

by Kevin Tuma

Paul, in the previous verse, mentions women first as being perpetrators of grotesque sexual sin, presumably with animals, and then tells of men having relations with other men. This emphasizes the lengths of debauchery that was going on in Rome and elsewhere in Paul’s time, and, indeed, it is still with us today.

By use of the term, “likewise,” or, “in the same way” in verse 27, it indicates to us that men lusting after another man is near on par with the woman’s sexual deviance and sin against nature. Due to these sins they reserved in themselves the due penalty for their error as the scripture tells us.

In today’s society there is a push for the church to become more liberal or progressive. Some have, tragically, fallen prey to this and I know of at least one Episcopalian church that features a homosexual minister.

Numerous homosexuals tell us the bible says nothing about their actions being wrong, but in reality that viewpoint is so difficult to provide biblical evidence for that its shocking that idea is so prevalent.

Does this mean homosexuals are void of coming to Christ for repentance and forgiveness? No, they are offered salvation just as everyone, but their attempt to change doctrine has nothing to do with rationality, but rather they want all areas of life to condone and adhere to their lifestyle choices, even if its God. It is especially interesting when one considers the topic of homosexuality, for those who have, through faith, repented of homosexuality are then viciously assaulted in word and action by the homosexual community. This is a common trait in liberalism, that society should bend to accept a persons actions which make them comfortable and anyone who disagrees should be attacked mercilessly. Often in such liberalistic thinking, it is void of any rational contemplation, but rather based on emotion and the desire to alleviate the responsibility behind one’s actions.

I obviously don’t know the philosophical ideals of every Christian or liberal in the world, so my next statement should be taken as a generality. It seems reasonable to conclude that most liberals who demand tolerance, but at the same time conformity by those who disagree with their particular school of thought, indeed would consider themselves atheists. The odd thing about this is that extreme liberalism has such a hold in the world, but yet is made up of relatively few people. In fact, a Gallup poll in 2007 suggested that atheism represented only 4 percent of the American public, which supposedly, according to author Paul Copan, is the exact same percentage when a similar poll was taken in 1944. He states in his book, “Is God a Moral Monster?” –

“Rumors of God’s death have been greatly exaggerated. And when we look at the non-Western world, people are becoming Christians in record numbers. The Christian faith is the fastest-growing movement around, often accompanied by signs and wonders.”


If this is the case, then how do we account for liberalism’s prominence in the world? Perhaps, if Gallup and Copan are correct, it may be that the liberal community has been playing a game of chess for some time, by strategically placing liberal individuals in places like politics, media and universities. It could also mean that Christians have been somewhat silent when it comes to refuting such liberal world views. It seems there is a hesitance about getting on the bad side of the liberal community due to their propensity for anger, public insults, and quarreling. Christians should realize one general truth about those angry liberals, which may play a part in our aversion in debate. Again, Copan says:

“True, they (liberals) effectively utilize a combination of emotion and verbal rhetoric, but they aren’t known for logically carrying thoughts through from beginning to end. Their arguments against God’s existence aren’t intellectually rigorous – although they want to give that impression. Yes, they’ll raise some important questions concerning, for example, the problem of evil, but again, their arguments are a collage of rhetorical barbs that don’t really form a coherent argument. I’ve observed that while these men do have expertise in certain fields (biology and evolutionary theory in the case of Dawkins and Dennett), they turn out to be fairly disappointing when arguing against God’s existence or Christian doctrine.”


Paul Copan

We followers of Christ are called to love even the most detestable, for we know at one time, we lived under sin and the Law, and due to our vile sin, God’s wrath. Thus, we need to remind people that just because we disagree with someone’s actions, that it in no way necessarily leads or equates to hate. If they have this view, which honestly they may have no matter what, it severely hinders our ability to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is something we need to point out, as is commonly said, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Remember that when someone responds to you in anger, its usually because you have won the argument. Intelligent debate doesn’t need to get nasty. It’s incredibly silly and against all logic and intelligence that Christians and even Christ are referred to as haters, just because of a disagreement or clashing viewpoint. Its based on ignorance of what the Bible actually tells us, and how it tells us to act. Imagine if all disagreements were treated in such a way? Would we have anyone? Would we even have Christ?