Do you have the “red-letter” edition of the Scriptures? If you don’t know what I mean, the “red-letters” are meant to indicate the words of Jesus. The red-letter hermeneutic is the interpretation of the Scriptures that elevates the words of Jesus over and above the rest of Scripture. While we must certainly heed closely the word attributed to come directly from the mouth of the Lord, what is recorded in Scriptures to be said by Jesus isn’t necessarily all that God thinks about a particular issue. Jesus didn’t speak about every subject or issue we deal with culturally, just as he didn’t speak to every issue that Jews may have dealt with in their day. For example, there must certainly have been cases of domestic abuse in Jewish culture, yet Jesus never dealt with this specifically.
Yet this is the hermeneutic that many people appeal to concering the issue of homosexuality. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and He said we should love our neighbors and our enemies. The conclusion: this must mean that Jesus is telling us to love and approve of homosexuals, right? Wrong. Love them? Absolutely. But love doesn’t necessitate acceptance and approval of one’s lifestyle choice.
Yesterday there was a good discussion on a previous post on this site and I found this article as a follow up. Let’s be clear: the church has not often responded well to the homosexual community, any more than it has to the racist community, which the author of the article points out. The article is written in response to David Gushee, a distinguished university professor at Mercer University, which used to be a Baptist school. Gushee has roots in SBC life.
James Smith, who wrote the article rightly points out:
The problem is the application (Gushee’s) seemingly cancels God’s commands on homosexuality and Gushee’s total silence on the indisputable, unwavering fact that God demands rejection of behavior contrary to His revealed will, including homosexuality.
Smith wisely points out another barrier in how to effectively engage homosexuals with the gospel. The barrier is the political and social activism that permeates the homosexual culture.
Still, must Christianity’s biblically based, historically held understanding of sexuality be questioned today and those who practice homosexual sin patronized, tragically to their detriment?
Why do we not have major theological, societal and political debates in America suggesting such concern for racists, for example? Is racism any more sinful than homosexuality that racists do not deserve similar care from the Christian church, undermining the biblical witness about this terrible sin? Of course, Christians should not hate, bully, and demagogue racists, and we should recognize they, too, bear God’s image and deserve the neighbor love required of Jesus’ disciples.
But who today would think that such sinners deserve to be spoken of as an interest group in need of special treatment, causing liberal Christians everywhere to wring their hands over intolerant ministers who preach against racism? Indeed, Christian liberals rightly complain today that racism is not preached against enough.
Incredibly, not one of Gushee’s 845 words even faintly suggests homosexuality is contrary to God’s Word. In fairness, he concludes, “There is more to be said. But this is at least a place to start.”
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Daniel
I think there’s a distinct difference between racists and homosexuality. For one, people who are racist are spread hatred and are completely contrary to ‘loving thy neighbour and enemies’. Racists are misinformed, and commit violence, physical or otherwise, against people for simply being of a different colour, or being from a different country or culture. Although homosexuality is labeled an abomination in the bible, they are not actively hurting other people; in terms of Christianity, they are only really hurting themselves. This comparison is completely unfair, as one is done out of hate, and the other is done out of love (no matter how misguided you think that love might be). One hurts other people, one hurts the individual. Homosexuals feel they are born that way, and there’s not much you can do to change their minds if that is the case. The most beneficial thing to do for these individuals would be to pray for them, and love them regardless, as Jesus would have us do.
The bible actually says we should kill those who have had homosexual intercourse, but we have disregarded that as well. How do we decide what to keep from the Old Testiment, and what to continue to fight for? Jesus stopped a mob from stoning a prostitute to death as they might have done in the old days, and instead welcomed her and allowed her to wash his feet. We have completely lost sight of the fact that Jesus sought to unite humanity, not divide it, which is what racists would want in the world. Homosexuals look only to be accepted (as blacks looked to be accepted within the Caucasian world), and I believe Jesus would have done the same for them as he would Mary Magdalen. They do not need special treatment, only equal treatment. They are human beings who have sinned, as most human beings have.
You should not hate racists, nor homosexuals, but the acts they commit. The act is sinful, not the individual. To hate is not only sinful, but you begin to become the very thing you hate. You lose sight that there are individuals behind the racists, individuals who can be taught their ways are wrong. Racists are not born, they are made. What has been taught can be untaught. Homosexuality is not taught. It is either born, or chosen. In either case, it’s them who should worry about their actions. Pray for them, if you feel you should, but worry about your own actions, and the actions of your loved ones.
“…so therefore this must mean that Jesus is telling us to love and approve of homosexuals, right?”
Absolutely right. He didn’t say ‘except racists’ or ‘except homosexuals’ or ‘except prostitutes.” Love thy neighbours AND enemies is VERY clear, and we should not warp the Lord’s words just on topics that made us uncomfortable, or just assume he must have left it out.
God says “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. It’s God’s business to judge, not ours. Do you presume that you know as much as He, to be able to make this judgment of what Jesus meant and did not mean?
Look to the log in your own eye, sir.
April 3, 2008 at 5:11 pm
johnaaronmartin
Daniel,
Thanks for chiming in. I have a couple of questions:
1. Do you believe the homosexual agenda – the agenda that is seeking to transform what has historically and biblically been understood as marriage between one man and one woman – is harmful to culture?
2. Do you believe that the homosexual agenda in our schools and in the media – the propoganda being fed to our children that homosexuality is to be accepted as cultural norm – is harmful to children?
I ask both of these questions because your presupposition is that homosexuals are only harming themselves. I completely disagree. More is at stake than the private sexual encounters that take place between homosexuals. More is at stake than the impact of a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting adults.
You said homosexuality is expressed in love. Really? Is it loving for a homosexual to take his sexual preference into the courthouse and demand that children be taught that his/her behavior isn’t deviant and therefore should be including as an accepted cultural norm in childhood literature? Is this an act of love towards parents who are seeking to shield their children from behavior that they believe is inherently sinful? Is it loving for essentially force this on parents who disapprove of this lifestyle?
Do you really believe Jesus sought to unite humanity? This isn’t what he said. When Jesus sends out the disciples in pairs to share the Gospel, he actually references the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Isn’t it odd that if Jesus disapproved of His Father’s judgment on these cities that he didn’t add any commentary to the event to demonstrate otherwise? Furthermore, he tells the disciples that he sends them out as sheep among wolves. He then goes on to tell them that he did not come to bring peace, but rather a sword (10:34). He said this because the incarnation, perfect life, crucifixion and resurrection is a line in the cosmic sand. While it tears down the dividing wall of hostility between God and man as well as man and man, this wall is torn down only through the Gospel. The Gospel demands faith and repentance. So, essentially. while Jesus has made it possible for all to be reconciled to both God and man, this reconcilliation can only happen through Jesus. So, in reality, there are insiders and outsiders.
I certainly agree that we should pray for and love homosexuals. I think if you read the comment section from two posts ago you would see that the tone of this post is not one of judgment on homosexuals or any other sinners.
You’ve made two pretty broad assumptions in your response. 1) You said homosexuals are either born homosexual or they choose this lifestyle, but they aren’t “made” like racists. While there is some evidence that homosexuality could be genetic, this shouldn’t be surprising. Mankind’s depravity reaches to the depths of the soul. There is no reason to think that the curse of sin hasn’t effected our DNA as well. However, how is choosing to homosexual any different than choosing to be racist. There is sufficient scientific evidence that environment and upbringing may contribute to homosexuality.
2) You are assuming this post is filled with bigotry. I can assure you it is nothing of the sorts. I have homosexual friends. This whole discussion is an expansion of previous discussions about the role of the church and how we should minister to homosexuals and other sinners in the margins of society. However, the quickly changing reality is that homosexuality is creeping closer into the center of our culture than it is the margins. So how should the church respond? This is the thousand dollar question. I just happen to believe that the loving response to the homosexual is not simply to embrace them and their lifestyle choice, thus effectively saying, Jesus made you this way, it is okay. No, the loving thing is to love them, pray for them, and seek their redemption from sin – whether that sin is homosexuality, gluttony, racism, greed, lust, sexual immorality, pride, etc.
I have a final question: Why is it that when a Christian declares something sinful on the authority of God’s Word that is automatically means that person is being judgemental? The kind of judgment you have quoted from scripture is the final condemnation that only God can make but that men often pronounce over others in hatred or bigotry. This wasn’t what is happening in this post or any other post.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
April 3, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Daniel
1. No.
2. No.
“There is no reason to think that the curse of sin hasn’t effected our DNA as well.”
You think that this ISN’T a large assumption? This is the assumption that our sins are great enough to corrupt God’s creation, nature. There is no basis other than the fact that you would like it to be true, because it fits in with your agenda. If Jesus didn’t want to unite the world, why is it so important that everyone believes the same as you do? In any case, even if it were DNA, it is still something that would have happened at birth. There is no scientific indication of a difference or mutation in a homosexual person at birth and a homosexual person when they realize they are homosexual. And if it is something they are born with, then it is likely not THEIR sin that effected their DNA, but the sin of others. Which essentially renders the homosexual themselves the ones to carry the burden of others’ sins.
In any case, it saddens me that you would use Jesus to tear people apart rather than to love them and pray for them.
Yes, the bible says it is sinful, but it says nothing about a ‘homosexual’ agenda, nor does it say that homosexuals are wolves in sheeps clothing, nor did Jesus say, “love thy enemies EXCEPT homosexuals”.
Again, you presume that you are knowledgable enough to say that ‘even though Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, he obviously would have condemned them just as the church does’. That’s simply absurd to assume that you know what Jesus meant even though he never ever said it once in the bible outright.
Condemning something does not help guide them towards salvation, but makes people cling even more to what makes them different. If the Church had a more open approach to homosexuality, they would have a much better shot of being able to talk to them rationally about the bible and its benefits. Attacking them and assuming they are spreading a plague through humanity. Jesus died to forgive ALL our sins, not just the ones you pick and choose.
April 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm
johnaaronmartin
This is quickly disintegrating into a less than civil conversation.
Why do I think it is plausible that the curse of sin has infected all of creation, including possibly our DNA? Because this is what Scripture teaches us. What else is Genesis 3:17 saying other than the reality that creation is cursed because of man’s sin? Or consider Romans 8:19-21 where we are told that creation was subjected to futility because of the curse of sin. Why then does the whole trajectory of Scripture point to the renewal and reconciliation of all things – including creation – to Jesus (Col 1:15-20).
I think you’ve misunderstood me. There is power in the Gospel to unite all of humanity. But I think even a cursory reading of Scripture makes it clear that not all men and women will willingly submit themselves in repentance to Christ. There are those who will become sons and daughters of God by faith, and there are those who will continue to live in rebellion and alienation against God as his enemies. The enemies of the Gospel are not friends of Jesus no matter how culturally hip he has become today.
I would love for you to provide one example in this post or any other where I am using Jesus to “tear’ people apart.
Jesus never said anything about domestic violence. Are we to assume that his silence is approval? Jesus never said anything about beastiality? Are we to assume his silence is approval? Of course not. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law is summed up in Jesus Christ. However, this doesn’t mean that God’s law has been declared null and void in the person of Jesus. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul tells us that it is through Jesus that redeemed humanity can fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:3-4). This means that whatever our sinful appetites might be, in Jesus was can experience freedom from the very sins that nailed Christ to the cross.
What is your solution? What would a more “open approach to homosexuality” look like? It can’t look like culture’s buzz words of tolerance and approval because the culture’s definition of these terms is hostile to the Gospel.
Before you make any more premature assumptions about whether or not I care about homosexuals, I would encourage you to read the comments on the “We’re Sorry” post. No one is casting any stones here. Just trying to figure out how to appropriately use God’s Word as our guide as we seek to engage sinners. I would affirm that Jesus died to forgive all sins. But forgiveness is only experienced and granted through faith in the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ on the cross. This would necessitate repentance from the sins that Jesus took upon ourselves so that by faith those who believe would become the righteousness of God (2Cor 5:17).
April 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Daniel
‘We should treat homosexuals like we treat racists’ does not sound particularly caring, so forgive my error. When I find a post at random, I don’t go back and read the history of everything that person has written. Likening Homosexuals to racists makes it sound like you think they are hateful, and only keen on spreading a message of hate. Homosexuals likely wouldn’t fight to have it in the schools that homosexuality isn’t deviant if Christians didn’t fight to have it in the schools that homosexuals ARE deviant, which is a matter of faith, and should be taught in schools of faith, but in public schools, all options should be taught, and children (with the guidance of their parents) to help them decide what they believe.
You said Jesus’ message of ‘love thy enemies’ doesn’t apply to homosexuals. Again, this twists his words; he did not have any exceptions, not did he ever say there were exceptions. That is my basic point.
Attacking homosexuals and saying they are corrupting youth is a sure fire way to drive them further away from God, as they will feel persecuted. Any one backed into a corner will fight back. Leaders of the church should take a more personal approach with homosexuals they can talk to individually. Like you said, you have homosexual friends, and that is indeed a good thing. You can provide counseling and guidance, and it’s good to let them know that even though you may think their actions are sinful, that Jesus wouldn’t turn his back on them if they asked for forgiveness. No buzz words, no nothing, just straight up gospel. Jesus said to love everyone, and I stand by that, even homosexuals, even racists. It’s everyones job to guide them to a better life, right? Like I said, attacking them in the media is just driving a wedge between Christianity and homosexuals. This is why Jesus accepted the company of a prostitute; when he did, she made an effort to ask for forgiveness, to be a better person. He did not get her to believe in him by telling her how sinful her life was. He did it by telling her he loved her regardless.
THAT is how to combat sin. Not with arguments, not with conflict, but with true compassion, and true desire to help humanity. Not the desire to cast stones. Not the desire to be ‘right’.
April 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm
johnaaronmartin
Daniel,
I did notice one sentence in my post that was unclear (as it relates to my words, not quoted ones). I was unclear about love and approval. I’ve changed it. I was careless and must have been posting too fast. I need a good editor. We should love homosexuals. We should not approve of their sin any more than we should approve of the sins of any person regardless of what they are. Sin kills. Sin is defiance and treason against a holy God. My emphasis was on the approval, not the love, because many homosexuals interpret approval and acceptance, not just of them as people, but as people defined by what they do. They say, “Validate what I do in my life and this means you love me.” This isn’t the kind of love that Jesus would demand from us when he calls us to love our neighbors and enemies. I apologize for being less than clear and thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I didn’t say treat homosexuals like racists. The author of the article used it as an example. He didn’t say they were the same nor should they be considered as such.
April 3, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Daniel
Ah, so good we could come to an understanding. I’m glad it was a misunderstanding, in any case, and I agree with what you’ve just said. In the words of Ghandi, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”
April 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Daniel
Oh, I also apologize if I was less than civil in some areas. Some things just get me a little too fired up.
Pointing it out definitely helped me to calm down. Hah!
April 3, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Wes
Daniel,
“This is the assumption that our sins are great enough to corrupt God’s creation, nature.”
Leviticus 18:24-28 speaks to this. The letters aren’t red but the words are God’s, and he said that the land itself had become polluted by the sins of the Caananites, including (among other sins) homosexuality.
“‘We should treat homosexuals like we treat racists’ does not sound particularly caring, so forgive my error.”
First off, you really ought not put quotes around something unless someone actually said it.
Second, not caring to whom? The racists? The homosexuals? If we should love everyone then we should treat homosexuals like we treat racists, and vice versa. As you said, we should love them all.
Third, that’s a judgment.
April 4, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Daniel
I also said it was an error, and I also asked for forgiveness for that error; not a judgment so much as how I interpreted the article posted, an opinion. I did not say ‘that is not caring’ I said ‘it does not sound like caring’; one is accusatory, and one is opinion, in that ‘that doesn’t sound like caring to me’. But we’re just being really picky now, aren’t we? It was not a direct quote (“Like this”), it was clearly paraphrased, or so I thought. Also, I was not judging anyone, as it was directed at an action, and not at an individual.
In any case, I merely didn’t explain myself properly. Speaking out against someone is not as caring, or at the very least does not feel caring to the individuals being spoken of; taking a conscious effort to say you love them and would like to help them regardless of their actions is more caring and more compassionate, and may inspire more individuals. Such was the way Jesus himself acted.
Yes, God did say the LAND had become defiled, because the people there had defiled themselves by committing a variety of sins, not just homosexuality; incest, bestiality, adultery, human sacrifice, etc. This is suggesting that homosexuality is, indeed, a choice, and not effecting God’s creation itself. God is asking us not to do these things because he gave us free will to choose; so either homosexuality is a choice, and people choose to sin. Or they are born with it, wherein they have been corrupted by the sins of others, as a baby is itself is innocent.
Jesus taught forgiveness and love for all. So yes, we should love racists, homosexuals, or any of the listed sinners, equally and without judgment. Again, as I said, that’s God’s business, so we should leave it to God to judge.
April 4, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Wes
“Such was the way Jesus himself acted.”
Well, except to the scribes and Pharisees. I doubt being called “a brood of vipers” or sons of Satan, among other things, felt caring to them. I do not think that any of us is qualified to speak to anyone that way, so please do not take this as suggesting that we should. I’m just wondering – do you think Jesus was expressing love to the scribes and Pharisees when he spoke to them this way? I think he was.
April 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Lisa
We have been corrupted by the sins of others because of the fall, so we are born into sin, whether it’s a sin we choose to commit or one that’s inherent in our nature:
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5
“Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Romans 1:28-32
“To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” Genesis 3:17
Scripture tells us that creation is effected because of man’s sin, everyone born is effected by man’s sin. I agree that we should love others no matter their sin, but it is also my desire that the people I love would change their sinful ways; I hope that those who love me would desire the same thing with my sinfulness. I would hate for someone to not keep me in check because they’re afraid they would come off as judgmental; that person’s words could be used by God to wake me up to the reality of my sin to bring me to repentance. So, I think it is important we don’t overlook the necessity of highlighting sin as wrong and something that must be dealt with.
April 5, 2008 at 3:54 am
Jennifer
Whoops, just now read this post. Funny how many overlaps there have been. Sorry to make you repeat yourself!