FACTS ABOUT FAQs (PART 2)

The All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, publishes FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) related to homosexual issues, but none of their answers reflect a Biblical perspective on the matter. Not one Scripture is cited in their document (though several are alluded to)—and for a good reason. What the author (the Reverend Canon Susan Russell) sets forth cannot be substantiated by, but rather is contrary to, the Word of God.

In answering question #4, which deals with responding to hateful people, Susan declares that it is not, "Who do you love?" but, "Do you love?" No, it's both. The two greatest commandments involve loving God and one's neighbor (Matt. 22:37-39), but this kind of agape love should not be confused with love that involves a sexual relationship because the two are not the same.

God gives several restrictions on sexual love in Leviticus 18 to the Israelites. In the New Testament, those guilty of adultery are condemned, as well as those who commit fornication (Heb. 13:4). Fornication includes, as stated earlier: 1) those who are unmarried; 2) those who are of the same sex; and 3) those who would mate with animals. God commands that we love everyone (in the agape sense of the word). Concerning physical intimacy, He specifies the who—and it is a person of the opposite sex who is authorized to marry (Gen. 2:18-24; Matt. 19:3-9). Just because a person is of the opposite sex does not guarantee God's approval because many of the opposite sex are unscripturally divorced and have no authority to marry again.

Susan also tries to attribute opposition to her as being the result of homophobia that involves prejudice against homosexuals. She even intimates that people project their fears onto God. Not really. It doesn't matter to most people; they don't care one way or another what others choose to do. But it does matter to God, Who created both human beings and sexuality. He is, therefore, entitled to provide rules regarding marriage and sexuality. Human beings did not tell God what to say on this subject; He told us. Many do not like what He says and rebel against Him.

Question #5

Someone wondered where transgender people fit into the mix, and the answer is that God loves them. True, but that does not mean He approves or accepts them. God loves all people, but all people will not be saved. One could as well say that God loves rapists, murderers, and pedophiles (2 Peter 3:9). Jesus died for all of them, too (1 John 2:1-2). So, Susan does not really deal with the issue. Our only comment is that we wonder why anyone would be so dissatisfied with the way God made them that they would want to change. Also, the technology for change has not been available until the past few decades of man's 6,000 years here. All of them had to come to terms with what they were.

Question #6

The sixth question basically asks how to defend a person's sexuality against those who would call it "a sin and a choice." Susan replies that they should say Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, which is not true, since porneia includes the practice. One would think a "reverend canon" would have examined such a prominent Greek word sometime in her career. She either knows the meaning and is ignoring it (which is dishonest), or she is simply ignorant of what the word means.

She deflects the issue by accusing opponents of "judging other people." Then she says that no consensus exists among scientists as to the cause of different orientations. The Bible does not list causes, either, but it is clearly a matter of choice. Was there something in the water at Sodom and Gomorrah? Why were there so many homosexuals there and not elsewhere? They chose such behavior.

How do we know it is a choice? There are two reasons. First, God would not make a person a homosexual and then condemn him for being one. On an old episode of Law and Order, a pedophile begged to be put to death because if he were released, he would commit the same sin/crime again. However, God did not create him that way. He had perverted himself over the years.

Second, some in Corinth had given up the sin. Several sins are listed: fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites (1 Cor. 6:9). These are all characterized as unrighteous—those who would not inherit the kingdom of God. However, Paul says to them: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (v. 11).

Question #7

The next two questions move into the realm of politics. What should an LGBTQ+ do about politicians who condemn their sexuality, based on the Bible? The answer is: remind them of the first amendment; vote them out of office; and tell them to quit confusing their theology with our democracy. What does the first amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Wouldn't it be the case that politicians have the right to say what the Bible says? Homosexuals have the right to elect candidates that don't believe the Bible. Most of our founding fathers based their laws on the Bible.

Citing the first amendment, therefore, seems neither here nor there. The fact is that homosexuality was punishable by death in all of the original 13 colonies. And they had the protection of the 1st amendment at that time. Those laws are no longer in effect, but nothing prevents politicians today from believing in the same Scriptures that politicians believed in more than two centuries ago.

Question #8

This question covers "religious freedom laws" and the "right" to discriminate. Examples are not provided. So, it would be guesswork to figure out what Susan means. But whatever her point is, she says it is just as wrong to use the Bible against homosexuals as it was to use "the Bible to justify racial segregation in the 1960s." There are two ways to study the Bible: The correct way is to read it to see what it says; the other is to try to find support for a teaching already held to. That is using the Bible. Justifying segregation would be using the Scriptures (not to mention abusing them). When seeking truth, one finds that the Bible consistently condemns homosexuality throughout.

According to AI, three arguments have been used. One involved the curse of Ham from Genesis 9:25—except that it was Canaan (Ham's son) who received the curse. God would eventually give the land of Canaan to the Israelites. Even so, he gave the Canaanites (not to mention the Amorites and others) 400 years to repent, of which opportunity they did not take advantage (Gen. 15:13-16). The Amorites were descended from Canaan: "Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth; the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite" (Gen. 10:15-16).

The curse upon Canaan seems to be fulfilled when God helped Israel conquer all their territory. When Israel left Egypt, they were to destroy the nations living in Canaan and were not to make a covenant with them (Deut. 7:1-5). It was to these people Israelites returning from the captivity were marrying (they had not entirely been destroyed). The curse upon Canaan and his descendants had nothing to do with race; it had everything to do with idolatry. The marriages in Ezra's days were condemned on the same basis—not the color of anyone's skin—but the fact that they were still idolaters.

Some cite the Tower of Babel as the time when God put different races in different places (Acts 17:26). That He scattered people throughout the world is true, but so far as we know, there were no races at that time. When and how the races came into existence is a matter for research, but if the argument is that each race should remain where they are, that cuts both ways. Various Caucasian groups could not travel to these places and do mission work. Marco Polo should have stayed away from China, and there should not be any international commerce today.

Besides, God says that all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Jesus broke down the barrier between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14-17)—and therefore all other barriers as well. The Bible does not support segregation.

Question #9

Someone wanted to know if the Q in LGBTQ+ stood for "queer" or "questioning"? The answer is both. Susan affirms that many are questioning what their sexual orientation is. The Bible and common sense have an answer. If you have male parts, you're male. If you have female parts, you're a female. That's not as complicated as claiming there are 56 genders, but it works for most people. Having a definite answer can reduce stress.

The Q designation can also include "anything that exists outside of the dominant metrocentric narrative" (whatever that means). Susan admits that it was originally a pejorative, but now it is "being reclaimed by some" homosexuals as "self-affirming language." (Is that actually working out?)

An IA after the Q stands for "intersex/intergender and asexual." The + sign is in case anyone was overlooked. That would possibly come in handy when defining the Greek word porneia. It refers to homosexuals, fornicators, those attracted to animals +, the plus being any other perversion that mankind might invent. Susan says that these situations are complicated. Not really. Not for most people.

She concludes this section by encouraging whoever might be reading this document that "wherever you find yourself in the alphabet there is a place for you here." Presumably she means at the All Saints Church in Pasadena, California. The Reverend Canon Susan Russell was silent about one letter of the alphabet, and we cannot help but wonder if it is acceptable, too.

That letter is P, and is stands for pedophilia. The same arguments can be made for it as all the other letters. We could arbitrarily answer that it is not a sin. Jesus didn't mean them. The Bible doesn't specifically mention them. It's not a choice; they were born that way. Politicians should not make the practice illegal just because it goes against their theology. Has Susan ever heard the phrase, "That which proves too much proves nothing"?

Question #10

The last question is: "Should I try to pray away the gay"? Susan answers in the negative. The querist (no pun intended) asks a valid question, and it should have been answered more carefully. First, what is the truth of the matter? No one has a reason to change if everything is just a matter of opinion. Second, anyone seeking an answer to this question should take the time to consider the evidence for the Bible being the Word of God.

The next step is to honestly evaluate what the Bible teaches on the subject of homosexuality. And if the questioner discerns that homosexuality is condemned, then it is time to obey the gospel (repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins) and start praying. Anyone can claim anything. The important question is, "Where does the evidence lead?"