Idolatry in Gomorrah

There are occasional announcements of various Christians claiming that after some intensive research, thought, and prayer, that they have come to the conclusion that Christianity allows for same sex relationships. When this position is criticised the push back is quite furious with claims of judgmentalism, adiaphora, lack of love. Some deny that Christians can even comment on whether others are saved: how can anyone deny that homosexuals and advocates of this lifestyle are part of the kingdom of God?

Now this kind of critique can have merit. God sets the criteria for those he saves. As Christianity is about following a person; in a large degree it concerns the direction of our lives not whether we hold to specific doctrines. Even so, Jesus condemns a group for making their disciples twice the sons of hell that they are (Mat 23:15) and he asks them whether they can escape hell fire (Mat 23:33). Paul demands that people be put out of the church (1Cor 5:2). John warns against welcoming those who do not hold true doctrine else they share in their wickedness (2Jo 1:10-11). So while we may not know the exact status of all men—and many will be surprised that Jesus never knew them (Mat 7:21)—it seems that we can know that at least some men are under God's wrath.

This means that criticism of Christians who warn against accepting a homosexual agenda is often unwarranted. Warnings of the danger of the gay lifestyle are needed.

Even so, there is a more sinister issue attending this debate. Those promoting same sexual behaviour have placed sexual desire and behaviour above Christ.

Jesus tells us that we are to follow him. We are to deny ourselves and pick up our crosses (Mat 16:24). All our lives are to be under the lordship of Christ. Jesus came dividing households against each other: father against son, mother-in-law against daughter-in law (Luk 12:53). Those who leave their houses, land, family, for the sake of the kingdom are rewarded (Mat 19:29); which implies that such leaving is a preferable action even if it is not a necessary one. To follow Jesus means that we are to place him first. At times following him means we are to give up even good things: things that are not intrinsically sinful. Now sodomy is clearly condemned throughout Scripture. If we are to put off good things for the kingdom how much more do we rid ourselves of sin. Those promoting homosexuality as a righteous behaviour deny that such desires should ever be suppressed. Yet we see that God demands that he is primary. We must put God first. To refuse to leave something behind that God demands we abandon is putting that thing above God: it is idolatry. Same sex desire and behaviour is the one thing that the gay activists within the church deny should be denied for the sake of the kingdom. It is not just that they are wrong concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, they place the desire and the behaviour above God.

In his letter to the Ephesians Paul says that we must avoid sexual immorality, impurity and covetousness (Eph 5:5). Covetousness he identifies as a form idolatry, which he also does in Colossians 3. When we desire things above God we make them more important than God and thus they are an idol. It is interesting that covetousness is so often connected to sexual immorality. Sexual sin drew the Israelites into idolatry at Moab (Num 25).

Scripture makes it clear that sodomites who do not repent will not inherit the kingdom. But further evidence that it is immoral is that its apologists refuse to submit homosexuality to the lordship of Christ. Their idolatry shows the bankruptcy of their position.

---

For those who struggle with same sex attraction, you need to submit your whole self to Christ. It is true that the adulterer needs to abandon his adultery, the fornicator his fornication, and the sodomite his sodomy. Sexuality is a major and key area that we need to repent of. But it is not just your sexuality that needs to come under the lordship of Christ it is your whole life. God doesn't just want your sexuality handed over to him, he wants your time, your money, your friendships, your conversation, your job; he wants all of you.

A brief commentary on Romans 1:16-2:5

There are a few aspects I wish to highlight from the beginning of Paul's letter to the Roman Christians. After saying he desires to see them and preach the gospel in Rome he discusses the importance of the gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Romans 1:16-2:5 reads,

Acting against our convictions

While there are arguments concerning the public and private funding of health, I would like to pick up on the more sinister aspects around recent court rulings that many on the right and some on the left have seen: concerning to corporations funding contraceptives. Note that some oppose contraceptives because they view artificial contraception as immoral, others do not oppose contraception in principle but believe that certain contraceptives destroy embryos and thus destroy human life.

Julian Sanchez who does not personally oppose contraception or contraceptive abortifacients notes that the ruling (not to fund contraception) is cost neutral for various reasons including that pregnancy cover is more expensive than providing free contraceptives. He shrewdly comments,

In light of this, the outraged reaction to the ruling ought to seem a bit puzzling. If what you are fundamentally concerned about is whether women have access to no-copay contraception, then there’s no obvious reason to invest such deep significance in the precise accounting details of the mechanism by which it is provided. You might even be heartened by a ruling that so centrally turns on the premise that accomodation for religious objectors is required when no women will lack such coverage who would have enjoyed it under a mandate.

The outrage does make sense, of course, if what one fundamentally cares about—or at least, additionally cares about—is the symbolic speech act embedded in the compulsion itself. In other words, if the purpose of the mandate is not merely to achieve a certain practical result, but to declare the qualms of believers with religious objections so utterly underserving [sic] of respect that they may be forced to act against their convictions regardless of whether this makes any real difference to the outcome. And something like that does indeed seem to be lurking just beneath—if not at—the surface of many reactions. The ruling seems to provoke anger, not because it will result in women having to pay more for birth control (as it won’t), but at least in part because it fails to send the appropriate cultural signal. Or, at any rate, because it allows religious employers to continue sending the wrong cultural signal—disapproval of certain forms of contraception—when sending that signal does not impede the achievement of the government’s ends in any way.

He states that opponents contraceptive coverage are undeserving of respect and therefore it is viewed as acceptable to force them to act against their convictions.

In my mind the 2 concepts are not logically associated. One can have no respect for an idea or a person without compelling behaviour. Lacking respect is frequently justified. But my lack of respect (if warranted) means that I can disregard a person's foolish claims, not that I can force him to adopt my preferences. You do not get to force people to act against their convictions because you do not respect them. You do not even get to do that if you are correct and they are mistaken. Making a man act against what he strongly believes is to coerce him into sin. It is making him do something that he believes will offend God. Regardless of whether he discerns the issue rightly or wrongly, to make him offend God is forcing him to blaspheme.

I suspect many people including Christians fail to recognise how diabolical—and I choose that word intentionally—forcing men to blaspheme is. Such a man does not care for the opinion of God for if he did he would not try and make another do something he thinks offends God. It is akin to idolatry, though of the very worst form that tries to make others idolaters as well.

Damon Linker classifies himself as liberal: seemingly in both the modern and classic sense. I am not so certain he fully apprehends the issue, but he gets aspects of it.

On a range of issues, liberals seem not only increasingly incapable of comprehending how or why someone would affirm a more traditional vision of the human good, but inclined to relegate dissenters to the category of moral monsters who deserve to be excommunicated from civilized life — and sometimes coerced into compliance by the government.

And why might this be? Linker suggests,

From the dawn of the modern age, religious thinkers have warned that, strictly speaking, secular politics is impossible — that without the transcendent foundation of Judeo-Christian monotheism to limit the political sphere, ostensibly secular citizens would begin to invest political ideas and ideologies with transcendent, theological meaning.

Put somewhat differently: Human beings will be religious one way or another. Either they will be religious about religious things, or they will be religious about political things. 

Thus secularism (presumably left or right) tends toward idolatry.

Blasphemers often claim their demands are reasonable. Just a little incense to Caesar and you can worship your God the rest of the year.

Requests to affirm Islam (a false God), or provide health (and cover the cost of murder), or just bake a cake (affirming the goodness of sodomy); are all considered by many as competing claims against God. As I have written previously, forcing men to blaspheme is amongst the most grievous of sins. Not only must we avoid such coercion, we must oppose our ideological allies when they support such measures.

If Scripture really is the oracles of God

A high view of Scripture in modern times has been equated with idolatry. Inerrantists may be described as Bible worshippers; accused of bibliolatry.

I know of no one that has an shrine for their Bible or burns incense to the Scriptures. I am not aware of Christians who insist that the Bible is stored above other objects in the room in the way that Muslims may keep their Koran on the top shelf.

Some may prefer their particular Bibles, though that is more sentiment than worship. One may regret a family Bible gets lost in a fire, but for the sentimental person who values Scripture highly: he buys another Bible.

What I am aware of is many Christians treating the words of the Bible as the words of God. But given that the authors of the Bible did the same, as did Jesus; combined with the Bible equating the phrases "Scripture says"and "God says": it would seem that treating the Bible as the very words of God is not idolatry. True, one can claim to love the Bible and not really love Jesus. I find it difficult to believe that one may love Jesus yet not love the Bible. If Scripture really is the oracles of God then minimising this truth, laying accusations of bibliolatry, and mocking of the same, would better fall in to the category of idolatry—veneration of moderation—than having a high view of Scripture.