June 26, 2003

I am writing early this week, but waiting to post until Saturday….

Today the Supreme Court decided that two men might practice sodomy in Texas. Now, had this been decided on the basis of the fact that a man and a woman may practice sodomy in Texas, while I would find the practice reprehensible with regards to homosexuals, I could understand the ruling. But no, the Supremes based their decision on 14^th amendment privacy issues – the same shaky ground upon which Roe v. Wade rests. Legally, this ruling is the equivalent to pulling the keystone from a rock pile on top of a mountain. Little stands in the way at this point of legalizing all sorts of deviant sexual practices. Pedophilia probably will not be legalized, because a lack of consent on the part of the child can be argued. Bestiality; however, looms large, unless of course one wants to argue lack on consent on the beasts part, in which case the beast is awarded the same legal standing as a child – such a ruling is more reprehensible than even this one today.

But it is not legal consequences I wish to discuss. This ruling marks another step down the road to moral decline of our society. That in and of itself does not surprise me. Societies have declined since they were first started. What I am troubled by is the fact that the church is no position to stem the tide. They have no idea what to do. There are many that are debating whether they should ordain homosexuals. There are others that are fighting in Congress and the courts. Neither strikes me as a good idea.

I hope that debating the ordination of homosexuals is an obviously bad choice. Scripture is quite clear on the subject – homosexual practice is a sin. While we are all sinners, the object for those ordained is to avoid sin. Just as, after repudiating his or her offense, an ordained official can be forgiven for straying from the fidelity of marriage, so could someone that has had an errant homosexual experience. But that is not the question. The question is the ordination of PRACTICING homosexuals. That would be akin to ordaining an open polygamist or a working burglar. The very debate gives homosexual practice far more credibility than it deserves.

The politically active bunch is not so obviously barking up the wrong tree. Jesus, with his dictate to, "render unto Caesar…" makes clear that the scope and shape of government may not always match that of the Kingdom. Seeking to make it so is seeking something that Jesus clearly indicated could not happen. This bunch would argue that unlike when Jesus was around we have a representative form of government and are therefore encouraged to participate in political debate. This I do not disagree with, but such cannot become, or even appear to have become the front lines of the Christian movement – something that I fear it has done.

This is also not practical. In one sense Christianity saved the Roman Empire, which was in danger of slipping off the slope into total decay – much of it moral decay. Constantine adopted the religion, moved to Constantinople (Istanbul) and Byzantium was born. Meanwhile, Rome and Europe slipped into the dark ages. But Christianity in Byzantium soon gave way to Islam, and Christianity in that empirical region became the bureaucratic, shriveled shell that is orthodoxy. No, staking the hopes of Christianity on the hopes of the state makes the religion of the eternal God as subject to the shifting sands of time as the state.

See here is the thing, Jesus knew that people had to be transformed to have the power to behave in accordance with His image. I do not know if people are born homosexual or not, but they sure are born sinners, and homosexuality is a sin. Jesus ministry was to transform us into beings that could resist sin. The state mandating what is or is not a sin, while it will discourage certain behaviors, will in no way transform us into beings with the power to overcome sin.

The homosexual lobby with its continual efforts to change society argues that they cannot change the way they are. This is perhaps the most theologically correct statement you will ever hear from "that side of the aisle." While laws may inhibit them from expressing the way they are, they cannot change themselves into something else. ONLY JESUS CAN DO THAT!

Herein lies what the church should be doing about the slow and seemingly inevitable decline of our society. The church should be injecting that society with as much Jesus as possible. We inject Jesus into our society by becoming more and more like Him ourselves. As we each individually are transformed, others will be attracted to the transformation. We do not become like Jesus by sitting in meetings and debating whether we should ordain homosexuals. We become like Jesus by talking to Jesus. We talk to Jesus in prayer and scripture.

As more and more people are transformed, slowly society will start to incline instead of decline. We may or may not at that point pass laws outlawing once again sodomy between men – it probably would not be necessary. You see the liberals are correct. Laws like this will not prevent people from doing these things. But these laws do serve as signposts illustrating that we are not all that we should be.

The repeal of laws like this, as happened today is also a signpost, only in this case to the church. It is a signpost that the church is not all that it should be. If people cannot see following Jesus as a better alternative to homosexual sodomy then it can only be because those that follow Jesus do not adequately reflect Him.

Lord, help us show your glory better.