I received many responses to last week’s article, Marriage Survives! Can it Endure? Some revealed the very problem I was addressing: the next generation, including many Christians, are either confused or compromised on the issue of homosexuality and, by implication, biblical authority.
One young college student wrote:
I have been a Christian all my life. I am ashamed at the way you put down homosexuals. You should educate yourself about the culture you are attacking. If Jesus was as exclusive as you how would the Gospel message have been spread? Love all God's children and learn something about a social group before you attack all of them as immoral sex freaks. Closed minded Christians like yourself are what is pushing us youth away from the church in the first place. Shame on you!
After several lengthy e-mails back and forth, this central theme emerged:
I think a lot of what this argument boils down to is our interpretations of Scripture. It seems to me that you are arguing that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. Now I am no minister, and I’m sure you could provide more examples, but as far as I know the only book in the entire Bible that EXPLICITLY describes homosexuality as a sin is the Book of Leviticus. It seems that all your other scriptural evidence comes from verses concerning heterosexual marriage, to which you are reading in condemnations of homosexuality. The point here is that you seem to interpret the Bible very literally. But if you adhere to the Law as defined in the Old Testament then shouldn’t all Christians be kosher? Should we all stop eating pork, wearing clothes with more than one fabric, etc.? So if Christians can in fact break the Law of Moses then by what authority do you condemn homosexuality? Isn’t it the Law of Moses that gives you your position on homosexuality?
He continues:
Finally, here is my biggest problem with your position. You act as though your opinion of scripture is God’s. … Is your notion of truth not based on your own interpretation of scripture? And aren’t you a human? And if those two things are true, then isn’t your interpretation of scripture subject to the flaw that marks all humans? … A certain aspect of Christianity is left to mystery because none of us can ever fully understand God. Thus we are left to make the best decisions with what information we have. We are all unique so our decisions will be different, that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. ONLY GOD gets to decide that. And you sir, are not God.
The following is a portion of my response:
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you have responded (despite your occasional jabs). You have obviously thought deeply about this and I think we, as Christians, should consider these matters carefully. Also, Christian love compels us to reason together when we disagree in a way that does not undermine the unity we share in Christ. Clearly we are dealing with a complex issue that ultimately involves people who are precious to God. So I am in no way offering a reproach to those people living the homosexual lifestyle; I am instead addressing the behavior and testing—against Scripture—the proposition: is it morally right or wrong? This is, after all, our final authority for such determinations.
That being the case, it is not fair to simply reduce our disagreement to the matter of interpretation. To do so, comes perilously close to the deconstructive approach to reading put forth by Jacques Derrida. While there is some truth to the postmodern claim that interpretations necessarily vary, it is incorrect to assume that because of this condition there is no possibility for ever discovering the truth. The truth is not found in interpretation but rather in the meaning of the text itself as established by the author. The proper approach to biblical interpretation is one in which the whole of Scripture is considered and what the Scriptures reveal to us about God and his moral character. In this way we are given a clearer picture. Certainly not complete in some cases, but neither incomplete in every instance. Continue >>
RSS
Haw, Exodus promises the impossible and lies about their outcomes so people like yourself will buy into them hook line and sinker. Believer, fact of the matter is, these men wanted to rape, not to have a loving relationship, so you're trying to compare very different sexual acts.
mike22685, rape is about power period, it doesn't matter the sex of the rapist or the victim, same sex or opposite sex, old or young. So if rape was their only motive they would have had a heyday with Lot's virgin daughters.
Mike,
You can believe what you want as God has created us with the freedom to choose and due to our natural sinful nature we are all deserving of hell for our sinful choices. But by his grace we are saved through faith in his Son along and with our repentence. If we truly love Him then we will do all He has commanded; acknowledge sin and turn away from it. He has told us that homosexual behavior is sinful both in the OT and NT. There is no getting around that. Exodus International offers a loving and effective environment to escape the world's lies of homosexuality.
CKS, I say the same about your interpretation. Sex over another man was seen as a sign of power, which is why many philosophers took in young boys. My partner and I have a loving, beautiful relationship which is based on devotion, trust, and mutual, consensual intimacy. Believe what you wish, I shall do the same.
Mike22685
Where did you hear that? So why didn't the men want to rape Lot's virgin daughters when offered...if it was about rape & not homosexuality? Believe what you want, but that sounds like bad interpritation.
mike22685, but if your loving intimacy includes sex, then in the sight of God it is sin.
It makes no sense that God identifies immorality in Lev as pagan, defilement, perversion, etc, and then gives these practices a pass in the NT. Romans and 1 Cor still treats sexual immorality as sinful.
Leviticus is the book of worship sacrifice, ceremony, ritual, liturgy, instructions, washings, convocations, holy days, observances, conditions, and warnings crowd this book. Ch18-19 are applications of the commandments which do carry over to the NT. Ch 20 was modified with the new covenanct of Christ. â
Right. There is a huge, HUGE difference between rape and the loving intimacy my partner and I share. One is about power and instant gratification, the other is about love and building a relationship.
mike22685, in your opinion Sodom and Gommorah was not about the sinful sexual practices of homosexuality.
CK, wrong, b/c Sodom was not about homosexuality. It was about rape and inhospitality, neither of which would be seen in my partner's and my relationship.
Jesus referred to those in Sodom & Gemorrah as examples of them that will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. A quick reading of that OT story verifies how Jesus feels about homosexuality.
Forgiven, and not only are they aligned to God's teachings from the beginning, many of them are restated in the New Testament and some by Christ Himself such as God's original and only design for marriage.
Hey, Mike - don't fall off your seat....
I agree that the Laws of Leviticus are made void, but some of the laws that aligned with God's law from the beginning carries into the our new covenant made by and through His Son. God's law is everlasting, does not change.
Well he holds onto Leviticus without looking into the context of it. Funny that not one Christian follows any of the other laws set out in Lev (not shaving your sideburns, not planting more than 1 seed in a field, not eating meat with blood in it) but they hold onto "thou shalt not lie with man as with woman" from it. It just seems silly and illogical to me.
Pagan rituals and orgies, got it. (from another post)
Thanks again for the challenge.
Mike22685 wrote: "...Craven holds on to the one verse out of all of them that bans homosexuality without looking into the history of it."
What would this history be?
S. Michael Craven is a closet case himself. He is obsessed with condemning what he calls the gay "lifestyle" which I am not sure what that is yet. This young man was right. Leviticus is absurd, yet Craven holds on to the one verse out of all of them that bans homosexuality without looking into the history of it. I think he is truly a sick person.