God Corrects Us

 

 I recently wrote an article on the "Asbury Revival" [https://godcentereddad.blogspot.com/2023/02/crucial-questions-that-we-need-to-ask.html] in which I criticized several aspects of it as I questioned whether or not it was an act of the Holy Spirit or some other spirit. Part of my basis for questioning the spiritual validity of it was the evidence that there was at least one, and likely multiple, gay-identifying people leading the singing, and there was at least one who was praying with people from behind the altar; in other words, these were gay-identifying people leading a supposed revival. I iterated that I wasn't sure that it was right that people who identified themselves with sinful desires should be, or even could be, leading a legitimate movement of the Holy Spirit.

The strongest evidence of gay-identifying individuals leading was offered by a student at Asbury; Elijah Drake. I decided to Twitter stalk Elijah Drake/Edward Versaii to see what I could learn about him and his ideas. Elijah Drake is very open about his sexual attractions and admits that they are contrary to what Scripture teaches is right, yet he is adamant that he is accepted by God because he is living as a celibate gay man. I will admit that I was of somewhat the same understanding for quite a number of years.

About 10 years ago, I was drawn into a major dispute in my area around the inclusion of LGBTQ ideology in our school system. There was a local woman who made claims of her son getting bullied by other students because she, his mother, was (and still is) a lesbian. She presented herself as a mother who was worried about the well-being of her child and she just wanted the school to adopt certain stances and teachings on LGBTQ ideologies. She was lying through her teeth. She was actually an LGBTQ activist with strong backing from the nearby capital city of my region. She had training, support, guidance and money backing her and she intentionally misrepresented herself to the school board and the media. I was somehow made aware of these facts and went public with them, through the local paper and on social media.

Now keep in mind, I was fairly new to social media myself and I had a very small following of mostly people that I knew personally. Well it didn't take long before this little issue grew to be a big debate online, a debate which was apparently occurring mostly on my own social media page. I gained a lot of friends and a lot of enemies. At one point, my wife came to me and told me that my page, and the conversations happening on my page, was trending on that social media platform. Now I still don't know how that is measured, whether it is a local measurement or national or what, but apparently that was a significant deal. Due to the public nature of the debate, there was a surge of local dissent to the desires of the mother and her allies and their initial push was defeated. They are very sneaky, however, and began a back-room campaign which has introduced at least some of their desired ideology to the school system. The devil is very sneaky in accomplishing his desires.

I tell you all of this because it was in the middle of this row that I had to closely examine the details of my own positions and Biblical understandings of this issue. I was engaging with probably dozens of LGBTQ individuals and activists every single day as we parried back and forth with arguments for and against our and their positions. I literally spent hours every evening sparring with numerous individuals for what felt like, and likely was, several weeks. 

Some of these individuals knew the Bible every bit as well as, and in some cases better than myself, though they abused their knowledge of the words of Scripture to use them out of context to support their views rather than Biblical views. They would make claims about how the Bible was not against this or that, or that I was misinterpreting the Bible to make it match my viewpoint, so I had to learn hard and fast what the Bible did say about not only the issue of LGBTQ lifestyle, but also such things as divorce, abortion, drunkenness and virtually every other sin and vice that the Bible mentions, because these individuals were on a mission to undermine the faith and foundation of not only myself but those people who supported me, both publicly on my page and those who were just watching on the sidelines, whom I found out later were in multiples more numerous than I could have imagined.

It was in this midst of these haphazard, seat of the pants lessons in Biblical theology that I concluded, much as Elijah Drake has, that if someone with homosexual desires remained celibate, or in the case of someone who was in a heterosexual marriage, remained celibate in their homosexual desires, they could remain in good standing with God in regards to their homosexual inclinations. This was based on the theory that the desires themselves were merely temptations, and since Jesus was tempted and yet did not sin due to His rejection of actions taken towards appeasing those temptations, then one who is tempted into homosexual behaviours yet also rejects any actions taken to appease those temptations is also still accepted of God. As I mentioned, this was about 10 years ago, and I still held to that theory until I read the undergrad thesis of Elijah Drake, in which part of his argument is exactly this theory.

Young Mr. Drake employs this theory in part in rebuttal to the positions and works of a Mr. Denny Burk, a Mr. Kevin DeYoung and a Ms. Rosaria Butterfield; none of whom are people with whom I am familiar. As I read through Drake's thesis, I found that I could, at least, significantly identify with his arguments made against the theology of Mr. Burk in particular, and I have to admit that I was a little disturbed that I was finding myself agreeing with the arguments of a self-proclaimed "gay-Christian". Well, I needn't have concerned myself, because once Mr. Drake began disputing the theologies of the other two theologians, I found myself siding with the theologians, as Drake's arguments became what could only be described as grasping at straws in his efforts to bolster his positions. And in the end, I even found that I have to disagree with his, and my own, original position. There were several statements made throughout Drake's paper that stood out to me, but I will focus on only those that pertained to his rebuttal of Mr. Burk's positions, since it is these arguments that I initially agreed with, but had to change my own stance on. 

Drake argues that Burk places an unfair burden on gay Christians in that Burk places the requirement to mortify their same-sex sexual desires while not placing the same burden on straight men to mortify their opposite-sex sexual desires. I do not know if this is an accurate portrayal of Burk's writings, but for the sake of this article, I will assume that this is a fair summation of Burk's position, as presented by Elijah Drake. Much of Drake's argument rests on the word concupiscence, which Merriam-Webster defines as "strong desire, especially sexual desire". This specific word will become important later. Drake would not be wrong in his assertions that extra-marital sexual desires in straight men should be mortified in the same manner that gay men should mortify their same-sex sexual desires. But Drake then makes an error in his argument. He writes, "If all sex is sinful because of corrupted sinful desires, then celibate gay Christians are acting in a way that is better off than marriage because they are saying no to all sexual desire, which is to say the desire for sexual activity. Celibate gay Christians can hardly be argued to be making their telos in sin by acknowledging attractions."

First, I will say that to claim that all sex is sinful is, at the very least, an inaccurate statement. God blesses the sexual union of a man and his wife in that children are a result of this natural, God-made union, besides the cultivation of intimacy in the couple. To claim that this is sinful is an insult to the very design of God's creation. Paul does state in 1 Corinthians 7 that if a man is able to control his desires, it is better to remain unmarried, in that, said man is then able to focus his entire efforts to be able to work for the Kingdom of God without the inhibitions of his responsibilities to his wife and potentially his children. But this is not a commandment of God, but rather just the thoughts of Paul (verse 6). Yet most people have sexual desires that require an outlet, which marriage provides. In verse two Paul states, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Therefore, other than in the rare case of a man, or woman, who is able to keep their sexual desires under control, it is good for a man to marry and cultivate a healthy sexual relationship with his wife only.

Second, I would posit that celibacy is not "saying no to all sexual desire", but is merely the choice to deny oneself the opportunity to act upon their sexual desires. I would boldly state that there is hardly a man or woman on earth who never has sexual desires, yet there are those who remain celibate in the throes of those desires. A celibate gay Christian is not better off than a married straight Christian because the still remaining sexual desires of the gay Christian are still an abomination to God's design, which Drake does not dispute, whereas the sexual desires of the married Christian is according to God's design.

Third, I need to address the last line of Drake's above statement; that which reads, "Celibate gay Christians can hardly be argued to be making their telos in sin by acknowledging attractions." The definition of "telos" needs to be addressed here for those, like myself, who are not trained in theological vocabulary. Dictionary.com defines telos as "the end term of a goal-directed process". It seems to be an odd word to nail down the definition for in clear modern terms, as it finds its roots in the writings of Aristotle. What Drake seems to be arguing here is that it is not fair to claim that gay Christians are destined to hell by the mere acknowledgement of their sexual desires.This actually speaks to the crux of the matter in which I had to be corrected, but I will get to that a little later.

I find that I must also address a sentence at the end of his rebuttal of Burk, which helps to shed light on the direction from which Drake is attempting to justify holding onto and identifying with his sexual desires. Drake writes, "Even still, sexual identity language is also not identifying simply with morally blameworthy desires because it includes much more than simply active sexual desires for the same sex". Throughout his arguments, Drake attempts to make a same-sex attraction less of an abomination because, just as opposite-sex attractions, it is not merely a sexual desire, but also one of companionship with someone that is also mentally and spiritually appealing. While the effort to elaborate on gay relationships as more than merely sexual is admirable and accurate, the type of companionship that a gay Christian has for another person of the same sex is still not according to God's design. Yes, God creates in us a desire to have relationships with others of the same sex as friends, but not as companions. And many studies have shown that gay individuals, in general, are far more likely to have multiple sexual partners at any given time, within and outside of a committed relationship. There is no data that I know of that breaks this down across religious beliefs, but this is a strong indication that the sexual aspect of homosexual relationships is very strong, potentially stronger than that within heterosexual relationships, especially given that the entire identity of a gay-identifying individual seems to hinge on their sexual orientation. And as Drake himself states, "It is clear that same-sex desires are disordered as a result of the fall".

Next, Drake sets his sights on Kevin DeYoung and then Rosaria Butterfield, but I will not expand on his errors in these rebuttals, partly because there are many to be made and this is not an article in rebuttal of Elijah Drake's thesis, but also because to rebut Drake's arguments will actually draw us away from the purpose for this article in the first place. But if you care to read Elijah Drake's thesis, just copy and paste the following link in your browser: https://docsend.com/view/ukzxxf3iwbthf8wc.

I need to get to the actual purpose of this article, and that is to show how God corrected my own theology around the issues of the LGBTQ lifestyles and His Holiness. I mentioned earlier that my theology ended up centering on the premise that temptation is not sin, but acting on temptation is sin. I think that there are things to be noted though, in that some sins were subject to the death penalty in Old Testament times while others were not. I sometimes find it hard to differentiate, especially to others, how New Covenant living is different from Old Covenant living in regards to sin. In general, I think the western Christian mindset is that no sin is worth a death penalty anymore given that a person can repent of their sinful lifestyle and accept the gift of salvation through Christ even in the final moments of their life, and that it is because of this that grace is extended to everybody. I don't know that this is theologically correct though, and perhaps this will require a deep dive of my own to try to hammer out if this is true. I am not one to offer grace readily, which is an issue that I have struggled with for some time, but it is with this type of mindset that I tried to extend God's grace to those of the LGBTQ community in the forming of my understanding of God's grace towards them. It is exactly this theology that God challenged this morning.

As I brought this issue to God, I was compelled to look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is a Scripture that I used extensively when arguing against the LGBTQ community, since they rejected all Old Testament references to the stoning of homosexuals based on the Old Covenant/New Covenant argument - again, accurate or not. This Scripture offers a list of sins which, if practised, will cause you to be called unrighteous and will disqualify you from inheriting the Kingdom of God. It occurred to me that these listed sins tend to be such that are lifestyle sins, not necessarily sins of opportunity or weakness. 

So then I wondered about Elijah Drake's situation, wherein he claims to be a celibate, gay Christian, yet he embraces the gay descriptor for himself and even proclaims it proudly, while apparently disliking that aspect of his life. Elijah seems to claim that he has been unable to change his attraction to men, which insinuates that he has tried. Yet God brought to my mind the word "mortify", and I recalled that there are Scriptures telling us that we are to mortify the fleshly desires. Romans 8:13 says "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Likewise, in Colossians 3:5-6 we read " Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: ⁶ For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:". Actually the first 10 verses of Colossians 3 pertain to this, but these verses are the stand outs.

So in these instances, Paul tells us that if we live after the flesh we will die (spiritually), but if we "mortify the deeds of the body" through the Holy Spirit we will live, and then in Colossians we are given a list of things which we are to mortify in the flesh, because these things are the purpose of God's wrath coming upon us. Now look at that list; it includes inordinate affection, which is simply an affection that is not according to God's design (homosexuality), and concupiscence (remember that word?), or sexual desire as is not according to God's design, both of which Elijah argues are not sins. We are told that these things will lead to our destruction and God's wrath, but we are also told that we are able to overcome these with the Holy Spirit. What then is the destiny of those who either do not even try to overcome these things, or who deny the power of the Holy Spirit through their assertions that they are unable to overcome these things? It seems to me that they will be abandoned to God's wrath, which is only due to fall on those who reject Him (1 Thessalonians 5:9), and following that, eternal destruction in Hell!

Not only are many "gay Christians" going to end up suffering in eternal destruction, but my own beliefs and wrong assertions may have guided some to that end!! Lord, please forgive me for my part in condemning others to destruction! But what of other sins? Fornication, uncleanness (impurity), greed/idolatry. Or as 1 Corinthians 6 lists thieves, drunkards, revilers (verbally abusive), or extortioners? Again, these appear to be sins of repetition or lifestyle sins, but are we not all guilty of some of these at some point in our lives? So what is the remedy? 

We MUST mortify our flesh - we MUST work to rid ourselves of our sinful habits. I understand that this is easier said than done, but in the power made available to us by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we can overcome. Romans 3:25 tells us "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" When we confess our sins to God, our past sins are covered over, but there is no mention of our future sins. We must be bringing our sins to God on a regular basis, to plead the blood of Christ over our sins as soon as we commit them, or at least as soon as we are made aware of them. If we fail to confess these sins, I suspect that we will answer for them when we are judged for our eternal destination and rewards. My experience has been that when we do this, and we have to repeatedly bring the same sin to God over and over again, we begin to feel shame about our failures, but this shame should lead us to start to catch ourselves before we sin so that we don't have to bring it to Father again and again. In this way, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we CAN overcome that which we thought was insurmountable and to become clean vessels for God to use.

There was one other thing which I came across. Somewhere in Elijah's writings, either in this thesis or on his Twitter profile, he claims that he is justified by faith in Jesus, and then he conflates that with being sanctified. These two cannot be conflated. We are justified for salvation through our faith in Jesus, but it is our walk with Him that sanctifies us. If we live contrary to how we are told to live in Scripture, then we cannot be sanctified. In Romans 6 we read that it is through obedience to God that we attain righteousness, and it is only through righteousness that we attain holiness or sanctification. 

God cannot allow anything that is not holy into His presence. There is payment for confessed sins, but I believe that we will answer for unconfessed sins. We are also called to rid ourselves of sins which we commit habitually in the pursuit of holiness. Failure to act sufficiently may not result in banishment from Heaven, but it can definitely result in the loss of potential rewards in Heaven; making that distinction is up to God and not me. But if Elijah Drake continues to embrace his gayness before his faith, if he fails to mortify his fleshly desires as he claims is impossible to do, then I am very concerned for what God's judgment will be against Elijah and all the others who will find themselves in the same or similar situations.