Surprise, surprise, but I finished this recent New York Times article still staunchly in the monogamy camp. Aside from the fact that extramarital sex is clearly extra-biblical, I can’t see how a couple — Christian or not — could ever be “secure” enough in their relationship to make it an open relationship.

The idea of a marriage where spouses know about and approve of each other’s romantic affairs seems absurd. But this article is worth a read to get an idea of where some of the leading voices in the pro-gay marriage movement stand.

It’s a long profile on one of the nation’s foremost sex/love advice columnists, Dan Savage, a gay man who adopted a son with his husband. They say a series of affairs has strengthened their marriage, and the “open marriage” arrangement is a more realistic approach than monogamy because it acknowledges one person cannot satisfy all of the other’s needs.

It’s interesting to see how the expansion of gay marriage is changing the gay subculture:
- It’s downplaying promiscuity
- It’s downplaying the tight networks of friendships that take the place of a spouse
- It’s emphasizing the stability of the nuclear family structure
- It’s calling into question monogamy in general

Questions to ask: Are those cultural changes good? Bad? Mixed?

And another: This story was written by a religion writer, who notes that pastors counsel couples before marriage that they should stay faithful no matter what. When the couple returns a few years later for emergency counseling as an affair threatens to rip them apart, the pastor counsels them to work it out and to forgive. Is that hypocrisy? An inconsistency? The article suggests marriages should be strong enough to outlast infidelity, and Savage concludes that infidelity, therefore, shouldn’t be as big a deal as we make it out to be.

What do you say to that?

Horror remains one of the most peculiar yet enduring film genres.  Yet why?  Commonsense speaks against horror’s success.  How could a mature, intelligent, moral—normal adult find pleasure in the horrific and often grotesque?  Few people intentionally punctuate their lives with gross or terrorizing elements.  As one author pointed out, few of us lift our trashcan lids with glee as we take in the fetid aromas of rot and decay.[1]  Nor do many of us enjoy placing ourselves in true, mortal danger, knowing we risk rape, maiming, or death.  Still millions of mature, intelligent, moral—normal adults willingly pay to see teenagers quartered with chainsaws, freakish monsters kill without mercy, and apocalyptic ends to humanity.  Why?

[...]

This Sunday, Mars Hill Church is going to be picketed by Westboro Baptist Church. Westboro has become known as ‘the church of hate’ and they will be picketing one of the 10+ campuses of Mars Hill for something Driscoll said in a sermon.

Driscoll recently tweeted:

“The Westboro Baptist Church is no more a church than Church’s Fried Chicken is a church.” –Jon Stewart

And then wrote this little article on behalf of their coming entitled,

“Westboro Baptist Church, This False Prophet and His Blind Lemmings Welcome You to Our Whore House for God’s Grace and Free Donuts.”

Driscoll said he is going to make light of the situation, giving them doughnuts, a bible, and a copy of his book Doctrine so that they can learn about who God really is. You can read an interview with Driscoll HERE about what he said, why Westboro chose him, and his demeanor in the whole thing.

In the meantime, how would you respond to Westboro if they came and picketed your church? Are you a church they should be picketing because you are actually preaching truth?

Homosexuality and LGBT rights have become some of the most controversial and vitriolic public debates of the past twenty years.  While social and religious conservatives argue that heterosexual sex and marriage is the only natural, normal, and/or God-given design for humanity, gay activists claim such views are outdated social norms grounded in homophobia and bigotry.  At its heart, the homosexual movement is a campaign for liberation, much like the feminist and civil rights movements before it.  Gay lobbyists argue that they are not looking to demolish values or radically change culture, but provide relief and protection for an often abused and ignored minority.  As sociologist Mary Bernstein says, “For the lesbian and gay movement, then, cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family (heteronormativity).  Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm.”[1]

In view of these goals, the LGBT Movement has marched under the banner of Born This Way.  Indeed, this slogan has been powerfully persuasive and is now commonly accepted by almost all major quarters of society including the psychiatric community, academia, the political left, and even many mainline religious denominations.  But should we accept the idea that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people claim they are “born this way”? 

[...]

We live in the age of rhetoric. Simply put, rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking or writing. The goal of rhetoric is to sneak a new perspective into the minds of listeners. Plato, the Greek philosopher who lived and died almost 2,500 years ago, provided a functional definition for rhetoric. He stated that “Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” Plato’s definition provides us with a proper understanding of what is really at stake in something as simple as the words we choose to aid us in the battles we fight.

I want to sift through the rhetoric employed to normalize homosexuality and the rhetoric to be avoided by Christians.

Homophobia, an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality, has become one of the greatest examples of well-used rhetoric in popular culture. It is a great example of the power of rhetoric because this one word subtly conveys many different accusations while definitively identifying a single concept. The concept identified is a person who disapproves of homosexuality for any reason. The word homophobia clearly identifies those who reject the normalization of homosexuality. But what else is conveyed apart from the concept contained in the word?

First, the word homophobia clearly communicates some sort of fear, but this fear is communicated in the language of psychological terminology. The use of a medicalized term creates a feeling that the person who disapproves of homosexuality, a homophobe, is in need of psychological examination. So the word homophobia hints at irrationality and psychological sickness.

[...]

Bad things happen when good people do nothing. And that’s exactly where the Christian community finds itself today on the issue of homosexuality.

Christians are having a harder and harder time speaking up about sexuality and gender roles as our culture migrates further and further into a muddy gray area on the issue. It’s easier to stay silent, to not rock the boat or risk being misunderstood, and to stand in tacit tolerance of sin.

But we’re leaving all the talking up to the wrong people. If reasonable, thoughtful and compassionate Christians aren’t talking about homosexuality, we’re leaving the world at the mercy two extremes: fire and brimstone preachers who blame every hurricane and natural disaster on homosexuality, or artist-activists like Katy Perry who tell teens “I Was Born That Way,” and insist the only way to happiness is shirking religion and launching yourself into hedonism.

Talking about homosexuality is important — our world needs to know there is a compassionate and just God who has a design for our lives and can forgive our sins. But we need to do it in a way that opens people up rather than turning them away.

Here are some guidelines for having these critical conversations.

[...]

Few organizations are scrutinized more than those intending to bring people out of the homosexual lifestyle. Labeling homosexuality a sinful lifestyle choice is anathema in our modern society. Look at Apple’s recent decision to remove an iPhone app from a Christian-based organization, Exodus International. Exodus International describes itself as “helping those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction to live a life congruent with biblical teaching.” Intense opposition from gay activist groups caused Apple to cave.

The declaration of homosexuality as biblically wrong is an indictment against the gay community –a condemnation of an immoral lifestyle. Hence, we see virulent opposition as in the case of Exodus International.

During my senior year at California Baptist University, students were privileged to hear a number of godly, well-known, influential speakers: David Platt, Voddie Baucham, and Tom Eliff were among them. These are men who have helped shape my views on missions, the family and evangelism.

But one of the most profound chapel messages came from a man that virtually none of us students had heard of. His name wasBryan. Of the 1,500 + students in the gym that morning, few anticipated what was to be shared. A normally restless crowd remained focused and attentive to the story of an incredible life transformation –a novel one for most, including myself.

Bryanhad been engaged in the gay lifestyle for many years. He told the story of being raised in church and being saved but having a father who felt his son was never the model of masculinity he envisioned. He strived for his father’s approval but always fell short. He did not excel in athletics, nor was he interested in traditionally male pursuits.

[...]

Those who are against those who practice homosexuality, for whatever reason, are often characterized as being intolerant, full of bigotry, and practicing discrimination.  What’s more, the view that practicing homosexuality is wrong is often placed by some as high as a hate crime.  Hate, however, is a strong word.  Hate signifies an action of passionate dislike for someone or something for whatever reason.  When Christians speak truth into the homosexual lifestyle, even truth spoken in love, it is often twisted into being confused with hate.  This is a common misconception.  Why is this so?  Should this be the case?  And how should Christians respond to this type of one-way thinking that places Christians, whose message is Jesus’ message, on the same level as those who hated the “Jews?”

Let us look at a few common misconceptions concerning the Christian worldview, homosexuality, truth, love, and racial distinction.

Common Misconception Number 1:  Those who practice homosexuality make up an ethnic people group. 

Those who argue that Christians discriminate against those who practice homosexuality cannot, by any means, argue for racial discrimination.  Racial distinction must be made by ethnicity, heritage, worldview, language, and the ability to reproduce and multiply.  Those who practice homosexuality do not fit any of the aforementioned categories.  What most people argue for under this umbrella is the issue of sexual discrimination.

[...]

As with many topics in theology, a discussion of homosexuality must take into account the historical redemptive metanarrative of the Bible. In this scheme, Christians begin by pondering the nature of the world as it was in the perfect and harmonious state of creation. The first two chapters of Genesis explain that God created everything that exists, and everything that he created he deemed to be good. But, this creation was never meant to be an end in itself. Instead, God intended it to bring about his worship.

The metanarrative progresses and the story unfortunately gets worse. As the third chapter of Genesis rolls around, we see that things go very wrong. Adam and Eve rebel against God’s law, and everything in the world is thrown into confusion. What was originally beautiful and harmonious becomes ugly and dreadful. The whole world is thrown out of rhythm. The hearts, minds, emotions, wills, and bodies of men are corrupted by sin. Relationships are disrupted, and everything in existence is contaminated. God would have been just in killing Adam and Eve. After all, the wages of sin is death. They deserved to die. However, God decided to show them mercy. He provided clothes for them to cover them in their shame. He cast them out of the Garden to keep them away from the tree of life, thus protecting them from an existence of eternal dying. God could have demonstrated his wrath on Adam and Eve. Yet he chose to show mercy.

As the storyline of the Bible continues, we see men and women sinning over and over again. Obviously, something is wrong with us. The good news is that God’s plan of redemption provides a remedy for the problem. As the metanarrative continues, we see glimpses of God’s plan to restore creation through the person and work of the Messiah who would come, Jesus Christ.

[...]

With the progression of youth culture, young people face challenges today that we did not 10, or even, 5 years ago.  As parents, student pastors, teachers, and others who rub shoulders with today’s youth, what do you all see as the hardest issues facing today’s youth culture?

Be specific.  This conversation could be beneficial for many people.