http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/19667

Re: “It Can Happen Here: Religious Freedom Threatened”
By: Eric Metaxas | Published: June 26, 2012 7:00 AM (BreakPoint commentaries)

SUBJECT: 'Homosexual' temptation is not sin, and also discourse on talents

Dear BreakPoint:

Thank you for alerting us to the dangers regarding America's First Amendment Rights under attack.

My pastor recently preached a sermon on homosexuality, and brought up a point you missed:

He noted that temptation is not a sin: Acting on temptation is sin.

I will clarify: There are TWO (2) types of homosexuality:

#1 – The 'orientation' or 'preference' here is the temptation.

#2 – The lifestyle or action (be it homosexuality, adultery, or simply laziness) can be sin, if it is against God's Word.

In other words, some people are “homosexual” in their orientation, that is, weak in the area of being tempted in this area, but not “homosexual” in regards to a sinful lifestyle. (The same can be true of straight people too.)

And this is an important distinction that people often miss.

Even Jesus, our perfect example & role model (John 13:15, 14:12; I Pet 2:21) was tempted in ALL points (including, of course, this one), yet without sin (Heb 4:15), so a person being tempted to pursue homosexual lifestyles is NOT sinning simply by being tempted.

However, both lust and lifestyle are sinning in this regard. (Prov 6:25; Matt 5:28,;Rom 1:24; 2 Tim 2:22, etc.)

The bottom line is that some people are _more_ tempted to be gay in their lifestyle, than are others, and this is the KEY concept: Whether the cause is genetics or environment (or, I add, demonic influence) is a hotly debated matter, with good arguments on both sides –and something we should continue to study and debate, but, for the sake of brevity, it is a matter outside the scope of my feedback here.

Just as important is how we respond, and what I say next will make both conservatives and liberals uncomfortable, but I must speak (or write) the truth:

First, the part that will make Biblical conservatives uncomfortable:

I am sure that NO person just woke up one day and “decided” to be gay, especially knowing how much homosexuals are persecuted. So, regardless of the “causes” of homosexuality, we must NOT place blame or direct hate towards homosexuals for being tempted. (This may anger some on the political “right,” but it's the Biblical truth that must be told.) Even as the Scripture saith, some people are given more talents or strength in the area of resisting certain sins, and others, less (Luke 12:48, Matthew 25:15-29, etc.), so we must NOT make fun of some people because they are tempted in this area:

Some people have more “talents” in regard to resisting homosexual sin than other: This is a Biblical fact, and we can not pretend it does not exist.

Now the part that will make left-wing liberals and homosexual rights advocates uncomfortable:

Since we do hear reports of people often changing from gay to straight, we must NOT use the “some are weak” argument to give up: We MUST have faith that God can heal people, and yes, homosexuality is something that should be healed, since it is NOT the normal course of events (Mark 10:4-6; Matt 19:8, Jesus referencing Genesis 1:27; 2:24, which is sure to anger some on the political “left”).

Now I've probably angered both left-wing “liberals” and right-ring “conservatives” (argh!), but I say this to offer hope, for we all struggle with different things, be it homosexuality, heterosexuality, or non-sexual issues.

We must not run from the tough issues, so I am not running for my assessment above.

Gordon Wayne Watts, LAKELAND (between Tampa & Orlando), Fla., U.S.A.

Just trying to tie some pieces together here that clearly point to Worldview issues:
First of all, here's an article by Helen Alvare as posted on The Public Discourse - http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5757?utm_source=RTA+Alvare+Sex&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email.

Here was my response there with a couple of other article links and comments to show the inundation of this worldview, even in 'so-called' conservative evangelical movements (NAE in article and comments below)...
Thanks so much for sharing Ms. Alvare's article as she always does such a great job. As a former Director of an Abstinence until Marriage program, and currently Director for Marriage Outreach for The Family Foundation of KY, I've been saying this for a decade and calling it the 'free sex' agenda (or contraceptive/condom promotion 'free sex' agenda) that found it's expression in Kinsey's 'junk science' and his goal of 'sex without boundaries...legislative, ethical, moral or religious'. This is the outcome and it is devastating! It permeates every single part of our society and culture. READ ON...

If interested, here are a couple of articles and my comments that take this even further than just govt. (btw - when the Obama adm. put out the applications for the new 'Fatherhood' grants they explicitly stated that 'Healthy Marriage programs' could be used with some exceptions as being unfounded (another huge LIE) and the only exception they listed in the application was 'abstinence until marriage' programs - there are no Healthy Marriage programs without abstinence!). This again to perpetuate the lies and deception and continue the destruction!

Following are the links to 2 articles and comments I referred to earlier as to how deeply entrenched this 'free sex' agenda and ideology (worldview) truly is. Thanks for all you do!

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/07/jerry-sandusky-penn-states-class-catalog-and-sexual-deviance#comments

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19643

My comments linking the 'free sex' agenda to the 2 articles and how deftly and cunningly they deceive (of course that becomes more and more easily done the further we remove the Truth of God's Word from our lives and culture):

This doesn't begin and end with Penn State, as excellent as the connection made here is and as sad as the outcomes! This is rampant in almost every institute of higher learning, in some form of fashion of indoctrination, across our country! Also, it is not only affecting our schools but is a big part of the dumbing down of America and the affect it has on candidates and elections at every level. Finally, and while not as damaging, yet, we see the effects on religion and our churches/faith organizations, even so-called conservative ones, in this...the National Assoc. of Evangelicals has received a grant from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (an arm of Planned Parenthood for all intents and purposes) to keep themselves afloat after the sexual scandal of it's past president, Ted Haggard! How sad that they are willing to fall for the lies, claiming that 'they tell us that contraception reduces pregnancy and therefore, abortion,' instead of listening to the Truth of God's Word in Galatians 6: 7 - 9. If they would look for themselves they would clearly see that any long-term studies and results (6 months and longer) regarding the 'free sex' agenda of The National Campaign and Planned Parenthood has always failed miserably at every turn regarding pregnancies, STDs and yes, even abortions! We are reaping the fleshly and sinful sowing that has been, and continues to be, done even in many of our churches! I pray the Church will awaken to its complicity and sin in all of this along with our education, media and govt. systems before it is too late (which may not be far off)!

God bless in Christ,

In His service
Greg

Marriage is a word that has for years had duel definitions, the legal and the sacramental. Eric has made an argument based on the presumption that there is but one definition, that being the sacramental. Marriage needed a legal definition in the United States because the state chose to regulate the institution by passing laws to preclude slaves from marrying; to ban polygamy, interracial unions, and the use of contraceptives by married couples and more. All these laws were precipitated by Biblical interpretations and inflamed public sentiment. Many of these laws and regulations have been reversed, removed or ignored as our Biblical and social ethos has evolved. To have the ability to pass and then overturn such laws, the state must create a fluid definition totally separate from it's sacramental or Biblical meaning. Clearly when George W. Bush stood and made it plain that the definition of marriage was, "one man and one woman" he wasn't using a Biblical imperative, unless Abraham, Jacob, David and certainly Solomon missed the mark. President Bush was suggesting his legal definition expressed the public sentiment.

It has also been important to allow the government to develop a legal definition of marriage so we can enjoy the benefits of the their definition. We enjoy the tax breaks; social security, disability, veterans, and public assistance benefits; exemptions from estate and gift taxes; the ability to get insurance through a spouse's employer and to make medical decisions for our spouse when they're incapacitated. We enjoy the right to an equitable division of property and custody of our children should the marriage dissolve. We also enjoy legal standing in wrongful death cases and for immigration issues.

Few of the laws written and removed and none of the benefits bequeathed have anything to do with our faith and our understanding of sacred marriage. They are all a function of power not piety. In our insistence to judge and punish those we have been told not to judge, (I Corinthians 5:9-13) we exert our political power. We want to keep them from having the same benefits that we enjoy. And when we don't get our way - we give a nod to "loving the sinner" and go right back to our verbal bullying.

The sacrament of marriage can only be defined by the church which holds it to be sacred. No one has yet to tell a church or a denomination that they must perform a marriage or even acknowledge a marriage of someone that doesn't meet their definition. There are many churches who will not perform a wedding ceremony for a couple where one or both have experienced divorce, their reason being the church's view of marriage reflects Jesus's words in Matthew 5 that marriage to a divorcee is equal to adultery. The Church of Rome has for years not recognized marriages of divorced congregants and refuses them full membership and the privilege that is the eucharist.

The story of the evangelical working in Saskatchewan's marriage commissioner's office not willing to perform a civil duty because he's against it is not to be applauded. His understanding may be that God's abhors homosexuality but he has a duty to the authority that God has placed over him. Would we applaud him for not marrying an interracial couple because he believed them to be 'unequally yoked' or in not marrying a black couple because he believed them to be 'cursed'? We're less than 50 years from those Biblical interpretations.

We have to separate the two types of definitions if we are truly wanting religious freedom. If we want the government to decide a single definition for us, then we are enslaved by the government with no religious freedom at all.

A legal definition of marriage didn't stop slaves from jumping the broom in their own sacred marriage ceremonies and it didn't stop some churches of the day in recognizing the marriage as a holy union. If that was true in the antebellum South, then the inverse is true today. Just because the government recognizes a union as legal, it doesn't mean it is sacred. As the Church let's work on making marriage sacred and truly love those outside the faith instead of giving platitudes and demanding our rights.

Thank you so much for standing strong on this issue. Most Christians that I know have now caved and either won't discuss this issue at all, or actually are on the other side, supporting SSM.

It's unbelievable to behold. But it's somewhat understandable. The social pressure/bullying is so pervasive that few people can withstand it.