It's always amusing to me when people try to argue that the Bible is okay with homosexuality. It's mostly amusing because they start with a head nod toward the Bible, right? I mean, why would they care what the Bible says? Apparently it matters. But it's more amusing when they roll out such horrendous arguments. Huffington Post had an article some time ago giving "the best case for the Bible not to condemn homosexuality." Their argument, primarily, was "love." Love and condemnation are antithetical. It only follows, then, that if you love, there is no room for condemnation (and, oh, by the way, justice). Love excludes condemnation. You know, like when Jesus clarified such sins as adultery, murder, etc. That was His "inner hater" showing through. Not the best argument after all, I guess. Are there any more? Sure.
Jesus never said anything about it, so he was in favor.
This is what is known as an argument from silence. "Jesus never said" is used to assume that Jesus was in favor. A horrible argument. Jesus never said, "You should cook bread with little rocks sprinkled in the dough to keep your teeth clean and sharp." He must have been in favor. Jesus never said, "It is a sin to take a baby out to the barbeque and cook it for a good family meal." He must have been in favor. So, seriously, why didn't Jesus say anything about it? Well, the Jews (Jesus's primary audience) had Scripture, and their Scripture said, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22). Let's see, two men who lie with each other as a man might lie with a woman, eh? What do you suppose that is? I'll tell you what it is. It's clear. Jesus never said anything about it because it was clear. There was no one in Jesus's day crying out for gay rights, so He didn't address it. And He did uphold Scripture (Matt 5:18). Not hard to see. But, look, if you wanted to draw a conclusion from His silence on the subject, I think it had to be that He approved the common belief that homosexual behavior was a sin. Why? Well, He wasn't shy about addressing error in His culture. He wasn't reticent about speaking out boldly. If His current culture opposed homosexual behavior and denied homosexual marriage, why didn't He speak up? Why did He speak of marriage as between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-6)? Why did He concur that sex outside of marriage was sin? No, an argument from silence is poor logic, but if you feel the need to use it, you will quickly see that His silence on the subject confirms His opposition to it.
The word, homosexual, doesn't appear in the Bible.
Another argument from silence. It's a funny thing, too. The word does not appear in the Bible. But, in fact, not one, single English word appears in the Bible. It was written in Hebrew and Greek, so of course it doesn't. So how do we end up with any English words? We translate. "But it's not in the King James." They're right. That, again, would have been an impossibility since the word wasn't invented until the late 19th century. So it's absence in the original or in translations prior to the 20th century is expected. Of course, then, there is a follow on ...
The word, homosexual, in today's Bible is a mistranslation.
"There was an error in translation," they say. "The word never appeared in the Bible until the Revised Standard Version in 1946 translated the terms 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' in 1 Cor 6:9-10 as 'homosexuals'." Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water, either. First, the word didn't exist until the late 19th century, so no prior translation would have used it. Beyond that, it is pretty clear exactly what the original meant. There is an archive called the glbtq Encyclopedia Project -- an encyclopedia written by and for the LGBT community. In that archive, there is a piece on St. Paul. They argue that the term, "arsenokoitai," is the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22 coined by the Jews. They argue that Paul clearly forbade homosexual sex. They say, "The dependence of Paul's arsenokoitai on the Levitical arsenos koitén demonstrates unequivocally its source and confirms his intended meaning." They conclude, "The bad news from the Christian Bible is that it condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts without qualification of age, gender, role, status, consent, or membership in an ethnic community." (That, dear reader, is what is called "evidence from a hostile witness.") No, no, it is clear that the original texts meant it and the latest translations that incorporate the latest language get it right.
Jesus told someone to come out of the closet.
You know how they laid claim of "Homosexual is not in the Bible"? Well then they turn around and say, "Jesus was in favor of gay." "Oh," you reasonably query, "how so?" So they point to the story of Lazarus (the one whom Jesus loved ... get it?) who died. When Jesus arrived, what did He say at the tomb? "Lazarus, come out." Well, there it is. He told Lazarus to "come out," which, as we all know, is a reference to gay people "coming out of the closet." So they reject the argument that homosexual is in the Bible even though the word didn't exist until the late 19th century, but they're pretty sure that "come out," which didn't mean what they mean until the 1930's, meant exactly that in Jesus's day. Now, you have to admit, that hurts the brain.
The Bible does forbid coercive sex and pederasty (sex between man and boy), but not in a loving relationship.
This one isn't as totally outlandish (on the face of it) as the previous ones. That, I suppose, is why it's more popular. It's just as wrong, but that doesn't matter, right? So, here's how it goes. They say that the Leviticus passages and the New Testament passages are not about loving homosexual relationships, but about abuse, rape, coersion, that sort of thing. If they admit that the Sodom and Gomorrah story (Gen 19:4-19) is about homosexual behavior (it is), they say it's about coercive behavior. (So they play both ends toward the middle.) That's primarily because, they say, that the Bible never envisioned today's loving same-sex relationships. And, after all, if the Bible is all about love, how could it not embrace same-sex love? Now, if you review the texts that talk about same-sex sexual interactions, there isn't a hint of this present. The Leviticus passages say, "If a man lies with another male in the same way as they would with a female ..." That's about coercion? What does that say about normal sexual mores in Israel back then? No, the text does not suggest anything other than normal male-female sex in comparison to what these men are doing with other men. "But," they counter, "that word, zâkâr, translated 'man', is also the word for 'child'." They will likely harken back to old German translations, untainted by the Reformation in general and American Christianity in particular. One of the earliest translations of the Old Testament is the Septuagint (300 to 200 BC), translating Hebrew into Greek. In the Septuagint, the word used is "arsenos" which is "man," not "child." Is that far enough in advance of the Reformation or American Christianity? This is a special dance done, hoping to mislead us into believing that we're wrong about Leviticus. That, of course, will lead us to ask, "What other parts of the Bible are falsified?" Which will lead us to conclude that the Bibles we have are not reliable.
At the end, then, we have this entire undergirding to consider. First, is the Bible reliable? The arguments against a biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior, while seemingly being supportive of the Bible, undermine it. "If I can't trust these texts, what else can't I trust?" But here's what the Bible tells us. Scriptures are not our work; they're God's work. They are "God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). They have the authority of God behind them. Not only that, but they have the exact content that God intended, as given by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:20-21). If God doesn't make mistakes, the Bible cannot be mistaken. But that's not all. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His people into all truth (John 16:13). That means that we don't only have the written text; we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, if God is reliable, He has seen to it that we have had the truth all along. Since believers from before Christ and since have always understood the existing texts in both Old and New Testaments to prohibit homosexual behavior, we run up against this wall. Either God is not right and Jesus failed and the Holy Spirit didn't do His job, or what was believed from the days of Leviticus all the way through the 20th century regarding homosexual behavior -- that it was sin -- is still true. No amount of re-translating or wordly philosophy can change that. It is arrogant to suggest otherwise. "Well, they all had it wrong for all that time, but we figured it out." That, I think, is just as absurd as those arguments above. God, I believe, is fully reliable and fully capable and I will trust Him over them any day.
11 comments:
This needs to also be a warning to all Christians about faithful study of Scripture. We need to always be questioning ourselves when we study. Are we reading our hopes and desires into Scripture so that it approves of what we want to do, or disapproves of what we want others not to do? We need to be sure that we are letting Scripture say what it is clearly saying, and not try to adjust it to say what we want it to say. We all need to be wary of this tendency in ourselves.
I have heard all the arguments for acceptance of homosexual behavior/relationships that you discussed today (including the silly one that Jesus told Lazarus to “come out”). It is helpful to see a good refutation to all of them all together here. To me, it is very revealing that proponents of homosexual behavior/relationships appeal to the Bible at all (albeit unsuccessfully) in an attempt to support their position. Why would they feel compelled to do that--unless they knew in their hearts that God’s ruling on this issue matters? Why do they even care what we “Bible thumpers” say about the issue--unless they know deep down that God’s Word condemns them and their way of thinking? In any event, like you, Stan, I will take God at His Word--being grateful that He has clearly warned us about many such perilous and unacceptable practices.
To Lorna, in your question of why do some homosexuals even want to appeal to the bible at all?
I have run across quite a few people that seem to be believers in Jesus and the Bible. There are quite a few churches here that welcome the lifestyle. So, they bend and manipulate what is says, just like what Stan wrote. If they can deceive themselves and be with others that think the way they do, then they can continue living in their sins. Not thinking they are sinning. It's easy to fool ourselves, no matter the sins.
Good point, Leigh, about the “churches” where compromisers have found refuge and acceptance (if not truth). Clearly there are many who love their sin, yet desire God’s approval, and are fooled to believe they can have both, as you say. To me, it would seem easier on their consciences to reject the existence (or at least the authority) of God outright; many do, of course, but the ones who strive to hold both conflicting “loves”--i.e. even try to be “religious” at all while sinning so openly and proudly--really baffle me.
We were warned that there would be those that went out from us that we would know they were never of us and that eventually the man of lawlessness would return to sit in the temple of God. (I know I'm combining different authors and references :)
Based on what I've seen, the path to churches welcoming homosexuals almost always starts when the child or friend of the pastor "comes out", and the pastor is unable to call sin what it is because of their relationship to the person who's "come out". They immediately default to "Bob is such a wonderful Christian guy, there's no way that Bob could be engaging in sin because of who he loves.". Which probably says a lot more about the theology of sin in the church than anything else.
I appreciate Stan's reference to the LGBTQ Encyclopedia Project, I've seen that elsewhere but couldn't remember where.
Craig, they call that "relative" morality. Where your morality changes by your relatives.
It is puzzling to me when people who consider themselves believers alter their beliefs because circumstances (like "my son (or daughter) came out as gay") change. When did timeless truths become dependent on individual circumstances? Do we say, for instance, "Murder is wrong ... except when my son (or daughter) does it"? Largely, I suspect, a product of today's "truth is whatever you say it is" attitude.
Stan and David,
Good points. I think that in this case, these pastors see this sin as "victimless". I also suspect that they have a sense of disillusionment. They just know that their friend/family member was a good Christian and how can this one little change negate what they were sure of.
I watched this very thing destroy at least one church, and send lots of people on a journey away from Biblical faith.
I’ve had that same thought, Stan. Veering from God’s standards to adjust to personal circumstances is a slippery slope, of course, as defiant sinful behavior becomes more acceptable in our society. We’ve probably all heard the saying, “A church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners.” It strikes me that people enter hospitals to hopefully get well; they need curative treatment for their illness--not encouragement to “embrace” and “celebrate” it with pride. Churches should prescribe the “cure” to sinners--not contribute to their demise instead.
And if it’s not because of a family member or close friend coming out, as Craig says, it’s the “pastors” themselves. We are probably all aware of gay ministers who actively seek to head up “churches,” where they then pretend to serve God and their congregation while openly defying Him. (Obviously their chosen vocation is inspired by the devil himself.) Quite often, these are female ministers, to boot. "Make your own truth," as Stan says.
Post a Comment