Post by Rev. Jim Cunningham on Nov 19, 2008 2:45:41 GMT -5
From: Manager Rev. Jim (Original Message) Sent: 10/27/2004 11:14 AM
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I would like to share with you what I believe to be a very important letter to a leading evangelist.
Many of you are familiar with Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. For those of you who are not, I will simply say that he is among the strongest and loudest enemies of homosexuality and gay marriage.
I just received an invitation from him to attend a Creation Science (ie a pro-biblical view of science) conference at his church, featuring a man whose ministry I have long supported - Ken Ham of Creation Ex Nihilo - who is at this moment constructing a spectacular Creation Science (anti-Evolution) museum in Kentucky. Along with the invitiation was a CD of a sermon by Ken Ham as a prelude to the conference. The sermon was wonderful and in it's brief message demolished Evolution completely.
However, Mr. Ham, to my surprise, used the opportunity to also speak against gays and gay marriage, saying it is contrary to the design of Creation. Having personally spoken to Mr. Ham before (about different major issue), I know that he is a fair, godly and kind man with a gift of understanding, and is not our enemy; he merely has his views, as does everyone, on the subject of homosexuality.
I have written him the following letter, which I have reprinted (below) for you, in hopes of leading him to a more correct - biblical - understanding about homosexuality. Those of you who read this letter, I would very much like to have your feedback on it, whether pro or con. Thank you, and God bless you all. - Rev. Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Brother Ham,
The blessing of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be to you. I write peaceably to you today concerning an issue most contentious within the Body of Christ. I write to you specifically because, firstly, I know you to be a man of God and filled with His Spirit; secondly, because you have not exalted yourself above the brethren as a lofty self-righteous untouchable but instead condescend to speak with all Believers as being subject one to another; and thirdly, because I know you, from experience, to be a man of integrity who will hear out an issue to its conclusion and reply with fairness and honesty based on wisdom and not as a thoughtless zealot. I say this with conviction, not with flattery.
This letter is rather lengthy and I know that you have little time to spare; but I feel the issue is grave enough to bring it fully to your attention. It cannot wait. I kindly ask, brother, that if you cannot read this letter at once, that you please preserve it in a readily available place until what time you can attend to it (for which I thank you).
I have received the invitation to attend your conference, DEFENDING THE FAITH, at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; and after having listened to the accompanying CD containing your powerful message (Why the Church & Culture are Losing Biblical Authority), I felt compelled to explain why I absolutely refuse to attend.
In the message on this CD, you present a marvelous argument as to why the Bible should be believed from the very first verse. For the most part, I adored it. Though I have long supported the literal view of Creation that you defend, I was nevertheless overjoyed to hear it expounded so eloquently. However, did you not notice, did you not perceive, that the loudest and longest applause from your audience was reserved – not for your eloquent words about Creation, not for the profound revelation that the church is collapsing because of its undermining disbelief of the Genesis record – but for your singular jab that God, at Creation, made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, and that this therefore must be the basis for marriage? The audience went euphoric with riotous applause like a pack of Southern vigilantes with torches about to hunt down all the Negroes. Whether you are anti-gay or pro-gay, their reaction should greatly disturb you. It disturbed me to the point that I will not go in among such unruly people, and it is partly the reason I will not attend the conference.
There is a great difference between "walking the strait and narrow path" and "having tunnel vision". To walk the narrow path of Christ has to do with being circumspect. To have tunnel vision means locking on to one particular interpretation simply because it sounds good, and then clinging to it with a death-grip without any regard whatsoever of circumspect evidences which flatly contradict that interpretation. The church, adding folly upon folly, has horrific tunnel vision on the subject of homosexuality without the slightest shred of circumspection, and unfortunately your God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve comments on that CD was like throwing gasoline on a wildfire.
Here is the problem inherent in your teaching that, because God made a man and a woman (not a man and a man) at creation, that this therefore is the foundation of marriage. You yourself stated that there is nothing whatsoever in the Scriptures to imply a millions-of-years age for the earth, that the Bible when read at face value clearly shows a literal six-days creation, and that those who would cram millions-of-years into the Bible are doing so based on an OUTSIDE influence (namely, historic evolution). Yet, immediately after making these statements you overturn your entire argument by refusing to apply that same reasoning to the issue of Adam & Eve and marriage. You did not take the simplistic literature of Genesis 2 at face value because of an OUTSIDE influence (namely, the testosterone-soaked bias of heterosexuality which has permeated the church’s views on homosexuality under the guise of godliness).
Setting aside – only for the moment – the Levitical laws and Romans 1, which speak of same sex activity, I would like to focus in on the issue of Adam & Eve as you portrayed them. We cannot put the ass before the cart by rearranging the Biblical timeline. Creation and Adam & Eve came first and THEN the Law came, not the other way around, as you know. By starting with Creation and Adam & Eve first, the Laws will suddenly fall into a different perspective. And this is exactly what you admonish the church to do; for, if the church cannot believe the simplicity of Genesis, how then can they believe or even understand the rest of Scripture?
It has been my custom, when I hear people use that tired old line that "God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve", to say to them that a homosexual can biblically and lawfully say that God made Eve for Adam .... but Steve for me. Because, in actuality, that is exactly what happened in the Bible, as I will clearly show.First, picture the situation in the Garden. Moses says in Genesis 2 that God saw that Adam was lonely, and God said that it was not good (He did not say that Adam had no children and that therefore this was not good). We must stop right there and think of that for a second. Adam was lonely?! Here was Adam - 100% perfect and perfectly made, created in the very image of God, (as God is Father & Son & Holy Spirit, so Man is Soul & Body & Spirit); Adam was literally a living replica of God, albeit without those qualities which distinguish Man from God. Adam had the very earth and all that is upon it at his command, with God Himself as his friend who walked and talked with him.
Adam (and later Eve) was the ONLY HUMAN IN HISTORY, being without sin, who ever stood in the full glory and presence of the Godhead and who looked upon the very face of the Almighty – and yet he was lonely?
By the clear and plain literature of the text, God quite definitely said that Adam was lonely. This is a fantastic and powerful insight into understanding God Himself, I believe. If Man was made in the express image of God, being perfect, does it not therefore imply that God was lonely too? This also implies that loneliness is not an imperfection, because neither Man nor God could be lonely if loneliness is an imperfection. The Bible says that the whole purpose for why He created Man was for a mate. Is it not also written in the Torah, the Prophets and the Gospel that Mankind is the very Bride of God created for Him, that "He will have a desire to the works of His hands"? Do not the Scriptures clearly state that we are married to Christ, that there will be a "marriage supper of the Lamb" at the end of all things, that we ourselves are New Jerusalem who will come down as a bride adorned for her husband? God could not choose a mate among the angels of heaven because only His Own image could be suitable and compatible. See now the real plot and intention, brother Ham.
Before Eve's creation, and immediately after God announced that is was not good that the man should be alone, a very remarkable thing happened. It says that God presented all the animals to Adam. Then it gives a strange reason why: "...to see what he would call them." At first that doesn't seem too strange in and of itself. But haven’t you ever been curious as to why God would make such a profound announcement about Adam’s loneliness, and then suddenly seem to change his train of though by parading the animals before Adam to see what he would name them? But there is a reason why God wanted to see what Adam would call each creature immediately AFTER He said that it was not good for the man to be alone. To see if Adam would choose a mate among them. How so? Please bear with me, because I'm about to show you something that they NEVER mention in church; and you are going to see why the church is so wrong about their understanding of marriage and homosexuality and the Law. Here is the whole 3-verse incident, from Genesis 2:18-20 King James Bible,
18: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet [suitable] for him.
19: And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20: And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field:BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND AN HELP MEET FOR HIM."
Do you see what just happened? God paraded every creature before Adam, but among them there was not a creature suitable for him as a mate, to keep him from being lonely.
No animal is sufficient for Man as a compatible mate, just as no angel is suitable for God. In the immediate verses after this event, God creates Eve and brings her to Adam, and he says "This is it!!" Adam specifically stated the exact reason why Eve qualified as a mate. Not because of her genitals. Not because she had breasts. Eve qualified ONLY because "THIS IS NOW BONE OF MY BONES AND FLESH OF MY FLESH." As surely as only something made in God's own image can be suitable as a mate for God, only something made in man's own image, of man's own flesh, can be suitable for man. Man was made for God, therefore only another image of God would be suitable to Adam, the image of God. Now let's honestly ask the question. Why did God make Eve and not Steve? There is an answer, and you will see why a homosexual can biblically and lawfully say "God made Eve for Adam and Steve for me."Eve could very well have been made as a "Steve". In other words, God could have just as easily made another male instead of a female for Adam. After all, if Jesus, who is God the Creator, is undeniably a male and He chose to create ANOTHER MALE (Adam) as His mate (since the male is His image), wouldn't it make sense for Him to have given Adam another male? Indeed, males are the image of Adam AND God. Here is why the first mate ever created had to be a fe-male: Because God foreknew that Adam would sin. That's it. That's the whole reason. But here is the biblical explanation.
As you well know, BECAUSE of Adam's sin and subsequent fall, he brought death into the world. Therefore, to maintain the human race, children would have to be born. Paul expressly uses this example in Hebrews to explain why Jesus is an eternal priest, contrasting Him with the Levitical priesthood which passes on to other men because of death. Therefore, because of sin and death, Adam's mate would have to be pre-fashioned BEFORE the fall, by divine pre-knowledge OF the fall, to have the ability to conceive, carry and give birth to children AFTER the fall. Just as God designed animals BEFORE the Fall with thick fur to survive harsh winters, and with sharp, crushing, carnivorous teeth – all in preparation for life AFTER the Fall. The reason God didn't give Adam another male wasn't because two males together was wrong (else God making another male for Himself would be wrong – God did not make a fe-male for Himself because, as Jesus said, there is no reproduction in heaven), but He made a fe-male instead of another male for Adam because Man would have ended with Adam's death. God could not allow that to happen and chose to save His mate whom He loved and redeem him. Adam was it. God wasn't going to create a new mate for Himself from scratch, as was clear by the saving of Noah in the flood.Here is where the church fails in its understanding: Adam and Eve did not bear children until AFTER the fall, sir. Cain was their first child, and we KNOW that he was born after the fall. We also know that Adam and Eve were having sex BEFORE the fall because "making the two one" was the whole point of why God gave Eve to Adam in the first place. She wasn't some pal that hung around and kept him company. Adam had God and
all the animals (and most likely the angels too) for that. Eve was given to Adam for a unique, physically and emotionally bonding relationship. The purpose of sex was not intended for procreation, but for UNION.It was in the garden that God gave them the blessing (NOT a command, as it has been WRONGFULLY taught) to be fruitful and multiple, but it was not until after the fall that this blessing was put into effect. Can you imagine what would happen if two perfect, undying people gave birth to kids, and then they gave birth to kids, etc, and so on? The earth would get over populated because no one would die. There was no need for all those kids, anyway, because Adam and his mate were never meant to die. Children had to be born BECAUSE of sin. This is why they covered their nakedness. NOT because sex is bad or shameful in and of itself, but because the very act of sex was the very purpose for Adam's mate's existence, and now that act of sex , which was meant to unite them as one being in a holy and special way, will have to be used to bring more people into the world - BECAUSE OF SIN. Reproduction is now their SHAME. It is the very mark and sign of Adam's sin against God, imposed because of disobedience. Therefore they covered their shame as we, to this day, are commanded to keep our genitals covered for the same reason. Haven't you ever seen it written in Scripture that we are to cover ourselves "so that the shame of our nakedness be not seen"? It is the reason that we have a built-in feeling of shame to go naked before other people (at least, those people do who are not desensitized to decency). It is that shame which tells a child, once he reaches a certain age, that it is time to have mommy stop bathing him.
So God pre-planned Adam's mate to be a female - because of sin. Being female is not sin nor the cause of sin; rather, the fact that Adam's mate had to be constructed in the form of a fe-male, having the capacity to bear children, was due to Adam's FUTURE sin. If Eve wasn't a fe-male, the human race would have ended.HOWEVER, Adam and Eve's marriage CANNOT be the Man’s sole basis for determining the definition of marriage and who can participate in a marriage. For example, God only made ONE SPOUSE for Adam, yet God gave SEVERAL spouses to David, Solomon, etc. etc. AND God gave Moses a law on how to deal with multiple spouses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
Bear in mind that only EVE was specially created - and specially created FOR ADAM. This is not so with ever other female on earth. Every single human being who came AFTER Adam and Eve is conceived, created, carried, and born in exactly the same way. Both males and females are MAN. We are ALL "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh". We all qualify as mates for one another by virtue of this fact alone, which was the same and only qualifying factor between Adam and Eve.
Furthermore, marriage and child-birthing is NOT commanded of us. We do NOT HAVE TO get married. To say that Adam and Eve are the only models for marriage would
automatically imply that we MUST get married – they did it, so we must too. But as we know, there were MANY godly persons in Scripture, such as Paul, who did NOT get married; and in fact Paul encourages people not to get married if they are able to live without a mate.
This is why I believe - or one of the reasons why I believe - it is not a sin for two males or two females to be together. A human is a human is a human. Whether you choose the male OR the female of our race, the point is that we are the SAME RACE - MAN. And even more to the point, the purpose for marriage is for UNION AND COMPANIONSHIP - not childbearing. Breeding children can be the RESULT of sex, but it is not the PURPOSE for sex. That's why it's preposterous for some people in the church to say that allowing two men to marry is similar to beastiality. None sense. We are talking about two human beings who are created in the image of God. None of us have suggested that we start marrying or having carnal knowledge with other SPECIES!There's something more to this though. Something the anti-gay folks fail to take into account when they say that being gay is a learned behavior and that they can change. First, let's give them credit that they at least understand that, yes, it is absolutely possible for a heterosexual to have sex with another of the same sex. No question there. It is true, for example, that a heterosexual man can find himself in the arms of another man because he is hurting inside, or because of loss or lack of female love, or because he needs that masculine affection he didn't get from his father or other male figures as a child and now as an adult that need for affection has translated into sex, or because he is scared of women, or because something happened to him such as molestation which opened his mind to that type of activity. Totally true. Undeniable.However, THESE types of men are NOT true homosexuals, therefore, YES, they CAN be healed of their hurts and revert to their NATURAL heterosexual drive. These were men who, whatever the reason, "LEFT the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly," Romans 1:27. These are the men who "ALSO lie with mankind AS WITH WOMANKIND," Leviticus 20:13. Only heterosexuals leave the woman for other men; only a heterosexual can ALSO lie with men as he lies with women.But how do you explain homosexuals who do not fall into any of those categories? Even concluding that someone is gay because, say, his father was distant from him, how do you explain the inherent and inner most being of a man that can look at an attractive male and be totally aroused by him and totally UNaroused at the sight of a beautiful female. How do you explain the feeling that says inside that everything about masculinity and the male is attractive in an emotional, romantic and physical sense but NOTHING of femininity and the female is so attractive? How do you explain a homosexual’s repultion of the mere thought of sexual contact with a female in the same way that a heterosexual man is repulsed by the thought of sexual contact with another male? These are NOT learned behaviors. These are inherent sexual identities.
Why does everyone seem so determined to separate our sexuality from being a part of the rest of our identity? Certainly heterosexuals conclude that their heterosexuality is part of their identity and they would insist that they were born straight. I don't know many heterosexuals who say that heterosexuality is a learned behavior or the cause of environmentals! They simply KNEW what was right for them. If it were as simple as environmentals (which it is not) then you COULD say that sexuality is a choice. You can force a left handed person to use his right hand, but he will ALWAYS be left handed and he will ALWAYS think with the right side of his brain. Likewise, you can force a homosexual to lay with women, but you can never force his identity to cease to desire a mate of the same sex – unless you use some form of self-loathing brainwashing techniques, as many "ex-gay ministries" do, such as the EXODUS ministry. There is a feminine aura about a female, which attracts heterosexuals. It is the same for homosexuals (well, in the reverse). The point is that no two people are alike, therefore no two people are attracted to the same thing, and it is foolishness to assume otherwise. All mankind is flesh of Adam’s flesh and bone of his bones and are therefore qualified to mate. God has made of ONE BLOOD all men for to dwell upon the earth. When it comes to any two consenting non-related adult human beings, there is NO BIBLICAL LAW which prohibits their union. And as it is written, Where there is no law, there is no sin. We would agree that fornication is sin, but simply because communities throughout history have forced homosexuals to live in fornication without the natural right to marry, simply because communities throughout the world have arrested, segregated, tortured, burned, and murdered and executed homosexuals, is not valid proof that homosexual identity is wrong. The same rejection has been given to the Jews and Blacks and Aborigines and most minorities in one way or another since day one. That is called BIAS & BIGOTRY; it is not holy, it is not biblical, and it is not right.
I ask you to reconsider your stand on this issue, brother Ham. Genesis is clear: bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh – not types of genitals – qualifies a marriage.
With warm regards and continued support,
Rev. James D. Cunningham
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I would like to share with you what I believe to be a very important letter to a leading evangelist.
Many of you are familiar with Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. For those of you who are not, I will simply say that he is among the strongest and loudest enemies of homosexuality and gay marriage.
I just received an invitation from him to attend a Creation Science (ie a pro-biblical view of science) conference at his church, featuring a man whose ministry I have long supported - Ken Ham of Creation Ex Nihilo - who is at this moment constructing a spectacular Creation Science (anti-Evolution) museum in Kentucky. Along with the invitiation was a CD of a sermon by Ken Ham as a prelude to the conference. The sermon was wonderful and in it's brief message demolished Evolution completely.
However, Mr. Ham, to my surprise, used the opportunity to also speak against gays and gay marriage, saying it is contrary to the design of Creation. Having personally spoken to Mr. Ham before (about different major issue), I know that he is a fair, godly and kind man with a gift of understanding, and is not our enemy; he merely has his views, as does everyone, on the subject of homosexuality.
I have written him the following letter, which I have reprinted (below) for you, in hopes of leading him to a more correct - biblical - understanding about homosexuality. Those of you who read this letter, I would very much like to have your feedback on it, whether pro or con. Thank you, and God bless you all. - Rev. Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Brother Ham,
The blessing of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be to you. I write peaceably to you today concerning an issue most contentious within the Body of Christ. I write to you specifically because, firstly, I know you to be a man of God and filled with His Spirit; secondly, because you have not exalted yourself above the brethren as a lofty self-righteous untouchable but instead condescend to speak with all Believers as being subject one to another; and thirdly, because I know you, from experience, to be a man of integrity who will hear out an issue to its conclusion and reply with fairness and honesty based on wisdom and not as a thoughtless zealot. I say this with conviction, not with flattery.
This letter is rather lengthy and I know that you have little time to spare; but I feel the issue is grave enough to bring it fully to your attention. It cannot wait. I kindly ask, brother, that if you cannot read this letter at once, that you please preserve it in a readily available place until what time you can attend to it (for which I thank you).
I have received the invitation to attend your conference, DEFENDING THE FAITH, at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; and after having listened to the accompanying CD containing your powerful message (Why the Church & Culture are Losing Biblical Authority), I felt compelled to explain why I absolutely refuse to attend.
In the message on this CD, you present a marvelous argument as to why the Bible should be believed from the very first verse. For the most part, I adored it. Though I have long supported the literal view of Creation that you defend, I was nevertheless overjoyed to hear it expounded so eloquently. However, did you not notice, did you not perceive, that the loudest and longest applause from your audience was reserved – not for your eloquent words about Creation, not for the profound revelation that the church is collapsing because of its undermining disbelief of the Genesis record – but for your singular jab that God, at Creation, made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, and that this therefore must be the basis for marriage? The audience went euphoric with riotous applause like a pack of Southern vigilantes with torches about to hunt down all the Negroes. Whether you are anti-gay or pro-gay, their reaction should greatly disturb you. It disturbed me to the point that I will not go in among such unruly people, and it is partly the reason I will not attend the conference.
There is a great difference between "walking the strait and narrow path" and "having tunnel vision". To walk the narrow path of Christ has to do with being circumspect. To have tunnel vision means locking on to one particular interpretation simply because it sounds good, and then clinging to it with a death-grip without any regard whatsoever of circumspect evidences which flatly contradict that interpretation. The church, adding folly upon folly, has horrific tunnel vision on the subject of homosexuality without the slightest shred of circumspection, and unfortunately your God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve comments on that CD was like throwing gasoline on a wildfire.
Here is the problem inherent in your teaching that, because God made a man and a woman (not a man and a man) at creation, that this therefore is the foundation of marriage. You yourself stated that there is nothing whatsoever in the Scriptures to imply a millions-of-years age for the earth, that the Bible when read at face value clearly shows a literal six-days creation, and that those who would cram millions-of-years into the Bible are doing so based on an OUTSIDE influence (namely, historic evolution). Yet, immediately after making these statements you overturn your entire argument by refusing to apply that same reasoning to the issue of Adam & Eve and marriage. You did not take the simplistic literature of Genesis 2 at face value because of an OUTSIDE influence (namely, the testosterone-soaked bias of heterosexuality which has permeated the church’s views on homosexuality under the guise of godliness).
Setting aside – only for the moment – the Levitical laws and Romans 1, which speak of same sex activity, I would like to focus in on the issue of Adam & Eve as you portrayed them. We cannot put the ass before the cart by rearranging the Biblical timeline. Creation and Adam & Eve came first and THEN the Law came, not the other way around, as you know. By starting with Creation and Adam & Eve first, the Laws will suddenly fall into a different perspective. And this is exactly what you admonish the church to do; for, if the church cannot believe the simplicity of Genesis, how then can they believe or even understand the rest of Scripture?
It has been my custom, when I hear people use that tired old line that "God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve", to say to them that a homosexual can biblically and lawfully say that God made Eve for Adam .... but Steve for me. Because, in actuality, that is exactly what happened in the Bible, as I will clearly show.First, picture the situation in the Garden. Moses says in Genesis 2 that God saw that Adam was lonely, and God said that it was not good (He did not say that Adam had no children and that therefore this was not good). We must stop right there and think of that for a second. Adam was lonely?! Here was Adam - 100% perfect and perfectly made, created in the very image of God, (as God is Father & Son & Holy Spirit, so Man is Soul & Body & Spirit); Adam was literally a living replica of God, albeit without those qualities which distinguish Man from God. Adam had the very earth and all that is upon it at his command, with God Himself as his friend who walked and talked with him.
Adam (and later Eve) was the ONLY HUMAN IN HISTORY, being without sin, who ever stood in the full glory and presence of the Godhead and who looked upon the very face of the Almighty – and yet he was lonely?
By the clear and plain literature of the text, God quite definitely said that Adam was lonely. This is a fantastic and powerful insight into understanding God Himself, I believe. If Man was made in the express image of God, being perfect, does it not therefore imply that God was lonely too? This also implies that loneliness is not an imperfection, because neither Man nor God could be lonely if loneliness is an imperfection. The Bible says that the whole purpose for why He created Man was for a mate. Is it not also written in the Torah, the Prophets and the Gospel that Mankind is the very Bride of God created for Him, that "He will have a desire to the works of His hands"? Do not the Scriptures clearly state that we are married to Christ, that there will be a "marriage supper of the Lamb" at the end of all things, that we ourselves are New Jerusalem who will come down as a bride adorned for her husband? God could not choose a mate among the angels of heaven because only His Own image could be suitable and compatible. See now the real plot and intention, brother Ham.
Before Eve's creation, and immediately after God announced that is was not good that the man should be alone, a very remarkable thing happened. It says that God presented all the animals to Adam. Then it gives a strange reason why: "...to see what he would call them." At first that doesn't seem too strange in and of itself. But haven’t you ever been curious as to why God would make such a profound announcement about Adam’s loneliness, and then suddenly seem to change his train of though by parading the animals before Adam to see what he would name them? But there is a reason why God wanted to see what Adam would call each creature immediately AFTER He said that it was not good for the man to be alone. To see if Adam would choose a mate among them. How so? Please bear with me, because I'm about to show you something that they NEVER mention in church; and you are going to see why the church is so wrong about their understanding of marriage and homosexuality and the Law. Here is the whole 3-verse incident, from Genesis 2:18-20 King James Bible,
18: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet [suitable] for him.
19: And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20: And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field:BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND AN HELP MEET FOR HIM."
Do you see what just happened? God paraded every creature before Adam, but among them there was not a creature suitable for him as a mate, to keep him from being lonely.
No animal is sufficient for Man as a compatible mate, just as no angel is suitable for God. In the immediate verses after this event, God creates Eve and brings her to Adam, and he says "This is it!!" Adam specifically stated the exact reason why Eve qualified as a mate. Not because of her genitals. Not because she had breasts. Eve qualified ONLY because "THIS IS NOW BONE OF MY BONES AND FLESH OF MY FLESH." As surely as only something made in God's own image can be suitable as a mate for God, only something made in man's own image, of man's own flesh, can be suitable for man. Man was made for God, therefore only another image of God would be suitable to Adam, the image of God. Now let's honestly ask the question. Why did God make Eve and not Steve? There is an answer, and you will see why a homosexual can biblically and lawfully say "God made Eve for Adam and Steve for me."Eve could very well have been made as a "Steve". In other words, God could have just as easily made another male instead of a female for Adam. After all, if Jesus, who is God the Creator, is undeniably a male and He chose to create ANOTHER MALE (Adam) as His mate (since the male is His image), wouldn't it make sense for Him to have given Adam another male? Indeed, males are the image of Adam AND God. Here is why the first mate ever created had to be a fe-male: Because God foreknew that Adam would sin. That's it. That's the whole reason. But here is the biblical explanation.
As you well know, BECAUSE of Adam's sin and subsequent fall, he brought death into the world. Therefore, to maintain the human race, children would have to be born. Paul expressly uses this example in Hebrews to explain why Jesus is an eternal priest, contrasting Him with the Levitical priesthood which passes on to other men because of death. Therefore, because of sin and death, Adam's mate would have to be pre-fashioned BEFORE the fall, by divine pre-knowledge OF the fall, to have the ability to conceive, carry and give birth to children AFTER the fall. Just as God designed animals BEFORE the Fall with thick fur to survive harsh winters, and with sharp, crushing, carnivorous teeth – all in preparation for life AFTER the Fall. The reason God didn't give Adam another male wasn't because two males together was wrong (else God making another male for Himself would be wrong – God did not make a fe-male for Himself because, as Jesus said, there is no reproduction in heaven), but He made a fe-male instead of another male for Adam because Man would have ended with Adam's death. God could not allow that to happen and chose to save His mate whom He loved and redeem him. Adam was it. God wasn't going to create a new mate for Himself from scratch, as was clear by the saving of Noah in the flood.Here is where the church fails in its understanding: Adam and Eve did not bear children until AFTER the fall, sir. Cain was their first child, and we KNOW that he was born after the fall. We also know that Adam and Eve were having sex BEFORE the fall because "making the two one" was the whole point of why God gave Eve to Adam in the first place. She wasn't some pal that hung around and kept him company. Adam had God and
all the animals (and most likely the angels too) for that. Eve was given to Adam for a unique, physically and emotionally bonding relationship. The purpose of sex was not intended for procreation, but for UNION.It was in the garden that God gave them the blessing (NOT a command, as it has been WRONGFULLY taught) to be fruitful and multiple, but it was not until after the fall that this blessing was put into effect. Can you imagine what would happen if two perfect, undying people gave birth to kids, and then they gave birth to kids, etc, and so on? The earth would get over populated because no one would die. There was no need for all those kids, anyway, because Adam and his mate were never meant to die. Children had to be born BECAUSE of sin. This is why they covered their nakedness. NOT because sex is bad or shameful in and of itself, but because the very act of sex was the very purpose for Adam's mate's existence, and now that act of sex , which was meant to unite them as one being in a holy and special way, will have to be used to bring more people into the world - BECAUSE OF SIN. Reproduction is now their SHAME. It is the very mark and sign of Adam's sin against God, imposed because of disobedience. Therefore they covered their shame as we, to this day, are commanded to keep our genitals covered for the same reason. Haven't you ever seen it written in Scripture that we are to cover ourselves "so that the shame of our nakedness be not seen"? It is the reason that we have a built-in feeling of shame to go naked before other people (at least, those people do who are not desensitized to decency). It is that shame which tells a child, once he reaches a certain age, that it is time to have mommy stop bathing him.
So God pre-planned Adam's mate to be a female - because of sin. Being female is not sin nor the cause of sin; rather, the fact that Adam's mate had to be constructed in the form of a fe-male, having the capacity to bear children, was due to Adam's FUTURE sin. If Eve wasn't a fe-male, the human race would have ended.HOWEVER, Adam and Eve's marriage CANNOT be the Man’s sole basis for determining the definition of marriage and who can participate in a marriage. For example, God only made ONE SPOUSE for Adam, yet God gave SEVERAL spouses to David, Solomon, etc. etc. AND God gave Moses a law on how to deal with multiple spouses (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
Bear in mind that only EVE was specially created - and specially created FOR ADAM. This is not so with ever other female on earth. Every single human being who came AFTER Adam and Eve is conceived, created, carried, and born in exactly the same way. Both males and females are MAN. We are ALL "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh". We all qualify as mates for one another by virtue of this fact alone, which was the same and only qualifying factor between Adam and Eve.
Furthermore, marriage and child-birthing is NOT commanded of us. We do NOT HAVE TO get married. To say that Adam and Eve are the only models for marriage would
automatically imply that we MUST get married – they did it, so we must too. But as we know, there were MANY godly persons in Scripture, such as Paul, who did NOT get married; and in fact Paul encourages people not to get married if they are able to live without a mate.
This is why I believe - or one of the reasons why I believe - it is not a sin for two males or two females to be together. A human is a human is a human. Whether you choose the male OR the female of our race, the point is that we are the SAME RACE - MAN. And even more to the point, the purpose for marriage is for UNION AND COMPANIONSHIP - not childbearing. Breeding children can be the RESULT of sex, but it is not the PURPOSE for sex. That's why it's preposterous for some people in the church to say that allowing two men to marry is similar to beastiality. None sense. We are talking about two human beings who are created in the image of God. None of us have suggested that we start marrying or having carnal knowledge with other SPECIES!There's something more to this though. Something the anti-gay folks fail to take into account when they say that being gay is a learned behavior and that they can change. First, let's give them credit that they at least understand that, yes, it is absolutely possible for a heterosexual to have sex with another of the same sex. No question there. It is true, for example, that a heterosexual man can find himself in the arms of another man because he is hurting inside, or because of loss or lack of female love, or because he needs that masculine affection he didn't get from his father or other male figures as a child and now as an adult that need for affection has translated into sex, or because he is scared of women, or because something happened to him such as molestation which opened his mind to that type of activity. Totally true. Undeniable.However, THESE types of men are NOT true homosexuals, therefore, YES, they CAN be healed of their hurts and revert to their NATURAL heterosexual drive. These were men who, whatever the reason, "LEFT the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly," Romans 1:27. These are the men who "ALSO lie with mankind AS WITH WOMANKIND," Leviticus 20:13. Only heterosexuals leave the woman for other men; only a heterosexual can ALSO lie with men as he lies with women.But how do you explain homosexuals who do not fall into any of those categories? Even concluding that someone is gay because, say, his father was distant from him, how do you explain the inherent and inner most being of a man that can look at an attractive male and be totally aroused by him and totally UNaroused at the sight of a beautiful female. How do you explain the feeling that says inside that everything about masculinity and the male is attractive in an emotional, romantic and physical sense but NOTHING of femininity and the female is so attractive? How do you explain a homosexual’s repultion of the mere thought of sexual contact with a female in the same way that a heterosexual man is repulsed by the thought of sexual contact with another male? These are NOT learned behaviors. These are inherent sexual identities.
Why does everyone seem so determined to separate our sexuality from being a part of the rest of our identity? Certainly heterosexuals conclude that their heterosexuality is part of their identity and they would insist that they were born straight. I don't know many heterosexuals who say that heterosexuality is a learned behavior or the cause of environmentals! They simply KNEW what was right for them. If it were as simple as environmentals (which it is not) then you COULD say that sexuality is a choice. You can force a left handed person to use his right hand, but he will ALWAYS be left handed and he will ALWAYS think with the right side of his brain. Likewise, you can force a homosexual to lay with women, but you can never force his identity to cease to desire a mate of the same sex – unless you use some form of self-loathing brainwashing techniques, as many "ex-gay ministries" do, such as the EXODUS ministry. There is a feminine aura about a female, which attracts heterosexuals. It is the same for homosexuals (well, in the reverse). The point is that no two people are alike, therefore no two people are attracted to the same thing, and it is foolishness to assume otherwise. All mankind is flesh of Adam’s flesh and bone of his bones and are therefore qualified to mate. God has made of ONE BLOOD all men for to dwell upon the earth. When it comes to any two consenting non-related adult human beings, there is NO BIBLICAL LAW which prohibits their union. And as it is written, Where there is no law, there is no sin. We would agree that fornication is sin, but simply because communities throughout history have forced homosexuals to live in fornication without the natural right to marry, simply because communities throughout the world have arrested, segregated, tortured, burned, and murdered and executed homosexuals, is not valid proof that homosexual identity is wrong. The same rejection has been given to the Jews and Blacks and Aborigines and most minorities in one way or another since day one. That is called BIAS & BIGOTRY; it is not holy, it is not biblical, and it is not right.
I ask you to reconsider your stand on this issue, brother Ham. Genesis is clear: bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh – not types of genitals – qualifies a marriage.
With warm regards and continued support,
Rev. James D. Cunningham