Main Menu

RESIZE TEXT:

Changing Theology

“An empty Testament”  That is all that would remain of the Old and New Testament in the Bible when pro-homosexual liberal theologians, revisionists and activists are finished with it.  An empty testament “detoxified” from condemnation of the unrepentant sinner and sin, and “empty testament” written for our time and deliberately cleansed of all that could keep us from heaven or the coming wrath of God” Dr Peet Botha

“Almost any behaviour begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it” Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen

“People drift along from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes thinkable as the years move on” Francis Schaeffer

“We ignore the complete cultural implications of our faith and then we are shocked by the state of the culture” Charles Colson

“The contemporary gay liberation movement may be regarded as a rejection of the Abrahamic tradition in regard to homosex vality and a return to the more tolerant and accepting attitude of Greco-Roman paganism, even though some gay activists seek to sanction their beliefs in the guise of pseudo-Christian or pseudo-Jewish communities." William A Percy

Introduction

The church is nearing the limits of toleration at quite a liberal pace.  Rather sooner than later the church will find itself within the mainstream of liberal political thinking, accommodating culture at the cost of evangelical truths.  The church is fast becoming another interest group among many, helping actively in the deconstruction of evangelical Christianity, and aiming at adopting the ideas and practices of liberal culture.  The general church member has absolutely no idea what a liberal disposition toward sexuality will bring about in future.

Within evangelical Christianity a weakened and liberal church opts with little resistance for theological revisionism as well as for social and political liberalism especially in the area of sexuality.  Although the vast majority of Christians find this paradigm shift irritating, it has been tolerated and very few church members can muster the energy to resist and speak out against the church’s capitulation into the hands of theological revisionism.  Liberal churches as well as a few evangelical churches have supported with a collective voice the gay-liberation and gay-pride movement.  The divide between biblical truth and modern application has become today so pronounced that it paved the way for just about any false teaching to be accepted in modern churches.

On the issue of sexuality, we have come to the limits of toleration. It is my firm belief that decisions by church denominations to normalize homosexuality as a normal variant of sexuality are exceeding the limits of tolerance.  Here homosexuality refers to the general vague term given to sexual relationships among members of the same sex as manifestation or man’s attempt to satisfy his sexual needs.  The coup detat of the theological revisionists at the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa’s (DRC) synod meeting in October 2004 is indicative of the current liberal trends in the mainline churches in South Africa. Theologians holding on to the traditional theological view of the DRC that homosex is sin, were as the saying goes, caught with their pants down.  They are indeed now reaping the harvest of a fruitless and uninspired effort at the 2004 DRC General Synod Meeting.

However, this paradigm shift is not only limited to the DRC, but is also vividly displayed in the attitudes and decisions of quite a few denominations and theological seminaries in South Africa.  The content of the revisionist agenda is summarized well in the words of Benne:

"The gist of the revisionist argument contends that there really is no persisting, discernible sexual identity tied to the obvious differences in biological form.  Traditional differences, they argue, are oppressive cultural definitions imposed by heterosexual males that have proven to be highly relative, both from culture to culture and from person to person within a culture.  Thus, they counsel that love between persons be the sole criterion governing sexual relations.  “All you need is love”.  The “appropriate to form” qualifications should be dropped, at least as it pertains to homosexual relations.  Homosexual relations are not disordered or imperfect, only different.  There is less interest in dropping the “appropriate to form” qualification with regard to incest, pedophilia and bestiality though it is difficult to see why those barriers should not also fall, given their arguments."3

But, thank God, the revisionist argument does not convince every theologian and church member.  Many are still holding fiercely to their traditional theological positions.  They do so because the biblical position on homosex is sin.  This conclusion is unequivocally supported by the heterosexual attitude and structure of the Bible.  Germond is a typical spokesperson for the revisionists when he labels the Bible as heterosexist and misogynistic in its sexual orientation.  This judgement then renders the Bible useless in giving guidance within the current controversy.

Despite the revisionists’ efforts to legitimize their viewpoint in reformed theology there is not the slightest evidence in either the Bible or Christian tradition (that can be retrieved) to legitimate homosex and homosexual relationships.  Starting with the creation narratives in Genesis, the Bible as a whole rejects homosexual acts whenever it is mentioned.  Pro-homosexual theologians and activists, in a unanimous voice, cannot but admit that the Bible is consistent in its negative judgement of homosexual conduct.

In their effort to circumnavigate the negative judgement of the Scriptures, theological revisionist have debased the biblical message on homosexual conduct and deprived the Bible of the intended meanings of the Bible portions speaking on the issue of homosexual conduct.  To pretend that the Bible approves – through revision of the Bible portions – of certain types of homosexual relationships is to be fundamentally wrong.  We simply cannot revise the Bible message to say what it does not intend to say.  We either accept the judgement as it stands or reject it in favour of our own convictions or presuppositions with which we approach the Bible and that would lead us into unconstrained sexuality.

We are so compromised by our pastoral silence regarding sexual behaviour, so embarrassed by our personal failures, so jaded by the general ethical chaos, that clarity or courage on the matter of homosexuality seems out of reach … The “need” for sexual expression, the quasi-religious status granted to romantic love, the “right” to happiness, the shrinking of marriage down to a single dimension of mutual happiness, the general separation of sexual love from fecundity, the naturalization of lust;  these cultural orthodoxies and influences hem us in.  The call to chastity can be heard only as the imposing of a cruel and unusual punishment.4

The current confusion in the church is the result of theological failure to know what the Bible says about sexuality as well as marriage.  The relentless and increasing challenge by the homosexual fraternity to its normative teaching on sexuality has left the church reeling in a confused daze, quite prepared to give up its Holy Book to be secularized by the liberal homosexual agenda.  Thus the holy Book is turned into an unholy Empty Testament for modern times.  The push for endorsement of homosexual practice represents a determined attach today on the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality.  The debate on homosex and the Bible acutely raises the question of the Bible’s place and authority in the church.

In the end the outcomes of the controversy over homosex and its implications for the church can only be decided conclusively on religious grounds.  History shows that no society, this includes religious societies, that has sanctioned unconstrained sexuality has survived long.  Prager, a reformed Jewish cultural commentator writes:

"Man’s nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and society …. It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible.  Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development.  The subsequent dominance of the Western world can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity." 5

The essence of the entire debate about homosexuality is inextricably grafted in the Christian concept of sin.  The whole idea that homosex represents sinful conduct, and is therefore to be regarded as being wrong, entered modern culture from the Jewish and Christian faiths.  The pagan cultures of the world not rooted in the worship of the God of Israel sometimes regard ritual homosexual conduct as perfectly acceptable and normative behaviour.  The Bible describes most sins as pleasurable, natural and self reinforcing to the point of compulsion.  They are, in effect, additions.6  Paul confirms this truth when he writes:

24 "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with on another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised.  Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Rom. 1:24-27).

Thus, the Bible highlights a vital and integral dimension of sin.  Sin is not only increasingly addictive, but a definite form of idolatry.  This truth manifests itself in the way modern people regard most restrictions (moral restrictions) as archaic, arbitrary and unnecessary.

This truth surfaces within the homosexual agenda as well.  Homosexual theology redefines the sin of homosex in such a way that only homosexual promiscuity (the perversion of the perversion) is regarded as sin.  Homosex is normalized and seen as the one end on the linear presentation of sexuality where heterosexuality forms the other end.  In the middle we find bi-sexuality and around it all other expressions of sexuality (transgender, transsexual, cross dresser, transvestite, pederast, pedophile).  However, the Bible not only identifies homosex as an error, a wrongful act, it also clearly tells us that those who engage in such acts will not see God.  The fact that the Bible regards homosex as sin cannot be changed.  The revisionist theologians therefore follow the only option available to them and wilfully strip homosex of its sinfulness.  Thus, the theology of sin, marriage and the family is changed to comply with predetermined outcomes in which homosex is regarded as good and a gift from God!

The fact is amply illustrated by various voices within the homosexual theological movement and exponents of homosexual theology.  Gay theology is a reaction against the so-called conservative churchianity7 that underwrites the conviction that homosexual conduct is sin.  This conservative viewpoint is judged to provide a simplistic account of human nature and sexuality.  Macourt states it in clear terms that we have a modern generation today that subscribes to a different set of religious norms and values when he writes:

"The gay movement exists.  More to the point there are an amazingly large number of (mainly young) men and women who are happy to have or to seek same-sex relationships.  The problem of homosexuality is no longer the problem of those who have or who seek same-sex relationships but;  it is the problem of those who cannot, or will not, understand that reality."8

What is called for a heterosexual adjustment, a theological paradigm shift, a change in theological thinking to justify homosexual conduct in terms of the Bible in a modern society which is morally more inclined to the humanist secular worldview than the biblical worldview.  Like other minority groups (feminists, bisexuals, transvestites), homosexuals have developed a subculture – a way of life – and a theology to cope with religious arguments against their sexual lifestyle.

Some people will be amazed, perhaps even shocked to realize that such a thing as a church for homosexuals exists.  There are for example four major homosexual Christian communities in the Gauteng province (SA) which are focussed on the religious needs of the homosexual community: the Reforming Church (Pretoria), the Hope and Unity Metropolitan Community Church (Johannesburg – an all black congregation), the Gay Christian Community (Johannesburg and also Durban and Cape Town) and the Deo Gloria Family Church (Pretoria).

An invitational leaflet of the Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco (M.C.C.-USA) states:

"Today there is a church where the gays and the straights worship God side by side.  Some churches give lip service approval to the gay Christian.  Yet their members snub the gays.  Today there is a church which accepts homosexuals as normal persons.  That church is the Metropolitan Community Church.  This is a church where gay lovers can come to the altar rail together.  This is a church that has a social life that is geared to the gays.  M.C.C. is a church where you can renew your childhood faith in Christ and yet not hide nor be ashamed of your sexual inclination.  Why don’t you renew your faith in Christ this Sunday at M.C.C.?"9

An invitational and informational booklet of the Reforming Church10 (South Africa) states:

"The Bible acknowledges the fact that not all people are the same.  No expectation is created that all people must be or become the same.  Galations 3:28 states clearly that man’s sexuality is not the norm whereby God regards us.  All that the Lord seeks wen He looks in your heart is whether there is faith.  If you believe, you have the right to be child of God.  This is the basic premise of the Reforming Church."

It is obvious that the evangelical heterosexual Christian is faced with the issue of whether heomosexual conduct is a legitimate life style, or sickness, or sin.  In the end it is basically a matter of sin and righteousness.  Today the evangelical Church is challenged to give answers to the following questions for which the homosexual Church has already found its own theological answers:

  • Will the mainstream churches accept that heterosexuality is not the God-ordained norm for all humanity?
  • Will they accept homosexuals at every level of their institutions?
  • Will they undertake to minister to the needs of people in terms of their sexual orientation?11

Answers to these questions have direct implications for what the evangelical Christian believes the Bible teaches about sin, sexuality, marriage and the family.  If there is no understanding for the Bible’s view on the concepts, the members of the Christian church body will be persuaded by the gay theology agenda to accept a totally unbiblical view of these concepts as the declaration by the National Council of Churches shows:

"Jesus Christ calls us to love our neighbour as ourselves.  As Christian clergy we embrace gay and lesbian persons as our neighbours.  Form our reading of Scripture and from our pastoral experiences, we believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that homosexuality is neither sickness nor sin.12

Changing the theology of sexuality

Gay theologians claim that sexuality is neither right nor wrong;  it is simply a gift from God.  To be heterosexual or homosexual is not a question of sin or morality, but rather the product of God’s infinite mind.  The gay person therefore needs to be theologically enlightened to the point of accepting his sexual orientation as ordained by God.  The belief that the homosexual condition is a gift from God is reportedly borne out in biblical verses such as the following:

  • And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good (Gen 1:31).
  • It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves (Ps 100:3).
  • Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called (1 Cor 7:24).
  • For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4).
  • For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He, who is able to receive this, let him receive it (Matt 19:12).

Obviously these verses in their context relate to the married/celibate state.  But a homosexual interpretation is extremely convincing to a gay person searching for self-justification.  This fact is underlined by what is said by Valrejean:13

"Something new happened to me the other day;  something I had never dreamed could ever possibly happen:  I wept tears of joy and rejoiced in God that he had made me gay …… So really I feel that my gayness is a gift from God that I can use to further His work."

Pastor Perry14 continuously preaches to his congregation the message that Jesus is calling homosexuals to Him.  In his biography he says:

"Not once did Jesus say:  Come unto me, all you heterosexuals – who have sex in the missionary position with a member of the opposite sex – and you can become true followers.  No!  Jesus said:  Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  And that includes homosexuals, too. God does not condemn me for the sex drive that He has created in me.  He doesn’t condemn me unless I leave the areas of love and go into the areas of destructive, excessive lust."

Fellow pastor in the M.C.C., Hose, considers the physical act of homosex in itself an expression of love.  Unrestricted sexual behaviour – as long as it can be subjected to the ultimate test of love – is therefore allowable:

"I’m not saying that every time someone cohabits with someone that these have to be people who are in love, but I think it is an act of love.  If I love you, one of the ways I can demonstrate it is by loving your body as well as your spirit or soul. The fact that some people prefer to do it with their own sex, rather than the opposite sex, happens to be our bag.  We’re entitled to it."

Some gay Christians do point out that lust is completely unacceptable within their theological framework.  Perversion and sexual orientation (the gift from God) are by definition two very separate things in gay theology and sexual orientation should never be judged by perversion.  Within gay theology it stands firm that they were foreordained to be homosexual and that a cure is neither desirable nor right.  Gay theology maintains that sexual change is impossible  The fact that homosexuality’s alleged incurability is supported by neither Scripture nor medical research is commonly ignored.  For Pastor Perry the matter is an opened and close case:

"I’ll agree, he says, Paul did not like homosexuals."

The most effective and fascinating support for the gay life-style is to be found in the interpretation of seven relationships in the Bible as homosexual relationships.  In the minds of homosexuals these relationships signify the Bible’s approval of the homosexual life-style as normal.  However, in each case (relationship) inference is involved, for there is no direct biblical statement of a homosexual union15:

  • Ruth and Naomi are thought to have been lesbians.
  • Paul and Timothy – Paul, a middle-aged adult, enjoyed a younger companion – typical of many gay (pederast) relationships.
  • The Bible’s first two brothers – Cain and Abel – are seen as providing histories first case of homosexuality – and incestuous homosexuality at that.
  • The gay centurion of Matthew 8:5-13.  This story refers to the healing of the young lover of the Roman centurion.
  • The apostle John is seen as the gay lover of the Lord Jesus.  He is mentioned as the one whom Jesus loved and in the gay world such love is always sealed sexually.
  • A second possible homosexual relationship is attributed to the life of Jesus – with Lazarus.
  • Mark, based on a secret gospel, the Secret Gospel according to Mark, is also seen as a possible lover of Christ.  This gospel which was discovered in 1958 has since been lost.
  • The ultimate example of a homosexual relationship is the case of David and Jonathan.

It is clear from the above that there is no lack of ingenuity in gay theology.  Based on the gay interpretation of Scripture the homosexual Johnstone concedes that the homosexual alternative Christian life-style, the inevitable result of gay theology, results in a rationalizing of all kinds of sexual conduct.  In their own words16:

"One night stands have been realised into relationships;  casual sex with strangers has been converted into acts of Christian charity;  and last but not least, promiscuity’s self-justification has been simplified into nonchalant introductions of one’s partner in lust to Jesus!"

Some homosexual theologians have attempted to give spiritual credence to their bathhouse (pubic baths/pools frequented by homosexuals) escapades by asserting that this gives them the opportunity to witness for Christ.  The widespread acceptance of bathhouse sexuality within gay theology is yet another indication that biblical standards of holiness and sexual purity are nonexistent in gay congregations.  Silverstine & White17 vividly sketches the sexual indulgences taking place at these baths:

"For sheer efficiency the baths can’t be bettered.  At the baths making out is certain and more sex can be packed in per hour than anywhere else….. In most baths you can take either a locker, which is cheaper, or a room, which is more expensive ….. If you don’t mind having sex in front of a crowd, then a locker will suffice ….. There is a brutal honesty about the baths, but they do serve the interests of pure sensuality."

Sin is an unpopular word in the gay religious community as are the subjects of immorality, sexual impurity and lust18.  The Reverend Troy Perry, one of the pioneers of the gay Christian movement and founder of the UFMCC has stated19:

"I believe there can be loving experiences, even in a one-night stand.  I truly believe that two individuals can meet and share their complete beings with each other, totally sexually too, and never see each other again;  and remember it as a beautiful loving situation."

It is taught in gay theology that God actually accepts homosexuals in the context of their sexual uniqueness.  The message is that gays are under grace, meaning that homosex is a normal expression of sexuality, and they should live out of the fullness of this grace as homosexuals.

Changing the theology of sin

Simply put, homosexuality has as its objective the normalizing of homosex as a normal variant of sexuality and the full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the church.  This would put it on par with heterosexual conduct and bring about that it would no longer be judged as sinful conduct by the church  Heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, transvestisms, all become normal expressions of sexual conduct in the framework of gay theology.  Gitlings, librarian and lesbian, said20:

"What the homosexual wants – and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise – is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life, fully on par with heterosexuality."

A panel of theologians, ministers and scholars, were asked for their response on whether homosexual conduct is sin or not.  The following quotations clearly indicate gay theology’s view of sin21:

Rev. Dr William Stayton, Baptist:

"Absolutely not!  There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin.  God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives and with God (Matt 23:36-40).  There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual, or straight."

Bishop John Spong, Episcopalian:

"Some argue that since homosexual behaviour is unnatural, it is contrary to the order of creation.  Behind this pronouncement are stereotypic definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect the rigid gender categories of patriarchal society.  There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners into a fuller state of being …… Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding.  But the God of creation speaks and declares, “I have looked out on everything I have made and “behold it (is) very good” (Gen 1:31)”  The word of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious on matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world."

Bishop Stewart Wood, jr., Episcopalian:

"No.  Our sexual orientation is a given something we discover about ourselves – some might say “a gift from God”.  How one relates to others – caring or exploiting – is the source of sin."

Bishop Stanley Olson, Lutheran (ELCA):

"Of course not.  God could (not?) care less about humanly devised categories that label and demean those who do not somehow fit into the norm of those in control.  God made all of us and did not make all of us alike.  Diversity is beautiful in creation…. The New Testament is full of verses that speak of the work of Jesus Christ in creating a new unity beyond our divisions … The Gospel is vastly more inclusive than we often imagine or have been taught."

Rev Dr George Edwards, Presbyterian:

"God does not regard homosexuality as a sin any more than heterosexuality.  Sin is lack of respect or love for God;  it is lack of love or respect for other persons…."

Dr Karen Lebacqz, United Church of Christ:

"What God DOES regard as sin is oppression, injustice, persecution and disrespect of persons.  This sin, then is homophobia, gay-bashing, discriminatory legislation toward lesbians and gays, refusal to include lesbian/gay/bisexual people into our churches and communities…."

Rev Dr James Nelson, United Church of Christ:

"I am convinced that our sexuality and our sexual orientations, whatever they may be, are a gift from God.  Sexual sin does not reside in our orientations …. When we express ourselves sexually in ways that are loving and just, faithful and responsible, then I am convinced that God celebrates our sexuality, whatever our orientation may be."

Bishop Melvin Wheatley, jr., United Methodist:

"Of course not! ….. Homosexuality is an authentic condition of being with which some persons are endowed (a gift of God, if you please), not an optional sexual life-style which they have wilfully, whimsically or sinfully chosen.  Certainly one’s sexuality – heterosexual or homosexual – may be acted out in behaviours that are sinful:  brutal, exploitative, selfish and superficial.  But just as surely, one’s homosexual orientation as well as another’s heterosexual orientation may be acted out in ways that are beautiful:  tender, considerate, mutual, responsible, loyal and profound.

It is quite clear that homosex has been removed from the category of sinful conduct and assigned to the category of gifts from God.  It has been theologically purged and cleansed.  It is no longer sin.  Gay theology can now proclaim homosexual conduct (virtually any sexual orientation) as non-sinful conduct and apply all teachings in the Bible on heterosexuality to homosexuality.  Lust and immorality (prostitution, adultery and promiscuity) are now redefined in terms of this new categorization.

Changing the theology of marriage

Norman Pittenger has argued that a non-monogamous, open relationship should be considered a morally sanctioned form of Christian life-style.  It is often argued by proponents of gay theology that open relationships, which are essentially sexual non-exclusivity life-styles, are actually a liberating experience22.  In fact Pittenger argues that in order to insure a lasting relationship, both partners should be allowed the freedom to engage in occasional sexual contact with others:

"It may very well be the case that now and again a loyal partner in a gay union will engage in what I have styled an occasional contact – for fun, because of affection or liking, as manifesting friendship, or …. Simply because of plain lust or urgent and irrepressible sexual desire … But if this is understood, accepted, seen as part of life, there is little likelihood that the primary union will be broken up."

The closer character of marriage, being monogamous, faithful, heterosexual and lifelong, is seen by most expositors of homosexual theology as a negative aspect, detrimental to the homosexual union.  Some gay advocates argue that gay unions or relationships cannot be compared to and should not be patterned on heterosexual marriage covenants in terms of exclusivity or ethics.  Other homosexual theologians again do argue for the superiority of a monogamous relationship.

However, it is argued as well that the Bible relates examples of open marriages, so-called three-way or triangular relationships, and Abraham, Sarah and Hager provide then the fitting example.  Macourt thinks that the model of heterosexual monogamous marriage should be strived for but should not be made the norm for homosexual unions, neither for sexual relationships in general.  Openshaw argues that homosexual marriage is the constitutional right of lesbians and gay men and the church has no other obligation than to affirm this basic right by marrying them23.  Mark Olsen summarizes his view as follows24:

"…I have seen God blessing and using homosexual Christians who have united with each other in loving sexual relationships.  In faithful, committed relationships, gay and lesbian Christians find God at work.  We must not be so attached to a few verses of Scripture – or our own interpretations of them – that we miss this witness of God’s Spirit."

Pittenger, O’Neill and others conclude that the conventional heterosexual marriage should not be made to be the blueprint for homosexual marriages or unions25:

"Fidelity in the closed marriage is the measure of limited love, diminished growth and conditional trust.  Fidelity is then redefined …. It is loyalty and faithfulness to growth, to integrity of self and respect for the other;  not to a sexual and psychological bondage to each other … New possibilities for additional relationships exist, and open (as opposed to limited) love can expand to include others …. Beside[s] your mate."

Although Johnstone in his book "Gays Under Grace" proposes and pleads for a more conservative homosexual ethic he is but a lonely voice calling out for reform against a vast theological liberal homosexual majority.

Changing the theology of the family

Reverend Robert Wood, a United Church of Christ minister has said26:

"Homosexuality is the God-created way of protecting the human race on this planet from the suicide of overpopulation and we should pause to give God thanks for the presence of homosexuality and its adverse effect on the birth rate."

The viewpoint is contrac the biblical view that God ordained the male/female family unit.  Loomis27 says that homosexuals do not have to contend with:

"… pregnancy, diaphragms, daily hat complaints, marriage contracts and divorce settlement, alimony babies that screech in the night and adultery."

The family has to be redefined in terms of the theological redefinition of homosexuality.  Paul Germond says that we can now only talk in terms of the multiplicity of forms of what might constitute a family.  He continues28:

"The idealisation of the family (the traditional or biblical family form) also fails to recognize that within the New Testament itself there exists a powerful critique of the family as barrier to true discipleship.  Luke 14:26 reads, Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, even life itself, cannot be disciple.  This terrible pronouncement points out how a family, a family in any society, can be a snare:  it can so entrap its members that if one of them severs connections with it in response to an astonishing summons to a new practice of sharing, of opening closed doors, of breaking with the received ideology, he or she will be repulsed."

According to gay theology all discussion about the family in general is absurd.

Summary

Homosexual practices cannot be tolerated by the church.  There can be no ecclesiastical blessing of homosexual unions/marriages.  Homosexual marriage is a linguistic and a moral monstrosity, a contradiction in terms.  Homosexual conduct is according to the Bible, sin!  The church finds itself in a sea of moral confusion.  The small but influential homosexual minority is taking the church to task and is eroding the biblical theology of sin, marriage, family and sexuality.

There can be no acknowledgement of a so-called conservative homosexuality because any homosexual conduct is in essence already promiscuous and therefore sexually liberal.  Homosexual behaviour is un-Christian and unbiblical.  The quest to legitimize homosexual practices perverts the biblical theologies of sin, marriage, sexuality and family.  Consequently it damages the accepted pattern, norms and values of the family unit, which is the basis of all human societies.

Homosexuality militates against the family and destroys the function of the family as the last place where affectivity can be cultivated29.  Homosexual conduct is corruptive by its very nature and corrosive to familial structures in general.  Homosexual practice destroys the joy of family relationships and affections.  The church should by no means encourage homosexual practice by legitimizing or validating it through ecclesiastical sanctioning of gay unions/marriages.  The lie that homosexual practice is normal and that homosexuality is an acceptable sexual attitude should be countered by sound biblical preaching and blameless heterosexual Christian living.

It is time for plain speaking by the churches, Christian leaders and Christian individuals in general.  The Bible is clear on homosexual conduct.  God has spoken.  The church must do the same.