A great day for freedom of speech and conscious

Kirk Cameron is not backing up from his comments

Two days ago Kirk Cameron stood up for biblical the standards on marriage.  This was expected to bring the wrath of those who are promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

He has had to defend himself against an avalanche of attacks by the gay lobby.

Actor Kirk Cameron, former “Growing Pains” star, has come under fire from gay rights activists for expressing his personal views against homosexuality to Piers Morgan on CNN.During an interview with Morgan, March 2, about the new film “Monumental: In Search of America’s National Treasure,” Cameron was asked about his views on social issues.Morgan asked Cameron what was his view of gay marriage and what would he tell his children.Cameron, 41, who is an evangelical Christian, said he would tell his children what he believed himself. “I believe that marriage was defined by God,” he said."Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either," Cameron continued.He also said that homosexuality is “unnatural.”"I think that it's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization," the actor told Morgan.“Do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t,” he said.

In a pluralistic society, such as ours, we are supposed, and I stress, supposed to put up with such dissent of opinions. And apparently, some Hollywood actors are jumping on the wagon to denounce Cameron for his views:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement in response to the actor's recent appearance on the CNN program.Herndon Graddick, senior director of programs at GLAAD, said in the statement that Cameron sounded more dated than his 1980s TV character. “Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”Hollywood celebrities including actors Jane Lynch, Debra Messing, George Clooney, and Brad Pitt have slammed Cameron for his beliefs. 

Out of step with a growing majority of Americans? Well, only 7 states have approved gay marriage. That doesn't sound like a "growing majority".  It is great to see that other actors are coming to Cameron's defence. It's not that having actors backing Cameron is such a great thing, but at least we can see not all in Hollywood lack a spine:

In an interview with TMZ.com Morgan referred to Cameron as “pretty brave” for voicing his opinions and defended his right to speak out, however "antiquated" his beliefs.Thousands of people are supporting Cameron’s right to express his beliefs against homosexuality and abortion.Actor Stephen Baldwin appeared on HLN's Showbiz Tonight on March 5 "to support" Cameron. "He has the right to stand up and say what he believes in," said Baldwin. "What he means is the nuclear family is the origin of what this country was founded on. ... So there is marriage between a man and a woman ... and that's obviously changing."Cameron spoke out about the backlash against his comments on opposing gay marriage.“I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America,” Cameron said in a statement released March 6.“I should be able to express moral views on social issues — especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square.

 That's right. If you speak your mind, it's catalogued as hate speech or "intolerance". So, freedom is only applied to certain individuals in some people's world view.

Good on Kirk Cameron, for having the valour to stand up against this cultural bullies.

Make me a bishop, or I will sue. Gay priest wants to be a bishop, no matter how

When people see ordination more as a right, and not like a privilege, there must be something wrong with them. But even worst when there's a person who is living or promoting a sinful lifestyle, and yet, demands to be ordained. This is exactly the case of The Very (I)Reverend Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans. The Daily Mail reports:

A controversial gay dean has threatened to take the Church of  England to court after he was blocked from becoming a bishop.The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.Sources say the dean, one of the most contentious figures in the Church, believes he could sue officials under the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Such a case could create a damaging new rift within the CoE.

See how this works. We all remember how Gene Robinson was elected the first practicing homosexual priest by the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). The leaders in that "church" say that they were led by the Holy Spirit to take such a decision (I wonder how the Holy Spirit will contradict himself so blatantly, but then again, the ECUSA are like the Mormons, they believe in a different Holy Spirit as it seems). Now, it seems that they don't need the guidance of an spirit, these people want to get ordained, because it is, apparently, their right!

Dr John was at the centre of a storm in 2003 when forced to step down as Bishop of Reading by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams after it became known that he was in a gay, though celibate, relationship. The furore fuelled a bitter civil war within the Anglican Church that has dominated Dr Williams’s decade in office.The dean was again a cause of infighting in 2010 when he was a candidate for Bishop of Southwark. A respected theologian and former canon at Southwark Cathedral, he had strong backing from senior Church liberals and it was said even David Cameron was supportive.

David Cameron? Isn't he supposed to be from the Conservative Party? Anyway, he is a politician, therefore, no real moral position. But Dr. John, has already being a bishop before, but needed to step down because of his gay celibate relationship. Ok, let's say he was truly celibate, it seems that he was seeking affirmation, and didn't get it, so he was diposed.

But this time around, he is not taking things sitting down, he is taking action:

Dr John has instructed Alison Downie, partner and head of employment at London lawyers Goodman Derrick, to write to the Commission to suggest it risks breaching gay equality laws if it is blocking the dean over his homosexuality

Well, I wonder if he is in a homosexual relationship today. The issue with this man is that he doesn't care if the Bible bars him, if he is practicing homosexual, from practicing ministry, period.

I Corinthians 6:⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 

We have a lot of other sins, but in this post, I want to single out the sin of homosexuality, and how this man is so blind, that he wants the position of bishop, and he has actually cut himself from the body of Christ, but promoting such a lifestyle in the church.

So there you have it, somebody demanding to be ordained, or else, he will go to the courts. He is so blind that he can't see that God is not going to call him, unless the Church of England follows this new spirit that ECUSA is following.

Totally shocking, and amazing how blind people have become!!

Academia gone mad/evil

Sometimes academics come up with weird things. This news shows that this is one of those things that should never be supported, yet, there are some who are willing to excuse Pedophilia, even promoting it as a sexual orientation:

….classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia,…

Totally disgusting and incredible. But we have been here before. Decades ago, academics and lobbyists did the same things in order to normalize homosexuality.

… similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM. As a result of the DSM declassification, debate regarding homosexuality and the many documented harms associated with the homosexual lifestyle has been all but shut down in academic psychological circles.

This is a trend which we must guard against. You can read more about it here.

Finally Joel Osteen had the guts to call sin, sin. Well, sort of.

Women Bishops or biblical fidelity?

What's wrong with this picture??? Depends who you ask, if you are a liberal, culture driven, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, pro-gay, scripture trumping so called "christian", then the answer may be twofold: how come it took so long to reach this stage, and, there should be more women, if not the majority, sitting there as bishops and ordained ministers.

If you are a biblical based, scripture driven, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, conservative christian, the answer would be another question, How could the church of God reject God so clearly in his face?

I don't deny that there are other, more pressing issues that we, as the church of the Lord Jesus Christ should be battling, the likes of poverty, justice and above all, the salvation of souls. Nevertheless, this issue is one of those that Salomon refererred to as:
Song of Songs 2:
5 Catch for us the foxes,
the little foxes
that ruin the vineyards,
our vineyards that are in bloom.

So, to say as some have suggested, that we shouldn't fight or confront this issue, don't see the greater issue, or don't comprehend it's repercussions. As Wayne Grudem has pointed out in his excellent book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?, all those churches that claimed that in order to survive they had to move in with the times, are rather dying, losing members. An example is that the Uniting Church in Australia sees its own demise by 2050, or the Episcopal Church USA, that despite ordaining women not only to the ministry, but also to the post of bishop, and as if that was not wrong enough, went ahead and ordained Gene Robinson, an open homosexual with a partner, as a bishop, the church is still losing members, while the dissenters are growing.

One of the women in the picture (notice all the women "bishops" except one have short hair, makes one wonder!!!), Barbara Darling, third from the left first role, once interviewed me as to gather if I was called to the ministry. Our interview was a mere formality, nevertheless, the interview turned to the topic as to how she had been passed over by men, who did not see God's calling in her life. She saw that as one of the greatest injustices of our time. At the end, I went away thinking if I really wanted to be ordained an Anglican (I was walking strayed from my Baptist roots!!), there were many Anglicans that I admired, N. T. Wright for example, but he has also endorsed women to be bishops. I have written to the good bishop that this approach contradicts his other approaches to be faithful to the biblical sources. However, he said something very encouraging during the debate that the Church of England is going through this last couple of days.

Answering to Cannon Robert Cotto, who suggested that " he was worried that the Church could turn into a sect, refusing to listen to the wisdom that was available in the outside world." Wright came responding to Cotto and others like him in the following statement: "that when the Church started to follow the dictates of contemporary society, it "would cease to be the Church" "

Wright's answer is the correct one, and he shouldn't be answering an ordained minister in that manner, since you would expect him that he had read James 4:⁴You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. And also I Corinthians 1:²¹For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. It seems that some have never cared about what the bible says, unless it's their pet subject, and even then, they twist the Bible to say what they want it to say.

Now, the Anglican Church, as many other denominations in the past, are trying to keep their denominations together, even when they take decisions that are totally against Scripture. I still remember when the Evangelical Church of America, ELCA, took the decision to accept practicing homosexuals to the ministry, and the conservatives walked out of the convention, and the presiding bishop, Mark Hanson, called out to them to "stay in the conversation" What conversation I ask?? The decision was taken, there's no going back.

And why I am talking about homosexuality and the ordination of women? Because they are issues that go hand in hand. As Grudem points this out in his book above mentioned, we can see how women are the ones that make the ordination of homosexuals an issue of justice, the same argument they took when dealing with their recognition to be ordained. One is just a stepping stone to the next.

I haven't touched on the biblical verses that clearly teach that women cannot be ordained, or that practicing, unrepentant homosexuals can be christians, let alone ordained. If people are so blind and don't take the bible seriously, well, that's their choice, but please, don't call yourself a christian, since that title applies to those who are willing to follow not just his teachings, but those of his followers as well. It is very difficult to argue against those who don't see the Bible as authoritative, but rather see the culture as their norm to follow.

With this entry, I just hope to point out some points that are not touched as often in conservative circles, and to show that in this debate, we can go beyond those passages usually cited, to give a stronger and more complete response to those who have rejected Scripture in all of its forms.

Luis A. Jovel

A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy

Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 -- a date that may well mark a final blow against biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.

The PCUSA has debated sexuality issues for decades now, with activists for homosexual ordination pressing their case until they finally got their way at the denomination's General Assembly. In that historic meeting, the General Assembly actually approved several proposals.

Even before dealing directly with the question of ordination standards, the General Assembly approved a first step toward revising the denomination's official translation of the historic Heidelberg Catechism. Once again, the crucial issue was homosexuality. The question was "complex and multi-layered," as the proposing group admitted.

Here is how the official PCUSA news office described the issue:

Most of the Assembly's attention focused on Question 87 of the catechism: "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?"

The current text of the answer reads: "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'"

According to the overture rationale, two phrases in the current answer that were supplied by the 1962 translators do not appear in the original text or in any translations produced prior to 1962. The primary phrase that is in dispute is "or of homosexual perversion."

The words "homosexual perversion" in an official church document would, to say the least, present a challenge to approving the ordination of active homosexuals. The General Assembly voted to approve the change, arguing that the issue was accuracy in translation. Those opposed to the change noted that the catechism is making a direct reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explicitly does include homosexual behaviors among those condemned.

That out of the way (though requiring further action at the next General Assembly), the denomination then turned to the issue of standards for ordination. The language to be replaced requires that all ministers of the church must live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That language, consistent with Scripture and Christian tradition, is to be replaced with a new standard that would require nothing at all with reference to sexual integrity.

The new wording would read:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation, pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation and establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new wording is liberal in application and neo-orthodox in form. The minister must merely pledge to live in obedience to Christ, but with no reference whatsoever to what Jesus would require in terms of sexual ethics. The language about following where Jesus leads "through the witness of the Scriptures" reduces the Bible to a witness and obedience to utter subjectivity.

The proposed amendment to the standards now moves to the denomination's 173 regional units (presbyteries) where it must receive sufficient support. Similar efforts have failed in the past, but many believe that this proposal will be difficult to defeat. The defection of many conservatives from the denomination (and some churches as well) may weaken the opposition.

Nevertheless, even without the change in the standard, local presbyteries may well move to ordain active homosexuals anyway. The Associated Press explains how:

Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. Local presbyteries and church councils that approve ordinations would consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

That vote was an "an authoritative interpretation" of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately. The interpretation supersedes a ruling from the church's high court, issued in February, that said there were no exceptions to the so-called "fidelity and chastity" requirement.

Taken together, these changes represent a disaster for this church. In capitulating to the demand that homosexuality be normalized, the church turned its back on the Bible, on its own tradition, and on the protests and prayers of its members who would, of all things, expect their ministers to exhibit "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."

Just reflect for a moment about what the removal of those words really means. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has just proposed to define its own denomination as a church for which those words no longer make sense.

The Albert Mohler Program

United Methodists Maintain Standards

The United Methodist Church voted this week to maintain its official policy that homosexual activity is "incompatible with Christian teaching." The policy of the church also prohibits the recognition or celebration of same-sex relationships.

Meeting for its General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas, the Methodists voted 517 to 416 to keep the current policy and language in its Book of Discipline. The denomination voted down a proposal to replace the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language with a statement that the church should "refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to new insight."

As Religion News Service and Christianity Today reported:

Many Methodists rose to speak in favor of a clear continuation of traditional teachings, especially for the purpose of evangelizing to a world that they said is beset by moral confusion.

"Friends, this is serious business," said the Rev. H. Eddie Fox, director of evangelism for the World Methodist Council. "It is an urgent matter for our church. It matters what we believe and what we practice and we do not meet here in isolation."

A group of 300 delegates protested the decision and blamed it, at least in part, on delegates from Africa. As The Dallas Morning News reported:

"It was a terrible day," said the Rev. Eric Folkerth, pastor of Northaven United Methodist Church in Dallas. . . .

Mr. Folkerth said, "American Methodists are ready for change." But he and others said change was thwarted this time by international delegates, particularly delegates from Africa, whose numbers and influence have grown because the denomination is growing there.

Dogo Jean Yoou, a lay delegate from Ivory Coast, agreed that the African delegates oppose relaxing the UMC's stands on homosexuality. "We are still very conservative on this issue," he said.

The United Methodist Church has been debating issues of human sexuality for four decades. The controversy is hardly unique to that denomination. The liberal churches often identified as "mainline Protestantism" have been torn asunder by these debates, with the Episcopal Church breaking up in some regions and other denominations attempting to avert immediate disaster by avoiding a decision for as long as possible. The sand in that hourglass is running out. As one United Methodist leader commented, a decision to approve homosexuality and same-sex relationships would signal "the death knell for the church."

As some of those pressing for the normalization of homosexuality made clear, they believe that time is on their side. The fact that the most important vote was separated by only 101 votes may indicate that they are right. The next General Conference in 2012 is certain to confront similar efforts.

Nevertheless, the denomination's decision to retain its teaching that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching" should encourage all those working within other denominations and churches to maintain biblical standards. A narrow victory is still a victory.

____________________

Art depicts the historic sanctuary of First United Methodist Church of Huntington, West Virginia.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1142

Gay Biblical arguments

A. The authority of the Bible within the congregation.
From the time of the Reformation, and from the time of the when the Baptists came into the scene, the Bible has played the central role of what Protestant Christians believe the final and central authority is within the congregation.3 Nevertheless, there seems today to be a trend to contrast Jesus as the solely revelation of God, and place the bible as a witness to Jesus.4 However, as we have seen before, Baptists, although having many differences of interpretation of Scripture, have always seen Scripture as their primary source of authority. Jesus himself was willing to submit to the authority of the Old Testament while on earth, cf. Matt. 5: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” But most important of all, Jesus recognized the Old Testament as the very word of God. This can be attested in the temptation in the wilderness, when the devil tempted Jesus to convert rocks into bread, cf. Mat. 4: Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Jesus was referring back to the Old Testament, specifically Deut. 8:3. The claim that making the Bible the ultimate authority would lead us to making an idol of it, it would seem to be unfounded. Jesus saw his Bible of the day as having authority by which even him was a subject to. If the Bible does not have authority in itself, then we could not confidently trust the Bible in issues such as creation, morals, and even what it says about Jesus himself. The only way we come to know of what Jesus says and teaches is through the Bible. Jesus is the “Word made flesh”, cf. John 1:14. Thus, the Bible is our ‘written Word’. David Dockery suggests that this two apparently opposites, must be held in contention. Just as we have Jesus who is fully divine and fully man, we have an authoritative Word, that is both divine and written.5 This is of great importance in any congregational discussion, because by taking the whole counsel of God, we will not be tempted to pick and choose those passages that appeal the most to us, either from the Gospels or from the rest of Bible. Jesus did not talk about many issues, but if we take the whole Bible as authoritative, then we have even more resources to appeal to. Although it is true that Jesus in the gospels does not mention the issue of homosexuality at all, nevertheless, he mentions the overall intent of how sexuality should be expressed among human beings, cf. Mat. 19:4" Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." If those in the conversation want to take Jesus for what he says, it must be admitted that Jesus set the ground rules as to how sexuality is to be expressed among human beings. Therefore, to approach the homosexual issue with a Christian approach, any church must approach it with the full intent to submit itself under its authority and guidance. Henry has done this by submitting to baptism, therefore, placing himself under he lordship of Jesus.

a) Biblical texts dealing with homosexual behavior.
As we have seen before, Jesus in Matthew 19 has given us God’s prototype of what sexuality means within creation. Jesus appeals to the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2. Both divorce, and in this case, homosexual behavior, therefore, are an aberration to the original intent of God’s creation. It is interesting to note that those who want to promote Barth’s view of the Bible as the witness to Jesus, and also support homosexual practices, nevertheless miss what Barth pronounces about the the image of God in humans, ‘In all His future utterances and action God will acknowledge that He has created and female, and in this way in His own image in likeness.6 Barth may be appealing to Genesis 1:27 “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”7 From the Old Testament we have data that tells us of the rejection by God to homosexual behavior.
i) Our first two examples are Genesis 19 and Judges 19. In both cases, we see a lack of hospitality on the part of the people dwelling in the cities where the sojourners had arrived. Some have made a claim that that was the reason why Sodom was destroyed, and this did not include any homosexual sin at all. Jesus is appealed as not to attribute the destruction of Sodom to the homosexual acts, but rather, to the inhospitality that they showed, cf. Mat. 10:14-15.8 This however, is not attested by the Old Testament prophets. In both Jeremiah 23:14 and Ezekiel 16:49-50, hospitality is not mentioned as one of the sins for which the both Sodom and Gomorrah were punished. But as we have seen before, one must take all the Bible into context and we find in the New Testament another reference to this event. Jude 7 reads “in a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire”. Once again, we find that the main sin by which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, was not their inhospitality, rather, their sexual perversion.
ii) Our second example comes also from the Old Testament, is seems to be the only direct command not to indulge in homosexual activity in the Old Testament. The commands are found twice in the book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13. It has been argued that these laws are found as part of the holiness code “ which is not so much about defining general human morality, but defining the distinctive behavior of a distinctive “people of Israel””9 It could be found that this argument is faulty, since it tries to limit the holiness code to a nation, Israel. If this would be so, then it can be considered than that the following law in Leviticus 18:23, about a woman committing bestiality, does not apply to others since they are not part of Israel. In Leviticus 20:9, we find that cursing parents is forbidden. Thus, it can be concluded that these laws are not only to be applied to a special people, in this case Israel, but can and are applied today in our Western society. Although it is very difficult to understand which laws are applicable to today’s christians, as in the case of having sexual intercourse with a woman while she is menstruating, cf. Lev. 18:19. However, as we have seen in the previous text, if we find the prohibition mentioned again in the New Testament, then the Christian is obliged to take a closer look at it.
iii) We have three passages in the New Testament that deal with homosexuality, and all of them come from the Pauline letters of the New Testament. Two texts are closely related, and will be dealt first. The passages are I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10. The first one reads “9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders”, while the second one read as follows, “10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (NASB)”. The two words in contention here are in greek arsenokoites and malakos. Both have been interpreted according to the other usages they had during the time of Paul. It has been acknowledge that malakos has been use in order to describe a pederastic relationship, or to a soft or effeminate men.10 The other word, arsenokoites, has been used as the word that depicts those who would procure a male prostitute.11 However, to attempt to put in doubt what Paul was trying to say in, for example I Cor. 6:9, where all that is being depicted in the verse is sexual immorality. In I Tim. 1:10, arsenokoites is once more mentioned, and if Paul has used it once in regard to homosexual activity, one can expect that Paul is being consistent in the used of the word, and its application. In conclusion, it must be recognized that the words are very difficult to understand and may be condemning mainly exploitative sexual relationships,12 nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that all the mentions of homosexuality in the Bible are negative.13
iv) The final text to be looked at is Roman 1:18-21. This text has been treated in a very particular manner. It has been suggested that what Paul is actually setting against, is not a committed homosexual relationship, but the sexual experimentation and the promiscuous life style that is being carried according to the text. This text, on the other hand, brings down the argument that ‘Paul only refers to exploitative or promiscuous same-sex relationships..”14 The text seems also to refer that due to their rebellion against God, same-sex behavior is “an expression of God’s judgment upon them”.15

Texts to comfort or to condemn?
It has been seen how the arguments, for and against of the texts that deal with homosexuality have been used. Time and time again, it can be seen that the ones who wish to advocate a more ‘user friendly’ reading of the Bible for homosexuals, actually don’t give homosexuals much comfort. Integrity in use of the Bible is to be a desirable goal for all the parties involved. Innovation to please a group within the church that is struggling with any sin, does no good for those people, who will not be living according to the laws given by their saviour in the Bible. Both sides of the conversation need to acknowledge the other’s interest in giving a proper answer to those who are struggling with homosexuality. They need also to give an even explanation to the congregation in order for them to grasp what the stakes in attempting to grapple with the issue. Scripture condemns all sin, but also comforts the sinner who is struggling with his or her conscious. After taking into consideration what Scripture says about homosexuality, the pastoral approach should not stop there, but continue to the next level, to show empathy.


Luis A. Jovel

Homosexuality and the Bible -- The Rejectionist Approach

Luke Timothy Johnson thinks that the Christian crisis over homosexuality is not really about sex at all. Instead, it "has less to do with sex than with perceived threats to the authority of Scripture and the teaching authority of the church." In reality the crisis is about both sex and biblical authority, as Johnson himself makes clear.

Johnson serves as Robert R. Woodruff Professor of New Testament at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. He is one of the most influential Roman Catholic scholars in the field of biblical studies. In "Scripture & Experience," published in Commonweal magazine, Professor Johnson presents what can only be described as a rejectionist approach to the Bible's teachings on homosexuality.

This rejectionist approach means that Professor Johnson directly rejects what the Bible teaches on this issue, and does so with a boldness shared by few others in this debate. He accepts that "the Bible nowhere speaks positively or even neutrally about same-sex love." Even as he argues that the church has "never lived in precise accord with the Scriptures," he suggests that Christians pick and choose which biblical commands they will take seriously. Nevertheless, he straightforwardly acknowledges that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual acts.

He claims that the authority of Scripture and the tradition of the church are "scarcely trivial," but criticizes those "who use the Bible as a buttress for rejecting forms of sexual love they fear or cannot understand." In other words, he argues that those who believe that the Bible's clear condemnations of homosexual behaviors are still authoritative for Christians do so only out of fear or a lack of understanding of homosexuality itself. As he explains later in his essay, he has grown by experience to overcome this fear and ignorance. He now believes that the Bible is simply wrong.

He demands intellectual honesty and says that he "has little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says." Thus, he dismisses "appeals to linguisitic or cultural subtleties" as intellectually dishonest.

This is refreshing in itself, as we grow tired of seeing revisionist scholars and homosexual advocates try to explain, for example, that Romans 1 does not condemn homosexual acts committed by homosexual persons as "against nature," but rather condemns homosexual acts undertaken by heterosexual persons. We should appreciate the fact that Professor Johnson, unlike so many others pushing for the normalization of homosexuality, does not suggest that the church has misread Scripture for two thousand years.

No, he directly rejects the Bible's commands:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality--namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God's created order.

Well, that is about as straightforward a rejection of biblical authority as can be found. Professor Johnson argues that experience -- his own experience and the experiences of others -- represents an authority greater than that of the Scriptures.

He defends his position by arguing that opponents of slavery and the ordination of women found themselves in the same position. "We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts."

This is where Professor Johnson turns to evasive argument. He offers no sustained intellectual argument on the issues he mentions for moral support (the abolition of slavery and the acceptance of "women's full and equal roles in church and society") and he never even asks the most obvious question to be addressed to his argument: If we are to trust human experience as an authority superior to that of the Bible, whose experience are we to trust? He can only mean his own experience and that of others whose experience he chooses to privilege.

In his own words:
By "experience" we do not mean every idiosyncratic or impulsive expression of human desire. We refer rather to those profound stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by thousands of persons over many centuries and across many cultures, that help define them as human.

What are we to make of this? Professor Johnson will trust his ability to judge the Bible against "profound stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by thousands of persons over many centuries and across many cultures?" Which stories? Which cultures? Who defines bondage and who defines freedom?

He explains:
For me this is no theoretical or academic position, but rather a passionate conviction. It is one many of us have come to through personal struggle, and for some, real suffering. In my case, I trusted that God was at work in the life of one of my four daughters, who struggled against bigotry to claim her sexual identity as a lesbian. I trusted God was at work in the life she shares with her partner--a long-lasting and fruitful marriage dedicated to the care of others, and one that has borne fruit in a wonderful little girl who is among my and my wife's dear grandchildren. I also trusted the many stories of students and friends whose life witnessed to a deep faith in God but whose bodies moved sexually in ways different from the way my own did. And finally I began to appreciate the ways in which my own former attitudes and language had helped to create a world where family, friends, and students were treated cruelly.

We should not doubt for a moment that Professor Johnson holds his position out of passionate conviction. That passion comes through every paragraph of his essay. There is no doubt that he is passionately and personally involved in this issue. There can also be no doubt where his argument leads.

His position is by no means unclear. He argues "if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture."

Thus, the Bible cannot be the Word of God if God must oppose His own Word. We are no longer to submit our experience to the authority of the Bible but instead are to submit the Bible to the authority of experience. The "living God" is juxtaposed to the (presumably dead) "words of Scripture."

Professor Johnson's argument leads to disaster. Indeed, it is a disaster in itself, justifying what the Bible condemns as sinful. Nevertheless, his rejectionist approach to the authority of the Bible's commands is remarkably -- even breathtakingly -- honest. We could only wish that others would be equally honest.