After spending two days camping in Yosemite National Park (It was an amazing trip. I highly recommend you visit, especially if you live in or near California) a group of seven guys including myself had to leave after a torrential thunderstorm left our tent under 3 inches of water. We had hiked half dome that day and were drenched while hiking the 9 miles back to camp. Nevertheless, it was a blast. Of the eight, five of us had come from Florida for the weekend. The plan to stay in the park till Monday however, was thwarted.

With sleeping bags soaked and a miserable cold night ahead, we packed up our soaked gear and headed towards San Francisco looking for a hotel to stay in. We eventually found a Motel 6 to crash in late Saturday evening. On Sunday morning, we decided to spend the day giving the Florida guys a tour of San Francisco.

We wanted to find a church to worship in that morning so we drove to the city and found a place to park (never an easy task) and entered a Victorian era building rented out to Reality Church. The congregation was a church plant less than 2 years old. The demographic was primarily young professionals under 40. The worship was amazing, the preaching solid and Holy Spirit was present.

For the opening prayer, one of the pastors prayed for the good of the city as well as God’s mercy and blessing. Seemed like a typical prayer for a church in any given city or town except for the fact that it is the notoriously immoral west coast city.

In a true ironic twist, we were in San Fran during a homosexual rally that was to be held on Folsom street that day. Reality church was in the heart a predominantly gay district.

On our way to worship we saw men holding hands, cross dressers, flamboyant suggestive outfits and the like. While most of our time was spent on the Pier 39 in the tourist areas we witnessed many scenes that I will not even repeat here. It was a real taste of a modern day Sodom and Gommorah.

Seeing these things greatly bothered us as Christians and as men.

I couldn’t help but think of Paul’s words in Romans 1:27, “the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

And while the gay aspect of San Francisco took the spotlight in most people’s eyes, we found ourselves brought back to the worship service earlier that morning.

We worshipped God with 300 other Christians who love Jesus and his Word. The pastor prayed for blessings and mercy on that place –knowing full well what was going on outside that day.

I invariably thought of Abraham pleading with God to spare Sodom if only a few righteous people were found. In San Francisco we realized not only did the number exceed ten, but that the body of Christ was growing there –and influencing their community with the truth of the gospel.

It gave us a newer perspective –a less pessimistic and fatalistic one.

What we witnessed was contrast. It was light in darkness. It was Jesus in a lost world.

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires public schools to teach kids about the historical contributions of gays and lesbians. Local school districts will be adopting new social studies curriculum as early as the 2013-14 school year.

Supporters say it’s a triumph that makes history books “more honest” and will help curb bullying by making kids more understanding of their classmates.

Opponents equate it with brainwashing, saying it will sanction, normalize and exalt an immoral lifestyle.

So what’s a Christian parent to do? Is it time for a mass exodus toward home schooling?

I’d argue that it’s a time for parents to sit down and think hard about their children’s education — specifically, how they as parents are going to teach gay history.

Christians shouldn’t simply retreat from the topic of the gay rights movement, in the same way we shouldn’t retreat from sex education. While my parents didn’t pull me out of my 9th grade health, public school health class during lessons about birth control and STDs, they also made sure I got a much more comprehensive lesson on the issues from them and my church.

I remember annual True Love Waits all-nighters in the church gym. There were hours of frank — sometimes cringe-worthy — discussions about sex so we teenagers understood about this wonderful, God-given gift and the pitfalls of abusing it.

Combine it with regular Wednesday night youth group sermons on the topic, and it was almost to the point of overkill. But I began to recognize the church as an honest, open source of information on the scientific and biblical facts about sex. The church just covered the issue so much better than the awkward, one-hour lesson in my freshman health class, and I felt equipped to discuss my perspective on sex with people who felt differently about it.

Churches should look at this new California law as an opportunity to do one better. Rather than ignoring history, Christian parents should educate themselves about the key developments in the gay rights movement so we’re not blindly lashing out at a nebulous “cultural shift.” They should be prepared to take the lessons their children are learning, and parlay them into meaningful discussions about the biblical perspective on homosexuality.

Perhaps churches can teach gay history, in the same way churches host lectures about Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses — so important developments aren’t missing.

But before that, parents should take an active role in how this curriculum takes shape. Local districts will be deciding over the next year or two which textbooks end up in classrooms. Parents should talk to teachers, school board members and administrators and take an active role in reviewing the curriculum. How will the lessons be framed? In which grade will they be introduced? What dates are the lessons taking place? All these are still open questions under the new law.

I think pulling kids out of public school should be a last resort, not a first resort. The first resort should be preparing kids who can respond to the mixed messages they’ll face for the rest of their life from peers and the media. Some parents might decide one or all of their children aren’t mature enough to sort out those mixed messages just yet; I respect their choice to keep their children in a private school or at home until that changes.

I hope Christians seize this new law as an opportunity to better understand and biblically, graciously respond to the cultural changes of the gay rights movement. I hope it doesn’t become a public school exodus, because Christian parents and students have something vital to add to this conversation. They have relationships to build within school communities; they have the Gospel to share with fellow moms, dads and classmates.

They have lights to shine.

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?

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.

[...]

Going to the local grocery store each week, we see a number of different people.  We see singles out buying groceries, young men and women out buying groceries, and families out buying groceries.  Something we also are seeing more and more together, out and about, are homosexual couples.  Though their sex is the same, they walk, talk, and oftentimes act like any other heterosexual couple.  While being at the grocery store, there is no debate on how one should view someone who practices this lifestyle; however, the question I want to consider in this article is how should the church view them?

Churches have varying approaches as to how they view homosexuals.  Some of them completely ostracize them, such that if someone who practices this lifestyle shows up for a church gathering they would promptly ask them to leave.  Other churches will allow this type of person to attend but would not allow them to join unless they ceased being a homosexual.  Even other so-called churches will open their arms to them, even calling them Christians.  So again, what approach should we take as Bible-believing Evangelical Christians?

Here is my answer:

Churches should view homosexuals as individuals made in the image of God who are living a lifestyle which clearly manifests their complete and furious rebellion against the God of the Bible and thus in need of repentance and belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

[...]