why there's nothing "gay" about homosexuality

I realize in opining this topic I'm opening myself up to a lot of criticism. In this so-called "englightened" age, we are supposed to bow to the wonders of science, which in the minds of some, has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore, it's entirely natural. Even some Christians who are Biblical claim that homosexuality today is far different from the misunderstood "sin" of the so-called Bible times, and therefore, we should embrace those whose orientation is different from the heterosexual majority.

I want to say that it is not my intent to "gay bash". I will be the first to admit that historically, homosexuals have unjustly suffered particularly hard line prejudice and punishment, treated as if their sin were worst than anyone elses. But while the cultural/social pendulum has swung to the other extreme of blessing, if not out right embracing homosexuality (pardon the pun), it would be a mistake on the account of Christians, people I would define as God-fearing, Bible-believing, faithful followers of Jesus Christ, to think that because of this historical problem, we should think that trying to go to the other extreme would actually be the best solution.

In fact, taking hold of that pendulum and holding it to the middle would be the most Biblical solution.

What would that look like, you might wonder? First of all, we need to repent of our own sins. If that's treating homosexuals as modern day lepers, than so be it. If it's hating or despising them because we think their sin more gross than our own in the sight of God, then that, too, must be repented of. And yet, for us to misconfess homosexuality as alright is to not only misread the Bible, but to misrepresent the God who created us all. And that means understanding that to say that science has proven homosexuality as natural and therefore we should allow it is on the line of saying that AIDS is natural, and therefore we shouldn't treat it - after all, the AIDS virus is a life form. I think you see the poor logic that both arguments are built on. In fact, we can view any scientific "proof" for homosexuality on the same lines as proving that alcoholism is genetic, or pathological lying, a tendency toward violent behavior, etc. Just because we can prove the "nature" of these behaviors has not meant that society has therefore embraced them. Rather, it was the first step in some cases to properly treating them.

The greater problem in my mind, however, is the false hope that some Christians have given to the homosexual movement, whereby some brothers and sisters insist on discrediting all past interpretations of Scripture that hold to homosexuality as a sinful behavior. These people have sought to prove that the true sins in the case of these biblical stories are really such things as inhospitality, a great sin in the Ancient Near East. But what such a simplistic interpretation ends up doing is losing its credibility upon closer examination of the whole context of the Old Testament specifically and the whole Bible in general. These accounts are inter-connected with the moral guidelines found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to mention the creation accounts of Genesis, which are ultimately affirmed by Jesus Himself. No doubt, such critics will claim that Jesus never taught against homosexuality. Neither did he teach against atomic weapons, slavery, or the death penalty, but I think its safe to assume that He would have had they been issues in His particular context. And that's just the point, homosexuality was not a flash point of culture in Jesus' day because culturally/socially/religiously it was understood to go against the very character and nature of who God was.

In saying homosexuality is okay, we are, in fact, going against the very grain of who God is, as the Triune God of grace. And we can see this on a number of levels. First, naturally speaking, the way human beings are made, it is just plain common sense that men and women were sexually designed for one another. I have heard homosexual men claim that anatomically, the anus can function the same way - considering that the anus is for waste removal, I don't think one can claim equality in that regard. Second, the totality of Scripture testifies to the ideal of God as sex being for the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This is not a penalty upon homosexuals, much to some arguments I've heard. This holds all people to God's standard, hetero and homosexual. If sex is for marriage between one man and one woman, then it meant that when I was a single guy, it was wrong for me to seek out sexual activities. Now that I'm married, it means that I must limit my sexual behavior to my wife. Lust is a problem for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Abstinence is God's ideal, not giving into our lusts. Third, when we grasp the import of a Trinitarian understanding of who God is, we can see that homosexuality as a particular sin goes against God's character. This is illustrated for us through the imagry of the Economic Trinity, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit participate in the life of the other through self-giving love that is the very essence of what it means to create. While I would never say that sex between a husband and wife is purely for procreation, I submit that when one enters into marriage, there must be an openness to children. That is, procreation is the quintessential expression of love between a husband and wife whereby through their physical union, that self-giving love is expressed through the very dynamic of creating a new life. Only through sex outside of marriage, artificial insemination, or adoption can homosexual couples have children. One might weakly protest what about heterosexual married couples who cannot naturally conceive of children - isn't this the same issue? To hide behind such an argument is to muddy the waters. The heterosexual married couple, having failed to conceive for any number of reasons, is encouraged to seek after adopting a child. The point is that homosexuality cannot naturally create. It is also based on the selfish love that does not wait for the proper parameters of marriage. Ah, but you might protest that such a problem as that would be removed if our culture would merely allow for homosexuals to "marry". But this goes back to the core issue that such a union goes against God's ideal as set forth in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament through Jesus and Paul.

This is not an easy issue. There is more to say. To project homosexual rights onto the same level as gender or race is so ridiculous that I will not even waste space here. But needless to say, we as Christians must learn how to love homosexuals, even as we claim to love all sinners, and seek to demonstrate that love in a manner that accepts them while seeking to minister to them as they will accept. In living in this manner, we demonstrate respect for the divine image in everyone.

rediscovering my childhood

I don't know what provoked me, but the other day I decided to 'google' MEGO, makers of my favorite childhood toys: 8" superhero action figures, and then the Micronauts. Anyhow, these toys were the essence of my childhood. Sadly, they were completely and (at the time) completely superseded by the explosion known as Star Wars, which just violently overshadowed all things imagination.

What do I like about Captain America? Although he was physically enhanced through receiving the 'Super Soldier' serum, he really had no "Super Powers". Instead, he just had incredible discipline and determination. While we might look at America today and see the good and the bad, and perhaps more bad, Captain America always seemed to stand for all the best parts of America. He was the first major super hero to have a non-white partner - the Falcon - who would go on to have his own comic (though short-lived). Cap was cool, because even though he couldn't fly or shoot lasers out of his eyes, he was cut, and he could beat up an opponent who was twice as strong as he was. And if that wasn't enough, he had this incredible shield that was virtually indestructable, made out of some almalgamated metallic substance that was stronger than even adamantium. And he could use that shield to its full potential. Defensively, he could deflect bullets and shrapnel; as well offensively, he could throw the shield (and it would return like some frisbee on monster steroids!). What is important is that Cap never affiliated himself politically (as far as I know - though there was an issue where he almost ran for President - back in the 1980 race that was eventually won by Ronald Reagan). He always represented what was best about America - he was its ideal hero in the truest sense.

As a kid, I wanted to be him. As an adult, I think I still do. Anyone have any super-soldier serum laying around?