Argument For Homosexuality In The Church

http://www.relegere.org/index.php/bct/article/viewFile/274/257 ^ | Blind Eye Jones

[Blind Eye Jones]

Adriane Thatcher has written a book (Savage Text) where in he offers an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian church. His argument runs along the lines that we should look at the passages that condemn homosexuality as savage text (text that renders scripture holy) – in the same way we should look to passages in the Old Testament that show God’s predilection for child killing, his wrath and vengeful wars against local tribes as savage text. These texts should not be used by the church because they contradict the loving character and message of Jesus. It should be reminded that the Bible is not the Word of God, but a witness to The Word of God. To elevate these passages as the Word of God or use the Bible as a guide book approach is bibliolatry: to make the Bible into a false idol. Jesus (as the fulfillment of the Old Testament) ultimately provides the standard by which we should judge homosexuals and minorities. Jesus would not condemn homosexuality because he is the God of Love and preaches love, compassion and inclusivity.

I am taking a course that will be using Adrian Thatcher’s book and looking for ideas that will counter this argument. Thanks.

Here is a review of his book:

http://www.relegere.org/index.php/bct/article/viewFile/274/257

[G Larry]

“Logic, why don’t they teach logic in these schools...”

Logic is the enemy of emotional socialism!

[Captain Rhino]

Just my 2 cents...

When behavioral practices originally condemned in the Old Testament are again condemned in the New Testament, they cannot be considered “savage” text. This is because the New Testament condemnation either comes directly from Jesus or comes from one of his recognized apostles.

Homosexuality is condemned in a number of places in the Old Testament. It is again condemned New Testament, most famously in Paul's Letter to the Romans (which lists it among a catalog of sinful Roman behaviors).

However it is again condemned in Jude (Jude 1: 5-11, KJV):

“5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”

Note the reference in verse 7 to Sodom and Gomorrah, their destruction, the reason for their destruction, and the fact that they are meant to be an example.

Consequently, you have homosexuality being condemned in both testaments, a direct linking of the New Testament condemnation to the Old, and the New Testament condemnation being done by apostles who either knew Jesus personally during his earthly ministry or, in Paul's case, were called directly by Jesus after his resurrection.

The only way the “savage text” argument works is if the author proves that the apostles (who collectively authored all of the text of the New Testament) were themselves ignorant of the “loving nature” of the Lord they served.

And if one portion of the text fails to reflect the "loving nature of Jesus," what other forbidden behaviors is the author next going to say are permitted? Pedophilia? Bestiality?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The definitive statement about homosexuality was made with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, today’s equivalent being Key West, FL and Northampton, MA.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I attended a tridentine mass at San Fernando Mission. It's not too far from the intersection of the 5 and 405.

It was a well-attended beautiful mass held within the old mission church.

[BenKenobi]

Well I hope it’s not too far for poor max americana to travel. I know exactly what his concerns are. I used to have to walk to the cathedral downtown in the winter just to go to mass.

[lurk]

“These texts should not be used by the church because they contradict the loving character and message of Jesus.”

Never mind that the next time the world sees Jesus, he’ll be dipped in blood and riding a horse, intent on wiping out all of the armies of the world in a single day.

[max americana]

OK, I;m stumped..what’s a “tridentine mass”?

[BenKenobi]

Latin mass with the rite prior to the Novus Ordo (instituted in Vatican II). Basically goes back to where the Church was in the early 60’s. Usually a good bet to find faithful Catholics. :)

[Matchett-PI]

Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php

[Secret Agent Man]

Easy argument winner.

What about the loving Jesus talking and warning people about Hell? And to stop doing their evil deeds and repent otherwise they too would end up in Hell?

Seems if we have to throw away the verses about homosexuality, we have to throw away everything Scripture says about people going to Hell.

And then you might as well not even use the Bible anymore because you’ve defeated its purpose.

[Gamecock]

These texts should not be used by the church because they contradict the loving character and message of Jesus.

Jesus had some pretty harsh words for Pharisees. For those who didn't/won't repent. He got table flipping made. He promised to split up families. He promised suffering to those who followed Him.

I think the author may be teetering on denial of the Trinity. He doesn't seem to get that God=Jesus.

[Waryone]

Everyone should be welcomed into the church, but they should know that the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors (sins) are unholy and unacceptable in God’s sight and will be considered unholy and unacceptable in His church.

There is no situation where God’s Word is to be usurped by man’s flawed desire to purposely misinterpret it in order to make people feel better about themselves. Would we tell murderers and thieves it is fine to murder and steal in order to protect their self esteem?

Man has no right to decide any part of God’s Word is unholy. Not even Jesus, God himself, came to destroy the Word of God, but to fulfill it. What makes you think you have the right to decide which part of God’s Word should be considered “unholy.”

So you, or this “person” who wrote the book, has the authority to negate God’s Word? I read of someone who thought he should be higher than God, and his name was Lucifer.

[CynicalBear]

God would not be a perfect Elohim (judge) if He didn’t punish those who go against His word. The words of the Old Testament did not become null and void with the coming of Jesus. What God called an abomination in the Old Testament is still an abomination today. If it were not so we would not have an eternal unchanging God. For God to be a loving God He must also be a just God.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Excellent article. Thanks for the link!

[Matchett-PI]

Thank you! I agree! bttt

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is going to be a bit long, but please, FReeper Christians, bear with me, because this is a dilemma which bears directly on the moral witness of Christian Churches.

A couple years ago I started spying on "Gay Christian" websites to sample the theologizing that goes on therein, by which they intend to give Scriptural moral justification to perverse sexual acts. What I found could not instantly be identified as "liberalism" or "modernism," but really what could pass for Evangelicalism of a sort. By this I mean that many LGBT exegetes use the typical grammatical/historical approach to interpreting the Bible, just as many other Evangelicals do, without Tradition (Hermeneutic of Continuity), without reference to historic Church authority, and without Natural Law.

These gay proponents concentrate on the same limited but legitimate methods which would be applied by any Evangelical Bible student:

• the etymology of key words referring to homosexuality,
• the cultural context of the Torah and of Paul's 1st century Gentile-Christian communities, and
• the freedom of Christians from Jewish law (the issues dealt with in the Book of Acts.)

Briefly, they conclude that homosex (of, they would say, the Christian loving sort, the “respectable” Gay Marriage sort) is OK because

• key words (arsenokoitai and malakoi) ---the words usually interpreted to mean “homosexuals” --- actually just refer to pagan cultists and boy prostitutes, and should not be taken to apply to ALL active gays/lesbians
• the ancient Hebrew and classical Greek milieux knew nothing of marriage between same-sex peers, but only forcible sodomy and pederasty, and therefore OT and NT moral law should be taken to condemn only rape and intercourse with minors, and not "gay marriage" per se; and
• in any case under the New Covenant we don't have to observe the odd OT bans on sculptural art, metal engraving, women wearing pants, mixing linen and wool, eating pork and shrimp, gay sex, etc. etc.

Now, Catholics (or Orthodox) see in a flash that these conclusions are obviously false because they contradict the Hermeneutic of Continuity (2000 years of Christian practical moral understanding, the teachings of the Fathers, the Lives of the Saints), the Magisterium (the official doctrines deriving from encyclicals, councils, catechisms), and Natural Law (those things which promote flourishing for human persons, families, and societies, as understood by reason.)

But those who reject the authority of Tradition (or Continuity), Magisterium, and Natural Law, ---what have they to fall back on?

Not Sola Scriptura, since the Gay exegetes have their own gay-accommodating Biblical arguments, based upon their own “careful scholarship” and upon every Christian’s supposed competency to interpret Scripture.

Not Sola Fide or Sola Gratia, since the gay Christians are rejoicing in their salvation by Faith through Grace (and chiding the rest of us as ‘foolish Galatians’ for being so concerned about Law and Works.).

Not Sola Christus, since (as the LGBT’s would patiently explain) Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, and furthermore, it shouldn’t matter whether you marry a woman or a man because St. Paul says that “in Christ” there is no ”woman or man.”

And Soli Dei Gloria? The LGBT’s rejoinder: Glory to God! Thank God I’m Gay!

So the Five Solas in themselves, can be cheerfully adopted by the LGBT Christian: there’s nothing there that clearly challenges his error.

That is: you really need to accept the authority of 2,000 years of Church history and interpret Scripture only in the “historic, orthodox” sense --- as formidable Baptist Albert Mohler, God bless him, has said a thousand times--- thus arriving,I would say, at the practical necessity of interpreting Scripture via Sacred Tradition, the Authority of the Church (Magisterium), and Natural Law.

To which Catholics and Orthodox say, "Amen."

And you?

Anyone?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good quote from Wisdom. Exactly.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not really clear what's the deal with this so-called gay week.You said that:

"Basically every homo shows up to harass and hiss at the sermon, make noise and do condescending anecdotes during the sermon."

So my impression is,the sermon must be saying something critical about homosexuality, or something positive about the need to REPENT AND CHANGE, and therefore they respond with harsassment and hissing?

(It seems to indicate it's the right kind of sermon.)

But if the sermon were basiclly "Gay is OK," the gays wouldn't be hissing and snarking--- but if so, Archbishop Soto should hear about that. I mean he should be hearing about that FROM YOU, so the erring pastor will hear about it from HIM. Catholic moral eaching is absolutely clear that homsex---in fact, ANY sex except genuine natural marital intercourse between a husband and wife -- is a grave offense against the moral law.

And by the way, contracepted sex is forbidden on the same grounds as homosexualsex. It's a sex act condemned by God and deliberately turned away from the purposes why God made sex in the first place, turned away from procreation.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Thanks for your comprehensive response. One thing I'm not sure of is you ask "---what have they to fall back on?" You say Not Sola Scriptura, Not Sola Fide or Sola Gratia, Not Christus. But then you say "So the Five Solas in themselves, can be cheerfully adopted by the LGBT Christian: there’s nothing there that clearly challenges his error." How can they be adopted by the LGBT when you say Not?

In the book I'm reading the boy prostitute argument comes up as well as the OT argument that puts the ban on gay sex with the ban on shrimp. Do you know any responses to these arguments (aside from them not conforming to Tradition, Church authority and Natural Law?)

Again, thank you for your help. The course I'm taking, I think, will be pushing for gay inclusion and if they are not included it will be seen as a sign of the churches hatred for homosexuals (homophobia). Topics like homophobia, western imperialism, racism will be addressed in future chapters so I already know that there is a leftist slant.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There's lots of thoughtful comments on this thread. Good responses, Christian FReepers!

You may be interested in mine at Post # 56. I'd be interested in your view.