HOMOSEX AND THE CHRISTIAN

The Making, and Breaking, of Homosexuality

Miles J. Stanford

THE UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES

One of the main spans of this "bridge of sighs," for example, is the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) denomination. Consisting of "Christian" homosexuals, these homophile congregations stretch across the country with a total present membership of some 20,000. The founder of this movement is an ex-Pentecostal preacher who divorced his wife and is "married," at least for the nonce, to a fellow sodomite.

As a denomination, the MCC is agitating for acceptance and membership in the National and World Councils. There is little question but that they will be so "honored" ere long. But the attitude and approach of the MCC toward the fundamental, Bible-believing churches is different. They realize that the biblical stand of sound churches prevents their acceptance en masse. Hence their method of attack is on an individual basis of penetration.

While the MCC claims to be conservative in its theology, it is obviously liberal in its morality; it is billed as "the church for practicing homosexuals." Being for the most part charismatic, the denomination's doctrinal aberrations are not only all-encompassing, but often shameful. Such biblical relationships as those of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Paul and Timothy, and even the Lord Jesus and John, are pointed to as possibly homosexual!

It is only natural for perverted people to twist the truth. They suppress the Bible's condemnation of homosex, and stress what they consider it condones as homosex. They acknowledge that the Word of God condemns homosex lust, but claim that it nowhere condemns homosex "love." Of course it doesn't--homosex love is not even mentioned, because it doesn't even exist!

As for the moral aspect of the typical homophile church, it is at the gutter level. The average congregation congregates mainly for the purpose of making erotic contacts--a matter of eat, drink, and be merry; and even, be "married." The characteristic Sunday bulletin often contains pornographic references and tributes to the "Christian" homosexual life-style.

The homosex harangue regarding evangelical churches is that they have refused to accept and help them--hence the need for homosex churches. For the most part the accusation is valid, although many homosexuals have been faithfully ministered to by Bible-believing pastors and counselors. There is a catch, however, to the accusation. What the homosex element means by "acceptance" is that the sodomite and the lesbian are to be accepted into the church family "as they are." It amounts to a matter of "love me, love my sin."

And the "help" they demand is not assistance toward the normal Christian life, but rather that the church adopt a tolerance that makes for a free and easy variant life-style within its membership. They are out to rehabilitate the church's thinking, while they resist their own rehabilitation and rant for reinforcement. They refuse cure, and demand compliance.

The false claim and alibi of the homosexuals is that they cannot change because their condition is genetic and hereditary. If there is any blame to be considered, it is never theirs but rather that of parents, society, and the church. They do not want freedom from their sin, but freedom in it. Nor do they want release from the source of their inversion, but only its consequences, inconveniences, and restrictions.

Present-day Christian homosexuals glibly refer to their "God-given homosexual identity"; "the right to be ourselves as God made us"; and, "a homosexual Christian life-style is what Jesus has liberated us for." The prevailing attitude to the question, "Wilt thou be made whole?" is, in effect, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (John 5:6; Luke 19:14).

The typical sentiment among the liberal denominations concerning homosex was recently expounded during the 22nd annual convention of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies. Some 200 participants--mostly of Dutch Reformed (Covenant Theology) background--gathered in Oklahoma City. We share here part of their symposium's report on homosex, as given in the May 9, 1975, issue of Christianity Today.

In addressing themselves to the biblical-exegetical question of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the majority of panelists rejected the standard evangelical view that all homosexual behavior is sinful. They offered an alternative exegesis of biblical passages relating to the subject: that God condemns promiscuity, fornication, adultery, and sexual permissiveness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but that Scripture does not condemn homosexual behavior between committed Christians in a covenant relationship of love and loyalty.

God's "perfect" will is for the monogamous heterosexual family. However, according to the majority view, Christians burdened with an involuntary homosexual orientation could choose a committed homosexual relationship as within God's "permissive" will rather then an unwanted celibacy.

This anti-God, pro-homo attitude and proclamation, representative of the thinking in the liberal denominations, is another link in the bridge we are picturing; the bridge that is spanning the gap between raw homosexuality and the very door of the Christian home and evangelical church. Some of the other influences included in this bridge are as follows:

The homosex Metropolitan Community Church denominations
The powerful street-demonstrating Gay Liberation movement.
Homophile pressure groups, such as the Mattachine Society (Sodomites) and the Daughters of Bilitis (Lesbians). These are but two of the many national organizations that propagate on behalf of the homosex way of life.
The American Civil Liberties Union, that agitates and lobbies for the repeal of laws that restrict and condemn homosexual practices.
The spread of legalized pornography by means of TV, radio, films, theatre, art, etc.
The universal degeneration of moral standards.
The insidious influence of the Christian sodomite and lesbian within the Christian realm.
General ignorance of Christians regarding the subject of homosex.
The widespread weak spiritual condition of Christian homes and evangelical churches.

To ask the most conservative question possible, "Is there not cause for alarm?" Is not this well established bridgehead at least affecting the attitude of many believers concerning homosexuality? We must remember that the attitude of today may be the act of tomorrow!

Note the disposition resulting from the sexual permissiveness of today's American schools. A psychoanalyst, Dr. Howard Hendin, has found the following in his campus studies:

On the surface, there is an openness, a casual camaraderie in the way young middleclass men and women regard each other that has led people to believe that we are entering an age of unprecedented sexual harmony.

In my experience, however, this much celebrated openness of each sex to the other has meant, as well, a greater openness to fear and anger, and a general cynicism, disillusionment, and bitterness that one rarely found among the young twenty years ago.

When young men in college today speak of their relationships with women, they often use such expressions as "ripping her apart emotionally." Faced with such hostility, women, needless to say, try to protect themselves. Their defensiveness, however, goes beyond the usual devices women use to shield themselves from male anger and becomes an attempt to create a life that seems expressly designed to rule out the possibility of being affected by men.

The fear of involvement is profound, pervasive, less a sexual terror than a fear of being totally wiped out, of losing the fight for self-validation. Most young women avoid real intimacy with a man, feeling that caring itself is self-destructive. Their lives are marked by the attempt to barricade themselves behind work, or in withdrawal from men entirely. (Harper's, August 1975)

This is nothing less than lesbianism in the making; which in turn vengefully spawns sodomy!

NEXT SECTION

MJStanford

Best viewed in Explorer 6+ or Netscape 6+, 1024x768 screen display, 16 bit color or higher, and JavaScript on

(Materials by Miles J. Stanford are republished here under exclusive permission from the author.)