Series posted by Michael Kline (MKLINE@VDH), early 1993.

Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 5, Part 1

John: Welcome, in past weeks, we've listened to homosexual men and women talk about how they one day came to understand what homosexuality is, turned away from it and experienced real heterosexual change. In today's program we will turn our attention to a number of objections that the homosexual lobby has brought up concerning Biblical passages which identify homosexual behavior as sin and teach that a homosexual can be forgiven of that sin and be change.

Now it may come as a surprise to you to learn that homosexual writers believe that the Bible does not have ANYTHING to say about homosexual partnerships today.

Historically, it's been assumed that there are 4 Biblical passages that condemn ALL homosexual acts.

The account in Genesis 19 of Sodom and Gomorrah is the first such passage. The question at issue here is, "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah which merited their obliteration?" Well the traditional Chris- tian view has been that the men of Sodom were guilty of homosexual prac- tices, which they attempted, unsuccessfully, to inflict on the two male visitors whom Lot was entertaining in his home, hence the word Sodomy.

But homosexual writers challenge this interpretation. They argue that when the Bible says the men of Sodom demanded that Lot "bring them out to us so that we may KNOW them", it did not mean the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the visitors.

Instead, they claim that the Hebrew word for "know" which is "yadah", means something else. They say this word occurs 143 times in the Old Tes- tament, and only 10 times does it refer to physical intercourse. There- fore they believe that the passage "so that we may know them" should be interpreted "...bring them out to us so that we may GET ACQUAINTED WITH them."

This interpretation would suggest that the men of Sodom sinned only in invading the privacy of Lot's home, and secondly in disregarding the ancient rules of hospitality.

I asked Joe Dallas what he thought about this line of reasoning. (... qualifications ...)

Joe: We know a lot of people try to say that homosexual rape was not the sinful intent of the men of Sodom, and yet you'll notice 2 things about Lot's response to them that indicate that indeed homosexual rape was the issue. One, when they came to his home and demanded that he bring out the two angels who had come to see him, the two male angels, his first response to them was "I pray you brethren, do not so wickedly." In other words, right off the bat, he was saying, "I know your intentions for them are wicked." Not hospitality, but rather wickedness.

The second thing Lot did which I think clearly indicates that the crime they wanted to commit was of a sexual nature is that he offered them his two daughters in lieu of the two angels. You may remember he said to them "Men, I have here 2 virgin daughters. Instead of allowing you to do this thing to my guests, please take them instead." and while we can argue that was a terrible sacrifice he was proposing to make, the point is, it seems very clear that the sin that Lot was trying to dis- courage the men from committing was indeed the sin of a forced homosexual act upon these two angels that had come to visit him.

John: Now in addition to what Joe just said, I might add that while it is true that the word "yadah", "to know" is used only 10 times for sexual intercourse in the Bible, 6 of those occurrences are found in the book of Genesis, and one of those times, it's found in the Genesis 19 story of Sodom and Gomorrah itself. Here, Lot tells the men "... I have two daughters who have not known(yadah) a man." Lot could only have meant that they had not had sexual intercourse.

Therefore it's clear that Lot understood these men wanted to have sex with his male visitors, and tried to offer them his daughters instead. The context itself definitely indicates that homosexual behavior was the behavior that God was condemning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 5, Part 2

Now the second Biblical passage the homosexual lobby contends against, is found in the book of Leviticus, and there it states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable." (Lev 18:22) The homosexual lobby argues that this text only prohibits certain Cano- nite and Egyptian religious practices which provided temple prostitution for both male and female temple worshipers.

They claim that since such pagan religious practices have long since ceased, this text also has no relevance to loving homosexual partnerships today.

They say the same thing about the third Biblical passage, which is Paul's statements about homosexuality in the book of Romans, Chapter 1. There we read "...because of this, God gave them up unto vile affections. Even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 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 1:26,27.

According to the homosexual lobby, all that Paul was describing here were the practices of idolatris pagan worshipers in the Greeko-Roman world. And since Paul states these men abandoned natural relations with women, they claim Paul must have been condemning heterosexual men who promiscuously indulged in homosexual sex. After all, they say, no exclusively homosexual male would ever have been attracted to women in the first place.

So once again, this passage has no relevance to committed loving, homosexual partnerships of today.

Then the fourth section of Biblical passages that the homosexual lobby believe does NOT apply to them, is found in 1:Cor 6:9,10, 1 Tim 1:9,10. In both of these passages, Paul lists certain ones who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. He writes "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes (malaloi), nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Then, in 1 Tim. 1:9,10, Paul again refers to those who practice homosexual acts, and uses the Greek word Arsenokoitai again. He says "Such people are contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the Blessed God."

In these passages, 2 Greek words, "malaloi" and "arsenkoitai" are used. They have precise meanings in the Greek. "Malakoi" literally meant "Soft to the touch", and referred to males who played the passive role in homosexual intercourse. "Arsenkoitai" literally meant "male in a bed" and described the male who took the active role in homosexual intercourse.

Now the homosexual lobby claims that Paul is condemning promiscuous behavior and possibly the commercial pederasty between older men and post pubertal boys that went on in the classical world. Therefore these pas- sages do not apply to homosexual adults who are both consenting and com- mitted to one another. Well, I asked Joe Dallas to comment on these criticisms.

Joe: If the story of Sodom begs the question then as to whether or not homosexual relationships are legitimatized in the scripture, so long as they're between consenting adults, we might look first to the book of Leviticus where twice the act of a man laying with another man as he would with a woman is condemned. Then in Romans, where homosexual pas- sions are described as being vile and unnatural, and the acts sinful and perverse. Then 1 Cor 6:9 and in 1 Tim 1 where in all cases the homosexual act, as well as the homosexual attraction is spoken of only in negative terms.

Throughout the Bible there is no contingency in the condemnation of homosexuality. No where, did the Biblical writers say that homosexual relationships are legitimate if they are mutual, if they occur between 2 adults, if they seem natural, if they seem loving.

Now we know that just with adultery there is no contingency saying "Thou shalt not commit adultery unless of course you love the person you're committing adultery with, or unless the adultery is by mutual con- sent.

Sin is sin, no matter how much love seems to go into it. No matter how natural it may seem to the person. God's standards are absolute and they are not subject to our contingency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 5, Part 3

John: Now let me address some other questions that have already been raised. For Christians, God is our authority, and at the beginning of creation, he ordained that sex take place only in the safe confines of a loving marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. According to Genesis 2:24 we find, "For this reason (that is for marriage) a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Here the Bible says that the marriage between a man and a woman is shown to be something that is publicly acknowledged. That is the 2 being married leave their parents, then the man and the woman are to cleave. That is they make a commitment to share all that they are with each other, including their thoughts, their emotions, and their possessions. And finally, it includes becoming one flesh. That is they will physically consummate their love.

Now because God instituted that a marriage union is to be between 1 man and 1 woman that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is God's standard. God has not instituted any other kinds of marriages, or approved of any other outlets for sexual intercourse. Every sexual relationship or act, which deviates from God's revealed intention is displeasing to Him and comes under His judgement.

This includes Polygamy, having more than one wife or having more than one husband at the same time, which would infringe upon the one man, one woman principle. It would include casual encounters, adultery, and many divorces which are incompatible with the Biblical meaning of cleaving. It also would be against homosexual partnerships, which violate the command that a man shall be joined to his wife.

When you first look at the Biblical teaching on what God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman, and then you examine the pas- sages that condemn homosexual behavior in the different cultures, these passages combined show us why even loving homosexual partnerships must also be condemned. Why? Well, it's because they are incompatible with God's institution of marriage. His model for sexual relations between a man and a woman that He established at creation.

Now, since God instituted marriage at creation, and marriage did not originate through culture, the validity of heterosexual marriage is both permanent and universal. That is, it's God's norm, and it applies to every generation from the days of the prophets in the Old Testament to Paul's days during the Roman empire, and to homosexual relationships today.

And finally, homosexual writers claim that LOVE is the only criterion by which ANY human relationship should be judged. But Jesus said, "If you love Me, you'll keep My commandments." If love were the only test of authenticity, there would be NOTHING one could say against the polygam- ist, who on the basis of his love, wants to enjoy several wives.

If love is the soul criterion of right or wrong, then wouldn't it be okay for a married man who falls in love with another woman to just aban- don his wife and go off with the other woman? Of course not. Biblically no man is justified in breaking his marriage covenant with his wife, on the grounds that he feels love with another woman.

I asked Joe Dallas, what does he say to those who claim that love is all that matters and therefore loving homosexual relationships are not condemned in scripture? Here's his answer.

Joe: You know when I hear arguments that homosexual unions may be allowable if the two parties involved truly love each other, and that they are in fact, an alternative to try and change because change is so difficult.

I'm reminded of the old Simon and Garfunkle song that says "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." Of course, if you have a deeply ingrained condition, it's much easier to somehow rationalize it, and say that because it is so deeply ingrained God must approve of it, and God will condone its expression if you do it in a "loving" way. But there is no where in the Bible where any form of sexual misconduct is so rationalized.

For example, the sin of fornication. That's a sin that is very natu- ral to quite a few people, you know. Yet, nobody could honestly say, with a straight face, that if they commit fornication in a loving mutually consentable way, that God will somehow sanction it, where as if they commit fornication in unloving way, He will not sanction it. So it is with homosexuality.

I will say though that many people sincerely believe that their homosexuality is all right in God's sight. And I think they believe that John, because we are living in times of increased tremendous deception. Jesus said that the last days would be so full of deception that if they were not shortened, the very elect would be deceived, and I think what we're seeing today is people compromising on Biblical integrity because they see no other way out of homosexuality.

Here again, let me remind the church how important it is to address these issues, so that when people want out, we'll be there to offer them our assistance, rather than leaving them feeling they have no options and having to go into this massive rationalization and rewriting of the Bible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 5, Part 4

John: Now while Joe was with us, I asked him, "What can Jesus Christ offer to people that are struggling with homosexual feelings. Here's what he said.

Joe: John, one major hope I've had, that we could accomplish in this show is an encouragement to honesty. For people in the church not only to look at the problem of homosexuality but to look at their own issues. Of course there are Christians who struggle with this.

If we've learned anything in this last decade it's that Christians struggle with many different types of sexual problems, homosexuality included. And I think it's time that the church recognizes this problem exists within our own walls. We need to work with our own people, then make a statement to our culture.

What can Jesus Christ do for the person struggling with Homosexuality? The first thing I find Him doing is offering comfort and reassurance that he is beloved. People who are homosexually oriented are of no less value in God's sight then people who have always been sexually normal. All of us suffer from some kind of sin, all of have committed many different types of sin. And the Bible doesn't list one sin as being worse or more serious than another, even though the consequences of different sins may be worse.

So right off the bat, I would say that Jesus reminds the struggler of His value in God's sight. He offers the struggler hope for eternity. He reminds the struggler that He is in a relationship with God that is not nullified by his sinful tendencies, and that He actually understands at least what it's like to be tempted yet with out sin. That's why He can call Himself our Great High Priest, you know.

He offers comfort through the Spirit and peace and a sense of encouragement to go on with the process. That's why I mentioned earlier I can't imagine why anybody would try to go through this without Him. So the relationship with Jesus Christ is of course mandatory, I believe, for the full experience of change. Not just sexually, but as a whole person.

The Christian that may be listening, who's struggling against homo- sexuality, should learn to speak up about his issue, to find someone he can trust, a leader, a pastor, ministry, anybody who will understand and react compassionately, and wisely, to the homosexual struggle. That per- son should realize that he has a condition that may take a long time to overcome. He may either be in a lifelong process, or he may go through long difficult season of change. But the changes that he's proposing will affect every part of his personality. It will increase his discipline, his sensitivity, his compassion for other people who struggle with dif- ferent types of sins, and in the long run it will cause him to grow in ways he never thought possible before. So I would want that person to take heart. If he makes the decision to continue in his own growth, out of homosexuality and let someone else be a part of that process, he is in for the time of his life.

John: Now in light of all that we've been talking about in all of these programs, I asked Joe Dallas what he thought about the fact that our public grade schools and high schools are not starting to teach that homosexuality is just another normal sexual lifestyle. He's what he said.

Joe: I can't help but to be struck with sadness when I realize that much of what we've been talking about will never be heard by the people who may need it the most, and that's our young people. You know today there is a major move to legitimize homosexuality in the public school system. The National Education Society STRONGLY advocates the pro-gay agenda, that strongly advocates instituting counseling programs in our high schools that will encourage young people who experience homosexual desires to accept those desires as being normal and legitimate.

Now first let's remember that adolescence is a time of unparalleled confusion. Teenagers have so many conflicting feelings. It is very common for them to be confused about their sexual identity in the first place. So many of these kids, who go into pro-gay counseling programs, may not even really have a homosexual condition at all, but are simply experien- cing strong, rather conflictual feelings about members of their own sex, that they can not understand.

It is criminal to label them as lesbian or gay that early in life, when in fact their sexual orientation should not be their primary object of focus. There in a general growth process an academic process, and an emotional process. These programs also tend to exclude parental partici- pation. Most parents would not be at all pleased to hear that their son or daughter was being counseled that homosexuality was legitimate. In fact, some school boards have had some real upheavals over the pro-gay literature that they have been distributing to the students.

But particularly galling to me is the fact that the move to legitim- ize homosexuality in the schools does NOT represent the best interest of the students, but rather the best political and social interests of the communities that would have our country come to accept homosexuality as being normal and legitimate.

We are committing social experimentation on our kids. Unfortunately many of those kids will grow up to curse us for doing it, when indeed we had an answer, a viable option that we could have presented them, but didn't.

John: And finally, I asked Joe what he though about the pressure that is being place on the United States military to accept homosexuals into the military. Here's what he said.

Joe: The question of gays in the military, more specifically the questions of President Clinton lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military only shows how polarized we are as a country on this issue. On the one hand, many people in America, probably half of them will tell you that they think that homosexuality is all right for people who want to be gay, and yet the majority of people in most all studies done, particu- larly people in the military show that we are largely against the notion of homosexuality being openly practiced and allowed in the military.

My feeling is that the military is not the place for social engi- neering. That no one has a God given right to serve in the military, that the military has the right to set certain requirements and certain stan- dards of behavior. And I think it is imperative for the moral of our troops and for the maintenance of a standard in our country, a standard that favors normal sexual relating above what many of us, I believe what most of us consider to be perverse sexual relating. A standard that maintains the heterosexual ethic. I would not like to see the military abandon that standard.

End of Series ------------------------------------------------------