David Gushee just published A RNS PIECE calling for evangelicals to come to heel before the sexual revolution in its late stages. It’s time for Christians and other religious groups who support heterosexual marriage to “reconsider their position voluntarily,” in his Orwellian phrasing. Christians who do not “reconsider” in this way encourage “discrimination” against individuals who embrace a LGBT lifestyle and identity, according to Gushee.
Gushee presents himself as a tough-talking angel of peace, coming to broker a settlement. His prose, however, more closely resembles an authoritarian police-state czar venturing into the religious ghetto to warn its stubborn residents of their impending doom.
In reading some interactions between a Bible believer and a lost person on this topic, it was abundantly clear that the unbeliever has absolutely no concept of someone having fidelity to Scripture. They view Christianity as a religion among many in the world where belief and practice is simply decided by what the leaders approve and authorize. They don’t realize there is a slice of Christianity that is committed to the Bible and so these believers already have their answer and won’t be waiting for a change announced by a national council.
In reading some interactions between a Bible believer and a lost person on this topic, it was abundantly clear that the unbeliever has absolutely no concept of someone having fidelity to Scripture. They view Christianity as a religion among many in the world where belief and practice is simply decided by what the leaders approve and authorize. They don’t realize there is a slice of Christianity that is committed to the Bible and so these believers already have their answer and won’t be waiting for a change announced by a national council.
But even Christians committed to the Bible can change their viewpoint of how to interpret what is written in the Bible. I am reading a book right now about the lead-up to the Civil War. There were a lot of good southern Christians whose commitment to the Bible showed them that slavery was allowable and that racial distinctions were part of God’s order. They felt the abolitionists were acting like atheists and trying to tear down what God had established. I’m not saying Christians should stop being opposed to homosexuality. I’m just saying that being committed to the Bible and already having an answer doesn’t always mean the answer is unchangeable.
Following the edict of a national church council or following one’s own invention and calling it an interpretation of the Bible amounts to the same thing—a departure from sola scriptura. The Bible is crystal clear on God’s view of homosexuality.
In reading some interactions between a Bible believer and a lost person on this topic, it was abundantly clear that the unbeliever has absolutely no concept of someone having fidelity to Scripture. They view Christianity as a religion among many in the world where belief and practice is simply decided by what the leaders approve and authorize. They don’t realize there is a slice of Christianity that is committed to the Bible and so these believers already have their answer and won’t be waiting for a change announced by a national council.
But even Christians committed to the Bible can change their viewpoint of how to interpret what is written in the Bible. I am reading a book right now about the lead-up to the Civil War. There were a lot of good southern Christians whose commitment to the Bible showed them that slavery was allowable and that racial distinctions were part of God’s order. They felt the abolitionists were acting like atheists and trying to tear down what God had established. I’m not saying Christians should stop being opposed to homosexuality. I’m just saying that being committed to the Bible and already having an answer doesn’t always mean the answer is unchangeable.
Kevin, keep in mind here that Christians were raising clear, Biblical objections to the “peculiar institution” back into the 18th and even 17th centuries; that it involved the capital crime of man-stealing, that it persisted from generation to generation instead of freeing men after 7 years, that not all slave-owners allowed men to buy their freedom, and the like. For that reason, the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists split into northern and southern branches in the 1840s, and northern Methodists refused to allow slave-owners into fellowship while Wesley was still alive in the late 1700s.
Those who endorsed slavery relied on arguments like the “Mark of Cain” (didn’t the Flood eliminate that?), the curse of Canaan, “we didn’t do the man-stealing”, and various arguments about the unsuitability of blacks for free life outside the Scriptures.
In contrast, the argument that Christians can also participate in homosexuality really relies on claims that the Scripture doesn’t say what it clearly says—they’re really applying the same logical processes as the slavers did in the mid 1800s, to be blunt about the matter. So count me as very skeptical that someone might find a Biblical loophole by which one might justify homosexuality. (a real one; as Matthew Vines demonstrates, there are a lot of make believe loopholes) This is especially the case when one considers that God is presented as Father, Son, and Husband in the Scriptures, and the Church is presented as betrothed and bride. So to mess with the nature of human love—what is permitted and what is not—also presents the nature of God in a false manner.
In other words, please don’t get confused by the book you are reading; just because slavers made wrong and un-Biblical arguments about the peculiar institution does not mean that we need to admit uncertainty in this area. It’s really pretty clear, and vitally important to boot.
However, the argument that because Christians formerly defended slavery (or segregation, etc.) by distorting the true meaning of Scripture, therefore, it will only be a matter of time until Christians come around to a modern viewpoint regarding homosexuality, is a reminder of the damage done by faulty exegesis and questionable proof-texting to bolster pet positions.
In other words, I am afraid that Bible-believing Christians must bear some of the blame for the fairly recent defense of homosexuals “who love Jesus.” When we were guilty of defending the indefensible in the past, it makes it harder to condemn the indefensible of the present. We must be brutally honest in our handling of Scripture. No more sloppy appeals to questionable texts.
Discussion
NewResponse
BULLDOZING THE RELIGIOUS GHETTO? ON THE “VOLUNTARY RECONSIDERING” OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewWe have been warned
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/we-have-been-warned/
[this thread needs more attention!]
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewUnbelievers have no concept of fidelity to Scripture
In reading some interactions between a Bible believer and a lost person on this topic, it was abundantly clear that the unbeliever has absolutely no concept of someone having fidelity to Scripture. They view Christianity as a religion among many in the world where belief and practice is simply decided by what the leaders approve and authorize. They don’t realize there is a slice of Christianity that is committed to the Bible and so these believers already have their answer and won’t be waiting for a change announced by a national council.
NewDarrell Post wrote:
Newamounts to the same
Following the edict of a national church council or following one’s own invention and calling it an interpretation of the Bible amounts to the same thing—a departure from sola scriptura. The Bible is crystal clear on God’s view of homosexuality.
NewSubstantive difference between homosexuality and slavery
Kevin, keep in mind here that Christians were raising clear, Biblical objections to the “peculiar institution” back into the 18th and even 17th centuries; that it involved the capital crime of man-stealing, that it persisted from generation to generation instead of freeing men after 7 years, that not all slave-owners allowed men to buy their freedom, and the like. For that reason, the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists split into northern and southern branches in the 1840s, and northern Methodists refused to allow slave-owners into fellowship while Wesley was still alive in the late 1700s.
Those who endorsed slavery relied on arguments like the “Mark of Cain” (didn’t the Flood eliminate that?), the curse of Canaan, “we didn’t do the man-stealing”, and various arguments about the unsuitability of blacks for free life outside the Scriptures.
In contrast, the argument that Christians can also participate in homosexuality really relies on claims that the Scripture doesn’t say what it clearly says—they’re really applying the same logical processes as the slavers did in the mid 1800s, to be blunt about the matter. So count me as very skeptical that someone might find a Biblical loophole by which one might justify homosexuality. (a real one; as Matthew Vines demonstrates, there are a lot of make believe loopholes) This is especially the case when one considers that God is presented as Father, Son, and Husband in the Scriptures, and the Church is presented as betrothed and bride. So to mess with the nature of human love—what is permitted and what is not—also presents the nature of God in a false manner.
In other words, please don’t get confused by the book you are reading; just because slavers made wrong and un-Biblical arguments about the peculiar institution does not mean that we need to admit uncertainty in this area. It’s really pretty clear, and vitally important to boot.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewA Sober Reminder
However, the argument that because Christians formerly defended slavery (or segregation, etc.) by distorting the true meaning of Scripture, therefore, it will only be a matter of time until Christians come around to a modern viewpoint regarding homosexuality, is a reminder of the damage done by faulty exegesis and questionable proof-texting to bolster pet positions.
In other words, I am afraid that Bible-believing Christians must bear some of the blame for the fairly recent defense of homosexuals “who love Jesus.” When we were guilty of defending the indefensible in the past, it makes it harder to condemn the indefensible of the present. We must be brutally honest in our handling of Scripture. No more sloppy appeals to questionable texts.
G. N. Barkman