The Third Great Covenant: GodaEUR(tm)s Gay Promises

By Thomas Krahn

In the Bible, there are three great covenants: (1) the Jewish covenant given first to Abraham and defined by Moses, (2) the Christian covenant given to his straight disciples by Jesus, (3) the gay covenant given to us gay people by the prophet Isaiah some five hundred years before Jesus was born.

In the Third Great Covenant, I discuss the three promises given to us and show how Jesus, son of God, was the supreme fulfilment of the gay covenant.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Dec 12, 2023
• ISBN: 9798887512365

Book preview

cover.jpg

The Third Great Covenant

GodaEUR(tm)s Gay Promises

Thomas Krahn

ISBN 979-8-88751-235-8 (paperback)

ISBN 979-8-88751-236-5 (digital)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Krahn

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Christian Faith Publishing

832 Park Avenue

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

1

Introduction

2

The Prelude: The Gay Person Has to Change His Way of Thinking

3

The First Proviso: Keeping the Sabbaths

Keeping the Sabbaths

4

The Second Proviso: Choose the Things That Please Him

Choose the Things That Please Him

5

The Third Proviso: Take Hold of His Covenant

Take Hold of His Covenant

6

The First Promise: Place and Name in His Walls

7

The Second Promise: A Name Greater than of Sons and of Daughters

A Name Greater than of Sons and of Daughters

About the Author

To my late husband, William Barr, inventor of the Barr pedal board for organ

The greatest lie ever told is the truth that is never spoken!

—The Great Gay Commission

Neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree.

For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and chose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better that of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

—Isaiah 54:3c, 4, and 5

God,

Grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

—Reinholdt Neibuhr

1

Introduction

In science, there has been a tendency to equate man with animal and to marginalize the difference between the two. Yes, in a certain respect, man is an animal: he has a physical body built upon certain physical principles. He is the highest in the food chain. He has muscles, sinews, heart, lungs, and other organs, much as all the other higher primates have. And as all other primates, his body is susceptible to evolutionary forces.

But man is more than that. He is the only animal of any species that has ever walked the Earth to have the art of articulate speech. And from that articulate speech came writing. Man is the only animal that can write his own name in the sands of time. And from that sharing of information, man realized that he is something greater than what surrounds him. He has a spirit, something that forever separates him from the rest of the animals—the lower life forms, if you will.

Man is also more than the bread he eats. He is more than the mere random collection of atoms and molecules that he is composed of. He can stretch forth his hand and spread his fingers and wonder in awe as he examines his own hand. Not only does he recognize his own hand for the practical functions he can perform with it; he can also grasp the intangible concept of the hand itself. When he looks at himself in the mirror, he knows there is more to him than what he sees. He does not need to be told. He inherently knows he has a soul. He senses he is part of larger whole. To the caveman, the larger whole was the tribe to which he belonged. It was his immediate environment with good and bad spirits in everything that surrounded him.

He could not explain why the bears hibernated. So they became his gods. He could not understand how the eagles flew. So they became his gods. He could not understand the seasons, so in time, they became his gods.

Man had to look beyond himself. He knew that that was not the end of all spirits. He knew that there was a greater spirit, a more powerful force propelling everything in the universe. He also knew that that same force was within himself. But how could he connect with the force within himself? How could he connect that force with the force that flowed all around him?

He knew the force existed. He could see the ebb and flow of life around him, from the budding of the trees every springtime to the last leaves that fell in the fall. But what was it? He could not explain the desire within him. All he knew was that here was a longing to connect, not only physically but spiritually with the greater spirit.

Man had become conscious of his own spirituality. Deep within him, he began to realize that his existence meant more than just eating, sleeping, and procreating. There had to be more than mere existence. Else, why would he have articulate speech? Why could he have the ability to grasp the concept of being?

There was more than mere existence. He intuitively knew there had to be more. But where could he turn for answers?

Who was there to tell him of the wondrousness of his soul? How would he have the answers? Surely, there must be someone who could divulge the truth to make sense of all that man saw around himself. There had to be more than mere happenstance to all that he saw. And so, to find these answers, man appointed some from his tribe to try and find out what those answers were. These were men who seemed to have some kind of special qualities that set them apart from the rest of the others.

Eventually, they came to be called priests. And it was up to them to try and provide some kind of answers as to why man was here and what was his fate after death. Even very early caveman discovered that he was different from the animals around him: he had a soul. He sensed also that there was some kind of existence beyond the grave. That is why he turned to the priests for answers. And the priests turned their spirituality into religion, seeking to obtain those answers through rituals and rites.

But rituals and rites weren't the answer. So God had to send special people to intervene for these men who would give God's answers to mankind when mankind was ready to receive them. Yet even then, some men rebelled against the truths that God had revealed. They wanted to go their own way, to use their own frail human wisdom.

But how can human man define infinity? How can he even begin to get a grasp of eternity? He is locked into his little existence here on Earth, routinely following the passing of the years. He calls seventy years old. Yet what is seventy years when compared to eternity. It is nothing! Not even a pittance!

To face this, man must have faith in the hereafter. He must believe in something greater than himself that will live beyond what he alone can do. If not, then all of his human existence is hollow and meaningless.

To find meaning in his life, he must turn to religion. Within its truths—no matter what religion he believes in—he can find solace and comfort. His life takes on meaning and raises him above his animal origins. And so he will cling to it, cherish it, and defend it when he feels that it is threatened.

But what is religion? Are there any definitions that can give us a base from which to work? Let us then attempt to define certain terms.

We will define spirituality as the relationship between a man and his higher power—whoever or whatever that higher power may be. Can an atheist have a higher power since he does not believe in a god? Yes, he can. His higher power might be his neighborhood or his community, his clubs, or his associations. It can be anything greater than himself that he feels personally attached to.

Very well then, if that is spirituality, then what is the definition of religion? Religion is the routine and systematic practice of a man's spirituality. Therefore, there can exist a man who is very spiritual yet not religious at all. And on the reverse side, there can be men who are very religious yet are completely devoid of spirituality. The one does not necessarily include the other.

Religion should seek to elevate man beyond what he himself could possibly achieve. This is a beautiful and noble ambition. But religion has one failing. Over time, it can become ritualized to the point when it has ossified. Then it becomes dangerous. Human society is constantly changing, and its religions must change also. Even it is susceptible to the survival of the fittest. It is called the progress of doctrine. The evolving makes the religions viable to its present believers and remains precious to them. It is when the progress is halted that the belief system fails to minister to its congregations and becomes an entity unto itself. It then lives for only one thing: to perpetuate itself at the cost of everything else.

We feel this is not healthy.

Yet others may come along and criticize us, saying that since God is ever constant and unchanging, our religion should be that way also. To that we answer: if we knew all about God our religion would be unchanging. But we don't, and it isn't.

The best we can do is to try and reason up to God. We cannot even hope to reason the other way around. To even try would be sheer folly. Therefore, as man's society changes, we must revamp our reasoning to reflect that change.

Does that mean that God has changed?

No!

It does mean, however, that we are now able to accept more of the truth that God wants to reveal to us. And sometimes that can be very painful. For example, Christianity over the two thousand years of its existence has become more and more heterosexual/breeder oriented to the exclusion of everything else. It has become obsessed with the idea that the only legitimate excuse for human sexual response is that of breeding the species. It has gone so far as to condemn as heretics anyone who would disagree with them. And when Christianity had the power to do so, it gladly burned to death at the stake anyone that would fall into that category.

Another problem the Church has not faced is that it has become more and more Earth-bound. It has failed to take into consideration the fact that sooner or later, mankind was going to learn how to fly into outer space. So it has set up rules and doctrines that only Earth-bound human beings could follow. For example, the Roman Catholic Church believes that unless a person is buried in holy ground, his soul will wander for eternity. Now just where in space could holy ground be found? There isn't any. Period!

Consider also the Church's insistence that only it can administer the sacraments. Where in space can a priest be found if a couple wishes to marry? Or take communion? Or receive the last rites? Nowhere that we know of.

Now lest Protestantism sit and gloat. It, too, is in a very undesirable position. According to its tenets, Jesus is supposed to come back and resurrect His followers from off the face of the Earth. All well and good. We find nothing to argue with about that. But there arises a problem: When the resurrection is occurring on Earth, does it also include the colony on Mars? And what about the space station? Are they to be considered part of the Earth, or will their resurrection be at another time and place?

From where we stand, we can only conclude that the heterosexual Church has locked itself into self-destruction. The way the churches are now constructed, there can be only one end: total collapse. Oh, the buildings will still be there all right and the statuary and the artwork. But when the bell rings for mass, no one will show up. The only people who will be there will be tourists with their guidebooks in hand, looking at the relics of the ancient religion, much as we do today when we tour Karnac or Balbadour.

Surely, there must be some who can see what must happen. We can't believe we are the only ones gifted with this knowledge. But where are they? Has the Church so intimidated them that they dare not to speak out? If that is the case, then they will die when the Church dies. And no one will mourn their loss. Yet it need not be this way.

There is hope!

The solution lies within gay theology. It is truly a liberating theology. Many people believe that there isn't such a thing as gay theology. They are still under the mistaken impression that gay is condemned in the Bible. As we shall discuss shortly, it is not. In fact, we Christians claim as our victory (!) the very verses that are believed to condemn us. They are not verses of condemnation, but rather of qualification. And as every athlete knows, if he qualifies for the athletic competition, he is hardly disqualified.

But someone may ask then, If this is the case, why hasn't gay theology been known about before this? A very good question and one that we feel must be addressed. The reason gay theology has not been heard of before is twofold. First, it is a complete and self-contained theology in and of itself. There is only one crossover point and that is in David's definition of the difference between heterosexual and gay. Secondly, the Church has—under penalty of death—virulently pursued the doctrine of heterosexuality, demanding that everyone believe that there is only one way of life: heterosexuality. Given conditions like this, even if gay people did know about gay theology, who would risk being burned alive at the stake to bring it forth?

So for hundreds of years, gay theology has been conveniently overlooked, silently passed by, or more often, openly damned. It has come to pass that heterosexual mentality has taken over and ruled supreme, promoting its doctrine of heterosexualism. Who could possible refute the rightness of the heterosexual lifestyle? And if it is right, then it must right for everyone. How could anyone doubt that simple truth? So then, there it is! All neatly wrapped up in one complete package. Since everyone knew in advance that all sex was to be used for procreation anything that was used in a nonproductive way was not sex and was condemned as being unnatural. Unnatural, that is, until someone walked out into the fields and woods and actually observed the animals.

But even when they did, it did them no good. For either they saw what the Church told them to see, or again, they were in big trouble. So they saw what they were told to see and nothing else. That way, there was no problem with the Church.

So the gay lifestyle even in nature was deliberately ignored because of the Church's influence. But why would the Church even care about the divergence of the gay lifestyle in the first place?

The answer is the lust for earthly power.

Pope Urban II not only deliberately misinterpreted several portions of Scripture but threatened those who disagreed with him with burning at the stake for heresy. How would misinterpreting Scripture lead to a grab for earthly power?

Actually, the condemning of gay life was only a part of the bigger picture. Urban II was intent on making the Church a worldly power. To do this, he had to make as much of the life of the people flow through the Church as possible. Hence, it was he who promoted the idea of the seven sacraments as well as the idea that sex was for procreation only. Whether it was or not really didn't concern him so much. He relied on the supposedly self-evidence of the statement for its own proof. Therefore, no further proof was needed.

By demanding the acceptance of that axiom as truth, he accomplished three things. First, he guaranteed that there would always be another generation ready and willing to provide food and money for the Church. Second, there would always be a fresh supply of human beings for the priesthood, convents, or monasteries. And finally, there would always be men for the pope's armies.

Of course, the gay lifestyle completely upset his plans. That is why he had to try everything in his power to quash it and quash it completely.

The Church, for almost eleven hundred years before this, had not only condoned gay lifestyles and gay marriages, but had its gay saints and gay liturgies as well. To displace it was not going to be easy. The first thing he had to do was to reinterpret the Scripture in a way that openly supported his way of thinking. And as is always the case, there are those who would blindly follow the leader, even some of the theologians. But with apparently no qualms of conscience, they blithely rewrote so much of the Scripture by misinterpreting it that when Thomas Aquinas came along the stage had already been well set. And he, willingly and ably, wrote the drama of condemnation, The Divine Comedy, that has continually played on that stage of western consciousness until now.

Basically the Church has fostered the doctrine of heteroism. What this boils down to is a belief that everything—everything!—is heterosexual and that anything that isn't just doesn't exist. This attitude, of course, would foster the idea that everything must run through the Church.

It is truly amazing to think of just how far the Church has caused this doctrine of heteroism to prevail. For example, watch all the programs on nature on TV. Always, it will show the heterosexual members of any specie trying to get a mate to procreate the race. Yet never will it show the gay members of the same specie mating with each other. But rest assured in every specie, there is the gay element. This is a fact of life that the Church cannot deny. But by completely ignoring it, they are denying even the acknowledgment that the gay life exists. Their influence has been so strong over the hundreds of years it has been promulgating this doctrine that by now, it has become firmly entrenched and will take decades to just begin to change it.

It is also amazing what length the Church has already gone to stop this change. First, they have had to change the whole way of thinking about gay relationships. They have managed to change it from a divine institution to an abomination. Before they started on it, a gay marriage was thought to be divine, rising above the materialistic and mammalian world and being next to God. The Church pulled that down and trampled it under foot, declaring that it was not animal-like and therefore couldn't possible reflect anything but evil intentions. In other words, they took it out of the hands of God and put it in the hands of Satan.

Secondly, they had to punish all those who did not agree with them because there were voices raised in dissent. And how did they do that? By misusing their spiritual power and turning it into an instrument of terror and suspicion. The Inquisition comes readily to mind as at least one example. And it did its work very well. It actually got men to thinking that if they did have feelings toward one another, they should, if they were good Catholics, lay down among the faggots and allow themselves to be burned to death when the Church executed a heretic by burning him at the stake.

Thank goodness they can't do that today. There are still churches which somehow think it's their duty to verbally assault the gay person. A prime example that is the Roman Catholic Church. They have left no objectionable adjective unused in its attempt to castigate the gay person. From calling him intrinsically disoriented to being a downright abomination, it has sought to discredit him. The ironic thing is that all this vitriolic verbiage has come from men who admittedly have no sex drive and have given up any attempt at interpersonal and/or love relationships. Very much akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Or is it more a case of sour grapes? We tend to think it's a toss-up at this point on which cliché to use.

Whichever cliché is used, the problem still stands out very clear. How is the heterosexual Church to handle its gay congregation? Many churches have dropped the acidic name-calling and lapsed into a lethargic if you ignore them they'll just go away syndrome, only to discover that that won't work.

They are right in one respect, however. Gay spirituality is very different from heterosexual spirituality. When Adam and Woman violated the prime directive—tend the garden, walk and talk with God in the evening, and do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—they were driven out of Eden and denied access to the tree of eternal life. Death then became a reality. That is when God forced Woman's womb open so that she could conceive. Else the human race would have died off. From there on, the heterosexual lifestyle has been geared to reproducing the race. But heterosexualism wasn't originally designed to do that. Adam and Woman had corrupted their own sexuality.

That is why God has given the mandate to us gay people. We must now tend the garden, walk and talk with God in the evening, and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so to speak. We must do it because the heterosexuals are far too busy just seeing that the human race survives. When there is such a disparity as this, there is going to be a lot of resentment and distrust between the two factions.

Lately, there have been several denominations that have attempted to reach out to the gay community, calling themselves gay-affirming churches. But just how gay-affirming can they be when they know absolutely nothing about gay spirituality? They assume that all Christian spirituality—or Jewish spirituality also, for that matter—is heterosexual in nature. So what can they offer, even in good conscience, to the gay believer? A confirmation of what they consider to be an adulterous lifestyle? What kind of sense does that make? On the other hand, their own heterosexuality is condemned by Jesus, but that doesn't seem to perturb them one bit. It is a predicament.

They are as St. Paul said, zealous but without knowledge. Simplicity can only be made to work for so long. Then whether anyone likes it or not, the complications will