural desire- food, comfort, resources, love, etc… and something that is an unnatural desire, such as homosexuality. I’m not going to say that I know where the line is, but I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know it when we cross it. For instance, I remember seeing pictures of Madonna and Britney Spears smooching all over the place at one time, so it follows that the thought of two women kissing goes through one’s head at the sight- but to allow that thought to develop into contemplation… that’s where you’re nurturing a sinful seed. I think the progression that Aaron is pointing out is valid, but I have a problem applying it to something like same-sex attraction because it is a perversion of a natural desire. Hoping that makes sense.
The Lord drew me to Himself when I was 23, and the externals of my life displayed my inner depravity. I am deeply grateful for the transforming power of the gospel of Christ. Someone once shared with me an illustration : “It is not sin when temptation knocks at the door. It is sin when you invite it in and entertain it.” As long as we are on this side of the grave, we will experience temptations and allurements to evil. James reminded us to submit to God, then resist evil.
As we discuss the details, and try to flesh out every possible circumstance of sin and temptation, let us be careful that we do not superimpose upon Scripture details that God has not chosen to address.
The longer I live, the more I am drawn to a phrase credited to John Newton. “I know that I am a great sinner, and that I have a great Savior”
Dick Dayton
[RPittman]I was thinking more about what we need to consider when we try to minister to people who are struggling in this area. The first thing that comes to mind is often that a person must be purposefully entertaining depraved thoughts, when there could be a physiological problem that needs to be addressed first. Obviously having a physical problem doesn’t relieve someone of the responsibility for their actions.[Susan] However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally ‘rewire’ their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It’s a possibility I think we’d be unwise to ignore.There are obvious exceptions. Two severely retarded boys, who have no concept of wrongdoing, in a group home having homosexual relations is far different from the normal person. Paul said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Even though hormonal and environmental factors may intensify a temptation, the root cause, responsibility, and accountability before God stems from our inner moral being. Believing that God is just, we must leave it to Him to judge justly and righteously.
[RPittman]Whether Christ would not or could not sin, the fact remains that having a thought enter one’s head is not the same as entertaining that thought. And whether the word ‘temptation’ means to ‘test’ or to ‘entice’- we know both happened at various points in Christ’s physical life. He was not untouched with the feelings of our infirmities- He somehow was able to experience human weakness without sin. He got hungry, He was in pain. He needed to sleep.[Susan] It seems to me that we are dealing with the nature of temptation, and in doing so we should address situations such as the temptation of Christ. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Obviously thoughts passed through His head “I’m hungry”, “I’m tired”, “Ouch”. But He did not follow those thoughts into discontent, covetousness, gluttony, or slothfulness.I believe in the impeccability of Christ—he not only did not sin but he could not sin. The Biblical concept of temptation turns on a very subtle twist of meaning. One side is simply trials or testing whereas the other meaning is an allurement or enticement to sin. Christ, I believe, was never enticed by sin (John 14:30), yet He suffered great agony in severe trials and testing. The enticement to sin is an appeal to our depraved nature, which Christ did not possess. James is very clear that the bent to sin is an appeal to something within us (James 1:13-15). The lust (i.e. inner desire) that is enticed is sinful. The irony is that the same desire (e.g. appetite, sexual desire, etc.) may be perfectly acceptable when channeled toward the proper outlet. Like temptation (trials/testings) can become temptation (allurement to sin) (Proverbs 30:7-9), legitimate desires can become sinful. As God can bring good out of bad (Genesis 50:19-21), good can also lead to bad (2 Chronicles 26:16). Such is the wretchedness of the human condition (Jeremiah 17:9).
I think we can aspire to that in our own lives, and not beat ourselves up because a thought entered our heads or we are bound by the weaknesses and demands of a physical body, but rather learn how to deal with thoughts as they enter, take care of our bodies so that they do not become stumbling blocks, and endeavor to guard our hearts even as we must interact in and minister to this present evil world.
The Bible does not teach that a desire that is sinful on account of its object is necessarily sinful in its origin or sinful in any other sense.
The question, again, in the case of what you called “homosexual feelings” (this is actually a useful term in some ways), is whether the presence of these constitutes committing a sin on the part of the one who feels them. More specifically does the Bible teach that a person has sinned by feeling these things or that he has a spiritual condition that is necessarily causing them.
As for your observation that homosexual desire has no non-sinful form of expression because it’s object is always forbidden, this is true. It is also true that adulterous desire has no non-sinful expression because it’s object is always forbidden. The forbiddenness is built into the term.
The difference in the case of homosexual desire is that it is not “natural,” as Paul points out in Romans 1. However, the fact that it isn’t natural, doesn’t prove that it necessarily springs from a person’s corrupt nature (and certainly does not prove that to feel the desire is to commit a sin.)
In the case of Romans 1, those guys were given over to homosexual desire as a form of judgment for their rejection of God. But Paul does not say this is the only way to experience “homosexual feelings.”
Look, we both believe that homosexual desire is “sinful” in the sense of “wanting to do something that is wrong to do.” What I—and KB, assuming I’ve understood him correctly—are saying is that feeling feelings is not committing sin. There is nothing to repent of in feeling a feeling.
I stand by my boy and apple illustration. We are not sinning when a physical or even emotional appetite is stimulated in some way by something around us through no fault of our own.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think you are misunderstanding Aaron. Let me try a diferent angle. Let’s say I have been a habitual liar - I even lie about things that don’t matter. I get saved and the Lord starts convicting me. So a few days later, I am late for work. My boss asks me why I am late for work. My first thought is to say, how I was stuck in traffic, but I don’t say that. Instead I admist that I hit the snooze bar. Because of my past sin, my first thought was to sin, but IMO (based on James) I did not sin. Instead, because of God’s grace, He gave me spiritual victory.
I think this is what Aaron and Bauder are talking about. Because of a homosexual’s past, those thoughts will enter in his mind, but I believe that he has not sinned until he starts fantacizing. Notice, I am making a distinction (as is Aaron and Bauder) between a thought coming in your head and entertaining/fantacizing about that thought. I think that is the idea of James’ teaching.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
either in act, disposition, or state” (p. 549). Grudem similarly delineates this lack of conformity as being in act, attitude, or nature (p. 490). Thiessen/Doerksen: “Sin is both an act and a principle, both guilt and pollution” (p.185). If our very disposition or state can indeed be called sin, then even if our thoughts come and we by the grace of God do not act upon that thought, that thought must still be called sin. This may not match what most of us have been taught, or be what we want to hear, however according to multiple texts of the scriptures:
Psalm 32:1 “Blessed is he whose sin is covered!” Not just acts (or a single act) are/is being expiated.
Psalm 51:2, 5 “Cleanse me from my sin … in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Romans 7:17 “So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me.”
1 John 3:4 “Sin is lawlessness,” lack of conformity to the law. This could be what one doesn’t do in some cases; lack of acts.
1 John 5:17 “All unrighteousness is sin”
Romans 14:23 “Whatever is not from faith is sin.”
James 4:17 “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
Matthew 15:19 “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries.”
Hebrews 3:12 “An evil, unbelieving heart.”
Isaiah 1:5 “Whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint.”
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else.”
The common objection is that Jesus was tempted, and those thoughts must have came into his mind, however because He was without sin, He did not act upon those thoughts. However the case is that those thoughts would not have came to Christ, “There is no unrighteousness in Him,” John 7:18
The point of my post is not to theologically nitpick or to be argumentative, but my desire is to challenge us to think biblically about our depravity and how desperately we need Christ and His perfect righteousness.
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that acts are only sin….I know I am not. What I am distinguishing is a thought coming into my head from meditating and fanticizing about that thought. I believe Scripturally you can make a good case for that.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[rogercarlson] DJ,Roger, Thanks for the clarification, I didnt mean to imply that anyone was making that statement. What I was trying to and would like to push our thinking towards is what you have actually summarized. That the thought coming into our heads, in fact is sin. The question must be asked, where did the thought come from? My answer to that question is from our sinful depraved heart according to the verses i cited earlier, so therefore it is sin, before it is even to the point of meditation or fantasizing. Again as I’ve stated hopefully this is not divisive, but to push our thinking of the text.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that acts are only sin….I know I am not. What I am distinguishing is a thought coming into my head from meditating and fanticizing about that thought. I believe Scripturally you can make a good case for that.
Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[RPittman] Alen, I hear what you’re saying but it is your own rationalization. How do you know? What does the Bible say? Do you have a Scriptural basis for making this distinction between lust and attraction? You are proposing scenarios that could go on ad infinitum and prove nothing. We do not establish Biblical truth by “what if’s.” BTW, you need to define your terms a little more precisely because you are confusing attraction, attractive, and the recognition of beauty. It seems that the Bible stresses an inner beauty of spirit rather than the outer adornment and physical beauty. Further, read Proverbs to see the fatherly advice for a young man who may be attracted by sexual charms. Cannot desires be sin? Would the desire to kill someone be sinful? If so, homosexual desires are inherently sinful because there is no possibility of a legitimate fulfillment as with sexual desires being fulfilled within marriage (Hebrews 13:4).Thanks for the follow up! Okay, I think I’m getting where you are coming from. Let me lay out what I gather you’re saying and go from there.
Quickly, before I reply I guess I will clarify my point earlier: Noticing beauty isn’t sinful. Being attracted to another person (at least we would agree in terms of normal heterosexual attraction?) isn’t sinful either. Therefore homosexual exhibitions of the same (noticing beauty, being attracted etc) are not sinful either. In both cases the attraction doesn’t necessarily need to be physical attraction but regardless the point is the same. Homosexual disposition isn’t inherently sinful.
Anyways, you’re saying that homosexual desires are inherently sinful because there is no legitimate fulfillment possible for those desires. Where as I assume you would say the opposite is to be said of heterosexuals in that their desires do indeed have legitimate fulfillment and therefore are not sinful.
I guess the main difference is you equate (if I understand you correctly) the illegitimate desire as an automatic expression of sin (as per your apple example) where as others distinguish between the initial thought and then the meditation upon it, with the later only being sinful. You claim the latter position as a rationalization not based upon scripture, while the former to be a true biblical teaching. Would I be right in my understanding thus far?
I guess the main factor here is our presupposition here of at what point does a thought or desire become sinful. In your case it seems the immediate expression, and others the meditation thereof. Anyways, I look forward to hearing more of what you have to say. If I’m understanding you correctly you seem to be making an interesting point. Anyways..
Now, I’m assuming you are not equating desires with lusting. I am assuming you mean two different things when you say a desire or lust. Which seems to be going against what you have been saying if I understood you thus far. Therefore if you acknowledge there is a difference between this legitimate desire and lust, I agree and would apply the same rules to the one with homosexual desire. The difference being I do not find that their disposition is inherently sinful as you would not class a desire inherently sinful. Anyways..(not sure if I am making sense here..:P)
[rogercarlson] I think this is what Aaron and Bauder are talking about. Because of a homosexual’s past, those thoughts will enter in his mind, but I believe that he has not sinned untilThis is helpful, Roger, but I would not necessarily say that he has to have any past at all. I know of one case where the young man began to be tempted with homosexual desires around puberty. He had no past and had not done anything extraordinary to “bring this on.” These temptations came uninvited and unwanted. Which leads to DJ Lowrance’s question.
[DJ Lowrance] Where does the thought come from?I believe the thought to commit a sin can come from more than one place because there is more than one way an act acquires its status as a sinful act.
To return to my boy and apple illustration, eating an apple is normally not a sin, but the lad’s mom has said “No more apples today.” In this case, an appetite for one more apple does not necessarily arise from something sinful in the boy but from his physicality. In this sense, as Susan pointed out earlier, Jesus was tempted. I personally have no doubt that when Satan said “Turn these stones into bread,” He felt physical longings for some bread (I admit the text does not say so). There would be nothing “sinful” in the sense of “originating from a corrupt nature” about physically hungering for what would be wrong to eat in that situation.
On the other hand, the little boy is also quite capable of hearing his mother’s apple ban, and feeling the ol’ stirring of sinful rebellion and wanting one more apple just because he doesn’t want to be told what to do. In this case, the desire is “sinful” in an entirely different way. It comes from the corrupt part of his being. It is still not a sinful act. He is not comitting a sin, by feeling this desire, but it is sinful in its character—an expression of his inner corruption.
He could also, as Roger pointed out, feel a draw to one more apple because of his past physical habits and/or feel it because of the past habit of disobedience.
So all I’m really saying is that the Bible does not teach that capacity to be tempted by homosexual sin is spiritually and morally different in every case from the capacity to be tempted by anything else that is off limits. As I’ve said, it is different in it’s naturalness.
Unnatural…
Let’s take the boy and apple illustration one step further: suppose rather than apples, the boy has an odd craving for grass. It’s not natural for humans to want to eat grass. The boys parents have sternly warned him that it’s unhealthy and unsafe for him to eat grass. Let’s say he prudently avoids being in the yard alone when he’ll be tempted, but he can’t help the fact that many places he is required to go in life, there’s grass everywhere. He sees it, it appeals to him, but he chooses not to indulge either mentally (yes, I affirm once again that “acts of sin” can be internal as well as external) or physically.
He has not sinned by feeling the attraction to grass, even though it’s quite unnatural. He simply has a defect he must live with.
The controversy in a nutshell
Among biblical counseling practitioners, it’s common to hear/see the view that homosexual desire must always come from inner corruption and cannot be simply unnatural physicality. I have not found the biblical evidence for this to be very solid, so I do not hold to that view.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RPittman]I’ve already stated that I’m not talking about the fact that we have a sin nature and therefore we are sinners. A dog barks because he is a dog, we sin because we are sinners. I get that.[Susan R]No physical or physiological problem produces depraved thought; depraved thoughts originate in our depraved nature. Certain factors may extenuate and stimulate the depraved thoughts but the source is within ourselves.[RPittman]I was thinking more about what we need to consider when we try to minister to people who are struggling in this area. The first thing that comes to mind is often that a person must be purposefully entertaining depraved thoughts, when there could be a physiological problem that needs to be addressed first. Obviously having a physical problem doesn’t relieve someone of the responsibility for their actions.[Susan] However- another thought that comes to mind is the cursed earth. Our world is deteriorating at an increasingly rapid pace. There is some evidence that pollutants, acting as endocrine disruptors, have an affect on unborn and developing children, and can literally ‘rewire’ their systems, affecting their sexuality. I think we have to take some of these factors into account when attempting to minister to people having issues in this area. They may not be struggling because they are exposing their minds to perverted images, but because their hormonal balance has been turned upside down and they are experiencing physical symptoms that have affected their mental processes. It’s a possibility I think we’d be unwise to ignore.There are obvious exceptions. Two severely retarded boys, who have no concept of wrongdoing, in a group home having homosexual relations is far different from the normal person. Paul said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Even though hormonal and environmental factors may intensify a temptation, the root cause, responsibility, and accountability before God stems from our inner moral being. Believing that God is just, we must leave it to Him to judge justly and righteously.
What I am talking about is that because of our bond to sinful flesh that we are commanded to grapple with and overcome, at what point of the struggle do thoughts and feelings become willful sin? For example, as a woman with four children who has experienced a few instances of severe hormonal imbalance, I know what it is to feel rage for no reason, and be overwhelmed with crippling sadness when I’m actually quite content, and to fall asleep while I am in the middle of a conversation. There are physiological factors to consider when ministering to people, and it is important that church leadership don’t ignore the physical when dealing with the spiritual.
We know that Jesus experienced the kind of temptations that arise from being physical as well as the effects of the curse. He also grew weary and slept, thirsted, hungered, felt pain. Satan appealed to His physicality in the temptations, but also attempted to appeal to inner corrupt nature (bow and I’ll give you the kingdoms of this world)… only there was no inner corrupt nature. But there was a real physical body and Jesus felt all the desires that go with it.
Do we know that everyone who feels tempted by homosexuality does so because the desire comes from his inner corrupt nature as opposed to simply from his physical body? I have not yet seen anyone prove this from Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’ve explained the role of natural vs. not natural. I’ve pointed out that what we’re doing here is applying Scripture to things we know happen. We know that people experience desires from their corrupt nature but also experience desires that simply have to do with being physical and encountering a stimulus. If you want to try to prove that the latter never happens, best of luck with that.
I’ve also pointed out that in James 1:14-15 the commission of sin is distinct from the desire that the temptation appeals to. In the case of Jesus, He clearly was drawn away and enticed to sin by Satan. This is what Satan does. In the process of that happening, the Devil appealed to both natural appetites and corrupt spiritual appetites. Interestingly, he did not seem to know the latter did not exist in Christ. But we know the former did exist. The text says He was hungry.
[RP] Now my question to you, Aaron, do you have a single verse from the Bible that may indicate homosexual desires come from a corrupted physical body?No. Do you have a a single verse that says they always come from inner spiritual corruption? I have yet to see one.
What we do have is clear teaching (along with abundant personal experience) that temptation can appeal to merely physical desires, whether natural or otherwise.
We also have clear Scripture that temptation and sinning are distinct. So even when a temptation is appealing to a desire rooted in our corrupt sinful nature, feeling that desire is not a sinful act (inward or outward). Makes no difference if it’s a desire to lie, a desire to steal, a desire to murder, a desire to commit adultery. The Bible does not teach that a person is sinning by experiencing temptation.
From a ministry standpoint, I think it’s tragic (and cruel) to tell a person tempted by homosexuality that he is sinning every time he feels tempted or that he is spiritually sick and twisted as long as the temptation continues to occur. That teaching requires a biblical basis and I have yet to see such a basis.
[RP] Mark 7.14-23About that, in the context Jesus is correcting the Pharisees (et. al.) thinking that the way to be pure is to avoid outside things that are impure. Jesus asserts that the corruption is within. He is not teaching that a temptation cannot appeal to a mere physical appetite.
But again, let’s not get distracted. Whether the desire temptation is appealing to is innately corrupt or not, feeling tempted is not sinning.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion