Attachment 3:  A Post from the OPC Discussion List

Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:23 am
Subject: Packer. Misty and homosexuality

I promise I am not finding this stuff on purpose. I was looking for something
else and happened upon these two articles on homosexuality. One I like, by my
all time favorite author, Packer.

http://www.e-n.org.uk/2002-11/2975-A-NO-TO-SAME-SEX-UNIONS.htm

The second article http://www.musingson.com/buddy.html
disturbs me because it is written by the wife of a minister in the church I
belong to. I want to stand up with Packer and walk out. I feel this strong
urge to protest in a most forceful way.

I know many of you don't think we should discuss these things but I'm wondering
if the fact that her articles are not being taken down but are instead being
added to means that her elders have found that she is not delinquent in
doctrine? Or does it mean that she is being counseled but nothing has been
resolved yet? I do think it is my business, because if the church does not
find her delinquent in doctrine then it must find me so. One of us needs some
instruction and I know I've not gotten any yet so I'm wondering if she has. If
not, I don't know what kind of church I belong to.

So here are my concerns with her latest article. It is a long post so just
delete it now if you aren't interested or don't have time. If any of you have
time I hope you will try to educate me. Maybe I'm wrong about some of this--
and I'm not just throwing that out to sound decent. I've been mulling her
article for three days trying to figure out just how far we are in bondage to
sin. I've also been thinking about how far I want the church to shush people
who hold unpopular opinions. (Heh, heh. Bet you all can't guess why that one
weighs heavily on my mind.)

Where I question her doctrine:
She suggests that homosexuality is an involuntary condition:

>>>>It is simply not acceptable in conservative Christian circles to consider
that homosexuality might be an involuntary condition, and that perhaps most
people can’t change their orientation. When Buddy said he was gay and was also
seeking to be sexually chaste, that didn’t fit into the
homosexuality-is-a-perverse-lifestyle-choice mold. So rather than questioning
their assumptions about homosexuality, considering that perhaps people don’t
choose to be homosexual any more than any of us choose to have a sinful nature
in the first place, people simply tried to cram Buddy back into the proper mold
by attacking his integrity and questioning his claim that he couldn’t become
straight. <<<<

And then she compares homosexual desire to impurity, greed, lust, pride,
jealousy, vanity, gluttony, unforgiveness, prejudice, bitterness, laziness,
selfishness or self-centeredness. I agree that homosexuality is a sin that may
be compared with all of those other sins but rather than thinking that
homosexuality is not a choice I think all the sins listed are choices. I have
never heard anyone say before that these sins weren't ones we chose and even
loved. I've heard that Christ's death freed us not only from the penalty of
sin but also from the bondage. Isn't that correct or am I still in bondage?

I know that Paul said he was a wretched man with a body enslaved by sin. And I
know that I am also a wretched and enslaved. But isn't that enslavement a
voluntary condition? Maybe my inward man is pure and longing to serve God but
I often choose with my fallen mind and deceitful heart to sin against God.

I honestly don't know if what she is saying is right. It doesn't seem to wash
with the first chapter of James. Each man is tempted when by his own evil
desire he is dragged away and enticed. When desire conceives it gives birth to
sin and why does he tell us that? Because no man should say, when he is
tempted that God is tempting him.

But isn't that what we do when we say, "God made us this way"? "I can't help
being tempted to lust [after whatever it is we like to lust after] because God
made me this way." But we are tempted when by *our own evil desires* we are
dragged away.

I think we are responsible for our own evil desires. I think that implies a
choice. When we are saved we can only choose evil and not good but we still
happily choose evil. Once we are saved we may still not be able to do the good
we want to do but even so when we do evil or long for evil we are choosing that
course, aren't we?

I also question here doctrine here:
>>>>To believe in justification by faith alone is to concede that some sins are
so deeply rooted in our nature they cannot be undone in this life by trying to
jump-start our motivation to obedience through therapy, discipleship programs,
theological learning or even the power of prayer. <<<

This strikes me as true but needing qualification given the context. She is
implying, I think, that homosexual desire cannot be overcome by *any* power.
There may be some truth to it--we will struggle all our lives with various
sinful desires-- for some those desires may be homosexual urges-- but there is
no reason to believe that the man who has refused to indulge those desires for
ten years is going to be struggling in their grip as heavily as the one who
just decided yesterday to give them up. With time and starvation and most of
all the prayer offered in faith the sinful desires subside greatly.

But is this really what it means to believe in justification by faith alone?
I've not heard it stated this way, before.

I would say that to believe in justification by faith alone would be to embrace
the truth that though our righteousness is as filthy rags, praise God, we have
been declared righteous in Christ.

But she seems to be mixing justification and sanctification together because
from including sins that can't be overcome in this life in her definition of
justification by faith she dives into Galatians. Much of what she says is good
stuff. And I am wanting to be sympathetic to her cause because I also love
homosexuals and I also think we are sanctified by grace as surely as we are
justified by it.

But she seems to be saying that since the law is unable to make us clean we
don't have to obey God and consider ourselves dead to sin.

Some of us say that homosexuality is/was a choice that must be denied just as
addiction to alcohol is/was a choice and can be overcome. Sometimes overcome
quickly but more often by years of diligence in taking every thought captive to
Christ and by his power. Misty seems to be comparing those of us who believe
this to the foolish Galatians who were fallen from grace.

I'm wondering what law we are to obey then?

On the one hand we have people say sin is our choice and we are to work all our
lives not just to control it but to rip the love of it right out of our hearts.
Because in our hearts our love for Christ and our love for sin do not
peacefully coexist. Misty compares us to Pharisees and fools.

She, on the other hand, seems to be saying that sin is not our choice and we
don't have overcome our love of it as long as we keep our hands from doing it.

I'm wondering why she thinks we are Pharisees, then? They were the ones who
were clean on the outside but, like whitewashed tombs, filthy inside.

Paul didn't want the Galatians being circumcised into the old covenant. He
didn't want them adding works to faith to be saved. He didn't want them
putting any faith in their works at all but all their faith in the perfect work
of Christ. What has that got to do with our telling Christians they are
required to obey God and live perfectly sinless lives. That is the
requirement. Throughout the New Testament we are commanded to be holy. And
that we can't obey doesn't lessen the requirement. If the requirement were
lowered then Christ wouldn't have had to die.

That's how I read it but I'm wondering if I'm just not understanding her or if
we are really at odds and one of us is way off base.

Then she quotes her homosexual friend:
>>>It’s way past time for the church to get off its “culture war” kick, this
morality police kick, and just get back to the basics. The basics of “all have
sinned” and “for God so loved.”<<<

And Misty says:
>>>Amen, brother. <<<

What? If the church does not engage in culture war what does it mean to make
disciples of all nations? I can agree that the church should not demand that
the surrounding nations obey her rules but she should sure be telling them what
God demands and seeking to take their lands by the power of the gospel. If she
is not the police, she is at least the mouthpiece of the truth to the world and
as such should wage war daily with sinful culture. And to those within her
walls as this man was, she is called to be the morality police. She would be a
worthless mother if she were to pat her sinning children on the head because
God loves them when what they needed was a spanking because God loves them.

After Misty's "Amen, brother," she goes on to tell what the basics are and she
tells it well-- all scripture:
>>>And getting back to the basics of the gospel means simply this: that “from
now on we recognize no man according to the flesh” because “if any man is in
Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold new things
have come.” For “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not
counting their trespasses against them,” because “He made [Christ] who knew no
sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in
Him” (2 Corinthians 5:16, 17, 19, 21). <<<

But I wonder which one of us is not grasping what it means for God to reconcile
us to himself and make us new creatures. Life doesn't end at justification.
No, we are not sanctified by works but we are sanctified, aren't we? Being
sanctified by grace, and being saved by Christ's righteousness, doesn't mean we
are not to learn to live righteously.

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that
blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and
purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2:11-14)

Now, Misty's friend, Buddy, was living soberly and righteously but he stilled
called himself a homosexual. And he and Misty wonder why "we" don't like that
much.

I don't like it because it is usually said in this way, "I'm a homosexual not
an ex-homosexual and you should love me 'as is' and I shouldn't have to hide my
orientation since it isn't sinful to be a homosexual as long as I don't
practice. I cannot change and I don't want you telling me that I can change
and I don't want you praying for me to change because I was born this way and I
cannot change and God loves me like this and so must you."

Uh huh... I wonder how they would like it if the man next to them said, "I am a
Gay Hater. In the fantasies I used to have, I slaughtered gays and you have to
love me as I am and I cannot change and don't try to make me change because I
was born this way. I don't have the fantasies anymore but whenever I see a
femmy guy I have this unwanted urge to strangle him and that is not sin since
that is just my orientation and since I don't act on it. I don't have to
change and I don't need help in trying to figure out why I hate these guys. You
all just have to love me even though I am a Gay Hater and not an ex-Gay Hater
because God made me this way." I'm not saying that we should hide our sin.
No. We should seek help for overcoming sin. The murderer in his heart and the
homosexual in his heart should get help from other members of the church. But
if they don't want help and instead want to retain their unholy urges and
insist they are not sinful while demanding love and affirmation then they are
being silly and adding sin upon sin.

And finally, I know this is really long and this last thing is pretty nitpicky
and I thought of dropping it but it strikes me as so odd to hear a Reformed
woman speaking this way that I really want to know where this idea comes from.
Misty directly addresses this guy who is dead.

>>>God bless you, my friend. May your soul rest in peace and in joy for all
eternity.<<<

And I guess I don't think that is such a big deal if she is trying to come up
with an emotional ending to an article. But it gives me the creeps. I don't
think she is praying to him or for him but it is like all those TV shows where
the gal stands at the grave speaking to her dead mother. It is a little late
for her to bless this man and tell him she wishes for his soul to rest in peace
and joy. Either it's resting there or not and no amount of blessing now is
going to work. She should have blessed him with the gospel while he was living
(and maybe she did) and if he is the wonderful Christian she says he was then
why the need to add the little wish that his soul is resting.

In closing I am really bothered by her view of sin and sanctification and the
grace of God. Her view of God's grace seems so faithless and frugal when our
God is so huge and so bent on pouring fresh mercies upon us daily.

I know God lets us suffer and struggle with sin all our lives for our good and
His glory but there has to be hope that he will deliver and no matter how
weary, we can never give up the fight. What we need from our brothers when we
are weary is for them to hold Christ up before us. And Misty wants to do that.
But we can't hold up Christ and say, "He doesn't care if you succeed in
putting sin to death in you life and heart, he paid for it so chill and ignore
the church that tells you need to be holy."

We have to hold him up and say, "Here he is on the cross. 1) you have not
withstood to the shedding of blood. Look at him and look at the martyrs that
went before you and strengthen your weak knees. 2) He paid for that stumble
you just did, repent and move on. Just because you stumbled with a sin does
not make you into a man who can never be free-- that is the devil's lie. Look
at Christ on the cross. He took that sin. You don't own it any more. You are
not under obligation to repeat it because you never did it in the first place.
You are not a homosexual. Christ was. He became one for you so you don't have
to be one."

God forgives our sin but he doesn't ignore it. He forgives and he keeps
forgiving and he never runs out of forgiveness. But he also scrubs on us. And
it is painful. No discipline is pleasant at the time but later it yields the
peaceable fruit of righteousness. God is the good Father. He will discipline
us. Not because Christ's blood wasn't sufficient to pay for our sins but
because it's good for us to love him more and more and love sin less and less.

OK that is what I believe on these things. I'd appreciate it if any of you
have time to show me where I am delinquent or show me where I'm
misunderstanding Misty. Or do I need to be worried about the direction the OPC
is headed. Am I understanding Misty's view and is it indicative of the way
things are going?

S.