Mohler [President of Southern Baptist Seminary] sees the true church as a body comprised of believers who refuse to give ground on gay marriage. So does the Catholic Church, which has shown no willingness to change its own teachings, rooted as they often are in centuries of tradition...Interesting. The Bible mentions homosexuality or homosexual acts 7 times and each time is mentioned negatively. Despite how some egregious errors in biblical interpretation can occur by pro gay-rights "theologians," an obvious contextual reading of any of these passages places homosexual acts in a negative light. But forget that; the Catholic church holds their beliefs based on crusty, old tradition apparently. They have no legitimate reason to believe what they believe in the tenets of their faith. After all, Christians disagree on this issue (please understand my sarcasm here). And then there's this quote:
So while both men [Mohler and Roman Catholic Joseph E. Kurtz] are calling for courage and compassion among their flocks, it's not clear yet whether their message that homosexuals are sinners by definition is resonating beyond their staunchest supporters.Apparently the staunch supporters are people who actually read the Bible. I know many people claim the label "Christian," but many don't actually know, believe, or practice the tenets of the faith. I suppose the media cannot really parse that difference but I sure can. The problem with this issue involves a certain form of idolatry- one Herbert Schlossberg calls the idol of history. Allow me to elaborate:
I was watching an old episode of Law and Order:SVU last night, and the victim happened to be a homosexual person who was the son of a "bigoted" pastor, or so the show portrayed. When discussing the "unfortunate" views of the pastor, the detectives lamented his "bigotry" and his "unenlightened" position. For instance, "How could anyone in this day and age believe that someone can choose their sexual orientation?" The detective's assumption, like many today, assume that whatever is, is right. This is the idol of history. Now I won't challenge (for the time being) whether someone chooses sexual orientation or not. There's enough research to suggest a complicated answer there. But what does NOT naturally follow is that something is right whether or not someone chooses it.
I hesitate to use outlandish examples with this sensitive issue, so let me say on the front end that I'm not comparing homosexuality to any of the "sins" to be mentioned next. But, a sociopath often has a strong disposition to kill, but that doesn't make it right. "But that's the way he is," I hear the detective arguing. Or how about an alcoholic- they don't have a choice whether they'd like and be addicted to alcohol, they only have the choice whether they drink or not. Predisposition to alcohol doesn't make alcoholism right. And so the logical fallacy follows with homosexuality: even if someone had no choice of sexual orientation, it does not logically follow that it is right. I know there's a bigger problem to address then- the problem of evil. Why would God make them that way? Why would God make people with dispositions to something wrong?
The same way that we're all predisposed to do wrong, think selfishly, and act selfishly. We all have the mark of sin as a stain on our humanity. Christians call this original sin, and it affects every human.
From a human perspective, I lament the misunderstanding and fear that many Christians have for homosexuals. Indeed, the issue is vastly more complex than a simple "you are good" or "you are evil." But even in a loving, pastoral response to homosexual people, we should not fall prey to the idol of historicism. Whatever is, is not necessarily right. History is not the final adjudicator of right and wrong. God is. His moral law is. And Biblical Christians should stand up to this flagrant abuse of logic and the Bible in the church. Our public response in the political world is another issue. We have to handle our own house in a different way.
Posts
3 comments:
I think your point is to often unheard about genetic predisposition and a Christian worldview. The Bible is very clear that through the work of Christ, we are not slaves to our flesh. Last time I checked, our flesh was rooted in our genetics.
Also when people say that "well God made them this way" have a very flawed understanding of the fall. The more robust understanding of the fall and depravity would definitely allow folks to understand that many of the things in our genetic code weren't supposed to be in there. Thank God that he gave us the power over all our genetics.
My King James Bible doesn't have "homosexual" anything. That is a 1865-era word. My Bible, however, says a lot about perverted straight men forcing their jail-house sex. How does a same-gender relationship violate Jesus' blanket law of love (Mt 22:36-40)?
Raycol and Mexjewel,
First I want to thank you for posting. I don't know if you'll come back to this site or not- you may have just been perusing for blogs on this particular topic. But I appreciate that you avoided name-calling and resorted instead to arguments. That's a good principle for dialoguing with those who disagree with us, and I'm appreciative that you did so on this blog. Second, I do want to engage your arguments.
The Bible's prohibition to this activity still applies. It's important that we distinguish between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws in the OT- understanding that moral laws are universal and for all times. Civil laws are the laws that apply explicitly to the Jews during the Israelite culture, but can have application across cultures. The ceremonial laws are the laws superceded by Jesus and the NT. Therefore, when we look at the laws restricting homosexual behavior in the OT, we see that they fall in explicitly passages about timeless, moral truths. Most notably, Lev. 18 deals in the entire passage on sexual laws. Not only is homosexual activity outlawed, but so is incest, bestiality, intercourse with a neighbor, and sacrifice to foreign gods. These principles endure. We don't get to pick one and say the others still apply like adultery. Context mandates that we see these commands as universal, moral laws that still apply. If they weren't, we'd expect the NT to say something different about sexual ethics, but indeed it does not.
So that brings me to Matt. 5:27-30 and Rom. 1:24-27. The idea of "love" for all cannot be misinterpreted to understand romantic or sexual love, firstly. Indeed, Jesus condemns adultery and even adultery in the heart in Matt. 5. Yes, Jesus condemns certain behaviors. Jesus condemns all sexual behavior outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage in this statement. Furthermore, Paul places his discussion in the middle of a larger discussion on the fact that general revelation condemns all people of wicked behavior. As an example, he discusses sexual immorality. Sexual immorality in general is condemned as against the order of creation (Rom. 1:24-25). Then, further outlining an aspect of sexual immorality, Paul condemns what he calls women having unnatural relations with women and men with men. Considering that this is a passage about general revelation and the wickedness of humanity in general, nothing in Paul's claims gets to be muted by the background culture. Homosexual acts are universally wrong for all cultures at all times. The NT follows the pattern of the OT, and so we have a consistent interpretative principle at work that must still be applied today. Homosexuals should be welcomed in the church, but they should not be welcomed as pastors, priests, or bishops.
Post a Comment