Category Archives: gay theology
Red letter lies: How Tony Compolo colors the bible
Its possible you’ve heard of the “Red Letter Christian” theological conglomeration. Its a strange religious concoction which attempts to make the so-called red letter passages of scripture (the quote-unquote words of Jesus) more important than other passages in the bible. Not that the bible itself places this kind of emphasis on the quoted words of Jesus, but its a progressive postmodernism gimmick used by liberal religious leaders to counter what they see is too much emphasis on things like sin, sexual immorality, holiness, repentance and hell. Additionally, RLC have a political axe to grind with the social conservative movement which is opposed to homosexual rights and abortion. Thus, they attempt to leverage the socio-political playing field by narrowing what scriptures are applicable to the aforementioned issues.
For the record ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16). Nothing in the bible tells us or even implies that some scripture is more important that other parts —even the words of Jesus. That’s because the scripture is one, complete and harmonious system of doctrine and God-inspired logos. Scripture does not contradict scripture and one part doesn’t cancel out other parts without proper exegetical integrity in interpretation. But the Red Letter Christians have found a way around that.
Framers of the Red Letter movement include Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine; Richard Rohr, a well-known Catholic writer; Brian McLaren, an Emergent Church leader; and Tony Campolo, a popular speaker and author of Red Letter Christians: a Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics.
The group chose the name for a couple of reasons: first, to stress that its political philosophy is based on Jesus’ teachings—a “What Would Jesus Do?” approach to governmental policy. Second, to appear apolitical—the appellation “Red Letter Christians” avoids the political connotations of labels such as “liberal” and “progressive,” and it facilitates the group’s claim that it transcends politics.
Red Letter Christians resent what they see as the religious right’s fixation on abortion and homosexual rights. Since Jesus did not deal with those two issues, they say, we should not make them more urgent than other issues. Instead, Red Letter Christians focus on political policies affecting poverty, global warming, racial discrimination, the role of the military, capital punishment, foreign aid, and public education. [source]
Having a faulty premise to begin with can only lead one into further error and that’s exactly how lead framer Tony Campolo has devolved. In his quest to make things right politically for homosexuals, he realized there was a fundamental problem. Not only were so-called religious right against homosexuality but there existed a much more formidable enemy. Campolo had to chop up, dissect, diminish, disconnect and reorder the truth of scripture so that his political assertions would have some sort of theological support system. So he created the red letter lie manual.
We’ve reported on Campolo before. Like most gay affirming religious figures, the cover of youth is very convenient for them to seed their lies about sexuality. Campolo is nearing completion of his master’s degree in red letter deception. In an interview on his Red Letter Blog he immediately drops the youth issue as justification for his own errors.
“What’s happened overall in the last few years is that a younger generation is emerging with different values. Consider the homosexual issue. Recent studies indicate that older people tend to be opposed to gay marriage and younger people, while still conservative on the issue, do not consider it a defining issue for Christians. While conservative in their thinking, they put in an emphasis alongside of their concerns about the environment, their opposition to war, their concerns about human trafficking and, most of all, their concerns about poverty. I’m in the middle, closer to the younger.”
With a nonchalant shrug, Campolo goes on to say that he doesn’t “approve” of homosexuality. Does the bible really care that Tony Campolo approves of homosexuality or not? Hardly, especially when he circumvents the truth by insisting that talking about homosexuality isn’t something contemporary should be concerned about. After all, people are hungry, wearing second hand clothes and cant get the latest version of the Ipad. So what’s the big deal about homosexuality? What’s interesting is that false teachers almost always downplay serious issues like homosexuality, but then spend a majority of their time talking about it. They want YOU to be quiet so they can dominate the discussion with their lies.
Campolo is being disingenuous when he says he doesn’t approve of homosexuality. His attendance as a speaker at a gay christian conference is sufficient evidence to that regard. How could a person disapprove of something, but then voluntarily attend an event put on by people who engage in what you allegedly disapprove of? According to the gay christian network (see adherents) Campolo “does not support attempts to “convert” gays into straights; rather, he advises gay people to pursue celibacy.” Thats a political way of saying that homosexuals can’t change. That’s not biblical (reference 2 Cor 5:17) , but of course its a convenient caveat for the red letterers.
The red letter movement is closely associated with the emergent church movement. Both groups have cultivated a facade of being caring, tolerant and concerned but the reality is that they are part and parcel of those who teach doctrines of devils. False teachers come in all colors. Even red. For more information about Campolo’s emergent church heresy, check out Apprising Ministries writeup here.
No, God didnt make you gay
Dr. Kerby Anderson, national director of Probe Ministries [source article] explains why:
At this point in our discussion, we need to consider the claim made by some homosexuals that, “God made me gay.” Is this true? Is there a biological basis to homosexuality? For the remainder of this essay, we will consider the evidence usually cited. Simon LeVay (a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute) has argued that homosexuals and heterosexuals have notable differences in the structure of their brains. In 1991, he studied 41 cadavers and found that a specific portion of the hypothalamus (the area that governs sexual activity) was consistently smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. He therefore argued that there is a distinct physiological component to sexual orientation. There are numerous problems with the study. First, there was considerable range in the size of the hypothalamic region. In a few homosexual men, this region was the same size as that of the heterosexuals, and in a few heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
Second is the chicken and egg problem. When there is a difference in brain structure, is the difference the result of sexual orientation or is it the cause of sexual orientation? Researchers, for example, have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger. Third, Simon LeVay later had to admit that he didn’t know the sexual orientation of some of the cadavers in the study. He acknowledged that he wasn’t sure if the heterosexual males in the study were actually heterosexual. Since some of those he identified as “heterosexual” died of AIDS, critics raised doubts about the accuracy of his study.
In December 1991, Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard published a study of homosexuality in twins. They surveyed homosexual men about their brothers and found statistics they believed proved that sexual orientation is biological. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual, 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only 11 percent of those who had an adopted sibling said their adopted brothers were also homosexual. They attributed the differences in those percentages to the differences in genetic material shared.
Though this study has also been touted as proving a genetic basis to homosexuality, there are significant problems. First, the theory is not new. It was first proposed in 1952. Since that time, three other separate research studies come to very different conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Bailey-Pillard study should be considered in the light of other contrary studies. Second, most published reports did not mention that only 9 percent of the non- twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic material than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Whatever the reason, the answer cannot be genetic.
Third, why aren’t nearly all identical twin brothers of homosexuals also homosexual? In other words, if biology is determinative, why are nearly half the identical twins not homosexual? Dr. Bailey admitted that there “must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.” And that is precisely the point; there is something (perhaps everything) in the environment to explain sexual orientation. These are two studies usually cited as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality. Next we will consider a third study often cited to prove the claim that “God made me gay.”
Now let’s look at another study often cited as proof of this claim. This study is often called the “gay gene” study. In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced “preliminary” findings from research into the connection between homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their mother’s side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers acknowledged that these were “preliminary” findings. In addition to the sample size being small, there was no control testing done for heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social histories of the families involved.
Second, similarity does not prove cause. Just because 33 pairs of homosexual brothers share a genetic variation doesn’t mean that variation causes homosexuality. And what about the other 7 pairs that did not show the variation but were homosexuals?
Finally, research bias may again be an issue. Dr. Hamer and at least one of his other team members are homosexual. It appears that this was deliberately kept from the press and was only revealed later. Dr. Hamer it turns out is not merely an objective observer. He has presented himself as an expert witness on homosexuality, and he has stated that he hopes his research would give comfort to men feeling guilty about their homosexuality.
By the way, this was a problem in every one of the studies we have mentioned in our discussion. For example, Dr. Simon LeVay said that he was driven to study the potential physiological roots of homosexuality after his homosexual lover died of AIDS. He even admitted that if he failed to find a genetic cause for homosexuality that he might walk away from science altogether. Later he did just that by moving to West Hollywood to open up a small, unaccredited “study center” focusing on homosexuality.
Each of these three studies looking for a biological cause for homosexuality has its flaws. Does that mean that there is no physiological component to homosexuality? Not at all. Actually, it is probably too early to say conclusively. Scientists may indeed discover a clear biological predisposition to sexual orientation. But a predisposition is not the same as a determination. Some people may inherit a predisposition for anger, depression, or alcoholism, yet we do not condone these behaviors. And even if violence, depression, or alcoholism were proven to be inborn (determined by genetic material), would we accept them as normal and refuse to treat them? Of course not. The Bible has clear statements about such things as anger and alcoholism. Likewise, the Bible has clear statements about homosexuality.
SC diocese may break with Episcopal denom over homosexuality
One by one, member groups in the nation’s apostate denominational systems are facing the inevitable. There can be no fellowship with those who accept and celebrate doctrines of devils. In South Carolina, the painful reality of separation seems to have hit home. According to Reuters, officials in the Episcopal Church’s SC diocese believe that the acceptance of homosexuality, ordination of homosexual clerics and the abandoning the scriptures for worldly philosophy has created a crisis. No more business as usual.
The national Episcopal Church’s acceptance of homosexuality has plunged it into “crisis,” the South Carolina Episcopal diocese said
on Wednesday, and the conservative diocese suggested that it could break from the national church.
“The question is not whether we can stay. It is whether they will let us stay and follow what we believe,” the Rev. Jeffrey Miller of the South Carolina diocese said in the statement.
The statement followed the national church formally charging South Carolina Bishop Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence recently with “abandonment” of the church’s doctrine, discipline and worship.
Lawrence and many in the South Carolina diocese disagree with the tolerance of the national denomination for gays in the church.
The South Carolina bishop accused the national church of preaching a “false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity … that has suffocated the mission of the Church,” according to the charges leveled against Lawrence.
About 100 clergy members met Tuesday in Charleston to respond to the charges. The South Carolina diocese is one of the conservative Episcopal groups distancing themselves or leaving the national church over the issue of allowing homosexual ministers, and other disagreements.
Breaking fellowship with other “believers” is never easy nor is it to be done with thoughtless haste. But when there is sustainable evidence that leadership is intentionally going against the Word of the Lord, such is cause to break the ties. To an extent, we can’t control what others do, but we certainly do not have to be partakers of their sins against God. Homosexuality no matter what way the Episcopal leadership religiously spins it, in fundamentally sin. All sin is a transgression of the will of God. What’s more, all sin will lead to death. In that regards, separating yourself from those who walk in disobedience is the only right solution that honors God.
Breaking fellowship should only be valid over doctrinal essentials. The fundamentals of our faith are nonnegotiable. What that means is that certain teachings cannot be changed or circumvented for any reason lest they cast doubt on the entire body of belief. As SC bishop Mark Lawrence rightly noted homosexual affirming theology is a “false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity…” which threatens the entire body of believers.
Renowned bible scholar and author Dr. Norman L. Geisler explains more about “essentials”:
“The ancient dictum ‘In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity resonates’ with practically everyone. The question is, What are the essentials? There are three main reasons for seeking the answer to this. First, the essential doctrines are the basis for our unity, since true unity is unity in the truth, and these doctrines are the essential truths. Second, the essential doctrines distinguish cults of Christianity from true Christianity, since these groups claim to be Christian but deny one or more of the essential doctrines of the historic Christian Church. It is not possible to identify these cults, however, unless we know what the essentials are. Third, the essential doctrines are the only truths over which we rightly can divide (i.e., break fellowship). It is better to be divided over truth than to be united in error where essentials are concerned (e.g., Gal. 1:69 ; 2:1114 ; 1 Tim. 1:1920 ; Titus 1:9; 1 John 2:19), but it is a great error for those who hold the truth to be divided where nonessentials are concerned (e.g., Eph. 4:3). It behooves us, therefore, to know the difference; otherwise, we may find ourselves dividing from those with whom we should be united and uniting with those from whom we should be divided.”
The acceptance of homosexual conduct violates many fundamentals of our faith including biblical teachings on sin, repentance, authority of scripture, sexual morality, unity and deity of Christ.
Survey: Christian schools not ready for gay attack tactics
If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, this will not be news to you because GCM Watch was the first to accurately expose the weaknesses of post secondary Christian schools in dealing with gay christian attack methods. The attacks are real and increasing. See here and here.
Now a new survey is confirming just that, but with a twist. According an article in the Christian Post, a pro-homosexual religious group says that seminaries and schools do not prepare students for dealing with one of the most divisive and pervasive issues of our day.
[...]“two-thirds of the seminaries and pastoral education programs studied for the new report do not offer courses in sexuality issues for religious professionals and three-quarters do not offer courses in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) studies.
The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, Healing, and Union Theological Seminary in New York decided to take a fresh look at how seminaries are preparing religious leaders for the outside world.
They discovered that the majority of them do a poor job of preparing students of religion to deal with human sexuality, gender, sexual identity and other sexual-related issues from religious and theological perspectives.”
But this survey by the Religious Institute is intended to support the acceptance of gay christian students, not help schools adhere to biblical standards on sexual morality. In effect, it calls for schools to trash biblical standards and instead teach that homosexuality is just another benign variance of sexual conduct somewhat like a person being left-handed. This is religious blackface at its worst. Because while true the schools are unprepared, the “solution” proposed by pro homosexual groups is patently unbiblical.
Leaders at denominational and independent Christian schools are taking a hurricane approach. Despite all the warnings, they are hoping the the storm will bypass them at the last minute so they can continue with business as usual. But as is in the case with many such storms, the after effects are just as dangerous as the storm itself. Some church leaders seem to hold fast to the fundamental response to homosexuality, the truth is that’s just not enough to compete with the media crafted soundbite theology of the opposing side.
Roy Hargrave, senior pastor of Riverbend Church in Ormond Beach, Fla. and a member of several national Christian leader organizations, says “one of the primary things at stake in the church of America” is what it has to say about homosexuality.
“There is backbiting within churches and denominations about the way we are supposed to treat homosexuality,” he said. “Southern Baptists just the other day were accused of being hateful people and pastors were hateful toward homosexuals,” he told leaders at a recent Southern Baptist Convention forum.
“Sin is not biological,” Hargrave said. “It is spiritual.”
Hargrave said American society promotes homosexuality, and the church is not immune.
“The churches of God are beginning to capitulate to this,” he said. “They are even writing articles saying that if we don’t grow up we are going to lose our young people because they have a different view about sexuality.”
“You can have a different view all you want to, friends,” he said. “There’s only one view that God has, and we know that is a sin.”
Can this problem be fixed?
In April of this year, GCM Watch noted that Christian schools were in the “gay acceptance battle zone with few solutions” And we proposed workable solutions. But Christian education leaders are still walking about in the fog of denial. Here’s what we proposed:
(1) To position themselves to maturely handle this threat, schools should establish an office of sexual cultural affairs and regularly bring in speakers and hold assemblies which educate both biblically and scientifically on the spiritual and physical dangers posed by homosexual behavior. They should recruit and offer scholarships to prospective students who want attain such degrees.
(2) Schools should develop degree level programs on sexuality to prepare students to face what is now the greatest challenge to the integrity of the contemporary church. The NYT article notes that secular schools have a decade of cultivating homosexual programs, but out of hundreds of Christian universities across the country, not a single one has even so much as raised the issue. This is an achilles heel that has been severely manipulated by homosexual rights groups.
(3) Schools could easily compliment current programs with focused of human sexuality infused with a healthy biblical overview for context. With biblical morality being erased and herded into antiquity’s closet, its vital that Christian schools uphold that knowledge through its academic programs.
(4) Administrators should petition their respective denominational heads to partner with ministries that address homosexuality from a biblical perspective and give them a prominent place on campus. Visibility means everything. If there is no one to partner with, a ministry should be developed in congruence with denominational beliefs and given a prominent place on school campuses.
(5) The language of existing policies should be reviewed and updated to withstand legal challenges and embarrassing media scrutiny (which is not far off) as this NYT article is a prime example.
Leadership education on the Gospel and the “gay Christian”
Via Stephen Black and Oklahoma City based First Stone Ministries, a message to Pastoral Care Leaders seeking to navigate the muddy cross sections of the Gospel and “gay Christianity.”
“The Gospel according to Jesus Christ is the same message for a gay-identified person, an idolater, an adulterer, a fornicator, a pornographer, a liar, a thief, a gossip, a slanderer or a murderer. The message of good news–redemption into a love relationship with God–is the same for all sinners.[1] Many “Christian” leaders communicate a message that is not Biblical, but instead is deceptive and eternally dangerous. It is certainly not a message of love to lead a person into a false hope. Unfortunately, this misleading message of “gay Christianity” is spread by perhaps well-meaning but Biblically-illiterate leaders who present a message based not on the truth of the Bible, but on a man-made theology. Other leaders purposefully and deceptively spread this message, which is a much graver offense. Deception–which leads people astray–is not love; it’s evil.[2] I share this concern with the same grief-filled compassion as expressed by the Apostle Paul to the Romans in Romans 9:1-3[3] when he wrote “with a great heavy heart and many tears.” Sincerely I write this article after much heart-ache and many tears. Paul reminded us that many will fall away from the faith in the last days.[4] This perversion of The Gospel is an example of the message of ease, love of pleasure and living unrepentantly with which many will go astray.[5] This article is equipped with many end-notes of Biblical references to back up the emphatic statements and is a Bible study with over 150 verses. Please read the Scripture references with this article and let God’s word be your guide.”
The writeup contains a wealth of teaching, scripture and resources to equip pastoral leaders in the contemporary church. Many are unnecessarily falling victim to the seductively false doctrines of the gay christian movement. But the question comes down to this: will we believe the gospel or man’s replacement ideologies? Souls hang in the balance of our answer. Stephen Black succinctly fowards the challenge to believe the gospel of Jesus against the growing apostate teachings of the gay christian movement.
“Several church leaders[40] embrace the emergent message of gay Christianity and present a gay Gospel. Their teachings are not based upon the sound doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or New Testament Biblical instruction. They choose to embrace a false social gospel of a more palatable feel-good-God, a man-made theology, yet they do ‘good things’ under the banner of Christianity. Unfortunately, rather than embracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a gospel of self-denial that produces a Spirit-filled life that really does do good,[41] they are embracing a man-made theology promoting gay Christianity. Which gospel message will you embrace? Will you follow a Biblical message that allows the human heart and soul to be transformed by the Word of God or a man-made theology that allows men to live in self-centeredness and indulgence?[42] Shall we teach people that just praying a prayer and being a part of a community saves them eternally? Or shall we teach a true belief, that accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and following Him in discipleship will result in a life of righteousness? Which Gospel will you teach or follow?[43] The true gospel of Jesus Christ, which leads to life, or a gay gospel according to man’s words, which leads to death? “There is a way that seems right to man, but the end leads to death.”[44]
Any leader who follows or teaches any other gospel other than what has already been given to us is to be accursed (Gal 1:8). Lies kill people and destroy souls but the truth of God delivers people from the snare of the devil into new life with Christ. Read the entire article here.
Tentacles: the leaven of the gay agenda
The conclusion of our exclusive and extensive interview with Pastor Joe Schimmel of Blessed Hope Chapel in Simi Valley, CA exposing the roots of the homosexual agenda and its fellowship with leaders of the satanic religion. Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Shofarsound: Tell me how the homosexual agenda fits into end time prophecy.
Pastor Joe: Jesus warned us that in the last days, just prior to his return, that the world would become just as vile as it was in the days of Lot, who was persecuted by homosexuals of Sodom (Luke 17:26-30). That homosexuality is one of the sins in view in Sodom is made clear in Jude 1:6-8.
We are also warned in the book of Revelation, that the world will become so wicked, that even the holy city of Jerusalem will become like Sodom and Egypt in the last days (Rev. 11:8).
Add to these passages the fact that the apostle Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:1-7 stated that the last days perilous times would come, and that many people would be “without natural affection.” The Greek word that Paul uses is Astorgos, which literally means “without family love” or “without natural love.” The only other place that Astorgos is used in the New Testament is in Romans 1:31, just after Paul condemns homosexual behavior and other sinful activity. Paul’s warning in Romans chapter one, that men abandoned their natural relationship with women for that which was against nature, is certainly “unnatural affection” and against God’s plan for what He created to be a truly loving family. This brings us back to Crowley’s satanic quest to usher in the age of Antichrist, and destroy the family, which he called “public enemy number one.”
Moreover, in the book of Revelation, which deals with the end of the age, Jesus, not only prophesies about a return to Sodomy, but warns that the final judgment will be for many sins including “abominations,” which we discussed earlier, includes homosexuality (Revelation 21:8, 27).
Shofarsound: The recent passage of California’s gay indoctrination law reveals a tell-tale moment about the goals of homosexual activists. What do you think is the ultimate goal of the homosexual agenda?
Pastor Joe: The most hideous aspect of the goals of the homosexual movement is that many homosexuals want legal access to our children. While this is obviously not true of all homosexuals, we can see that many of the leaders of the modern day gay movement, going back to Crowley, Harry Hay, Alfred Kinsey and Kenneth Anger, they were after the very young. Whether it was Crowley’s sexually perverted orgies with young boys; Harry Hay’s marching with NAMBLA; Kenneth Anger’s relationships with young men like Bobby Beausoleil or Kinsey commissioning the molestation of children in an effort to prove that children are sexual creatures. We document in “The Kinsey Syndrome” that Kinsey favored incest and that he, and many of his associates, have led the way in lowering or eradicating the age of consent laws.
Shofarsound: How is the homosexual agenda influencing the gay christian movement’s theology?
Pastor Joe: The homosexual agenda influences Gay theology by continuing to place the worship of the creature above the worship of the creator. When this takes place, the whole created order is inverted. Tragically, those who embrace gay theology hold the words of their leaders in higher esteem than those of the Lord Jesus Christ, the apostles and the prophets. When you erode the authority of scripture and begin with Satan’s premise in Genesis chapter three, asking “Hath God said?” about things He has already made clear, you fall into the trap of replacing God’s truth with Satan’s lies. Homosexuals, who claim to hold to the authority of scripture as the word of God, typically seek to explain away the many texts that condemn homosexual activity. They ignore the fact that the entire church for 2,000 years, beginning with the early church father’s, uniformly understood God to have made Himself abundantly clear throughout holy scripture, to be against all sexually immoral behavior, including homosexuality.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, we read that the world will refuse to love the truth and be given over to the lie. The apostle Paul reveals to us that this will result in the worship of the Antichrist as God (2 Thes. 2:1-4). Paul makes a similar point in Romans chapter 1:18-32, when he states that those who worship creation instead of God, believe a lie. Discerning Christians should see where this lie is going and hold fast to God’s Word without wavering.
Shofarsound: We dont see a lot of evidence of the church responding, but in light of what you have revealed, how should the Church respond to the homosexual agenda?
Pastor Joe: I believe that we need to respond to the homosexual agenda with Christ’s great commission. We need to speak the truth in love, and share with homosexuals, the same way we share with those who are caught up in other sins. We need to approach those who have been deceived by the leaders of the homosexual agenda, in a spirit of humility, remembering that we too were enslaved to one vice or another, whether it was homosexuality or a myriad of other sins. We need to remember that we are saved by God’s great grace and that God impartially extends this grace to all of humanity (Titus 2:11-13). We need to remember Paul’s Holy Spirit inspired words when he instructed us to:
“…. always to be gentle toward everyone. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:2b-5).
We need, as the Lord instructed us through the apostle Peter, to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us, with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
We need to share the gospel and remember that it is the power of God to salvation, to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). We need to share with those caught up in homosexual activity, that the power of the gospel to save, refers not only to the power to deliver us from the penalty of sin, but the power of sin. Many who are caught up in homosexuality have experienced the power of the evil one and cannot comprehend the fact that they can be set free. We need to share with them the power of God’s Word (Heb. 4:12); the power of the gospel (Romans 1:16) and the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). We need to let them know that the same power that rose Jesus from the dead, is available to them in person of Jesus Christ, if they are only willing to sincerely repent of their sins and embrace Him through faith as the Lord and Savior (Romans 8:11). He has promised victory to whoever will come to Him (John 6:37).
I would strongly counsel that we fast and pray for our friends and loved ones, and all who are bound by the spirit of homosexuality. I truly believe we will see greater and greater victory in the lives of those we are witnessing to, when we first break up the fallow ground with prayer and fasting:
“Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free and break every yoke?” (Isaiah 58:6).
We need to sincerely love and pray for those who have been given misinformation and taught that homosexuality is not a sin, or that it is genetic, or that it is impossible to be set free.
Lastly, I would encourage that those who are in need of help or guidance, to contact ministries like your own, that specialize in biblically based ministry to those caught up in homosexuality. We need to pray for ministries that are on the front line of this battle, so that God will graciously hold them up, and use them mightily to save those who are bound by the stronghold of homosexuality.
