Genetics, Sex and 6-day Creationism

Writing about creation is a tricky business because it is an issue that some people have very fixed views on. So before embarking on the main topic of this blog let me say a few general things. Roughly speaking, there are three positions that Bible believing Christians can take on creation:

• Young earth creationism (YEC), taking the 6 days of Genesis as six 24-hour days.
• Old earth creationism/intelligent design (OEC), accepting that the universe is billions of years old, but have a strong belief in God being directly involved in creation.
• Theistic evolution (TE), accepting the theory of evolution, but seeing it as a process used by God.

For what it is worth, the old earth creationism/intelligent design is probably closest to my own opinions, but I have Christian friends who are in each of the above camps.

I am going to address a couple of arguments that are sometimes used by Young earth creationists in attacking particularly theistic evolutionists. What I am writing is not intended as an attack on YEC’s. Moreover, I consider neo-Darwinian evolution to be scientifically suspect, so it is most definitely not intended to support TE. Rather I am writing this to encourage us to think more clearly.

Two of the arguments sometimes used by YEC’s against an old universe and, in particular against theistic evolution, are that

1. God would not use a random process.
2. Evolution is a very wasteful processes and so God wouldn’t use it.

Both these views are mistaken. Let’s start with the randomness question.

The thinking behind the randomness objection seems to be that creation is a purposeful process, with God having a clear goal in mind, and therefore randomness cannot be involved. Such thinking is mistaken and demonstrates a lack of understanding. The first part of this blog will consider a mathematical technique (without any equations, so don’t panic), but then we will move on to sex, so hang on in there!

Genetic Algorithms

One technique in optimisation is something called genetic algorithms. Let’s consider this method.

A population is generated randomly. Then pairs of individuals mate and produce offspring. When two individuals mate there is crossover of “genetic” information, there is also an element of random mutation. All this creates a new population. A fitness function is then applied and the fittest members survive, the others don’t. This is just a basic description, there are numerous variations. This process is repeated many times and after many generations the optimum solution, or something close to it, is arrived at.

So you can probably see the affinities with evolution, especially the fitness function (survival of the fittest) and random mutation. Let’s consider the process a little.

First, it is a mixture of design and randomness. The initial selection of the population is random, mutation is random. However, there is also much design. The initial structure of the members is designed, the fitness function is designed.

Secondly, the outcome is, to a large extent at least, predetermined. If we consider a mathematical function which we are trying to minimise (consider a curve), then the outcome of the process, if the algorithm is designed properly, is predetermined. It will converge on the minimum point of the curve. So even though the process is random the outcome is not.

Thirdly, processes involving randomness can sometimes be more effective than more guided processes. The most popular optimisation methods use “hill-climbing” methods. You start from a point on a curve, calculate the gradient and then move in that direction to a new estimate. This process is repeated until the minimum (or maximum, depending what we are trying to do) is reached. For a simple curve this works well, but suppose the curve has lots of local minima. What will happen? The hill-climbing methods have a habit of getting stuck a local minima. Algorithms with a degree of randomness built into them tend to be better at reaching the true (or global) minima.

So what do we learn from this? It is that a process can have a significant element of randomness built into it, and even rely on this randomness, and yet be purposeful, lead to a specific outcome and be better at doing so than a more direct method.

Now the point of all this is not to say that God used some form of genetic algorithms, but simply to demonstrate that the idea of it being impossible for God to use a process that involves a significant degree of randomness is simply without foundation.

Sex

Now let’s consider something a little less esoteric, and much more interesting. If you are a Christian I assume that you believe that you were created by God, and “fearfully and wonderfully made”, created on purpose. If you have children I take it you also believe that they were purposefully created by God. Now when a man and woman have sex tens of millions of sperm are released. If the woman becomes pregnant one of these millions of sperm fertilised the egg. Now from a scientific point of view there is an enormous amount of randomness in this, and while no doubt our scientific knowledge will increase as time goes on, I take it we accept the current biological understanding as being broadly correct. Yet we still believe we were purposefully created by God.

So what are we to make of this? Is our biological understanding wrong? No. It means that the biological understanding is not the whole story, and here is the fundamental point that Christians should be focused on when considering creation, and it is not whether God did it in 6-days of billions of years. The key issue is materialism. The atheistic view is that the material is all there is, and this is where they are oh so wrong.

The millions of sperm issue also knocks on the head the “evolution is wasteful therefore God would not have done it this way” argument. We know that a man produces millions, even billions of sperm, yet only a minute fraction of these actually fertilise an egg cell. Even Rehoboam only had 28 sons and 60 daughters! God actually seems quite prepared to use “wasteful” processes. So the wastefulness argument is another argument without foundation.

Conclusion

So what are we to learn apart from the falsity of the randomness and wastefulness arguments? It is that we need to be very careful about how we think. All of us, whether YEC’s, OEC’s, TE’s or atheists, can fall into the trap of thinking “God must have done it this way”, or “God would not have done it this way”. We should ask ourselves one question, “how many universes have you created?” We need to recognise the limits of our understanding.

Thoughts on the transgenderism "debate"

One of the promises of all the main parties in the current Scottish elections is to improve the rights of transgender people. Indeed there seems to be almost universal agreement among most of the parties, social commentators on the transgender issue. That is why I have put “debate” in quotation marks as we are experiencing a very rapid change in our approach to gender and are doing so with very little debate at all, and anyone who does seek to question the direction of travel is quickly labelled a bigot. Moreover, political parties, the media, and education authorities all seem to be moving in the same direction.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) recently published a report entitled “Gender Ideology Harms Children”. I think it would be helpful to look at the current zeitgeist in the light of this report and to ask some serious questions. This is particularly important as the gender issue is one that will increasingly affect children, a BBC report says that the number of referrals to a gender identity clinic for young people has experienced a doubling in referrals.

I would suggest that first you read the ACP report, it is short so it won’t take long. First, let me say something about the ACP. As far as I can tell, despite its name it is not a national body in the sense that the BMA is, and it is a socially conservative body , but it does consist of fully qualified pediatricians. Moreover the points made are backed up by references, and some of the points are definitely based on scientific truth. So it is definitely worth considering the issue in the light of the points they make.

The report starts with the opening paragraph:

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

Treating gender dysphoria

So let's consider perhaps the fundamental point of the current approach. Transgenderism is concerned with people who experience gender dysphoria, ie people who experience dysphoria with their biological sex. Now the current approach is that in this situation where there is a conflict between psychological and physical state the solution is to seek to change the physical state, this being done by taking cross-sex hormones, and possibly by gender reassignment surgery. Now there are two very important points to consider:

1. The common approach in most situations where one's perception of reality is at odds with the physical reality is to consider that this is a problem that needs to be approached as a psychological issue. With the matter of gender dysphoria we seem to be adopting the very opposite approach. We need to ask ourselves why this is considered to be the best approach to take.
2. The taking of hormones and undergoing gender reassignment surgery does not actually change the sex of a person. If the person was born male they will still have xy chromosomes. On a very practical level, a person born male will still be prone to prostate problems when they get older. In short, there is a limit to the extent to which the physical reality can actually be changed.

In the light of this one has to ask if the current approach is actually the best way of helping people who experience gender dysphoria. The report refers to reports of high suicide rates in people who use cross-sex hormones and undergo gender reassignment surgery, even in LGBTQ friendly countries such as Sweden. Now one has a healthy caution about all such studies, but it does at least mean we should ask questions.

Surely we should ask ourselves if the current approach is the best way to really help people who experience gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria and children

This is the primary reason for my writing on this issue. There is an increasing move to instruct our children that transgenderism is good and that the, until now, accepted definitions of gender are wrong. This is a very serious matter and we need to be sure that we are going in the right direction.

To appreciate how serious the issue is one only needs to consider that one of the approaches can be to give children puberty blocking drugs. So the approach is to give a child drugs that inhibit the normal healthy functioning of the body. If this is to be considered a good approach for a child one needs to be darn sure that you are right. Moreover, according to the report, puberty inhibiting drugs can have harmful side-effects, and in the longer term cross-sex hormones have serious health risks as well.

The  report refers to studies that say the majority of children who experience gender dysphoria to actually “grow out of it”. Now this does not mean we should ignore the problem if a child does suffer from gender dysphoria, but it does mean that we should seriously question the current approach. Children are very impressionable, which is one of the reasons all societies seek to protect children, and there is a serious risk that the current direction we are going in will cause harm to our children. Indeed the report goes so far as to call that approach child-abuse, and one can see why they do this.

So I do believe there are serious questions need to be asked of the direction we are going in. However, there is also another matter that does need to be addressed. Part of the motivation of the current approach is a desire to stop bullying of people, and children in particular, who experience gender dysphoria. This is an entirely laudable desire. Bullying wherever and for whatever reason it occurs is abhorrent and we should do what we can to stop it, but there seems to be a serious risk that the current approach is built on a lie, and if it is it will ultimately lead to failure and cause serious harm to children in the process. We are actually made male and female. So maybe we need to find a different way of dealing with the bullying problem. Also, we need to address the gender stereotyping issue.

What Abba Father really means

This post is a short meditation on Romans 8:15, in particular on "Abba,Father".

The Holy Spirit within us has made us children of God, He does not make us slaves to fear. In our desire to do right and to avoid doing wrong we can so easily become slaves to fear, the fear of failure, the fear of punishment (1 John 4:18). I guess most (probably all) of us have times when we fear about having made a wrong decision, we think God will punish us if we have made a wrong decision. If you are going through a time like this just consider your thoughts for a while. Now God may discipline us, but discipline and punishment are completely different. Punishment is completely judicial, paying the price for our sin and failings. Discipline is done with the loving hand of the Father leading us on to become better sons and daughters, teaching and training us.

The Spirit brought about your adoption as sons. The concept of adoption is probably borrowed from the Roman or Greek culture. An adopted son had the same rights as a natural born son, and this included inheritance rights.

And the Spirit enables us to cry “Abba, Father”. Now Abba is the Aramaic term used by a child of its father but we need to be careful in over-sentimentalizing it and substituting the word “daddy”. Yes there is a closeness and an affection, but there is also the discipline and leadership of a father as well, the authority of the Father. We need to beware of interpreting "abba, Father", just through the lens of our society's dysfunctional views of fatherhood. Jesus used this phrase in Gethsemane when He was about to go to the cross and was going through anguish before it. Abba Father gives us the strength to do what we think is impossible to do, gives us the strength to endure what we don’t think we are able to endure, to become Christlike people that we never thought possible. That is the truth of what Abba Father means, it is a million times greater than just “daddy”. My own father died while I was a baby, but I am so glad that I have Abba Father and all that He desires for my life. Let us rejoice in the fullness of what Abba Father means.

Making sense of Revelation and why we should study it

I am currently leading a Bible study group looking at the book of Revelation. Some may think I am either very brave or very foolish, or even both! Revelation is perhaps the most difficult book in the Bible to make sense of, and the one about which more rubbish has been spoken, written and published than any other book in the Bible. I guess that many people just dismiss Revelation as being beyond them, and some of those who do study the book are a little bit fixated. Moreover if you read three commentaries, even ones by "sensible" theologians, you will likely as not get at least three different opinions. So what are we to do? Just ignore it? Adopt a particular line of interpretation, dismissing all others? I will try to give some answers here. These are not intended to be a complete answer, but perhaps some will find it helpful.

Ignoring Revelation is not a viable option. The book itself says that the one who hears the words of the book will be blessed. Yet there are so many alternative ways of looking at the book: preterist, historicist, idealist and futurist. On this point I adopt the eclectic approach, i.e. seeking t take the  best from each. But even that only gets us so far for within each of these streams there are multiple variations. Then there are the thorny issues of amilliennialism, premillennialism and postmillennialism. Added that is the rapture pre-tribulation, mid or post? If you want to know, I am a post-trib premillennialist, but there are many good Christians in every camp. So here is a go at approaching Revelation.

First, 2 Timothy 3:16,17 tells us that all Scripture is God breathed and given to us for the equipping of the saints. So the purpose of studying Revelation is not so that we can prove our pet theory, but to equip us to be better servants of Christ in difficult circumstances.

Now let's suppose the preterist view is entirely correct. Ie most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. What value is it to us? Well it shows us how the kingdom of God and evil interact in times of intense opposition, namely the overwhelming power of the Roman empire. So we can learn from it.

What if the pre-trib view is correct? In that case we will not be here during the worst events described in Revelation. Is it then of any value to us, other than idle curiosity and a sigh of relief that we will not have to endure the great tribulation? Well while we may not be here during the great tribulation, we may be here during pre-cursors. In 2 These 2:7 Paul says the man of lawlessness will come, but the spirit of lawlessness is already at work. If we look at history we see many instances of mini Antichrist's. The Roman empire and its emperor worship is the example pertinent in John's day. In recent history imagine what  it was like to be in Nazi Germany. In fact it is worth reading history of those days to see how a truly evil empire works. Sadly much of the church in Germany did not do well in those days, much of it acquiescing to the Nazis, the Confessing church being a notable exception. Or there is the regime of Communist Russia. In our own day there are many Christians having to endure horrendous circumstances under Isil or in North Korea, and many other parts of the world. Even in the West our governments and society are increasingly anti-Christian. So there is certainly value in knowing how to live as a member of God's kingdom in evil times, indeed it is essential. 

The same arguments apply if the post-trib view is correct, even more so. If the post-trib view is correct then our generation might go through the great tribulation, but it might not. And no preceding generation has gone through the great tribulation. So all the arguments applied to the pre-trib view apply equally. Then of course there is the real possibility that we will have to endure the great tribulation itself.

So regardless of the "correct" view, there is a need to read and learn from Revelation. I realise that all this can be seen as an argument for taking an idealist approach, and I would certainly advocate that as being a very useful approach, but not to the exclusion of the others.

What about all the graphic details we find in the book? Well we can try and give a detailed interpretation of it all, but I tend to think that that is often not too fruitful. It is sometimes more helpful to view Revelation as a drama. Consider Lord of the Rings, how should you view that? There is no need to get engrossed in every detail (I know that some do!), but instead to get absorbed in the drama to appreciate  the battle between good and evil, and the workings of the human heart. There is value in doing the same with Revelation, not for all of it, and not as the only way of reading it, but it will benefit us to do this as part of our study.

I hope these ramblings are useful. You don't have to agree with everything I have said, and it certainly is not a complete approach, but hopefully it has some value. What I am certain about is that Revelation is a book we should all read and can all benefit from. Indeed there may come a time when it is essential to learn from it.

Molinism and Calvinism - making an idol out of understanding?

I have just finished reading Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley. It is a book on Molinism with critiques of Calvinism and Arminianism, though focusing more on Calvinism. 

Here are a few thoughts.

I found its critique of Calvinism very fair and helpful. What I like about Molinism is that it gives proper weight to both the sovereignty of God and to human responsibility (I prefer this term to free will, or human autonomy). What I don't like about Molinism is its attempt to explain how the two work together. ie all the stuff about middle knowledge, possible worlds, counterfactuals etc. There are two things I don't like about this. First, I think holes can be picked in the explanation, and people like James White have done so. But what I really don't like is that the focus can then be on the explanation of the facts rather than the facts themselves. Fortunately Keathley spends relatively little time on the Molinist explanation, and more on the Biblical truths.

This set me thinking.  Do we make an idol out of wanting to understand? Let me explain.

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear on two things (it is of course clear on lots of things):

1. God is absolutely sovereign and we are utterly dependent upon Him for our salvation

2. The attitudes we have, the decisions we make and the actions we take matter. They are real and effect our own life, the lives of others, and they matter to God. In particular, on the matter of salvation, the Bible is perfectly clear that we need to repent and believe.

Now when James White, or someone else, attacks Molinism the target of their attack is the middle knowledge stuff, not the two basic Biblical tenets out lined above. Where does Calvinsim go wrong? Or first of all what are the strengths of Calvinism? They lie in its respect for the Bible and seeking to do justice to what it says, and its affirmation of the sovereignty of God, the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, and the personal application of it. Where does it go wrong? It seeks to establish an intellectual framework for explaining how God's sovereignty works in the world. Hyper-Calvinists end up in some very odd (and sometimes repugnant, not to say unbiblical) places.

"Molinism" is right to assert the two truths of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, but I believe it is a mistake to make an intellectual framework a key part of it. Why do I believe God is sovereign? Because the Bible says He is. Why do I believe what I do with my life matters? Because the Bible says so. I do not believe these things because of some intellectual framework. Molinism having the framework means the focus goes on the framework when what counts is proclaiming and living the truth of God's word.

In the case of Calvinism the intellectual framework can easily lead to denial of truths that the Bible states clearly. I have not read much Arminian theology, so I will not say anything about that.

Now all this is not to say we should not seek to understand how things work, nor am I saying that there is no benefit in seeking to understand, but we must not make an idol out of it. The basis for all understanding is the word of God, not any intellectual framework.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart

    and lean not on your own understanding;

⁶ 

in all your ways submit to him,

    and he will make your paths straight. (Prov 3:5,6)

Romans 1:26,27 and the current debate on homosexuality

Romans 1:26,27 and the current debate on homosexuality

Each day I write a blog which is a commentary/observations/thoughts on the Bible. I have recently just started on Romans. Not unnaturally this involves Romans Chapter 1, and in particular Romans 1:26,27. It cannot have escaped your notice that homosexuality and Christianity are a hot topic in certain circles these days, and these two verses in Romans are pretty central to that debate. I write the material for the Bible Blog several months before it appears, so it will be January 2016 before Romans 1:26,27 appear there. However, I have put the material together (it will cover three days in the Bible Blog) into a single post here in case anyone finds it helpful. This essay has three parts:

• The Biblical and cultural background
• Comments on the text itself
• Some thoughts of a more pastoral nature

While this essay is quite long there are many who have done much more in-depth work, and from whom I have learnt a lot. At the end there will be a list of references to some of their material.

Biblical and cultural background

We now come to the currently most inflammatory verses in Romans 1. Now I will say quite a lot about these verses, but we do need to remember that homosexuality is not the the prime focus of what Paul is teaching, it is one example of the manifestation of sin in humanity. However, it is such a hot topic and one where there is much false teaching in the church that it needs to be addressed in some depth. However, there is an awful lot more that can be said that I can say here. If you want a full account of these matters, with in-depth analysis of all the Bible teaching then I would recommend the works (books, podcasts, debates on YouTube, blogs etc) of Sam Allberry, Jame White, Michael Brown, and Robert Gagnon. Some references will be found at the end.

First we need to remember what the positive Bible teaching on sexuality is. It is given in Genesis 1 and 2, and this was endorsed by Jesus, Mark 10:6-9 (just for those who think Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality), and sex is for marriage between a man and a woman. Sex in any other context is dangerous, is sinful and is destructive (the evidence for which is all around us). It is worth remembering that in Leviticus 18 where homosexuality is one of the forbidden acts there are a whole bunch of forbidden heterosexual acts. Furthermore, having sex before marriage was regarded as a most serious sin (Deut 22:20,21). We do well to remember that when it is accepted as the norm in our society, and even regarded as not that serious a matter by many Christians. Why do I draw attention to all this? Because the charge is often made that the Bible has it in for homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman and nowhere else. The Bible treats all violations of this with equal seriousness, and homosexuality is one sin among many.

Now let’s look a little at the cultural background, and this mostly comes from Keener’s commentary. Homosexual activity was common in the Mediterranean world,but not in Judaism. The Jews looked down on it and regarded it as a Gentile sin, reinforcing their view of Gentiles as less worthy. Most homosexual activity was bisexual and the predominant form was pederasty, ie an adult male having sexual relations with an adolescent boy. They would commonly marry a woman later in life. However, homosexual relationships between adult males were not unknown (contrary to what some would have you believe). Homosexual behaviour was looked down on by some, others regarded it as a matter of personal preference. However, Jewish people were almost all against it. The attitude of people in general doesn’t seem that different from today! It may also be the case that the state of most homosexuality being promiscuous, with stable relationships being rare is not that different today either. With the recent legalisation of “same-sex marriage” the picture that is presented is of nice loving homosexual couples, just the same as heterosexual couples except both are men, or both are women. This may not be an accurate representation of the totality of the situation. Indeed, Evan Davies (a BBC reporter and presenter who is gay) recently got in trouble for saying that gays are generally very promiscuous. Now I am very cautious about arguments from either side on this, but we should not take things at face value.

Anyone interested in looking at these matters in more details should go to the works of the authors mentioned earlier.

Comments on Romans 1:26,27 itself

“God gave them over ...”. Again we have this phrase which appears several times in Romans 1. A common argument today is that people are “born gay”, sometimes people ask “if homosexuality is wrong why did God make me gay?” Well first of all the matter of being “born gay” is to say the least very contentious, and certainly not everyone who practices homosexuality is “born gay”. However, taking this verse talks of God giving people over to shameful lusts. It also talks about homosexual relations being unnatural. Again, this deeply offends our society. So what is the Bible saying? Well sex is intimately connected to reproduction. Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex, but it is a very important one! Homosexual sex clearly cannot lead to reproduction. So what is the Bible view of someone having homosexual feelings? It is that these are a symptom of the fall, they are a symptom of our sinful nature. Now, remember that Paul is using homosexuality as one example. All (or virtually all, but probably all)  of us have a corrupted sexual nature. If you have heterosexual feelings of lust for someone other than your wife that is a symptom of your fallen nature. So homosexuals are not special in this sense.

Now revisionists say that Paul was talking about pederasty and so is not condemning stable same-sex relations. This is a specious argument produced by people whose only aim is to justify sin. Even if Paul did have pederasty in mostly in mind that is no argument for saying the Bible is OK with stable same-sex relations. There is not a single positive word in the Bible about homosexuality.

Moreover, verses 26 and 27 speak of women having relations with each other, and of men having lust for one another. So there seems to be a mutuality here, and it is certainly not clear from the text that Paul only has pederasty in mind.

He then says that they “received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Now what does this mean, and what about the undoubted offence it could cause a gay person? Well we see here the effect of sin. We often think of sin purely in terms of what we do and of it being bad. This is all true of course, but there is more to it. When we sin we become a slave of sin, as Jesus said (John 8:34). Sin takes over our lives like a cancer, and this is the effect of all sin. Heterosexual lust has the same effect, hatred has the same effect, lying has the same effect.

So what else can we say? Two things at least. First to reiterate, homosexuality is being used as an example by Paul. The majority of sexual sin is heterosexual in nature. All sexual sin causes immense pain. Heterosexual sin leads to the murder of millions of babies in abortion, homosexual sin does not. Heterosexual sin is predominantly (though not entirely) responsible for the sex trade and trafficking of women (and children) for sexual purposes. Heterosexual sin is primarily responsible for the increasing sexualisation of our children. I could go on, but I won’t. The Bible teaching is that anything outside of God’s plan of sex within the marriage of a man and a woman is sin and is destructive, both on those involved and on society as a whole.

Secondly, we need to remember where all this is leading in Romans and that is to God’s gift of salvation in Christ for all. Reading these verses and writing this stuff my thoughts are the sooner we get to the latter part of chapter 3 in Romans the better!

There are those who look at this thinking “you homosexuals are a reprobate bunch of sinners”. Well yes they are, but so are we, so are you. So is anyone without Christ, and in Chapter 2 Paul will turn to those who have such an attitude. Next I will make a few pastoral comments because I realise that what the Bible says here is uncompromising and cuts to the quick.

Some comments of a more pastoral nature

So what if you do experience same-sex-attraction (SSA)? Where does all this leave you? Well, if this is you well done for sticking with this! Let me say a few things, let me also refer you to the Living Out website, which you might find helpful.

As I have said before, Paul is talking about homosexuality here as one example of sin. Later he will talk about salvation and that salvation is open to all, and all here does mean all. So what if you experience SSA, does that exclude you from the kingdom of God? In itself it does not, in the same way that feelings of heterosexual lust do not. What matters is what we do in response to these feelings. If we indulge or entertain these thoughts, whether SSA or heterosexual lust we are heading for trouble, but having to resist temptation is, sadly, a normal part of the human condition.

What about “pray the gay away”, or being set free from homosexual feelings? Well with all sins we may be set free from them suddenly, either at conversion or after some special encounter with the Lord, but this does not happen with all sins, nor even with most sins. For the most part being “set free” is a gradual process and involves learning self-control. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible. Sadly parts of the church have sometimes promoted the idea that all people who come to Christ who experience SSA will be miraculously “set free”, and if they aren’t there is something wrong. This doesn’t happen with any other sin, so why should homosexuality be any different?

Society seeks to define us by our sexuality. This is a lie, while sexuality is important, we are not defined by it. We are defined by the fact that God created us and by the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again for us.

What about counselling or psychological help? Well this might be helpful in some cases. There are moves in the US, and I think in the UK, to ban counselling of this nature. This seems very strange to me. If someone has SSA feelings and would rather not have them then counselling of some form might help, why deny it to them? Especially at a time when society is quite happy to promote pumping someone full of hormones and carrying out mutilatory surgery on parts of their body which are in perfect working order. Why one is OK and the other not is beyond me.

Finally, I have listened to people like Sam Allberry and other friends of his on Unbelieveable, and to Rossari Butterfield. These are all people who experienced SSA, the latter was a promoter of gay rights and a lesbian who then turned to Christ. What strikes me about them is the depth of commitment and love for Jesus that comes over, the joy in their salvation that comes over.

The gospel offers freedom for all people, and all of us are in equal need of that freedom.

Sources

Is God anti-gay - Sam Allberry

Can you be gay and Christian? -  Michael Brown

The Same Sex Controversy - James White

Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series) - Craig Keener

Secret Thoughts of a Most Unlikely Convert - Rosaria Butterfield

Robert Gagnon

Living Out

Gay Christianity Refuted - James White

David Gushee Reviewed and Refuted - James White

Sex and Relationships

Sex is very important. Why is that, if that isn't too obvious a question? It is because sex is to do with relationships. Now consider how the world's approach to sex is so different from the Biblical approach. On the one hand there is the attempt to divorce sex from relationship. We see this in things like pornography or prostitution or casual sex. Then there is the current headlong rush of western societies to seek to legitimise same sex marriage. Why do they say they are doing this? Because, according to the current world view, two people should be allowed to express their “love” for each other.

What does the Bible say? The biblical view is that sex must be confined for one place and one place only, and that is the marriage between one man and one woman. Why does the Bible place this restriction? It is all to do with relationships. First, it is only in the fully committed relationship of a man and a woman that sex will be beneficial to the relationship, bringing joy, comfort and pleasure.

Now we come to the second reason, and a very important one, in any other relationship sex will be destructive, not constructive, to the relationship. We all (or at least any sane person) know that there are relationships where sex should not play any part at all. Examples are between a parent and a child, between brothers and sisters etc. But there are plenty other examples as well. Sex should not play any part in a relationship between two men or between two women. The gay rights people are very keen on saying that two men or two women have the right to love each other. Yes they do. There should be deep relationships between men and between women, but sex must not come into it, it will only be destructive. Likewise, sex must not come into any relationships between men and women outside marriage. In 1 Timothy 5:2 Paul instructs Timothy to treat younger women like sisters and older women like mothers. Likewise, other men are to be treated like brothers and fathers.

The reason that society's approach to sex is so wrong and must not be supported at all by the church is that it is utterly destructive to relationships of all sorts in society. Conversely, the reason why we should follow God's instructions on sex is that His ways are the only ways that are conducive to good relationships, at all levels.