It was reported by the Associated Press that, near the town of Gavas, eastern Turkey, one sheep among a large flock walked to the edge of a cliff and jumped to its death. A second sheep quickly imitated the first, also leaping off the cliff to its death. Then a third sheep followed. Then a fourth. Then a fifth. The AP reported that “stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff.” When it was all over, 450 sheep had died and 1,050 survived, but only because those sheep that jumped later were saved as the pile of sheep got higher and the fall more cushioned.

Imagine the peer pressure that last sheep must have felt. Surely 1,499 sheep can’t be wrong…can they?

There is no such thing as a sheep that possesses leadership qualities—all are born followers. Consequently, any sheep that does anything out of the ordinary, regardless of how foolish it is, becomes a leader by default. And all the other sheep, having no idea what it means to think for themselves, blindly follow. They simply assume the “lead sheep” must know something that they don’t. I once watched scores of sheep jump over an obstacle that didn’t exist, only because the first sheep in line had jumped over that same invisible obstacle. Perhaps not wanting to appear foolish, they all acted like fools. Slaughter houses take advantage of this weakness among sheep, commonly employing what they call a “Judas sheep” that every day leads the other sheep down the corridor to where their throats will be slit.

I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. It is no accident that God refers to people, and often His own people, as sheep—probably not the highest compliment. Sheep are dumb, and I mean d–u–m, dumb. They are easily misled, and so are we. As hard as it may be to admit, we generally tend to be followers who let others do our thinking for us. Sadly, we’ll follow just about anyone who appears to know what he is talking about. The wool is easily pulled over our eyes if somebody draws big crowds, has initials after his name, shows some stage presence (what is often referred to as “anointing”), can read Greek, is on TV, or has written a book. “There’s a sucker born every minute,” quipped P.T. Barnum, but I’m afraid there’s a sheep born every second. And there are a lot of sheep who are leaders by default only because the rest of us are too sheepish to question where they’re leading us. Unfortunately, they’re often leading us off the edge of cliffs, over non-existent obstacles, or down slaughter house corridors.

So what should not-so-smart sheep like us do to avoid being misled?

Foremost, we should make sure we’re following the one whom Scripture refers to as “the good Shepherd,” “the Great Shepherd,” “the Chief Shepherd” and the “One Shepherd” (see John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:4; John 10:16). That would be Jesus, of course, and it is no accident that Scripture refers to Him using all those phrases. He is the only safe Shepherd to follow. When He has His rightful place in our lives as Supreme Shepherd, we will not be misled.

A person’s propensity to be misled is directly proportional to the degree that he allows others to usurp Christ’s lordship in his life. Those who “love the approval of men rather than the approval of God” (John 12:43) are most likely to follow other cliff-jumping sheep, craving their approval. But the sheep who can honestly say, “The Lord is my Shepherd” (Ps. 23:1), who refuses to give to any other sheep or shepherd what rightfully belongs to the Great Shepherd alone, and who doesn’t care what the other sheep think, is safe. He won’t be jumping off cliffs. Rather, he’ll be lying down in green pastures (see Ps. 23:2).

Jesus plainly warned us against giving to any spiritual leader what rightfully belongs only to God:

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant (Matt. 23:8-11).

I’m afraid that the letter and the spirit of these instructions are often ignored. So many spiritual leaders these days are grasping for titles, and there have never been so many bishops, doctors, psalmists, prophets and apostles. Not only do they place titles in front of their names, but they line rows of initials after their names, and all for one purpose—to impress us. And impressed we are. Dumb sheep like us have made idols of these men, and the evidence is plain:

1.) We give them continual praise, frequently talking about them and their marvelous ministries.

2.) We’re awe-struck in their presence (even addressing them with the title “Reverend”).

3.) We bring them our offerings so they can continue to live at a standard far above us.

4.) We read their books more than we read our Bibles.

5.) We follow their teachings that blatantly contradict the words of the Great Shepherd.

That’s at least semi-idolatry.

I recently looked through the full-color monthly ministry magazine of one of those very popular idols, and counted his photo no less than 47 times within its eight pages. When we give honor to those that are exalting themselves in these ways, we are laying out a welcome mat to the deceiver.

Take note that in the New Testament, no one in God’s Kingdom had any titles except the Lord Jesus. You can’t find, for example, the phrase “the apostle Paul,” in the Bible. Yes, Paul did refer to himself using the words, “Paul, an apostle of Christ” (see 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1). The word “apostle,” however, (meaning, one who is sent) was his calling, not his title. Paul also sometimes began his letters with, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle” (see Rom. 1:1; Tit. 1:1). He once asked the Corinthian believers, “What is Paul?”, and then answered his own question: “A servant through whom you have believed” (1 Cor. 3:5). To the same group he later called himself “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:9).

Compare that to the spiritual leaders today who try to impress us with their titles and bios that list the many reasons they should be admired. Some time ago, for example, I saw an advertisement for a church in my area that consists of about 25 people. The pastor had bestowed upon himself the title of “senior pastor.” I was recently reading the bio of an unknown minister on his website (where he had plagiarized an entire article I had written), and it said that he was one of America’s most sought-after speakers. (Perhaps he meant he was being sought by the police.) A few days ago, I was shocked to discover that a humble Indian pastor who once spoke in my church when his ministry was much smaller now goes in India by the title, “His Grace, Most Reverend Metropolitan.” (I also found it interesting that his Indian title is kept hidden from the tens of thousands of American Christians who support his well-known ministry.)

In the book of Acts, Paul’s name is listed 126 times. Only once did Luke even mention that Paul was an apostle (see Acts 14:14). The other 125 times Luke simply called him “Paul.” Similarly, Peter once mentioned Paul in one of his letters, and he called him “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet. 3:15).

Along these same lines, there is no mention in the New Testament of “Bishop so-and-so,” “Apostle so-and-so” or “Prophet so-and-so. In fact, there is no mention of anyone with the honorable title of “Pastor” either. Was Jesus’ forbidden list of titles limited exclusively to “teacher,” “father” and “leader”? Or should we read beyond the letter of what He was saying and into the spirit of it?

As one who has pretty well proven his love and esteem for pastors all over the world, I’m certainly not advocating that we not honor those to whom honor is due. But I’ve noticed that some saints go beyond honoring their pastors to the point of idolizing them, and the title that always accompanies their pastor’s name is one among many manifestations of the very thing Jesus forbade. Could we be arousing the jealousy of the Great, Good, Chief and Only Shepherd when we gush over earthly shepherds? If someone asked you, “Who is your shepherd?,” would you quote Psalm 23:1, or would you name the person whose name is painted on the church sign? Of greater concern, would your pastor correct you if you started addressing him without his title? If so, run. Run for your life. “Beware of the scribes, who…love respectful greetings…and chief seats…and places of honor” (Luke 20:46).

All of this is just to say that, when we are enamored by spiritual leaders, we are susceptible to be deceived because we are giving to man what rightfully belongs only to God. Again, a person’s propensity to be misled is directly proportional to the degree that he allows others to usurp Christ’s lordship in his life. And when spiritual leaders crave to be admired, it reveals that something is very wrong in their hearts.

Please note that I am not saying that God’s sheep only need Jesus and don’t need pastors. On the contrary, God has placed shepherds in the Church, and sheep desperately need shepherds. But the shepherds they need are under-Shepherds who are setting an example of obedience to the Great Shepherd (see 1 Tim. 4:12). That kind of shepherd is the only safe under-Shepherd to follow. Paul wrote, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). True, God-sent leaders are like Christ. But you can’t discern who is like Christ unless you know something about what Christ is like. So again, it is unsafe to follow any human shepherd unless the Great Shepherd has absolute preeminence in your life.

Pastors and other spiritual leaders are, of course, also sheep in God’s flock, who have just as much propensity as the rest of us to follow other sheep over cliffs. They, too, have their favorite teachers, many of whom are default leaders only because they’re straying in a new direction. That is why the Church is always besieged with new “movements.” Pastors, following other sheep who are the latest default leaders, promote the latest movement to their flocks.

Some pastors jump from one movement to the next, thinking that “winds of doctrine” (see Eph. 4:14) are actually “waves of the Spirit.” They’re always looking for the next wave to catch. Others get locked into movements that have long ago subsided, and visiting their churches is like going back in time anywhere from ten to four-hundred years. On the other hand, some wise pastors who have the good sense not to go with the latest flow, have unfortunately been washed right out of their churches by movements that gained enough influence to send most of their flocks surfing a wave that ultimately crashed on the shore of reality. How much better is it to just stay anchored to Jesus and His timeless Word. Then those waves roll right on by.

Although Scripture compares us to sheep, the analogy is of course imperfect, as are all analogies. Unlike real sheep, we don’t have to be so stupid, following other sheep over cliffs. We can all actually think for ourselves, and Jesus, the Great Shepherd, has even also told us how we can recognize those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Although they may appear to be sheep, they can be recognized, He said, by their fruits. He was not speaking of fruits of miracles, because He warned within the same context against spiritual leaders who work miracles but who were not holy (see Matt. 7:22-23). Thus, when He said that we’d know them by their fruits, he must have been speaking of their fruits of holiness. Simply put, are spiritual leaders like Jesus? Do they live as He lived? Do they teach what He taught? Are they humble servants?

If we’ll only follow the simple instructions of our Great Shepherd it is quite easy, even for dumb sheep like us, to know who to follow and who not to follow. Our Good Shepherd is guiding us, not to follow foolish fads, but down “paths of righteousness for His name’s sake” (see Ps. 23:3). He leads us on paths of righteousness because He is holy, and He requires that we be holy. Thus, any under-shepherd who is not leading his flock down paths of righteousness—by means of his teaching and example—is not a shepherd that anyone should be following. 1,499 sheep can be wrong.

The post There’s a Sheep Born Every Second appeared first on David Servant.

The greatest crisis I faced during my two decades as a pastor was not the result of a disagreeable deacon, a financial deficit, an egocentric worship leader, or a church gossip. Rather, it was due to an encounter with the Holy Spirit and God’s Word.

It all began when I read the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation, which contain Jesus’ opinion of seven churches in Asia Minor. I noticed that His opinion of some of those churches was considerably different than their opinion of themselves. The congregation at Laodicea, for example, considered themselves to be “rich” and in “need of nothing,” while He considered them to be “wretched and poor and blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17). Quite a contrast.

I began to wonder what Jesus thought of my church and ministry. I knew He must have an opinion. To think otherwise would be absurd. He has an opinion about everything, and His opinion is always right.

It occurred to me that He would one day tell me His opinion. When I stood before Him, there would be no doubt in my mind what He thought of my church and ministry.

At the time, I believed my church was one of the best, and that the numerical growth we were experiencing was sure evidence of God’s blessing. All the indicators were positive. Yet I had a concern: What if my perspective was slightly skewed?

If it was, I figured it would be much better to learn it then rather than discover it when I stood before the Lord. When I stood before Him it would be too late to change anything. Now there was still opportunity to make adjustments.

I also figured that Jesus would surely be willing to tell me if, in some way, my ministry wasn’t pleasing to Him. So I decided to ask Him what He thought, fully convinced that if I was sincere, He’d show to me anything He might want me to change.

He answered my prayer in a way I never imagined. He impressed me to read Matthew 25:36-41. (Take note: I’ve since learned that God is not likely to reveal His unique will for me if I’m not even following His general will for everyone, as revealed in His Word.) There in Matthew 25 I read Jesus’ foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and the goats. I had read it many times before, but this time it was different. I noticed that Jesus was not speaking to the multitudes, but to His closest disciples (see Matt. 24:3). According to Mark’s Gospel, they were Peter, James, John and Andrew (see Mark 13:3). What Jesus said had direct application to them. He wanted them to be prepared for the judgment of the sheep and goats. It was plain as day. Jesus did not want any of them to find themselves among the goats.

Jesus told Peter, James, John and Andrew that, one day, people from all the nations (literally “ethnic groups,” of which there are thousands) will be gathered before Him. They will be separated into two categories. Each group will hear Him say one of two things. They will either hear Him say, “I was hungry and you fed Me” or, “I was hungry and you did not feed Me.” They will either hear Him say, “I was thirsty and you gave Me a drink” or, “I was thirsty and you did not give Me a drink.” They will either hear Him say, “I was naked and you clothed Me” or, “I was naked and you did not clothe Me.” And there are three other similar contrasting statements about which Jesus solemnly forewarned His closest disciples. On the basis of those six criteria, those before Him will either be cast into the eternal fire or will inherit His eternal kingdom.

Jesus also made clear that those who serve Him in those six ways actually do so by serving the “least of these” among His family. So His point was inescapable: Those who truly love Jesus express their love for Him by sacrificial service to the poor and suffering members of His body.

The Holy Spirit then asked me this question: “If everyone in your congregation died today and stood at the judgment of the sheep and goats, how many would be sheep and how many would be goats? More specifically, in the last twelve months, how many people in your congregation have provided food for a hungry believer in Christ? How many have provided water for a thirsty Christian? How many have provided clothing for a naked follower of Jesus? How many have opened their home, or provided shelter, for a homeless believer? How many have visited a believer who is sick or incarcerated?”

I then realized that my ministry needed monumental adjustments. It was like a sword was being driven through my heart. I knew that the majority of those in my congregation were in the goat category and that I was much to blame. I had never told them of the importance of the things Jesus listed in Matthew 25:31-46. We were American Christians, but not biblical Christians. Our Jesus existed to serve us rather than to make us servants. My gospel was deficient. It had perverted God’s grace. I realized that I had been missing the mark by a million miles, straining out gnats and swallowing camels, building a church but not making disciples. We were way off course. If most of us had died at that point in time, we would have died as goats, destined to be condemned.

I was ashamed. I went from believing that I was a successful pastor to realizing that I was a failure in God’s eyes. I wept. I confessed. I repented, not just in word, but in deeds. I asked my congregation’s forgiveness. I promised that I was going to be a man of God from then on. I declared that I would begin making disciples, as Jesus commanded, from that day forward, teaching them to obey all of Christ’s commandments. I put my hand to the plow, and by the grace of God, I have not looked back.

Perhaps you think I overreacted. But I don’t. Not in the least. That was just the beginning of what I can only describe as waking up from the dead. Since then, my entire life and ministry have been radically changed. And there have been so many on-going awakenings since then—as I have simply believed more of what Jesus plainly said—that I would hesitate to tell many professing Christians the entire story, knowing they would reject it outright.

To this day I am completely dumbfounded as to how those solemn words of Jesus found in Matthew 25:31-46 escaped my attention during the first two decades of my ministry. And since that day, I’ve remained astonished that so many professing Christians and Christian leaders live as if those words did not exist. But those words do exist. And anyone who ignores them is surely among the most foolish people who have ever lived. Jesus has told us in advance the correct answers to a test that will determine our eternal destiny.

Facing Up to the Truth

Take note, first of all, that Jesus is not going to ask the sheep or goats if they prayed the sinner’s prayer, accepted Jesus as their Savior, read their Bibles, paid their tithes, attended church, or voted for pro-life candidates.

Also take note that many, if not most, professing Christians are goats according to the unmistakable testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why isn’t this being shouted from every pulpit in the world?

And there is more to face up to. Those who skim over the surface of Matthew 25:31-46 may suppose that the goats represent the Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and so on, while the sheep represent all the Christians. The truth is, however, that the sheep and the goats together represent all professing Christians. The sheep are true believers whose faith is alive with love for fellow believers. The goats think they are believers, and they are shocked when they are eternally condemned. Jesus’ foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and the goats serves as a warning that there will be multitudes of professing Christians who possess the assurance of their salvation but who will be stunned when they stand before Him as He condemns them to hell forever.

What is the proof of my claim? First, consider the context. Remember that Jesus was speaking in Matthew 25:31-46 to four of His closest disciples (see Mark 13:3). He was not giving an evangelistic sermon to a mixed multitude. He first told those four devoted disciples the parable of the unfaithful servant, which is a warning to hypocrites, that is, those who profess to be what they are not (see Matt. 24:42-51). The highlighted servant in that parable was indeed a servant in the house of his master. He did not start off as being unfaithful. Rather, he became unfaithful when he believed that his master would not return soon. When his master returned unexpectedly, he was caught in his sin, and he was cut in pieces and assigned a place with the hypocrites where there was “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The moral of the story? “Peter, James, John and Andrew, don’t become like the unfaithful servant who backslid. Serve faithfully no matter how long My return is delayed. Otherwise even you, currently My most devoted disciples, will find yourselves with hypocrites weeping and gnashing your teeth.” Jesus made it clear from the outset of the parable that He was telling it to them for their personal benefit. He said, “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42).

Jesus next told His four devoted disciples the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). Again, this was not a parable to motivate unbelievers to repent and get ready for Christ’s return. It was a parable to encourage Jesus’ true disciples to stay ready for His return. All ten were virgins (they don’t represent unbelievers). All ten were waiting for the bridegroom (they don’t represent unbelievers). All ten were initially ready (they don’t represent unbelievers). But five became unready, and they were ultimately refused entry into the wedding feast.

The moral of the story? “Peter, James, John and Andrew, don’t become like the five foolish virgins. Stay alert for My return. Otherwise even you, currently My most devoted disciples, will be refused entry into My wedding feast.” Jesus warned them in the one-sentence conclusion of the parable, “Be alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:13, emphasis added). What He said was for their benefit. There is no escape from this. It is so obvious that only a theologian could miss it.

Then Jesus told His four devoted disciples the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30). A man who was about to go on a journey called “his own slaves” to entrust each of them with some talents. All three servants were servants of their master. All three were entrusted with talents. The one-talent slave was no less a slave of the master than the other two slaves. He does not represent an unbeliever any more than the other two represent unbelievers. All three represent believers.

When the master returned, he rewarded the two slaves who were fruitful. But the one-talent slave had nothing to show. He had been unfaithful, having buried his talent in the ground. His master was very angry, wondering why the one-talent slave hadn’t at least deposited his talent in the bank to earn a little interest. Then he ordered that “worthless slave” to be cast “into the outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The moral of the story? “Peter, James, John and Andrew, don’t become like the unfaithful one-talent slave. When I return, you will stand before Me, and I expect to receive a return on what I have entrusted to you, even if what I have entrusted you with seems small in comparison to what I have entrusted to others. Otherwise you will be cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The fact that Jesus was warning believers, as opposed to unbelievers, in these three parables is so unmistakable that some modern commentators amazingly try to convince us that “the outer darkness” of which Jesus spoke in the first and third parables is actually a place located in the outer fringes of heaven where unfaithful believers will temporarily mourn their loss of rewards! Then, however, He will wipe away their tears and welcome them into His kingdom!

The Sheep and Goats in Context

Finally, after warning four of His devoted followers by means of three parables, Jesus culminated His private sermon to them by telling them something that was not a parable, but rather a certain future event for which they must be prepared—the very judgment He had been repeatedly warning them about in the previous parables. It was His foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and the goats. And the reason He told them of that future sobering event was very clear—He didn’t want them (or any of His professing followers) to be among the goats on that day.

All of the preceding context, as well as the internal evidence, makes it abundantly clear that the judgment of the sheep and goats is not a separating of Christians from Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and so on. It is a judgment of all professing Christians from every nation. Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:31-46 had direct application to Peter, James, John and Andrew. Obviously the possibility existed that they could one day tragically find themselves among the goats, just as the possibility existed that they could find themselves like the unfaithful servant in the first parable, the five foolish virgins in the second parable, or the one-talent slave in the third parable. If this were not true then He would have had no need to warn them. But He did warn them, repeatedly. And if it was possible for Peter, James, John and Andrew, it is possible for anyone else who professes to be a follower of Christ.

Notice also that the goats will be surprised at their condemnation. They will call Jesus “Lord,” and ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?” (Matt. 25:44). The implication is that they will believe that if they had seen Him in those pitiful conditions they would have certainly assisted Him. (That is what every professing Christian would think.) They will think that they love Him. But Jesus will declare to them that, if they had loved Him, they would have loved His suffering family. Again, the implication is that they had knowledge of His suffering family, which would hardly be true of most non-professing Christians. These goats had the opportunity to know about and assist suffering believers. But they aren’t “those kinds of Christians.” No, they are unfaithful servants, foolish virgins, and slaves who buried their talents. Goats.

The Question

Pastor, there is no difference between you and me. You’ve been entrusted with a ministry to a congregation. Jesus has an opinion of your church and ministry. Sooner or later, you will know exactly what Jesus thinks about your church and ministry.

If everyone in your congregation died today and stood at the judgment of the sheep and the goats, how many would be sheep and how many would be goats? How many of them, because of their love for Jesus, are doing anything to feed hungry believers, clothe naked believers, provide shelter for homeless believers, or visit sick and incarcerated believers? Have you told them of how vitally important these things are? If you died at this very moment and stood at the judgment of the sheep and the goats, would you be a sheep or a goat? If your answer is “goat,” then you are a goat.

“But I’ve studied the Bible in its original languages! I teach from the Bible every week! I pray. I tithe! I’m a spiritual leader! People respect me as such!”

This was also the testimony of the scribes and Pharisees. They all possessed “the assurance of salvation.” But they were cast into hell.

“But I prayed the sinner’s prayer! I speak in tongues! I’ve cast out demons!”

In the strongest terms possible, Jesus warned against trusting in such things as proof that one will inherit eternal life. He warned, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'” But He will solemnly reply, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:22-23).

“You are robbing people of their assurance!”

Yes, just as John the Baptist, Jesus, all the apostles (see, for example, Luke 3:8, Matt. 7:22-23, 1 Cor. 6:9; Eph. 5:5-6, Jas. 2:14-17; 2 Pet. 2:1-22, 1 John 2:4-9; Jude 1:3-4), and any other preacher who loves God and people, I am robbing people of their false assurance. Like John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, my hope is to wake up those in darkness to the plain and solemn truth, so that they will repent and be born again in actuality rather than just in doctrinal theory. Pastors and preachers who are not warning those who think they are sheep but who act like goats are pastors who are helping Satan.

The Decision

When a pastor has been tickling ears and telling people what they want to hear, it is indeed a fearful thing for him to think of actually telling people the truth for the first time. It could cost him his “ministry,” at least temporarily. Droves of goats might run for the doors, taking their money with them. He could lose his job and his paycheck. But dear pastor, do you think that the price you will pay for telling the truth will be less than the price you will ultimately pay for continuing to play your present church game? Do you truly believe that you will escape hell when you have helped populate hell?

When you walk up the stairs to your sanctuary platform and pulpit to deliver a message that once again soothes the hardened and deceived hearts of people who are goats according to Christ’s revelation in Matt. 25:31-46, you might as well be leaning a ladder onto the cross of Jesus, climbing to the top, and spitting in His tortured face!

He suffered and died to make people holy! His sacred blood was shed to transform sinners into saints! There he hangs, gasping for breath, held by nails, covered with blood, His back ripped to shreds, spat upon and mocked by those who hated Him. All to deliver to His preachers the keys to the kingdom of heaven—a glorious gospel that can deliver sinners from their selfishness through His atoning sacrifice. All to create a community of new creations in Christ who love each other!

Yet those preachers alter the message that He has entrusted to them to take to the entire world. They strip it of all its real power, and use it to deceive those living in darkness, promising them heaven when Jesus has promised them hell! Worse yet, after they have deceived their congregations into believing that they possess what they actually do not possess, they then doubly-deceive them into believing that they can never forfeit what they do not possess! How can such preachers and pastors escape the sentence to hell? How appropriate to this are Christ’s words, “Whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him” (Luke 8:18).

“But where can we find followers of Christ who are hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick or in prison?”

Living in our bubble-world with the rest of the world’s elite does indeed blind us. Yet when one-half of the world lives on less than two dollars a day, is it possible that there are any followers of Christ among that group of three billion people? Is it possible that some are hungry, thirsty, in need of clothing or shelter? Might some be ill from drinking undrinkable water? Are there not thousands rotting in prisons for their faith in countries where Christians regularly face brutal persecution?

Tragically, most professing Christians living in wealthy western nations live as if they are unaware of the sufferings of the persecuted church around the world. How the angels must weep!

There should be tens of thousands of Christian ministries that focus on serving the poor and the persecuted among Christ’s family around the world. Billions of dollars should be pouring in from the pockets of western Christians and churches to show their love for Jesus by loving His body. Every church should be immersed in involvement, top to bottom. Western Christians should be spanning the globe to find such needs and meet them.

But no. We’re goats. Who think we’re sheep. Surely Jesus didn’t mean what He said in Matthew 25:31-46, right?

While Jesus is hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, homeless and incarcerated, tens of thousands of pastors who profess to love Him ignore His pitiful plight, collecting hundreds of millions of dollars each Sunday from people who also profess to love Him, and those dollars are primarily used to serve the people who gave those dollars, and mostly for things for which you can’t find a shred of scriptural support. What money does escape from the goat pen is often just a token fraction, tossed towards Jesus, who sits like Lazarus on the street, longing for a crumb from the rich man’s table.

Dear pastor, will you repent with me?

Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46).

The post Dear Pastor, Will You Repent With Me? appeared first on David Servant.

I know what I’m talking about, having experienced the shameful realization that what I’d been teaching for years under the banner of “incontestable biblical truth” was dead wrong. People trusted me, and I misled them on matters of eternal importance. Worse, some of that misleading teaching is still in print, scattered in places where I can’t possibly recover it, like hidden land mines buried during a war that is long over. (How thankful I am that cassette tapes have become an outmoded technology, effectively silencing thousands of my old sermons.)

Almost three decades ago, I wrote a book titled, Your Best Year Yet, a devotional and commentary that followed the daily reading plan of the One-Year Bible. Although Your Best Year Yet has been out of print for many years, we still occasionally receive requests from folks who want to buy copies. In fact, a representative from the original publisher approached me a couple of years ago, requesting the literary rights to republish it. I explained to her that I would need to devote a significant amount of time editing my old book, as I have since realized that some of my original commentary was unbiblical. No matter, she said, and she proceeded to gain approval for the reprinting of Your Best Year Yet from the publication committee of her company.

But after that, I never heard from her again. What happened? I suspect she researched my updated theology on our website and realized that a revised version—with my more enlightened theology—wouldn’t sell, at least to her publisher’s readers. Who wants to pay for a book that might expose their need to repent? Although the last thing Jesus said before He ascended to heaven was all about teaching people to obey His commandments, how many books can you find on the shelves of Christian bookstores that have anything to do with that?

My wife, Becky, is reading through the Bible this year and, to my chagrin, she pulled out a 20-year-old copy of Your Best Year Yet so that she can read my daily commentary on the Old and New Testament readings. I’m thankful she is not reading the original 1987 version, but rather the revised 1996 version that includes an additional preface in which I wrote:

It has been about ten years since I originally wrote Your Best Year Yet, and time has necessitated a revised edition. As I look back over the past decade, I can attest to God’s faithfulness to “complete the good work He began in me” (see Phil. 1:6). By His grace, I’ve grown in my understanding of His Word, and I now know Him much better (although I still have a long way to go). In particular, the redemptive work of Christ on the cross means so much more to me. Former readers will notice in this edition a stronger emphasis on the significance of Calvary and the ramifications of the gospel. I’ve joined the ranks of those who believe (like Jesus, Paul, John, Peter, James and Jude!) that the call to salvation is a call to discipleship. Believing in Jesus means embracing Him as Lord, and I make this point often as Scripture provides opportunity….

It is with sincere gratitude to our Lord, who is perfect and who never changes, that I offer this revised edition, which, should Jesus tarry, will undoubtedly need to be revised again.

As I read those paragraphs, I’m glad I realized in 1996 that I hadn’t yet arrived at a perfect understanding of the Bible. A few days ago, Becky confirmed that in 1996 there was still some growth waiting for me as she read to me what I’d written then regarding Matthew 25:31-46:

This judgment we read about today is usually…referred to as “the judgment of the nations.” Opinions differ from then on. Some say this is a final judgment, and each individual will either be a “sheep” or a “goat.” Those who treated Christ’s brothers in a compassionate way will enter eternal life, and those who showed Christ’s brothers no compassion will go to eternal punishment….

Others look upon this judgment as a separation of different nations based upon how they treated Jewish believers in Israel during the tribulation. Those nations which had compassion will be permitted to enter into the millennial reign of Christ. Those that didn’t will be removed from the earth.

I side with the first interpretation, but I see some validity in the second.

How my words written in 1996 make me cringe now! How could I have been so blind to think there was any validity to the second interpretation? According to Jesus, the sheep are granted eternal life (not simply “permitted to enter the millennial reign of Christ”), whereas the goats are cast into eternal flames (not simply “removed from the earth”). If the second interpretation has any validity, it means that future people who love Jesus might be cast into hell if they happen to live in the wrong nation during the tribulation. Similarly, future people who hate Jesus might inherit eternal life if they happen to live in the right nation during the tribulation.

How this grieves me that people might be misled today by what I wrote in 1987 or 1996. Even though I’ve asked for God’s forgiveness in this matter, it doesn’t seem to help me feel any better about the damage my writings have caused and may still yet cause. No doubt that is why James wrote, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (Jas. 3:1). My only consolation is that at least I’m no longer promoting a lie.

Before I continue any further, please allow me to set the record straight: Jesus taught in Matthew 25:31-46 that those who do nothing to relieve the sufferings of the “least of these”—His spiritual family members who are hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick, or incarcerated—will not inherit eternal life, but will rather be cast into hell. Their lack of compassion and sacrifice reveals that they don’t love Jesus. And that is incontestable biblical truth.

Of course, everyone among the millions of people who teach the Bible—from paid professionals, such as seminary professors and pastors, to amateurs, such as armchair theologians and Facebook posters—all believe that they are teaching incontestable biblical truth. Yet they disagree on scores of biblical issues, interpreting Scripture differently. Therefore it is quite safe to say that, on every issue, a percentage must be wrong.

So how can the average Christian figure out who is right and who is wrong?

Of course the standard answer to that question is this: Every Christian needs to become a student of the Bible himself/herself. But, in my opinion, that answer is unrealistic. The reason is because all the “professional” Bible teachers are also students of the Bible. Many have been studying it for decades. And many of those decades-long Bible studiers disagree on various points of theology. Thus, on every point, some of them must be wrong. So becoming a serious Bible student yourself obviously doesn’t guarantee you’ll get it right.

Moreover, to ask the average Christian to study the Bible so that he is as proficient as a seminary professor is a little bit unreasonable. That is somewhat like asking a sick person who doesn’t know which doctor to trust to pursue a degree in medicine.

I recently watched a video by a well-educated theologian who was promoting a controversial doctrine with which I entirely disagree. Having spent many years dissecting similar teachings, I was able to easily identify the flaws in his argument. But his presentation was so polished, and his reasoning seemed so sound, I could see how many Christians could easily swallow it, having no defense against it (other than their God-given conscience screaming within them, which this particular teacher brushed off by claiming that that intuitive rejection of his doctrine was actually “the flesh”).

Expecting average Christians to beat bearded theologians at their own game is like pitting Barney Fife against a sumo wrestler. And the fact is, the average Christian is going to trust someone to lead him spiritually, just like he trusts someone else to repair his car or inform him of what is happening in Syria.

So is there a way to know who to trust when it comes to correct biblical doctrine? Let us start with something Jesus said on the subject:

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:15-23).

Jesus affirms that there is one surefire way to pick out false prophets (and teachers): Look at their fruit. Obviously He was not talking about the fruit of “big crowds,” “impressive titles” or “miraculous powers,” but the fruit of holiness, because that is how God judges them. In the end, He will cast spiritual leaders “who practice lawlessness” into the fire.

Applying what Jesus said, I have occasionally avoided wasting my time when challenged to doctrinal debates simply by asking my challenger, “Before we start our debate, can you describe for me what you’ve done over the past 12 months to meet the needs of those in Christ’s body who are hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick or incarcerated? Because if you haven’t done anything, according to Jesus, you are a hell-bound goat, and the important thing is not that you convince me of the error of my doctrine, but that you become a follower of Jesus.”

One can be a life-long theologian—who has made a career out of studying and teaching the Bible—and not know God. The scribes and Pharisees were perfect examples of that. There is no shortage today of spiritual leaders who aren’t yet submitted to the only true Leader (see Matt. 23:10).

And that leads me to my final point. Some may say, “Yes, Jesus made it clear that we can trust spiritual leaders who bear good fruit. But there are many spiritual leaders who bear good fruit but who still disagree on various doctrinal matters. How can we determine whose teaching is correct?”

My answer is, perhaps those doctrinal issues that have no bearing on holiness are not as important as we think. It seems to me that within Christendom, right doctrine has been elevated far above right living. One proof is that we continually divide over doctrine, destroying the precious unity of those who believe in Jesus, and disobeying His foremost commandment to love one another. Another proof are the doctrinal tests (rather than fruitfulness tests) of church membership and denominational acceptance. Yet another proof is the plethora of sermons on topics that have nothing to do with holiness or simple obedience to the commandments of Christ.

Jesus did not say, “Go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them all the correct doctrines.” Rather, He told us to make disciples, teaching them to obey all of His commandments.

And Jesus won’t be saying to the sheep on His right, “Enter into the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, because your doctrinal positions were spot on.”

My final confession in this month’s e-teaching is this: I’m really looking forward to heaven, and especially to that wonderful time when all the people who disagreed with me doctrinally on earth will be lined up to apologize to me, once God has straightened them out. (By the way, sure hoping it won’t be me who is lined up to apologize…no, surely not…) But I’m wondering, Will all the things we debate about now even be remembered in heaven, as we bow before the throne of the Lamb who has saved us? — David

The post Ignorance is Bliss, Temporarily appeared first on David Servant.

I was in the midst of my third church-planting pastorate, which began in 1991. In just a few years, the congregation had grown from five people (my wife, myself, and our three children) to close to 300 people (if you counted pregnant women twice, which I did). We’d rented public school space for several years and then purchased acreage on which we erected a church building. The sanctuary could seat 400 people. We borrowed $800,000 from the bank, and that, along with our savings, got us Sunday School rooms, wall-to-wall carpeting, air conditioning, offices, and a paved parking lot.

Sunday attendance was growing and offerings were increasing. I was making more money than I ever had, thanks to a generous church board. My wife and I borrowed money and built a four bedroom, three-bathroom brick home on ten hilltop acres with a huge deck to enjoy the view. I also bought a shiny red lawn tractor. And when I drove around my yard on that tractor and looked at my house, I loved it.

But it wasn’t long after that I was reading Jesus’ words to the seven churches of Asia, found in the first chapters of the book of Revelation. I noticed that Jesus’ opinion of some of those churches was much different than their own opinion of themselves. For example, He said to the church in Laodicea, “You say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17).

The folks in Laodicea were deceived about their condition. And the worst part about deception is that you don’t know you are deceived. All people who are deceived think they are not deceived. If they knew they were deceived, they wouldn’t be deceived!

Ponderings

So I began to wonder what Jesus thought of my church and ministry. It occurred to me that one day, when I stood before Him, I would learn His opinion. But then it occurred to me that He had an opinion right then, and that it would be to my advantage if I could find out what that opinion was. That way, if there was anything that needed tweaking, I could take care of it and get a better grade when I stood before Him.

So I decided to ask Him for His opinion, trusting that there was no reason why He wouldn’t reveal it to me if I asked with sincerity.

To be honest with you, I expected that He was going to say something like, “David, you’ve got a great church and ministry going! That is why I’m blessing it, and you, so much!”

Still, I prayed and asked. I cracked open my heart a little bit, mustering up a tiny bit of humility, in the remote chance that there might be some microscopic adjustment that God might ask me to make.

He was faithful to His promise to give grace to the humble. But the grace I received was not what I expected.

God Repeats Himself, Again

God did not speak to me in an audible voice. Rather, I was strongly impressed to read the latter part of Matthew 25. (May I add that it is crazy to expect God to give you specific, individual guidance if you aren’t obeying His general guidance for everyone found in Scripture.)

I had read of Jesus’ foretelling of the judgment of the sheep and goats many times before, of course. But this time, after I read it, I sensed I was being asked these questions:

David, if everyone in your church died today and stood at the judgment of the sheep and the goats, how many would be sheep and how many would be goats? More specifically, in the last year, how many of the people in your church have made sacrifices to feed fellow Christians who were hungry, provided water for those who were thirsty, clothed or sheltered those who were exposed to the elements, or visited those where were sick and in prison?

And those questions changed my life and ministry forever.

I realized that most of the people in my church, if they were to stand at the judgment of the sheep and goats, would be herded off with the goats. And if I myself was a sheep, it was just barely.

When I admitted all of this to Lord, He did not let me off the hook. Rather, I sensed He was saying to me, “I’m holding you accountable. You haven’t been making disciples, teaching them to obey all My commandments. You’ve been busy building your ministry. You’ve never so much as even warned the people who attend your church that one day they will stand at the judgment of the sheep and goats.”

An Absurd Theology

May I interject at this point in my story that I am well aware that many pastors and teachers don’t believe that any of us will stand at the judgment of the sheep and goats. Some amazingly believe that judgment will be a special judgment that will occur at the end of a seven-year period of tribulation, and it will be a judgment of geo-political nations to determine if they will be permitted to exist during Christ’s millennial reign based on how they treated Israel during the seven-year Tribulation! (I’m not making this up.)

Strangely, they seem to miss the fact that the sheep receive eternal life and the goats are cast into hell. The sheep and goats can’t represent nations, but individual people. And the “least of these My brethren” are not secular Jews living in Israel during the antichrist’s reign. Jesus explicitly declared that His brothers are those who do the will of His Father (Matt. 12:5). And even if you and I don’t one day stand at a literal judgment of the sheep and goats, to think that the criteria that determines eternal salvation or eternal damnation will be different for us is far-fetched to say the least. Scripture teaches that all true Christians “love the brethren” (John 13:34-35; 1 John 3:14-20).

My Repentance

So back to my story.

I felt like a knife had been driven through my heart. I went from seeing myself as a God-blessed, successful pastor, to seeing myself as a failure who was not ready to stand before Jesus. I was not making disciples. I was not teaching people to obey all of Jesus’ commandments. I was doing very little to serve the “least of these.” I had been using goats to enrich myself, like so many other American pastors.

So I repented. I was so convicted that I almost felt as if I had no choice in the matter.

I promised God that, no matter what the consequences, I would start doing my best to make disciples. I would preach a gospel that included the essential biblical element of repentance. I would try to help deceived people, who think they are safe in God’s grace, to understand that being a Christian means more than just claiming to be a Christian and attending church services. To understand that faith without works is dead. That without holiness no one will see the Lord. That people who are truly born again are new creations, not just in theological theory, but in actuality. That the proof of faith in Christ is sacrificial love for the “least of these.” I would try to get people ready to stand before Jesus, when everyone who thinks they are a Christian will be revealed as being either a “sheep” or a “goat.”

In keeping with my repentance, I asked the church board to reduce my salary and if I would be able to use the money that the church would save for periodic overseas ministry. My wife and I decided to sell our house and scale down, and share a house with my parents. I sold my red lawn tractor. We sold some other cherished heirlooms to invest the proceeds in things eternal. And I made some other significant financial decisions.

I also changed my sermons. Previously, my sermons were generally entertaining. But they became soul-searching. Hearts were exposed. Not everyone was happy over the changes. Sunday attendance began shrinking. For the first time in my life, I experienced being “persecuted for the sake of righteousness,” and I had to remind myself that that was a sign of God’s blessing (Matt. 5:10-12), not the number of “noses and nickels” on Sunday morning.

I should add an 11th confession at this point. My own church staff was split, and as a result of that strife, along with criticism I was receiving from church members who stayed, I made the mistake of trying to win arguments rather than win hearts. I wish I had wept in the pulpit rather than worked so hard to prove to my dissenters that I was right. I was right, of course, but I was wrong.

I eventually resigned my pastorate and launched Heaven’s Family, with the vision of proclaiming truth, building God’s kingdom, and serving the “least of these.” That was in 2002. I’ve made my share of mistakes since then, which I’ll share over the next few months in this series of e-teachings. Stay tuned! (And for more details of my tenth confession, visit http://www.heavensfamily.org/e_teachings/2008_04.) — David

The post My Tenth Confession appeared first on David Servant.

Their mother, seeing an opportunity for a moral lesson, reminded them, “If Jesus was sitting at our table, He would say, ‘Mom, please let my brother have the first pancake. I can wait.'”

Kevin then turned to his younger brother and said, “Ryan, you be Jesus!”

That mindset seems to sometimes stay with us as adults. That is, we expect others to be Jesus while we give ourselves a pass.

Let me give you one example (of which I’ve been guilty). How many times have Christians, when considering hiring a Christian tradesman to install a new kitchen floor, for example, say something like, “Hey Joe, since we’re both Christians, I was hoping you might discount your regular price.” In other words, “Joe, you be Jesus. You make a sacrifice for me.”

I wonder what would be the reaction if Joe said, “Hey, Bob, since we’re both Christians, I was hoping that you’d offer to pay me more than my regular price”?

Again, why should Bob expect Joe to give him free labor because Joe is a Christian? What if Joe expected Bob to overpay him because Bob is a Christian? (Of course, it is different if Joe offers Bob a discount, without being asked, out of kindness.)

Freeloaders, Inc.

As one who directs a Christian charity that works around the world, we’ve certainly run into our share of professing believers who expect us to be Jesus while they have no such expectation of themselves. They want something for nothing. They have no qualms about being a burden to others. It doesn’t bother them that other people have to make sacrifices to meet their needs. In fact, some of them believe that those with more have an obligation to take care of them because that is what God requires.

The reality is, those kinds of professing Christians need to read their Bibles.

Paul addressed some folks like I’ve been talking about in his letter to the Thessalonians. There were some in the church who were “leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies” (2 Thes. 3:11). Paul went on to say, “Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread” (2 Thes. 3:12). They were freeloaders, eating other people’s bread—bread that other people gained by working for it.

Freeloading is a transgression against God’s second greatest commandment, to love one’s neighbor as oneself. If I love my neighbor as myself, I will not expect him to work to supply my needs while I do nothing, because that is not how I would want to be treated if our roles were reversed. If I love someone, I do not want to burden him.

When Paul was with the Thessalonians, he taught them these very truths, and not just in word, but in deed:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either (2 Thes. 3:6-10, emphasis added).

Not only are we not to help or feed “undisciplined” Christians, we are to keep away from them (a concept Paul reiterated in 2 Thes. 3:14-15)!

A Better Way

It is because of these truths that I love giving micro-loans for starting small businesses to the poor (and it’s because people misunderstand these truths that they sometimes criticize giving micro-loans to the poor). When you give a micro-loan, you give someone an opportunity to instantly break free from being a burden and a freeloader. Not only are you “being Jesus,” but you are giving your borrower a chance to “be Jesus,” as he now isn’t expecting others to work and make sacrifices while he benefits without any work or sacrifice. He must labor in order to provide for himself, as well as repay his loan. And he gains a chance to love the lender as himself by providing a benefit—namely, a fair interest payment—to the lender.

In the case of the thousands of business-startup loans that Heaven’s Family has made to the poor in developing nations, we most often use the interest we gain (as well as the repaid principle) to fund more loans to the poor. So we are able to tell our borrowers: “By repaying your loan, the interest you pay will help us lift others from poverty. So you are getting a chance to be Jesus to other poor people.”

Truly, we should question the wisdom of helping people who have no desire to bless others. Yet it has been my experience that many poor professing Christians fit that description. They expect us to love our neighbor as ourselves, but they are somehow exempt from the second-greatest commandment.

Thankfully we have also worked with many professing Christians who, although very poor, use much of the profits from their new startup-loan businesses to serve widows and orphans (and others like them who can’t support themselves).

A Shocker

Let me tell you something biblical that may shock you: It is OK in God’s eyes to loan money to someone so poor that his coat is his only collateral. Here’s the proof:

If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious (Ex. 22:25-27).

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the Lord your God (Deut. 24:10-13).

God placed restrictions on charging interest from very poor people and against keeping beyond sunset certain collateral that belonged to those very poor people, but He clearly did not prohibit making loans to such people.

I realize, of course, that some may claim that loving our neighbors as ourselves, the “New Testament standard,” requires that we always give and never lend, but they forget that God’s commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves is also “the Old Testament standard,” found in the same Law as the two passages I’ve just quoted (see Lev. 19:18). So there is no way that those two passages can be a contradiction of God’s commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.

And I would suggest that handouts are often not the best way to love our neighbors as ourselves. One reason some nations’ economies are in shambles is because they’ve been destroyed, at least in part, by a perverted love that shovels handouts to the poor while at the same time bankrupts legitimate businesses that sell to the poor and contribute to a functioning economy. When that happens, business climates are created where no one is willing to risk starting a business, lest they fail because of the next unpredictable charitable organization or “compassionate” nation that might dump some more food on their shores.

The potential negative effects of handouts are also evident on the personal level, when handouts destroy incentive while fostering laziness, deception and jealousy.

The Principles in Practice

When I was in a certain North African nation a few months ago, we set up 14 new micro-bankers, all seasoned leaders in the underground church, who have since been making business-startup loans to very poor Christians, giving them unprecedented opportunities. They will all be contributing to the already-existing functioning economy, and their prosperity will help others to prosper. When their loans are repaid in a year, we’ll start the cycle over again. Many who borrowed during the first cycle will be granted second, larger loans, by which they can expand their businesses.

Had we taken the same amount of money and just given it to the poor, they would have spent it on necessities and, very likely, non-necessities, and we would have taught them that money does not come from work, but comes from being (or looking) needy. The next time they’d see us, their hands would be out, and they would be just as poor as the first time we met them, if not poorer.

I taught those 14 micro-bankers that there are five basic ways to get money. Let me share them with you:

#1. You can steal it. Of course, if I steal from someone, I am certainly not loving my neighbor as myself, because I don’t want people to steal from me what I earn by work. For that reason, stealing is a sin, and God promises that no thief will inherit God’s kingdom (see 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

#2. You can beg. That is certainly a step above stealing, because those who respond to your begging do it voluntarily. But still, one who could work but who begs is not loving his neighbor as himself. He is expecting his neighbor to work to support him.

Just as I was writing this e-teaching, we received a phone message from a man who said he was “a brother in Christ,” and who reminded us that “the Lord blesses us to make us a blessing.” Then he asked us to pay his electric bill. He didn’t ask for a loan, which could have made him a blessing. He didn’t ask if there was something he could do to earn some money, which again, would have made him a blessing. And he owns a phone, a luxury, and he has electricity, another luxury. And he expects us to be Jesus! But not him!

#3. You can use your God-given muscle, brains, talents and opportunities to earn enough money to provide for all your own needs. That is the level every Christian should desire to attain if he or she hasn’t reached it already. That is a manifestation of loving your neighbor as yourself, because you are not being a burden to any neighbor. As Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need (1 Thes. 4:11-12, emphasis added).

But there is a higher level of loving your neighbor as yourself…

#4. You can use your God-given muscle, brains, talents and opportunities to earn enough money to provide for all your needs plus the needs of others who are unable, either temporarily or permanently, to provide for their own needs, such as orphans, older widows and widowers, those who are sick or handicapped and so on. “How blessed is he who considers the poor; the Lord will deliver him in a day of trouble” (Psa. 41:1).

But there is a yet higher level of loving your neighbor as yourself…

#5. You can use your God-given muscle, brains, talents and opportunities to build a business that employs people, thus helping others to escape levels #1 and #2, and reach levels #3 and #4. What a blessing it is to be able to say to someone in need, “I can offer you a job.” Employers are running the best charities in the world (although by definition, they really shouldn’t be called “charities”). How much better it is to provide a job than give a hand out!

I was happy to tell those 14 new North African micro-bankers, “Congratulations! As a micro-banker, you’ve reached level #5! Your hard work is going to result in fellow believers lifting themselves from poverty, so that they can reach levels #3 and #4!” The lovely thing is, everyone who has sacrificed to contribute to Heaven’s Family’s Micro-Loan Fund is, by their gifts, perpetually enabling poor believers to lift themselves out of poverty, “being Jesus,” and giving borrowers the chance to also “be Jesus”!
— David

The post You Be Jesus (But Not Me) appeared first on David Servant.

After attempting to persuade us that God’s judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality, Vines then turns to two other Old Testament passages that, at face value, appear to condemn homosexuality:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22).

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them (Lev. 20:13).

These passages are straightforward. Under the law of Moses, homosexual sex was punishable by death. God considered it to be a “detestable act” and an “abomination.” Vines agrees, admitting, “In these chapters, male same-sex intercourse is prohibited, and the punishment for violators is death.”

So how does Vines wiggle out of any personal application of these passages to himself and other professing Christians who are homosexuals? The crux of his argument is that both passages are contained in the Law of Moses, a Law that is not binding upon New Covenant believers. Vines writes:

Their context within the Old Testament Law makes them inapplicable to Christians. Much of the New Testament deals with the issue of the place of the Old Law in the emerging Christian church. As Gentiles were being included for the very first time into what was formerly an exclusively Jewish faith, there arose ferocious debates and divisions among the early Jewish Christians about whether Gentile converts should have to follow the Law, with its more than 600 rules. And in Acts 15, we read how this debate was resolved. In the year 49 AD, early church leaders gathered at what came to be called the Council of Jerusalem, and they decided that the Old Law would not be binding on Gentile believers. The most culturally distinctive aspects of the Old Law were the Israelites’ complex dietary code for keeping kosher and the practice of male circumcision. But after the Council of Jerusalem’s ruling, even those central parts of Israelite identity and culture no longer applied to Christians. Although it’s a common argument today, there is no reason to think that these two verses from the Old Law in Leviticus would somehow have remained applicable to Christians even when other, much more central parts of the Law did not.

That is an interesting argument, and it is worth our examination, not only as it relates to the acceptability of homosexuality for Christians, but because the “we’re not under the Law” explanation is so often used within Christendom to justify questionable moral behavior.

It is certainly true that the Mosaic Law was given to a small segment of the human population and for a limited time, namely to the descendants of Israel, and only from the time of the Exodus until Jesus’ sacrificial death. But it is not at all true that the moral and ethical precepts contained in the Mosaic Law had no relevance to (1) all humans who lived prior to and after the Mosaic Law, (2) all non-Jewish people during the period of the Mosaic Law, or (3) all New Covenant believers in Christ. Matthew Vines can’t deny this.

Clearly, Vines does not believe that, because a prohibition against adultery is found in the Law of Moses (see Ex. 20:14), Christians are free to commit adultery with impunity. No, he believes that God’s Old Covenant requirement of fidelity is binding even upon homosexual marriages. In fact, he uses the concept of commitment to fidelity within homosexual marriage, contrasting it with casual homosexual sex and homosexual gang rape, as a central point of his argument designed to persuade us to accept homosexual marriage. So what gives him the right to arbitrarily relegate God’s Old Covenant prohibition against homosexuality to irrelevancy for New Covenant believers?

The fact is, the Mosaic Law’s moral and ethical aspects have an indisputable relevancy to New Covenant believers. Some New Testament authors quote certain commandments found in the Mosaic Law in such a way that is is clear that they believed those commandments were binding upon their readers. The reason, of course, is simply because the moral and ethical requirements of the Mosaic Law predate the Mosaic Law and were already contained in the law written by God in everyone’s conscience. The moral and ethical components of the Mosaic Law only codified already universally-understood morality and ethics.

For example, the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself is found only once in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18), but it is found three times in the New Testament epistles, quoted once by James and twice by Paul (Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8). Interestingly, in both letters in which Paul quoted that particular Old Covenant law, Gentile freedom from the Mosaic Law was a major theme:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10).

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another (Gal. 5:13-15).

Paul unmistakably believed that God expected his readers—whom he declared were not under the Law of Moses—to strive to love their neighbors as themselves. Also note that from reading Romans 13:8-10, it is evident that Paul believed that at least four of the Ten Commandments were also relevant to his New Covenant readers. They should not commit adultery, murder, steal or covet.

And from reading Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, it is equally clear that he believed yet another one of the Ten Commandments was relevant to New Covenant believers, as he quotes it verbatim, as well as its promise of blessing to those who obey it:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (which is the first commandment with a promise), “so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth” (Eph. 6:1-3).

Reading through the Gospels, we similarly find Jesus quoting ethical and moral commandments found within the Mosaic Law while speaking to His followers of their obligation to obey them. To those who claim that, because Jesus was ministering to Jews under the Old Covenant, New Covenant Christians have no obligation to obey those commandments, it should be remembered that Jesus told His hand-picked apostles that they should go and make disciples, teaching their disciples to obey all that He had commanded them. Thus everything Jesus taught is relevant to all New Covenant believers. And clearly, Jesus carried over some of the Mosaic Law’s 613 commandments, namely those that were moral and ethical in nature, into the Law of the New Covenant, the Law of Christ.

All of this is to say that Matthew Vines has no warrant to arbitrarily write off any moral requirement found in the Mosaic Law. The fact is, God’s prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are both found in chapters filled with prohibitions regarding other forms of sexual perversion, including incest, adultery and bestiality. Why doesn’t Vines claim that none of those things are forbidden for Christians since we are not obligated to keep the Mosaic Law? Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Vines used his same argument to justify incest or sex with animals? Imagine him claiming, “Christians are not obligated to shun sex with animals, because that was only forbidden under the Law of Moses, and Christians are not under that Law”!

Grasping at straws, Vines justifies his arbitrary annulment of the verses under consideration in Leviticus 18 and 20 that prohibit homosexual relations by means of a single verse in Leviticus 18 that prohibits intercourse during a women’s menstrual period. Vines tells us that Christians feel no obligation to keep that particular commandment. So, he claims, it is wrong to arbitrarily select another verse in the same chapter and claim that it is binding upon Christians.

Vines’ logic is skewed in this case on at least two levels. First, he makes the false claim that Christians feel no obligation to keep a commandment that prohibits intercourse during a women’s menstrual period. I would suggest otherwise. I would suggest that most Christian husbands understand that there are indeed times when it would be degrading to their wives and inappropriate to have intercourse with them. I would suggest that many non-Christians know that as well.

Second and even more significant, Vines ignores the fact that Leviticus 18 begins and ends with information that proves beyond any doubt that all the prohibitions found in its verses are applicable to and binding upon Christians. The chapter begins with these words:

You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes (Lev. 18:3).

After those words, God elaborates on all the sexual perversions that were taking place in Egypt and Canaan, namely incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Then the chapter concludes with these words:

Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God (Lev. 18:24-30).

These two passages prove that the commandments in Leviticus 18 regulating sexual practice are not unique commandments that were only relevant to and binding upon the Jews under the Law of Moses. Clearly, God expected the Gentiles in Egypt and Canaan to shun the same sexual perversions even prior to His giving the Mosaic Law to Israel, and because they didn’t, His wrath came upon them.

Because God held the Egyptians and Canaanites accountable to the degree of sexual purity described in Leviticus 18, we can be certain that He had written those identical laws in their hearts. “Where there is no law, there also is no violation,” as Paul wrote in Romans 4:15. Thus, all of the moral imperatives found in Leviticus predate the Mosaic Law, and they have been binding upon all human beings from the beginning. All of the perversions that God delineated in Leviticus 18 as being “abominations”—incest, adultery, bestiality, sacrificing one’s children to an idol, and homosexuality—were just as abominable to Him when committed by anyone prior to the Mosaic Law as they were when committed by a Jew under the Mosaic Law. Thus it would be absurd to think that any of them are not abominable to Him today, or that all are abominations today with the exception of one or two, as Matthew Vines apparently believes.

On to the New Testament…

Of course, even if we grant Vines his twisted argument regarding Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, or even if we find a legitimate justification to annul for Christians what the Mosaic Law says regarding homosexuality, there are still three New Testament passages that all contain the same condemnation:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Rom. 1:26-27).

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God (1 Tim. 1:9-11).

You may be wondering how Vines could possibly wiggle his way out of these three passages that seem to inescapably condemn homosexuality. But wiggle he does, to the point of contortion.

Concerning the passage in Romans 1:26-27, Vines claims that it applies, not to people like himself, who were born with a natural tendency toward same-sex attraction, but rather to people who were born heterosexual, but who abandoned their heterosexuality for homosexuality, which for them is “unnatural.” For people like himself, however, becoming heterosexual would be “unnatural.” Vines writes:

Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality—they were naturally disposed to it…but they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior….

Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Paul’s argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be is religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging “the natural for the unnatural” in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.

Imagine someone using the same argument to justify any of the other sins that Paul lists in this same passage in Romans, sins committed, according to Paul, by those who reject God, such as greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, arrogance, disobedience to parents, untrustworthiness and mercilessness.

Imagine if Vines had written, “There are two kinds of murderers, those who are born with a natural tendency to murder, and those who are not, but who abandon their natural tendency not to murder and who become murderers. Those are the kind of murderers whom Paul is condemning in this passage. The other kind of murderers have a natural, permanent orientation to murder; it’s not something they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting not-murdering—that was never an option for them to begin with. In fact, for such murderers to stop murdering, it would actually be spurning their true nature, which Paul says should not be done.”

Take any of the many other sins that Paul lists along with homosexuality in Romans 1:24-32, apply the same arguement that Vines applies to homosexuality, and you come to the same bizarre conclusion. Moreover, facts don’t support Vines’ claim that homosexuality never has any environmental causes, that it never has anything to do with personal choice, and that it is a permanent condition that can’t be changed. In fact, Vines’ own statements regarding Romans 1:24-32 don’t support those claims for at least one of the two categories of homosexuals he describes. If Paul was allegedly writing only about heterosexuals who unnaturally abandoned their heterosexuality for homosexuality, then clearly that category of homosexuals were not born with an innate same-sex attraction, and obviously their personal choice had something to do with their sexual orientation. And if any heterosexual has the potential to abandon his or her heterosexuality (as Vines clearly believes), then it would stand to reason that any homosexual could as well. Vines reveals that he doesn’t believe what he wants all of us to believe.

Finally, Vines’ argument regarding Romans 1:24-32 begs the question, “Where in Scripture is this alleged other category of homosexuals mentioned to which Paul’s condemnation does not apply?”

Vines also attempts to differentiate between the alleged “immoral kind” of homosexuality that Paul condemns in Romans 1:26-27 and the loving, committed relationships of married homosexuals:

And surely it is significant that Paul here speaks only of lustful, casual behavior. He says nothing about the people in question falling in love, making a lifelong commitment to one another, starting a family together. We would never dream of reading a passage in Scripture about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and then, from that, condemning all of the marriage relationships of straight Christians. There is an enormous difference between lust and love when it comes to our sexuality, between casual and committed relationships, between promiscuity and monogamy. That difference has always been held to be central to Christian teaching on sexual ethics for straight Christians. Why should that difference not be held to be as central for gay Christians? How can we take a passage about same-sex lust and promiscuity and then condemn any loving relationships that gay people might come to form? That is a very different standard than the one that we apply to straight people.

The comparison that Vines draws—of heterosexual/homosexual lust and casual sex with heterosexual/homosexual marriage—is an invalid comparison. Scripture condemns heterosexual lust and casual sex, but it condones sex within heterosexual marriage. Scripture condemns, however, all forms of homosexual sex, making absolutely no distinction between homosexual lust/casual sex and sex within “homosexual marriage.” Homosexual marriage is an idea utterly foreign to Scripture.

What would be the reaction if Vines claimed that human lust and casual sex with all of one’s biological children should be shunned, but that sex with just one offspring—within the context of “marriage” to him or her—-should be condoned? What would be the reaction if Vines claimed that human lust and casual sex with animals should be shunned, but that sex with one animal within the context of committed human/animal marriage should be condoned?

The Final Two New Testament Passages

Finally, what about the two other New Testament passages, besides Romans 1:26-27, that straightforwardly name and condemn homosexuality?:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10, emphasis added).

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God (1 Tim. 1:9-11, emphasis added).

What does Vines say about these? Somehow he gains a superior ability to translate Greek words over those Greek scholars who have translated practically every modern version of the Bible, and Vines informs us that the Greek word, arsenokoites, translated “homosexuals” in both passages, is a mis-translation.

Vines claims that one should not attempt to determine any accurate meaning for Greek words through considering the root words from which they are derived—even though Greek scholars do it as a matter of practice. Once you know the root words of arsenokoites, it is understandable why Vines would prefer that you ignore them. They are, arsen, which simply means “male” (see, for example, Matt. 19:4) and koite, which literally means “bed” with a strong sexual connotation (from it our English word coitus is derived). Below are three examples of koite as it is used by New Testament authors. In each example, I’ve bolded the English word or words that are translated from the Greek word koite:

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (Rom. 9:10).

Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy (Rom. 13:13).

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Heb. 13:4).

So it couldn’t be more clear that either “homosexuals” or “men having sex” are both perfectly valid English translations of the Greek word arsenokoites.

What does Vines claim that arsenokoites actually means based on his “research”? He says that it refers to “some kind of economic exploitation, likely through sexual means,” and then further clarifies: “This may have involved forms of same-sex behavior, but coercive and exploitative forms. There is no contextual support for linking this term to loving, faithful relationships.”

Again, of course, the concept of “loving, faithful” homosexual marriage is utterly foreign to Scripture, which would certainly explain why there is no biblical contextual support for linking arsenokoites to “loving, faithful homosexual relationships.” Vines might just as well claim that the Greek word moichos, translated “adulterers” in the same passage in 1 Corinthians, has no contextual support for linking it to loving, faithful adulterous relationships, thus proving that the kind of adultery Paul condemns in the passage is only “lustful, non-loving adultery.” This kind of “explanation” from Vines shows us again what lengths he is willing to go to in order to nullify God’s Word.

Incredibly, Vines wants us to believe that, in a list of specific, well-known, and very grievous sins that will exclude one from inheriting God’s kingdom, there is one sin that is difficult to define and understand, a sin expressed by a word that has left all of Paul’s readers for the past 2,000 years guessing what it might be that could exclude them from inheriting eternal life. Here is how Vines would translate 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor those who are guilty of some kind of economic exploitation, likely through sexual means that may involve forms of same-sex behavior—but only coercive and exploitative forms of same-sex behavior that are not to be confused with loving, faithful same-sex relationships—nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

And Matthew Vines’ translation of 1 Timothy 1:9-11 becomes:

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and those who are guilty of some kind of economic exploitation, likely through sexual means that may involve forms of same-sex behavior—but only coercive and exploitative forms of same-sex behavior that are not to be confused with loving, faithful same-sex relationships, and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God (1 Tim. 1:9-11, emphasis added).

In Conclusion

And so Matthew Vines has not, as he claims on his website, proved from the Bible that homosexuality is not a sin. Rather, he has proved from the Bible that he is a sinner. Vines not only needs to repent of promoting what God declares to be grievous sin that will exclude one from inheriting His kingdom, he also needs to repent of twisting God’s Word to accomplish his end, making God say the opposite of what He actually said. Vines is using God’s Word to deceive his readers and potentially rob them of eternal life. What could be more serious? On top of that, now he is earning money by his deception.

Matthew Vines, by his own testimony, believes that those who are born with a heterosexual orientation can become homosexuals. So Matthew Vines clearly believes that sexual orientation can change, even if he denies it.

Homosexuals and their advocates are quick to point out that there are few homosexuals who have made the change to heterosexuality. But that does not mean the potential for them to change does not exist. Most of the world’s unrighteous people never repent, believe in Jesus, and experience forgiveness and new birth. But that does not prove that all of them cannot repent, believe in Jesus, and be forgiven and born again.

The fact is, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, homosexuals have been delivered from homosexuality. In previous e-teachings, I have listed three public examples. Here are two more: Pastor Michael Cannatello from Lazarus Ministry in Bradenton, Florida (see http://lazarusministry.com/about/), and Matt Moore (see http://ipost.christianpost.com/news/saved-from-homosexuality-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-gay-christian-10039/?redirect).

One thing is certain: American Jesus cannot transform or deliver anyone from anything, because he requires no repentance, and he makes no rightful claims of lordship over the lives of those who allegedly believe in Him. He may, in fact, even condone homosexuality—as does the version of American Jesus in whom Matthew Vines believes.

Bible Jesus, however, is altogether different from American Jesus. He has all authority in heaven and on earth, and so He doesn’t ask His followers to do anything. He commands them. And because they believe in Him and love Him, they keep His commandments. They know that they will stand before Him one day, because God has appointed Him as the Judge of everyone. They know that He will judge them by their works, because what they do reveals what they believe.

American Jesus only asks that you “accept him.” But Bible Jesus doesn’t need anyone’s acceptance. Rather, everyone needs His acceptance. And His acceptance can only be gained by repentance and faith, and faith, not in a few theological facts about Him that every demon believes, but faith in Him. Who is He? He is Lord.

As they pass from this life, all who believe in American Jesus will realize that he was as real as Mickey Mouse. And then they will stand before Bible Jesus in all of His glory—the Jesus who, had they repented when they still were breathing, would have graciously granted them new life and eternal life. But it will be too late then. And all who preferred the nebulous and self-contradictory teaching of Matthew Vines over the clear teaching of Bible Jesus will find themselves weeping and gnashing their teeth. Matthew Vines, what will you say to them then? — David

To view our copyright policy, click here. © 2016 by David Servant

The post The New Gay Bible, Part 2 appeared first on David Servant.

Let me begin once more by affirming the need for all sides to grant each other mutual respect. Those of us who believe that God disapproves of homosexuality need to remember that His disapproval is found in lists that include other things that grieve Him, like deceit, envy, greed, theft, gossip, slander, arrogance, mercilessness, untrustworthiness, and lying (see Rom. 1:26-31; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 9-10). Homosexuality is not singled out in Scripture to be the sin that grieves God the most. Log-eyed first-stone-throwers, take note.

And those who think that all Bible-believing Christians are bigots need to know that true Christians believe that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life (John 3:16). We’ve got good news for every style of sinner.

Within the course of the past three month’s e-teachings, some of the feedback I’ve received has revolved around the “pro-gay interpretation” of certain Scripture passages—namely, three in the Old Testament and three in the New—that traditionally have been understood to condemn homosexuality. I cited five of them in my first teaching in this series.

Perhaps the most influential person currently promoting the “pro-gay interpretation” of those scriptures is Matthew Vines, a homosexual and professing Christian, whose videoed message at a Methodist church has received almost 700,000 views on YouTube at the time of this writing. (The video and transcript can be found at Vines’ website: http://www.matthewvines.com.) Random House has just published Vines’ new book, titled, God and the Gay Christian. Vines, at age 21, has never been involved in a hetero- or homosexual relationship, but he hopes to one day be faithfully married to a man and enjoy a family.

In this e-teaching, I’d like to consider Matthew Vines’ interpretations.

“Bad Fruit” Teachers?

Vines begins his lobby against the church’s traditional teaching against homosexuality by questioning the fruit of that teaching. If the fruit is bad, Vines says, then we ought to question the validity of the teaching, because that is allegedly what Jesus taught:

The first problem is this: In Matthew 7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching. By their fruit, you will recognize them, he says. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. That doesn’t mean that following Christian teaching will or should be easy, and in fact, many of Jesus’s commands are not easy at all—turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, laying down your life for your friends. But those are all profound acts of love that both reflect God’s love for us and that powerfully affirm the dignity and worth of human life and of human beings. Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.

In my humble opinion, Matthew Vines’ application of Jesus’ warning to His followers about how to identify false teachers is an obvious misapplication of what Jesus said on at least two levels.

First, take note that Jesus was warning about false teachers “who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15), teachers who will one day be “cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt. 7:19), all because of their “bad fruit.” If Vines really believes that the principle Jesus lays down applies to those of us who hold to the traditional view of God’s condemnation of homosexuality, a view that results in “bad fruit in the lives of homosexuals,” then those who have taught of God’s disapproval of homosexuality from the Bible are some of the “ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing” against whom Jesus warned. And because we have caused through our teaching “emotional and spiritual devastation…loss of self-esteem and self-worth” and “incalculable pain and suffering” to homosexuals, we will one day be cast into hell with all false teachers. Is that what Jesus was trying to convey?

Secondly, apart from damning those who hold to the traditional interpretation of the primary six scriptures regarding homosexuality, is Matthew Vines’ depiction of “bad fruit” legitimate? Is teaching that is apparently based on the Bible, but that results in “loss of self-esteem and self-worth” and “destruction of human dignity” teaching that must be false because it produces “bad fruit”? Is that what Jesus had in mind?

Considering the major themes of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as well as the immediate context surrounding Matthew 7:15-20, the false teaching about which Jesus warned was that which discounts holiness and detours people from the “narrow gate that leads to life” and puts them on the “broad way of destruction” (Matt. 7:13-14). Jesus warned, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matt. 7:21). So it doesn’t seem as if the fruit of “human dignity” was on Jesus’ mind when he warned about the fruit of false teachers. Rather, it was on the fruit of obedience to God’s commandments and the eternal consequences of sin.

I’m afraid that Vines has redefined the relentless guilt that is suffered by homosexuals as “destruction of human dignity,” and he seems to believe that the only source of that guilt is the teaching of those who hold to the traditional view of certain passages of Scripture. Of course, everyone who feels guilty for anything could claim that their “human dignity is being destroyed.” In those cases, wise preachers tell such people that their “human dignity” is their entire problem, because it is nothing other than human pride. They actually elevate themselves above God. In their minds, He has no right to judge them, but they have the right to judge Him! “What right does God have to tell me I should not insert my penis into another man’s rectum? How dare He rob me of my human dignity!” That is pride unabashed. (Forgive me for my graphic wording. I’m only trying to point out behavior that homosexuals often try to cover with euphemisms such as “gay” and “mutual love,” just like abortionists attempt to hide the murder of innocent babies with euphemisms such as “a woman’s choice,” “fetus,” and “terminate the pregnancy.”)

Scripture teaches that guilt is good because guilt is from God; it is a loving means He uses to motivate us to turn from our sins and be saved:

For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10).

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you (Jas. 4:8-10).

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted (Matt. 5:4).

And are those who teach the traditional interpretation of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality solely responsible for the guilt that practicing homosexuals suffer? No, without need of any human agency, and since the dawn of human history, God has been convicting those who commit homosexual acts—just like He has been convicting those who commit adultery, or who lie, steal, murder and so on. That is universal human experience.

To take Matthew Vines’ application of Matthew 7:15-20 to its full conclusion, we can conclude that God has been robbing people of their human dignity for thousands of years, condemning them for their sins, and so He is a false teacher and a wolf in sheep’s clothing who deserves to be cast into hell. And the majority of Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount should be classed as false, because much of its fruit has been the “loss of self-esteem and self-worth” and the “destruction of human dignity” in the lives of millions of guilty sinners for 2,000 years. So Jesus, His Father, and all who use the Bible’s anti-homosexuality passages to condemn homosexuality will be in hell together. Meanwhile, all homosexuals who are Christians will be in heaven. Hmmm. This is a very novel teaching…

Vines’ Next Text

Matthew Vines then turns to where most who teach the traditional biblical view regarding homosexuality begin, to the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve:

In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, man, and everything in the earth. And He declares everything in creation to be either good or very good—except for one thing. In Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men—for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.

This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bible’s own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is.

Matthew grants that Eve was a suitable partner for Adam, and that women are suitable partners for the vast majority of men. But for gay men, he says, women are not suitable partners. Rather, the only suitable partners for them are other gay men, because of their mutual attraction. And it is similar for lesbian women. Men are not suitable partners. Only other lesbian women are.

But on what authority are these statements made? Certainly not the Bible. They are purely the opinions of Vines and anyone who agrees with him, based only on their homosexual attractions. Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that affirms homosexual marriage like Scripture affirms heterosexual marriage.

Where in the Bible did Jesus, who taught about and mentioned heterosexual marriage (Matt. 5:31-32, 19:3-11; 22:24-29, etc…), teach about homosexual marriage being suitable for some, or even mention homosexual marriage in any way that might be perceived as approving it? Homosexual advocates often point out the fact that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. But it works both ways. Jesus never advocated what homosexuals advocate today. (Incidentally, Jesus never condemned bestiality. Does that mean it is OK in God’s eyes to have sex with an animal?)

Where in the Bible did Paul or Peter, who both taught about heterosexual marriage (Eph. 5:22-28; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:12, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Pet 3:1-7), teach about homosexual marriage being the only suitable arrangement for some? Where did any Old or New Testament writer even mention homosexual marriage? Where are the examples of God-pleasing homosexual couples in the Bible? They don’t exist. Homosexual marriage is nothing more than an attempt to sanitize a sexual perversion by adding the element of lifelong fidelity between two homosexuals. It is akin to claiming that adultery is OK as long as both adulterers really love each other.

And when did people’s desires become the determining factor of what is suitable for them in God’s eyes? From reading the Bible and observing the human race throughout history, it would seem that people’s desires would be a better way to determine what is not suitable in God’s eyes.

What if someone claims that, for him, neither men nor women are perfectly suitable partners, because he has a desire for sex with both males and females? Does that make his marriages to and sexual relationships with both a man and a woman acceptable? What if someone claims that, for her, lifelong marriage is not suitable, because she has a desire for short-term sexual relationships? Do her desires or her opinion legitimatize fornication? What if someone claims that, for him, one lifelong committed marriage plus many short-term relationships is the only thing that is suitable, because that is what he desires. Does that make adultery OK?

Clearly, the litmus test for morality is not human opinion, but God’s opinion.

It seems incredible to me that Vines writes, “In all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner.” Really? In all of the ways? Among other things, I’m wondering how two married homosexual men will be at breast-feeding the baby they can’t produce.

Vines does his best to gain our sympathies and thus soften us to accept homosexual marriage by telling us that traditional Christian teaching, which again is “deeply wounding and destructive,” requires homosexual men to do something that God said is not good for men to do, namely to “live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own.”

That, however, is a stretch of the truth on at least three levels.

First, Vines acts as if there are only two possible alternatives for homosexual men, either marriage to another homosexual, or “living alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own.” Vines leaves out the possibility of homosexuals experiencing a change in their sexual orientation. Some have, in fact, like former homosexual Dennis Jernigan, who has been heterosexually married for 29 years with 9 biological children. (Read his testimony here: http://www.dennisjernigan.com/needhelp.) In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul indisputably indicates that there were, in the church in Corinth, those who were formerly homosexual (see 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Sexual transformation is possible, but it doesn’t start by twisting scriptures to justify homosexual practices.

Second, there is nothing to prohibit homosexuals from enjoying close friendships, relationships and companionships with friends and family. They are certainly not consigned to a lonely life. When Vines writes that traditional teaching requires homosexual men to do something that God said is not good for men to do, namely to “live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own,” he really means that traditional teaching requires men to abstain from having sex with men, and women from having sex with women.

And third, God never said anywhere in the Bible that “it is not good for a man to be alone.” Rather, He said of Adam, “it is not good for the man to be alone.” At the time, Adam was the sole member of the human race. So God gave him a wife, a female, a woman who would fill their world with lots of other people, men and women. No man since Adam has been in Adam’s position, entirely alone on the earth.

Moreover, we have biblical examples of men of whom it can be confidently stated that it was indeed good, in God’s estimation, that they be matrimonially alone, people like the apostle Paul, who recommended celibacy, and Jeremiah. Jesus Himself endorsed celibacy for some (see Matt. 19:12). Thus, using what God specifically said about Adam and applying it to all men is a misapplication of Scripture. And using what God specifically said about Adam as a justification for same-sex marriage is a clear misapplication of Scripture.

Again, same-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to sanitize a sexual perversion by adding the element of lifelong fidelity between two homosexuals. And let us be honest. According to the facts, homosexuals don’t generally enjoy the benefits of life-long companionship among themselves. In Pollak’s study of male homosexuality titled, Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, he writes, “Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”

In another study, published in the Journal of Sex Research involving 2,583 older homosexuals, Paul Van de Ven and his colleagues discovered that only 2.7 percent of homosexuals claimed to have had sex with only one partner. In another study, it was found that 24 percent of gay men had over 100 partners, 43 percent of those studied had over 500 partners, and 28 percent of gay men had over 1,000 partners. Unlike Vines, it doesn’t seem as if the average homosexual is seeking a committed lifelong relationship.

Vines Visits Sodom

The first of the Bible’s six primary passages that directly address homosexuality is the story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Vines next visits that passage found in Genesis 19.

We are told six chapters earlier in Genesis that “the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord” (Gen. 13:13), but we are not told what specific sins had earned them such a negative divine appraisal. It is not until more than a decade later when God sends two angels in human form to Sodom to visit Abraham’s nephew, Lot, that we learn more specifics about Sodom’s evil. It is shocking. We read:

Before they [Lot and the two angels whom he offered lodging for a night in his house] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them” [literally, “know them” an unmistakable biblical reference to sex; see Gen. 4:1 for example] (Gen. 19:4-5).

Lot comes out of his house and implores them, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly” (Gen. 19:6). He then strangely offers them his two virgin daughters “to do to them whatever you like” (Gen. 19:7), but the many men who surround his house are not interested in his daughters. So they threaten to sodomize Lot, who is subsequently pulled back inside his house by the two angels. Soon afterwards, once Lot and his daughters have escaped Sodom, God destroys both it and a neighboring city, Gomorrah, killing everyone by raining fire and brimstone down upon them. Nothing in the narrative reveals anything about other sins of which the Sodomites may have been guilty.

What are we to learn from this story? You may have thought it was a lesson concerning God’s view of homosexuality. But Vines explains:

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not originally thought to have anything to do with sexuality at all, even if there is a sexual component to the passage we just read. But starting in the Middle Ages, it began to be widely believed that the sin of Sodom, the reason that Sodom was destroyed, was homosexuality in particular. This later interpretation held sway for centuries, giving rise to the English term “sodomy,” which technically refers to any form of non-procreative sexual behavior, but at various points in history, has referred primarily to male same-sex relations. But this is no longer the prevailing interpretation of this passage, and simply because later societies associated it with homosexuality doesn’t mean that’s what the Bible itself teaches. In the passage, the men of Sodom threaten to gang rape Lot’s angel visitors, who have come in the form of men, and so this behavior would at least ostensibly be same-sex. But that is the only connection that can be drawn between this passage and homosexuality in general, and there is a world of difference between violent and coercive practices like gang rape and consensual, monogamous, and loving relationships. No one in the church or anywhere else is arguing for the acceptance of gang rape; that is vastly different from what we’re talking about.

Vines’ interpretation of the story tells us more about the interpreter than the story. According to him, God would have been quite OK with the men of Sodom had they been married to one another and engaged in consensual, monogamous, loving relationships that included regularly inserting their penises into the rectums of their same-sex spouses. God was only displeased because they all wanted to forcibly insert their penises into the rectums of unwilling men to whom they were not married. That was stepping over the line. (Again, forgive my graphic wording; I’m only trying to remind all of us what homosexuality actually is, because there is absolutely nothing wrong about men having strong, bonding friendships with other men [see 1 Sam. 18:1, 3, 20:17]; homosexual advocates often emphasize this in order to cover their sexual perversion.)

Vines continues to explain:

But the men of Sodom wanted to rape other men, so that must mean that they were gay, some will argue. And it was their same-sex desires, and not just their threatened rape, that God was punishing. But gang rape of men by men was used as a common tactic of humiliation and aggression in warfare and other hostile contexts in ancient times. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation or attraction; the point was to shame and to conquer. That is the appropriate background for reading this passage in Genesis 19, which, notably, is contrasted with two accounts of generous welcome and hospitality—that of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18 and Lot’s own display of hospitality in Genesis 19. The actions of the men of Sodom are intended to underscore their cruel treatment of outsiders, not to somehow tell us that they were gay.

Amazingly, Vines wants us to believe that the men of Sodom were likely heterosexual. But they wanted to humiliate Lot’s two visitors for some reason (which Vine fails to explain), and their plan was to do something that was allegedly common in times of war and hostility back in those days, namely, figure out a way to sexually arouse themselves so that they could systematically and publicly insert their penises into the rectums of two strangers. Boy, that would sure have sent the message, “Your kind aren’t welcome in these here parts!” And afterwards, once they had finished humiliating the two strangers by publicly ejaculating into their rectums, they could all pull up their pants and strut home to their proud wives (or perhaps with their homosexual partners to whom they were married) to boast of how successful they were in humiliating the day’s visitors. Vines not only rewrites history, he also spins a tale that only the most gullible could possibly swallow.

I’ll bet you’ve never in your life heard or thought of such an interpretation of the story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, Vines wants us to believe that the homosexual aggression of the Sodomites had nothing to do with their sexual orientation or their desire for homosexual sex, but that they were motivated by a desire to humiliate—by an utterly bizarre means and for no reason—two non-threatening foreign visitors who had just wandered into their town.

If there is any redeeming aspect of Lot’s strange offering of his two virgin daughters to the Sodomite aggressors, it is that it exposes Vines’ interpretation as the implausible theory that it is. Did Lot, citizen of Sodom, believe that the Sodomites’ aggression was unrelated to sexual desire, but solely based on a desire to humiliate his two visitors? If yes, then why did he offer his two virgin daughters for them to rape instead? Clearly, without dispute, Lot knew the Sodomite men were motivated by sex, and he learned what he probably already knew—that they were not interested in heterosexual sex. They wanted to have homosexual sex with his two guests.

In spite of all this, Matthew Vines believes the divine lesson of Genesis 19 is that there is an acceptable and an unacceptable way to extend hospitality, the former exemplified by Abraham, Sarah and Lot, and the latter exemplified by the Sodomites. Vines might as well try to convince us that the real sin of the woman caught in the act of adultery was that she wasn’t paying her tithes.

But there is more. Vines is determined to persuade us that God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality, and so he begins to grasp at straws:

And indeed, Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to 20 times throughout the subsequent books of the Bible, sometimes with detailed commentary on what their sins were, but homosexuality is never mentioned or connected to them. In Ezekiel 16:49, the prophet quotes God as saying, “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” So God Himself in Ezekiel declares the sin of Sodom to be arrogance and apathy toward the poor. In Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Jesus associates the sin of Sodom with inhospitable treatment of his disciples. Of all the 20 references to Sodom and Gomorrah throughout the rest of Scripture, only one connects their sins to sexual transgressions in general. The New Testament book of Jude, verse 7, states that Sodom and Gomorrah “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” But there are many forms of sexual immorality and perversion, and even if Jude 7 is taken as specifically referring to the threatened gang rape from Genesis 19:5, that still has nothing to do with the kinds of relationships that we’re talking about.

It’s now widely conceded by scholars on both sides of this debate that Sodom and Gomorrah do not offer biblical evidence to support the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

This section of Vines’ reinterpretation of the Sodom story is so full of misleading statements it is difficult to know where to begin.

Indeed, after Genesis 19—the shocking, unprecedented, and unforgettable account of Sodom’s men surrounding Lot’s house to rape two non-threatening visitors, preferring that over raping Lot’s daughters, followed almost immediately by Sodom’s subsequent destruction—Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned again in the Bible, many times. In the large majority of those references, no mention is made of any specific sins of which the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty. But according to Vines’ logic, since the majority of those references don’t mention homosexuality, homosexuality must not have been the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Following Vine’s logic, we should conclude that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for no reason, since there are so many references that mention Sodom and Gomorrah without mentioning any specific sins. Moreover, if Vines is going to be consistent, since there are so many references that mention Sodom and Gomorrah without mentioning inhospitality or gang rape, that should also nullify his theory that those two things attracted God’s wrath.

Vine’s does, however, admit that twice in the Bible’s latter references to Sodom and Gomorrah, specific sins are mentioned. He references the first half of one of those references, found in Ezekiel 16:49, but for some reason he fails to include the second half found in the next verse:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it (Ezek. 16:49-50).

So the Lord revealed three things that grieved Him about Sodom: (1) they were arrogant and haughty, (2) they did not care for the poor and needy, and (3) they “committed abominations.” Could those “abominations” have anything to do with the homosexual advances of the men of Sodom revealed by their preference to rape Lot’s two male visitors over his two daughters?

And as Vines admits, Sodom and Gomorrah are later mentioned in the New Testament in a reference in which specific sins are named:

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire (Jude 7).

Jude directly connects the consequence of an unprecedented judgment with the cause: “gross immorality and going after strange flesh.” Vines wants us to believe that, since there are many kinds of sexual immorality, Jude could well have been making reference to, for example, adultery or fornication. The only obstacle that stands in the way of that theory is the biblical account in Genesis 19, a story of a city of men who wanted to have sex with two angels whom they thought were men, a city that only survived a few more hours after that example of “gross immorality and going after strange flesh.”

Further grasping at straws to bolster his theory that God judged Sodom for inhospitality, Vines writes, “In Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Jesus associates the sin of Sodom with inhospitable treatment of his disciples.” No, in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:1-12 Jesus simply stated that it will be more tolerable for the Sodomites on the day of judgment than it will be for those cities that reject the gospel that was brought to them by the Twelve and the Seventy in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ words have nothing to do with inhospitality. Jesus mentions no specific sins of Sodom and Gomorrah in those two passages as being the reason they were destroyed. He simply reveals that the sin of rejecting His gospel is even more grievous to God than the gross immorality of Sodom (a sobering thought, by the way).

To sum it all up, there are only three passages in the Bible that provide specific details of what sin attracted God’s wrath upon Sodom and Gomorrah: Genesis 19, Ezekiel 16:49-50, and Jude 7. The preponderance of the evidence points to gross sexual perversion perpetrated by the male citizens of Sodom who desired to have sex with two angels whom they thought were men, and secondarily, pride and neglect of the poor. There is no mention in any of those three passages of inhospitality or attempted gang rape.

Vines’ final statement, “It’s now widely conceded by scholars on both sides of this debate that Sodom and Gomorrah do not offer biblical evidence to support the belief that homosexuality is a sin,” is utter nonsense.

In Conclusion…

Next month I hope to conclude by considering Matthew Vines’ exposition of the five remaining biblical passages that have traditionally been used to prove God’s disapproval of homosexuality. May I say in closing, however, that we really don’t need the Bible to instruct us that homosexuality is a perversion of God’s intention for human sexuality. God has revealed many things through natural revelation:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:18-20).

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus (Rom. 2:14-16).

As far as we know from the Bible, God gave no vocal or written commandments regarding human sexuality until He gave the Law of Moses. For the thousands of years prior to the Law of Moses, He only gave people the law that He has written in everyone’s conscience, which obviously was sufficient in God’s mind. For thousands of years before God wrote in stone tablets, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” everyone knew that adultery was wrong, and the Bible indicates that (see Gen. 20:1-18).

Natural revelation teaches us that men are not designed to have sex with men, nor women with women. Their parts don’t fit. It doesn’t make any difference if they are married or not. And everyone knows that rectums are where excreta comes out, as that is what it was designed for, and nothing else. And for those homosexuals who eschew “anal sex” (what a strange term that is), whatever else one might do that is sexual in nature with someone of the same sex is no more natural.

Why am I refuting Matthew Vines’ interpretation of these passages of Scripture? Because by reinterpreting the Bible, Vines sanctions something that God warned will prevent one from inheriting eternal life. Vines is deceiving himself and others like himself, removing any motivation for repentance. That is a very weighty thing. Love speaks the truth. — David

To view our copyright policy, click here. © 2016 by David Servant

The post The New Gay Bible appeared first on David Servant.

I also received a number of responses from good folks who cited first-hand examples of homosexual orientation that could not be attributed to any environmental cause (suggesting a biological cause). Others wrote who believe that homosexuality is the result of demonic oppression or possession, and that it can be cured by exorcism (although none cited any supportive Bible passages or personal success stories of delivering homosexuals through exorcism). A few wrote expressing blanket condemnations upon all homosexuals. And finally, some wrote to affirm that my amateur attempt to diagnose the roots of Jean Claude’s same-sex attraction wasn’t too far off track.

One of those affirmative responses was from a former homosexual man whom I will call “Roger.” His gracious email brought tears to my eyes, and I thought his words would be helpful for anyone who is trying to better understand (1) some of the possible roots of homosexuality, (2) the means of combatting same-sex attraction, and (3) the struggles that former homosexuals face integrating into the church and society. I think it will be worth your time to read what Roger shared below (I’ve italicized one section for emphasis):

I left the homosexual community over 13 years ago after I accepted Christ, and I wish I were able to say that the full Christian community completely embraced me and had the resources and ministry available around me during my struggle to overcome the addictions of homosexual lust, pornography and masturbation. However, that was not always the case. I often found myself isolated, misunderstood, rejected, ignored and expected to be “instantly free” by other Christians after my salvation and subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I found myself in a place where I chose to reject mainstream and local community churches as I turned to two or three godly saints who ministered to me as best they could and were faithful to always point me towards Christ. I found myself in a position where I had to…utilize secular and para-church organization resources to help me deal with something the people around me and the local churches were simply not equipped to handle. I experienced a great deal of bitterness and hurt towards many other Christians, even the ones who were desperately trying to minster to me, as well as local bodies as a result. But now, many years later, I can see much clearer that they were doing the best they could to minister the love of Christ to me, and I also grew to understand that bitterness, rejection, selfishness, self pity and pride are deeply rooted strongholds in homosexuals, former or otherwise.

13 years later, although not in the bondage of homosexuality, I still struggle with temptations of same sex attractions daily. This proclivity has never left. However, the power of it over me has been broken. After years and years of reinforcing same sex attraction through sexual experiences, lust, pornography and masturbation, my brain has deep neurogical connections for attractions to men.

I do not believe I was born this way. It is so clear to me how this developed in my own life as a “set up” through my strained relationship with my father, hostility with an older brother, and an overbearing and raging mother. However, I think most importantly, and the “point of this email” is that I believe for me the deepest scar and most important factor in my life was peer rejection.

I have learned and strongly believe that the root of my homosexuality was a deep seated inferiority of my own masculinity as a boy, a teen and adult, reinforced a million times by rejection from my male peers and as a result of my own perceptions of this inadequacy. I too suffered the horror of being called “faggot,” “sissy,” “girl,” all under the shadow of a very masculine and athletic older brother.

It is a struggle that continues to this day. I still find it extremely difficult to form male friendships because of my own “softness” for lack of a better word, because men do find it difficult to form relationships with “never married” 48 year old men who are unlike them and their lives in so many ways. It is only the true Christian godly man who understands his own sin, who has been broken before God by it, and who looks at me and sees himself. Not because he struggles with same sex attraction, but because he knows the true state of himself before a holy God and realizes he is no different. God has been good to me and given me a few godly men such as this in my life.

I can tell you that it has been the loneliest, most difficult road I could have never imagined when I walked out of the homosexual life into a born again life through Jesus Christ. I cannot tell you that if I had known how lonely, confusing, bewildering and frustrating it would be in the face of a world that now sees me as “aberrant” and glorifies practicing homosexuality as normalcy, that I would have made the decision. And the sad state of affairs is that the church is little better. There is so much ignorance, hate, hostility, and misunderstanding of this situation in the church.

Those of us who have been set free from homosexuality by Christ live in the shadows in our own Christian communities. Many people just aren’t sure that they want “ex gays” around their children. Some don’t really want to invite us over to their house for dinners, because they are just more comfortable with “families” or other “couples.” Invitations to special events and outings are rare. Pastors really don’t want us to testify about our deliverance, because they really don’t want “to put us in the position of revealing that in public.” The list just goes on and on.

However, on the other side of all that is Christ himself. I am truly glad I did not know how difficult it would be. Because, through it all, I have come to know Him. He has become my treasure. He has used my same sex attraction to show me my own wretched sin and through the ugliness of it all He has called me to Himself. He has taught me how to love Him, how to forgive others, how to cry out to Him, and how to be completely dependent on Him to deliver me out of not only homosexuality, pornography and masturbation, but I think more importantly, to give me a new heart so that I can be set free from the real giants in my life; bitterness, hardness, hatred, anger, slander, gossip, selfishness, self pity, pride and all other evil things of which only the Holy Spirit can give me light on and deliver me from. As I write this email..I see that I still have a long way to go.

As I read Roger’s letter, I found myself wishing that his testimony of freedom from homosexuality included freedom from homosexual temptation. But I had to remind myself that I am still tempted by sins that held me prior to coming to Christ.

I also found myself remembering, with regret, times in my childhood when I joined my peers in mocking an artistically-gifted, non-athletic classmate, calling him derogatory names like fag and homo. Today that man is homosexual. I wonder how much I contributed to his sexual identity.

Clearly, Roger identifies same-sex peer rejection as the primary cause for his former bondage to, and current struggles with, same-sex attraction. Deep inside, Roger is simply craving acceptance. (And who isn’t?) Roger repented, knowing that repentance is required for one to be accepted by the most important Person, namely, Jesus. His repentance, however, resulted in him being rejected by the homosexual community and by society at large. He refers to himself as “aberrant” in our culture, I assume because our culture now accepts both heterosexuals and homosexuals—but not former homosexuals who repented.

Tragically, however, a man who encountered rejection most of his life from family and peers, who coped with that rejection to some degree through sexual perversion, and who then suffered more rejection from the homosexual community and society as he sought God’s acceptance, then suffered additional rejection from “God’s people”! No wonder he wrote, “It has been the loneliest, most difficult road I could have never imagined when I walked out of the homosexual life into a born again life through Jesus Christ.”

If there is anything we can learn from Roger, it is that we ought to reach out with love and acceptance to homosexuals—without compromising God’s standards of holiness of course. If the homosexual world views the church as hateful and rejecting, it would seem there is little chance of them becoming interested in what we have to offer through the gospel. I tend to think that the homosexual world actually does generally see us as hateful and rejecting—and often for good reason.

And when homosexuals do turn to Jesus, they should be showered with love and acceptance. Thank God that Roger has found a few Christian men who have done that. But the picture he paints of the wider church lets us know that we have a lot of room for improvement.

Please allow me to say, once again, that I am not implying that the reason for all homosexual orientation is the same as Roger’s. Clearly, homosexual orientation is not always caused by a dysfunctional home environment or peer abuse. Good parents should not be condemning themselves.

One More Thing

In the Bible we learn that God makes some “hairy men” like Esau, and God makes some “smooth men,” like Jacob (see Gen. 27:11). Both men were men:

Esau “became a skillful hunter, a man of the field, but Jacob was a peaceful man, living in tents” (Gen. 25:27, emphasis added).

One can’t help but wonder if Jacob, had he lived in modern America, would have been labeled, branded, and then ended up facing the same struggles as Roger.

Let’s love and affirm the “smooth men” whom God makes. Let’s stop defining masculinity by a certain set of personality traits. Not all of us are football fanatics, have deer antlers hanging on our walls, or can only identify three species of flowers.

Jesus was a man, but He didn’t always fit the modern masculine mold. He never dated or married a woman, and He once said that some men “make themselves eunuchs of the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matt. 19:12). He wept publicly, something little boys are often told only sissies do (Luke 19:41; John 11:35). He spent time with children (Matt 18:19:13-14). He fixed breakfast (John 21:9-12). He washed other men’s feet (John 13:3-5). He apparently didn’t mind John reclining on His bosom during the Last Supper (John 13:21). One time He was overheard saying of the people of Jerusalem, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings” (Luke 13:34). Not exactly your typical modern male… — David

The post Hairy Men and Smooth Men appeared first on David Servant.

This month I want to share one particular email response that I received, in hopes that it might contribute to further understanding between homosexuals (and their advocates), and those who, like me, believe that God condemns homosexuality (along with a host of other sins of which just about everyone has been guilty) but that He also offers forgiveness and freedom through Jesus Christ.

Of all the feedback I received, the following email, from a man to whom I’ve given the pseudonym “Jean Claude,” was the most thought provoking. Jean Claude, who grew up in a developing nation, wrote to me in somewhat broken English, so I slightly edited his email to make it easier to read, but without changing the content. I think his words will touch your heart:

David…I am gay and I don’t understand why I am born this way. I started to get attracted to a man when I was 6 years old. It doesn’t mean I’m attracted to all men but I have a certain type. I remember I was attracted to my neighbor, he was an adult, maybe around 25 years old. I wasn’t attracted to him sexually because I was just 6 years old. I just liked to see his face and body (he was running shirtless at that time) without understanding why. I never had that kind of attraction to adult female.

Then, when I entered elementary school, it was all boy, a Catholic school, I was attracted to one of my classmates when I was at grade 5. It wasn’t sexually either. I didnt understand what sex was.

The same thing happened when I was at junior and high school. I was attracted to one or two boys out of hundred of boys in my school. Same thing, when I was in a college. Always, there is always one or two I was attracted to. I felt weird cause my junior/high school/college classmates liked to talk about girls and I was not really interested in talking about girls. So, I was left out. I was sad and isolated. I didn’t understand. No one I could talk to. I was growing up in a third-world country. It is a homophobic community. I became a loner and felt separated from the rest. I felt I had no friends. How could I make friendship to guys who don’t understand me? I can’t talk to my family as well. Even though my parents are never divorced, my family was dysfunctional. Inside me, I was torn apart and confused.

I had sex for the first time when I was 29 and with a man not a woman.

Finally, I found out that my 2 younger brothers are gay but we all are closeted and we never talk about it.

The rest of my siblings are straight, 3 older brothers, 3 older sister and one younger sister. I made a conclusion I was born this way and it was genetic. I believe one or two of my ancestors are gay, maybe, I don’t know.

I stay away from church because those Christians ridicule homosexuals. It is easy for them to finger point us as sinners because they are heterosexuals. What if I flip the table, they become the homosexuals and I become the hetero one, how do they feel if I do the same thing to what they have done to us?

I feel straight male is the worst human. Straight female is better than them, more understanding.

I thought Bible was corrupted. How could God condemn homosexuals, it seems unfair to me? He create us this way and He is going to send us to hell because of what we are. So, what is the point to create us? Why not just kill all of us before we are born? That way, the world would be perfect, all heterosexuals without homosexuals. The world does not need garbage like us. It is better we are eradicated before we are appeared on earth. This sounds good, right, David.

I know a lot of gays are not Jesus followers. How could they follow our Lord if the Bible says homosexuals will be sent to hell?

In 2012, I start to believe the Bible is true 100%. It takes long process to get to where I am now. I believe in Jesus very strongly. I believed in Him in the past but it was like 50%. I just believe He found me not I found Him. However, I still don’t understand why I’m gay. I wish I were bi-sexual, that way, I can try to kill my desire toward men and try to increase my desire to women. Unfortunately, I can’t do that. I’m gay 100%. There is no way for me to get attracted to female.

So, I promise myself to celebate since I’m not attracted to female, I can’t marry one of them. To marry with a man, I’ll end up in hell. I have to be single forever and I cannot do fornication even though my desire to have sex is strong….

I really don’t understand with what God wants. I am confused. We can’t do this and that. I thought as long as we don’t harm other people, it was okay. I want to obey the Lord but at the same, I don’t understand. When I meet Jesus some day, I want to ask Him, why I am born this way. It’s not cool for me. I wish David Servant were gay, that way he knew how I feel.

Several things that Jean Claude wrote stood out to me. I wonder if they did for you as well.

First, Jean Claude certainly didn’t fit the stereotypes of homosexuals that have been constructed in many of our minds. I found myself very sympathetic to his plight.

Second, I couldn’t help but wonder if the roots of Jean Claude’s homosexual desires were traceable to his childhood experiences. Jean Claude related a life story of rejection and alienation by men that seemed to feed on itself and culminate in a strong disapproval of heterosexual men.

Similarly, I wondered if Jean Claude’s early attraction to one particular man when he was just six years old was not a natural longing to fill a void in his life created by an absent, emotionally-detached, or abusive father. In my opinion, fathers should be the heroes of their 6-year old sons. Why would Jean Claude, at 6 years of age, have such an attraction to an adult male neighbor?

I could not help but notice that Jean Claude was the 7th out of 10 children. There were 6 boys and 4 girls. He mentioned that his two younger brothers are also homosexual, but that his three older brothers (and all of his sisters) are heterosexual. It would be interesting to learn if the relationship that Jean Claude and his two younger brothers had with their father or mother was different in some way than that of their three older brothers. I found myself speculating on different possible scenarios involving their parents. Might the demands of providing for ten children have pulled their father away from them? (In some developing nations, many fathers leave home for years at a time to work in other nations just so they can provide for their families.)

Then I thought about Jean Claude’s comment that his family was dysfunctional, indicating something undesirable that would certainly have involved his parents in some way. Could an angry, abusive, or uncaring father have been the catalyst for the roots of homosexuality in Jean Claude and his two younger brothers, who as children all only longed for a true father? Might their mother have taken a perversely dominant or abusive role in the family that affected their attitude towards women?

Of course, there are many other possible scenarios that can characterize dysfunctional families. I am only questioning if, in some cases such as Jean Claude’s, homosexuality might initially stem from an unmet natural longing for love from a parent of the same sex, or from an unnatural role adopted by a parent of the opposite sex. (I am certainly not saying that all homosexuals came from dysfunctional homes. I know homosexuals who were raised in very good homes.)

Some readers might disapprove of my amateur attempt at psychoanalysis. Others might accuse me of absolving people of personal responsibility. All I can say is that I know, from 20 years of serving as a pastor, from observing and counseling large numbers of people, and from my own experiences over 55 years of life, that we all need and long for love, and those who are deprived of it often find ways to cope. Behavior is frequently shaped by one’s environment, and certainly from home life. Scientific studies prove it. For example:

63 percent of youth suicides come from father-deprived homes, 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children are from father-deprived homes, 85 percent of all children exhibiting behavioral disorders come from father-deprived homes, 80 percent of rapists motivated by displaced anger come from father-deprived homes, 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from father-deprived homes, 75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from father-deprived homes, 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from father-deprived homes, and 85 percent of all youths in prisons grew up in father-deprived homes (see mensdefense.org/STM_Book/FatherDeprivation).

In his book, Bringing Up Boys, Dr. James Dobson shared some of his views regarding possible environmental factors for homosexuality. Interestingly, he wrote that homosexuality is not fundamentally about sex:

It is about everything else…loneliness, rejection, affirmation, intimacy, identity, relationships, parenting, self-hatred, gender confusion, and search for belonging. This explains why the homosexual experience is so intense….

Dr. Dobson’s words certainly seem to describe Jean Claude to some degree. Fathers and mothers, take heed!

It was heartbreaking to read Jean Claude’s words, “I feel straight male is the worst human. Straight female is better than them, more understanding.” How does an attitude like that develop apart from suffering significant male rejection?

It was even more heartbreaking to read, “I stay away from church because those Christians ridicule homosexuals.” When professing Christians act hatefully towards homosexuals, they only exacerbate the very feelings that may well be the genesis of homosexuality.

If the roots of Jean Claude’s homosexuality are childhood and adolescent wounds, how will those wounds be healed by a church that he perceives to be full of ridicule and rejection? If Christian men distance themselves from Jean Claude because he seems different (or somewhat feminine), how will any potential longings he has for male acceptance be fulfilled? My overriding thought as I read Jean Claude’s email was, This man needs genuine Christian love.

It was even more heartbreaking to read, “The world does not need garbage like us. It is better we are eradicated before we are appeared on earth. This sounds good, right, David.”

Remember, Jean Claude is no longer a practicing homosexual, but one who is trying to follow Jesus as he struggles against what seems to him to be inherent homosexuality. He is determined not to sin against God. I did not quote the part of Jean Claude’s email in which he declared that he not only abstains from homosexual sex, but from masturbation, for fear that it would send him to hell.

May I stop again and make the disclaimer that I am not saying that Jean Claude’s experience is representative of every homosexual, that the parents of homosexuals are always to blame, or that I’m certain that my speculations are the reason for Jean Claude’s homosexuality. Although I don’t believe that homosexuality is genetic, and I do believe that personal choice plays a part, I am not so foolish as to think other environmental or biological factors I have not addressed might not be factors. And may I affirm once again that I believe, based on the Word of God and the testimonies of former homosexuals who have turned to Christ, that forgiveness and freedom are available in Him.

From Gay to Joyous

It seemed providential that the most recent issue of World magazine (for which I am grateful to have a subscription through the generosity of friends) contained an interview with author Christopher Yuan, a former homosexual and drug dealer who is currently pursuing a doctorate of ministry. Yuan was asked in that interview what he believes was the catalyst for his homosexuality, and he listed both exposure to porn at age 9 and peer rejection. Concerning the latter, he said, “I was born in the Chicago area, at a time in the suburbs when there were not many Asians. I was bullied for being Asian and was not good at sports, so I was called gay, fag, sissy, and began to ask myself, ‘Who am I?'”

Having read the Bible, and having some experience at dealing with the devil, I recognize how he works. His primary weapon is the repetitive lie, and he is always on the prowl for anyone who will lend him their ear. Although Yuan listened to Satan’s lies for a time, thankfully he eventually believed God’s truth and found his identity in Christ. He was delivered first from drug addiction and then from homosexuality. Neither occurred apart from his own will, which is why his deliverance from homosexuality occurred later than his deliverance from drug addiction.

In closing, my primary purpose in writing this e-teaching was to garner a little more sympathy and love for homosexuals than what is commonly found in some Christian circles. Too many of us have stereotyped all homosexuals to be the intentionally-offensive, stomach-turning, God-hating creatures who seek photo ops at gay pride parades. But many of them are like Jean Claude. Either way, Jesus died for them all.

I’ll likely broach this subject one more time next month based on reader feedback. I do read it all (except for hate mail). — David

The post A Homosexual You Will Love appeared first on David Servant.

With this article, I hope to make a small contribution to the understanding of folks on both sides of the issue, whom I will refer to, for simplicity’s sake, as homosexuals and their dissenters. (I realize, of course, that there is a variance of opinions on both sides, but I intend to stick with the fundamental differences.)

It is interesting (although often unrealized) that both sides are taking their positions on moral grounds. For that reason, both sides owe each other respect. I’m sorry to say that, in my observation, it appears that homosexuals seem more apt to take the higher ground in this regard. It is their dissenters who appear to me to be more apt to spew vitriolic remarks that only fuel the sense of hatred that homosexuals so often feel from their detractors.

It isn’t easy for homosexuals (or anyone, for that matter) to consider the moral arguments of people who demonstrate a moral inferiority in their conversation. For that reason, may I encourage dissenters to avoid being the person who points out the speck in the eyes of others while having a log sticking out of their own. Of course, there are plenty of homosexuals whose commentary is equally denigrating towards their dissenters, and they too, should ask themselves if they are speaking as they would want to be spoken to.

A&E’s Moral Decision

I’m afraid that many dissenters fail to understand that A&E’s decision to suspend an actor was a moral decision, and from their moral framework, they have only done what is right. The executives at A&E, like so many others, believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, not self determined. Thus to them it is a discrimination issue. Saying that homosexuality is morally wrong is to them like saying that being born with red hair is morally wrong.

Dissenters, how would you feel if people spoke of you in denigrating terms because of your hair color? Put yourself in the shoes of homosexuals who believe—right or wrong—that their inclination towards homosexuality is just as inherent as your inclination towards heterosexuality. How would you feel for being denigrated for your heterosexual inclination? (Incidentally, I can’t say that I’ve ever heard any homosexuals denigrate people for their heterosexuality.)

I’m saying this in hopes of helping dissenters gain a little more respect and compassion for homosexuals. Make no mistake about it…they feel like a discriminated minority in a sea of ignorant people, people who don’t even want to try to understand them.

Along these same lines, dissenters should discard common stereotypes about homosexuals. They are not heterosexual people who, in the midst of their already-deviant and vile lives, one day decided to engage in a homosexual relationship. More likely, they found themselves at some point in their lives possessing some attraction to members of the same sex, an attraction that they initially resisted but gradually succumbed to. They sincerely believe that they can’t change their homosexual tendency. And they are offended when people put them in the same category as those who desire to have sex with children or animals, as those things are morally repulsive to them. Similarly, many are offended when they are stereotyped as being recklessly promiscuous, pointing out that homosexual marriages demonstrate a desire for loving and committed relationships.

If you personally know any homosexuals, you know that they are more often than not kind, caring, intelligent, sincere, hard-working people. If you have been engaged in the culture of Christendom for any length of time, you may have even found yourself wondering why homosexuals at times appear to be more Christian than some professing Christians.

I would ask forgiveness, on behalf of all dissenters, from the homosexual community for how we’ve mistreated them, but I know that acting as a proxy in such cases is essentially meaningless. Offenders need to personally seek forgiveness from those they’ve offended. So please allow me to at this point to ask forgiveness for my own past offenses committed against homosexuals in this regard. I am truly sorry.

Questions From Which We Can’t Escape

Now, let me address those on the homosexual side in hopes of helping them understand those of us who so often sadly act like their enemies.

We are not convinced that your homosexuality is purely genetic. This is not to say that we question your sincere belief that your homosexuality is something that is your natural tendency. It is just to say that we wonder if there wasn’t some environmental contribution to the cause of your homosexuality. That being said, if there was some environmental contribution, and if that environmental contribution was beyond your control, we sympathize with you completely. Had we found ourselves in the same inescapable environment as you, we might also be homosexual. We also acknowledge that whether the cause was genetic, an inescapable environment, or a combination of both, it makes no difference to you, as those factors don’t change the fact that you have found yourself possessing homosexual attraction.

That being said, we are asking for your honesty. We ask that you don’t say that “science has proven that there is a gay gene” or, “scientific data shows that homosexuality is biological” when those “facts” simply are not true. And we also ask that you give us better answers to the questions we have about the genetic claims of some homosexuals.

For example, if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn’t it died out over the thousands of years of human history? How do homosexuals manage to pass on their gene pool to successive generations?

Why have homosexual populations increased and decreased in various geographical regions and at various times in history?

Why are there so many cases of identical twins (who carry identical chromosomes) in which one is homosexual and the other is not?

Why do some, who apparently possess a homosexual orientation, later possess a heterosexual orientation (such as Michael Glatze, the founding editor of Young Gay America magazine, and former lesbian activist Charlene Cothran, longtime publisher of Venus magazine, and singer-songwriter Dennis Jernigan)?

Why do certain familial, cultural, geographical and educational factors tend to result in higher incidences of homosexuality?

All of these questions make us wonder if genetics is really the reason for homosexuality. Might it also be, at least in part, environmental? (And again, regarding inescapable environments, it is acknowledged that they, like genetics, are beyond the control of the individual.)

But this leads to a larger question on our part. We also wonder if at least part of the reason for your homosexuality is your own choice, because many of us think we can actually identify with you to some degree. For example, most heterosexual men find that marriage doesn’t put a stop to their being sexually attracted to other women, an attraction that they know they must suppress as an act of love towards their wives, and if their religion deems adultery to be a sin, an attraction they must suppress as an act of love towards their God.

That is, we possess what we consider to be immoral sexual tendencies, but we resist them, and we don’t use our natural tendency to desire sex with multiple women as an excuse for having sex with multiple women. In fact, even if we yield to the temptation to have sex with someone to whom we are not married, or yield to lesser forms of the same sin, namely, pornography, we know it is wrong, and we normally don’t try to justify it on the basis of our natural tendency.

Thus, we question those who defend the moral legitimacy of homosexuality purely on the basis that one finds himself or herself possessing homosexual tendencies. We can all say, “I was born this way,” and by that, attempt to justify many things that are universally held to be morally wrong. Murderers could say, “I’ve found that I was born with a natural inclination to hate my enemies, and so who can blame me for killing them?” Pedophiles could say, “I find myself sexually attracted to children, so what right does anyone have to condemn me for molesting them?” Homophobes could say, “As far back as I remember, I’ve hated homosexuals. I must be genetically disposed to that trait, and so I’m not personally responsible.” Who would accept such justifications? No one.

We also question if personal choice has something to do with certain environments that are conducive to homosexuality. Again, if one is raised in an abusive home that is conducive to homosexuality, that is one thing. But if one decides to attend a college where homosexuality is promoted as acceptable or desirable, that is another thing. The fact is, homosexuality is more prominent among those who are more educated. (Women with college educations are eight times more likely than women with a high school education to identify themselves as lesbians.) Could that point to an environmental factor? It is undeniable that we are influenced by those to whom we give our ears.

All of this is to say, dissenters question the foundation of the moral argument of homosexuals and their advocates. Certainly, if homosexuality is genetic, like red hair, then they are absolutely correct in condemning those who find moral fault with homosexuals. However, if homosexuality is not purely genetic, and personal choice plays a part, then the foundation of the homosexual moral argument crumbles.

The Larger Issue

Homosexuals also need to understand that many dissenters, like myself, hold the Bible to be the moral measuring rod of all human activity, and for good reason. In the Bible, the world’s all-time best seller, we find four accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, a person who claimed to be God’s Son and whose miracles gave credence to His claim. How many historical individuals do you know of whom it is recorded that multitudes of people witnessed many miraculous acts performed through them, such as raising the dead, walking on water, opening the eyes of the blind and multiplying food? We don’t believe that those accounts are fables, but that they are accurate historical records written by authors who were His contemporaries, and who in some cases were firsthand eyewitnesses.

Jesus predicted His untimely death and resurrection, and then pulled it off, an amazing feat. His disciples saw Him many times after His resurrection, and they saw Him ascend to heaven. They believed He was, as He claimed, the One appointed by God to ultimately judge every person after their death. Jesus’ friends and associates would not have forfeited their lives on His behalf, as so many did, had they not actually believed He was the Son of God and not actually seen Him alive on numerous occasions after He was crucified. People don’t sacrifice their lives to defend a hoax.

Jesus is obviously not someone who should be ignored.

The same Bible that tells us everything we know about Jesus also contains God’s thoughts about homosexuality, which He condemns as being morally wrong. Our Bibles contain passages in which God Himself is purportedly speaking, and He says things such as:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22).

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them (Lev. 20:13).

These verses are contained in passages that also condemn various forms of incest, adultery and bestiality. It is Bible verses like these that undergird our suspicion that homosexuality involves individual choice, just like incest, adultery and bestiality, otherwise God would be unjust to condemn it.

In the New Testament, our Bibles contain passages like these two found in 1 Timothy and Romans:

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:9-10, emphasis added).

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:18-32, emphasis added, context included).

Those passages of Scripture, and others like them, seem to be clear regarding homosexuality. When homosexuals and their advocates argue that such passages can be interpreted differently, so as not to condemn homosexuality, we wonder how that is possible.

Not only do both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality, so does the Koran. Since all three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) claim communication from God, it would be a formidable task to persuade their believing adherents, which represent 55% of the world’s population, to embrace homosexuality as being morally acceptable in His sight. (I do realize that not all professing Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. But those who adhere to their religion’s scriptures certainly do.)

Homosexuals and their advocates need to understand that, if they are going to change the predominant view among Christians that homosexuality is morally wrong, they will have to go far beyond arguments about genetics and epigenetics. They must destroy our trust in the entire Bible and our faith in Jesus. They will need to prove to us that what the Bible says about homosexuality actually does not reflect God’s view, which is tantamount to destroying our faith. And that is a formidable task. In fact, it is an impossible task.

Because of that, my advice to homosexuals is to learn to live with us. We can relate to you in more ways than just the fact that we also find ourselves possessing sexual impulses that deviate from what God has said is acceptable. We also sometimes feel like a discriminated-against minority who cannot be tolerated by those who preach tolerance, and judged by those who tell us we should not judge.

I’m Frustrated…

Finally, those of us who are trying to be sincere followers of Jesus are frustrated. Because of unChristian actions of some who profess to be Christians, we feel that we are mischaracterized as bigots and homosexual haters. Yet many of us, like Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame, see ourselves as equal or greater sinners and true lovers of homosexuals. However, we are now former captives to our sin, because we’ve been set free supernaturally by a God who loves us. In his now-infamous interview with GQ magazine, Phil Robertson paraphrased a passage in the sixth chapter of 1 Corinthians that reflects those exact sentiments:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Those of us who were once fornicators, adulterers, thieves or drunkards hardly have a right to “throw the first stone” or claim moral superiority over homosexuals, since we, too, can find ourselves in Paul’s list. Here’s the only difference now: we believed, admitted our sin, bowed our knee to the One before whom we must all one day give an account, repented, and God delivered us. And that is good news we’d like everyone to know. We’re like people who’ve escaped through a secret passage from a hellish prison, but our family members are still inside. Imagine our frustration when we send them a message that identifies the escape route, but they reply, “You are bigots!”

Apparently, among the souls in the church in Corinth were people who formerly were homosexuals, but who no longer were when Paul wrote to them. And those of us who believe he wasn’t lying are subsequently filled with hope that there is no hopeless case. Some of us (like myself) personally know people who were formerly homosexual but who are now heterosexual, and are even married and parents of beautiful children. Nothing is impossible to our God of love and mercy.

While homosexuals and their advocates have no choice but to claim that homosexual orientation is irreversible (since it is allegedly genetic or in some way biological), we have what we think is a better, more loving message for them: You don’t have to be homosexual any longer. And the message gets better than that: You can also be set free from anything else that holds you captive. And the message gets even better: You can inherit God’s kingdom and eternal life.

We hope and pray that you will understand that we can’t think of a more loving thing to do than to try to communicate that good news to you, even if it means being misunderstood or sometimes hated. And so we can’t keep quiet. Speaking up is worth the risk, because you are worth it. And our God commands that we take that risk, following His example. He died for the people who mocked and spit upon Him, and we marvel at that, knowing that we were at one time among the mockers.

Genuine followers of Christ love you and care about you. And so does God. But we believe that His kingdom and eternal life await only those who turn from sin and bow their knee to Him in genuine, obedient faith. We don’t believe that just claiming to be a Christian, or simply “accepting Jesus as your personal Savior” without repenting of one’s sins results in any salvation or transformation. Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords. One day He will rule the world. The only way to be ready for that day is to start obeying Him.

So that is my best attempt to bring some better understanding between homosexuals and their dissenters. I welcome respectful feedback from both sides (but hate mail goes right into the trash where it belongs). Thanks for reading — David

The post I Love Homosexuals, and I’m Frustrated appeared first on David Servant.