Sometimes I wonder if the inventors of the other LGBT brand are a tad embarrassed. They keep having to add new letters to their acronym, and the more they tack on the weaker their case looks. In simpler days when it was merely an “L” and a “G,” their position seemed stronger because all they had to persuade us of was that some people are born with a hard-wired romantic orientation to the same sex. We were given assurances that if we granted “L” and “G” they would be happy and leave us alone, having achieved total self-actualization and a redressing of offenses against their long-aggrieved identities.
Then “B” came along, and they had to fairly sneak it in when no one was looking, because claiming that you have an orientation that goes both ways sounds a lot like saying you just like to fool around and you don’t care who with. Suddenly we are plunged from the high-minded early visions of ineluctable destiny to the shameful little man behind the curtain who used to cause knee-knocking with his smoke-and-mirror routine. There is a huge gap between campaigning on a manifest biological imperative (early “G” and “L”) and the later ravenous clamor for the right to anything-goes (“B”).Peterson continues:
Nevertheless, “T” followed without fanfare, like a bill sneaked through Congress on a Friday afternoon, and I always have trouble remembering the new additions, which are (a quick online search tutors me) LGBTQQIAP. I personally do not agree that the canon is closed with these nine unholy fruits of an unclean spirit, unless you let the “P” (pansexual) also cover pedophilia, and the “B” in the third slot do double duty for bestiality.
In science there is a rule known as “death by qualification.” It is the idea that a theory about something loses its cogency when it gets whittled away by too many exceptions and contrary facts and when you constantly have to tack on new explanations to try to account for inconvenient evidence (evolution theory, for instance). The LGBTQQIAP movement will soon need a wheelbarrow for its alphabet. What started as a self-styled civil rights movement in the grand old tradition of social gains for African-Americans and women has metastasized into a free-for-all with no common denominator but the uninhibited acting out of all impulses and no cohesive agenda but the agenda to rebel against God in any way conceivable.I like Peterson's idea that we reclaim “LGBT” for Christian purposes: “Let God Be True though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:4).
As for me, I will stick to plain old LGBT, “Let God be true though every one were a liar.” And what God says that’s true, and what some are liars about, is that when a nation doesn’t consider the knowledge of Him worthwhile, He gives “them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Romans 1:28). In this mental debasement, “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” (verses 26-27).
My LGBT means that even if I am the last person on earth who still believed what the Bible says about the proper use of our bodies, I will choose to believe God over every other word, theory, testimony, report, feeling, persuasive argument, and complicated theology.
I never write a word about homosexuality without thinking of several people I know and truly respect (and, what’s more, like) who are open homosexuals. But no matter how much—and precisely because—I love these friends, I will not wear the ribbon, join the cause, drink the kool-aid; because God says all sex outside heterosexual, monogamous marriage is immoral.
Why do I care enough to risk speaking publicly, to strain the friendships I have mentioned, and even to put forth arguments that could imperil my reputation and even my future job prospects? Because I want people to inherit the kingdom of God. And because, as a pastor, I see the harm sexual sin does to people even in this life.
I urge you to read Andrée Seu Peterson’s whole article and to subscribe to World magazine.