QC and SG accountability (16/6/17)
We considered how as loving Christians we should be thinking of the upcoming Pink Dot event, one that celebrates "the freedom to love" "Attendees of Pink Dot events gather to form a 'pink dot' to show support for inclusiveness, diversity and the freedom to love" (Wikipedia).
Christians may be divided as to whether we should be supporting/attending this event. I thought that it would be helpful to consider some theological and pastoral perspectives to help us as we consider how to think and feel about our LGBT friends, colleagues and relatives.
Romans 1 teaches that mankind in general has "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images" (v. 23), i.e. idols made in our own image ("mortal man"). Homosexuality is described as involving "impurity" (v.24), "dishonorable passions" (v.26), "shameless acts" (v.27). More to the point, homosexuality also represents an aspect of God's judgement on fallen humanity ("God gave them up
v.24, v.26). The love of man for man, not for God, is portrayed by the intra-gender attraction of homosexuality. We call God "Father"and not "Mother" not because He is male as we commonly understand maleness. In biology as well as in theology, the male gives, the female receives, and life results.That is why Christ is the Bridegroom and His Church, the Bride, and not the other way round. He gives, we receive, and spiritual life results in us individually and corporately. When man loves man in a spiritual sense, rather than loving God, no spiritual life results. The physical analogue of this situation also results in inability to create biological life. (see Eddie Ho's excellent message on this last year at http://votumdeus.blogspot.sg/2016/06/the-eros-of-two-men.html).
The idea that human marriages and human sexuality is meant to reflect the spiritual reality between God and His people (Eph 5:32) is the reason why orthodox Christians will believe that homosexuality, being a type of relationship that reflects deadness rather than life, is sinful. So the prohibition against homosexual behaviour is not cultural for Biblical times only, but deeply rooted in spiritual truth.
We must guard against the idea that homosexuality is the worst of sins. It is true that practicing homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:8). but the same verse assures us that those who practice a whole host of other sins are also excluded. The point is that all of us are sinful. All inherit inborn tendencies to various kinds of sin.All have fallen short of God's glory (Ro 3:23). There is no doubt that in many cases one's homosexuality is a major part of one's identity. But all of mankind is in the same boat - all are under condemnation. Homosexuality is singled out in Romans 1 only because it is the example par excellence that shows us how man has loved man rather than loved God's glory.
We looked at 1 Cor 10 for some guidelines as to how to think practically about our own responses to the Pink Dot movement. We are reminded again that what we do should be:
1. helpful (v.23)
2. building us up (v. 23)
3. to the glory of God (v. 31)
4. an effort not to cause unnecessary offense to anyone (v.32-33).
In 1 Cor 10 Paul gives a helpful nuanced response to eating food offered to idols. He says:
1. It's never OK to eat food offered to idols in a pagan temple as part of a religious setting
2. It's OK to buy and eat food that may or may not be offered to idols in a secular setting (the meat market", v.25)
3. It's OK to eat food that may or may not be offered to idols in a personal setting (v.27)
4. It's not OK to eat food that someone has told you has been offered to idols, for the sake of that person's conscience (v.28-29)
The tagline of Pink Dot with words like "Freedom" and "Love" is very attractive. Yet we know that freedom (= the ability to act according to one's desires) in society cannot be absolute. An individual's expression of freedom will often transgress on the freedom of another individual's, if fully expressed. That's why civil society has laws. We also note that the LGBT community would not extend the same "freedom to love" in situations involving bestiality, paedophilia and incest. So there are other societal norms that we do not cross which are not justified by the use of the idea of "freedom".
We have to contrast the idea of Christian "love" with secular "love". Love is not sex. Love is more than according kindness, or dignity, or equality. These latter qualities should be a given in a decent secular society. Christian love is desiring the best for the beloved, even at the expense of the best for ourselves at times (Jn 13:34-35). We must always think of the greatest good of those we love, and that would mean that we are concerned foremost for their most important and permanent comfort - heaven, and for their most important relationship - that with Jesus Christ. We certainly cannot change perspectives and appetites to bring our LGBT friends to Christ - this must come from God's sovereign work to draw them to Him (Jn 6:44). When the Holy Spirit indwells a believer, He transforms us to conform to Christ's character. Even the most besetting sin, the greatest obstacles to godliness, will be overcome.
Christians may be divided as to whether we should be supporting/attending this event. I thought that it would be helpful to consider some theological and pastoral perspectives to help us as we consider how to think and feel about our LGBT friends, colleagues and relatives.
Romans 1 teaches that mankind in general has "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images" (v. 23), i.e. idols made in our own image ("mortal man"). Homosexuality is described as involving "impurity" (v.24), "dishonorable passions" (v.26), "shameless acts" (v.27). More to the point, homosexuality also represents an aspect of God's judgement on fallen humanity ("God gave them up
v.24, v.26). The love of man for man, not for God, is portrayed by the intra-gender attraction of homosexuality. We call God "Father"and not "Mother" not because He is male as we commonly understand maleness. In biology as well as in theology, the male gives, the female receives, and life results.That is why Christ is the Bridegroom and His Church, the Bride, and not the other way round. He gives, we receive, and spiritual life results in us individually and corporately. When man loves man in a spiritual sense, rather than loving God, no spiritual life results. The physical analogue of this situation also results in inability to create biological life. (see Eddie Ho's excellent message on this last year at http://votumdeus.blogspot.sg/2016/06/the-eros-of-two-men.html).
The idea that human marriages and human sexuality is meant to reflect the spiritual reality between God and His people (Eph 5:32) is the reason why orthodox Christians will believe that homosexuality, being a type of relationship that reflects deadness rather than life, is sinful. So the prohibition against homosexual behaviour is not cultural for Biblical times only, but deeply rooted in spiritual truth.
We must guard against the idea that homosexuality is the worst of sins. It is true that practicing homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:8). but the same verse assures us that those who practice a whole host of other sins are also excluded. The point is that all of us are sinful. All inherit inborn tendencies to various kinds of sin.All have fallen short of God's glory (Ro 3:23). There is no doubt that in many cases one's homosexuality is a major part of one's identity. But all of mankind is in the same boat - all are under condemnation. Homosexuality is singled out in Romans 1 only because it is the example par excellence that shows us how man has loved man rather than loved God's glory.
We looked at 1 Cor 10 for some guidelines as to how to think practically about our own responses to the Pink Dot movement. We are reminded again that what we do should be:
1. helpful (v.23)
2. building us up (v. 23)
3. to the glory of God (v. 31)
4. an effort not to cause unnecessary offense to anyone (v.32-33).
In 1 Cor 10 Paul gives a helpful nuanced response to eating food offered to idols. He says:
1. It's never OK to eat food offered to idols in a pagan temple as part of a religious setting
2. It's OK to buy and eat food that may or may not be offered to idols in a secular setting (the meat market", v.25)
3. It's OK to eat food that may or may not be offered to idols in a personal setting (v.27)
4. It's not OK to eat food that someone has told you has been offered to idols, for the sake of that person's conscience (v.28-29)
The tagline of Pink Dot with words like "Freedom" and "Love" is very attractive. Yet we know that freedom (= the ability to act according to one's desires) in society cannot be absolute. An individual's expression of freedom will often transgress on the freedom of another individual's, if fully expressed. That's why civil society has laws. We also note that the LGBT community would not extend the same "freedom to love" in situations involving bestiality, paedophilia and incest. So there are other societal norms that we do not cross which are not justified by the use of the idea of "freedom".
We have to contrast the idea of Christian "love" with secular "love". Love is not sex. Love is more than according kindness, or dignity, or equality. These latter qualities should be a given in a decent secular society. Christian love is desiring the best for the beloved, even at the expense of the best for ourselves at times (Jn 13:34-35). We must always think of the greatest good of those we love, and that would mean that we are concerned foremost for their most important and permanent comfort - heaven, and for their most important relationship - that with Jesus Christ. We certainly cannot change perspectives and appetites to bring our LGBT friends to Christ - this must come from God's sovereign work to draw them to Him (Jn 6:44). When the Holy Spirit indwells a believer, He transforms us to conform to Christ's character. Even the most besetting sin, the greatest obstacles to godliness, will be overcome.
Comments
Post a Comment