The following article is adapted from a Facebook post from Everett Piper.
This is a booth at the general conference of the Nazarene Church that is taking place in Indy as we speak.
If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times… When we buy the lie that our identity is nothing more than the sum total of our inclinations there is no limit to the lengths we will go to normalize our sin.
Surely we can see that this is the exact opposite of the holiness message can’t we? Do we no longer believe in 2 Corinthians 5:17? Are we not a new creation? Hasn’t the old passed away? Haven’t all things become new?? Have we given up the hope of transformation? Have we actually come to the point in the holiness movement where we think it is edifying to define people by their sins, and thereby celebrate their “community” of dysfunction and brokenness?
This is not love. It is enablement and it is cruel. It suggests the imago Dei is really nothing more than the imago dog. It is the opposite of sancfication. It is sinful and it is wrong.
John and Charles are rolling over in their graves.Update as of Saturday morning June 23, 2017.
All: After following this thread for the past 24 hours I am convinced more than ever that it was needed for there are literally hundreds of comments that simply prove my point over and over again (which by the way was not an attack of the pastor or the church as is suggested by some, but rather a much need challenge of this ministry’s bad ontology and anthropology).
When you accept the definition of the person as “being” “gay” you are conceding my point for you have just admitted that you think they (those who have a given sexual appetite or inclination) are actually defined by that desire. You are admitting that you think “that’s just who they are” and that their very identity is nothing more than the sum total of their base inclinations. This is the ultimate insult to God and God’s creation. We are the imago Dei! We are made in the image of God and we are not defined by our bellies or our libido. We are not animals. We are human beings and we have freewill in our behaviors (sexual or otherwise). No biblically faithful ministry should suggest otherwise. No biblically sound ontology or anthropology should suggest that God’s creation is defined by a behavioral adjective.
Such comments merely show that this post was needed. We (the body of Christ) should never concede any ground in Satan’s game to refine God and redefine people. The entire nomenclature implicit in the acronym LGBT and in the contemporary use of the rainbow flag and in what is suggested by consigning “gay people” to their own unique “communities” (read here: gulags”) is not the way of Christ or the way of the Church. We are better than this. We are more than this. We should love people enough not to label them in such a demeaning manner.
Endnote: Even Gore Vidal and Michel Foucault understood this. Vidal said, “There is no more such a thing as a homosexual person than there is a heterosexual person. These are behavior adjectives.” And of such insulting labels, Foucault commented, “We are creating an hermaphrodism – a false specifies..”
And perhaps this final word — It never ceases to amaze me how those who wave the rainbow banner of “love trumps hate” become so vitriolic and vengeful when presented with a logical a cogent argument that challenges the vacuity of their own worldview and moral paradigm. The comments on this thread are a textbook example: Head pastors and parachurch leaders posting ad hominem attacks dripping with mockery and sarcasm. Youth pastors calling for OKWU students to transfer to other schools and giving websites for them to do so. And all under the banner of “love” and “tolerance.” Do they not see the irony in their attitudes and action? Are they blind to the fact that they are sawing off the very rhetorical branch upon which they sit? Isaiah comes to mind here: “Woe unto him who calls good evil and evil good…” and dare I add, woe unto him who calls love hate and hate love.
I suppose if my post has done nothing else it has served the purpose of exposing an angry and vindictive spirit in the Church and in the broader holiness movement. One that must be confessed if we are ever to reach the world for Jesus.