Posted on 10/22/2011 7:56:36 AM PDT by 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
Thanks. I like the argument “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.” But my wife says Jesus did change things up, for example, the “eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek.” I’m not sure where that fits in. Thanks, again.
Thanks for the ping. Yes, your argument is logical. One reason why Protestantism has broken down into so many different persuasions, churches, and sects, constantly splitting more and more, is that there is no clear authority to decide what is right and what is wrong, and it’s easy for just about anyone to appeal to their interpretation of the Bible and to say that they were directed to it by God’s grace.
Without tradition, continuity, and authority, it’s all too easy for just about anyone to claim to have been born again or to claim to be led by the Holy Spirit to one view or another, or to set up to be a Pastor.
I have great respect for many or most Protestant Christians, at least those who agree to the basic beliefs—the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and so on. But they do have a problem.
“What makes you think you have the right to decide which part of God’s Word should be considered “unholy.””
That’s a good point. The author says it is savage text or unholy if it is “used to endorse cruelty, hatred, murder, oppression and condemnation.” So it’s weird that one moment the text is holy and then at another moment it is unholy — somehow the acts of man make the text holy or unholy. I don’t believe this is the case. The acts shouldn’t change the nature of the texts. Thanks again.
You’re right Jesus also had a harsh love!
I meant, What do WE (the Christians who uphold the morality traditionally taught by historic Christianity) have to fall back on, if we rely ONLY on Sola Scriptura?
The gays can just say, "Oh yeah, we're faithful to Sola Scriptura too" and then come back with their own scholars and their own "better" translations.
For instance, they'll say that nowhere in the NT is there a single word which corresponds to the English words "homosexual" or "homosexuality." (These words did not even appear in English until the 19th century.) They argue that the words usually translated "homosexual" mean more exactly "anal rape, temple prostitution, attempted sexual abuse of angels (who are neither men nor women)" etc.
They say the condemnation against men "turning away from the natural use of women" refers only to heterosexual men who turn away from their natural heterosexuality to try out a little kinky homosex, but does not apply to men who are "naturally" homosexual and therefore have never "turned away from" relations with women.
They'll say the "strange flesh" referred to in the Epistle of Jude refers to the angels (not humans) whom the men of Sodom wanted to abuse.
They'll say the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi are MIS-translated "homosexual" when really they mean pedophile and pagan-cult-ritual-intercourse.
They'll say "the sin of Sodom" is best defined in Ezekiel 16:48-50
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
You can't refute that with Scripture, because it IS Scripture.
So without Tradition (our historic understanding), Magisterium (the authority of the Church) and Natural Law (what reason tells us about vice and its consequences)--- a really decisive, disposative argument cannot be made by Scripture alone.
Good point. Throwing away hell may be next if the church wants to make everything easy for Christians — maybe that will attract a bigger congregation. People want things easy — user friendly this and that — but morality isn’t easy. So does the church buckle in to the people’s need for “easy?” Make one time sins not sins anymore? Give everybody what they want? Hopefully not.
Thank you for the link — I’ve read the article a long time ago and remembered that it is a very good article. I’ll read it again. Thanks, again.
Revelations!
Thanks for the reply. I understand what you’re saying about Key West.
Yep. Ultimately it is an argument against sin and judgment altogeather. If you can discard homosexuality as a sin then you can rationalize any other biblical sin using pretty much the same arguments. Taken to its logical conclusion it is a universalist philosophy.
The argument that discarding autonomous Church auathority for a Protestant hermaneutic is what leads to this type of pseudo-exegetical approach is silly. Following the generally accepted hermaneutics of any first year textbooks from a conservative seminary would blow all the gay "arguments from scripture" away in 30 seconds. And this type of interpretation used by the gays (eisegesis) is nothing new. Origen was usining it 1900 years ago as he happily allegorized his way to wherever he had already decided he wanted to end up. That was long before there were any Protestants.
The one thing that those who claim Sola Scriptura have available to them is the original languages to better attempt to understand the meaning and intent of the words of the writers of scripture and Christ Himself while He was on earth. It is after all the words of the Apostles and Jesus which are most important in understanding.
On the other hand those who do not rely on Sola Scriptura also have one thing in common. That is the claim to “extra Biblical” revelation. The Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims all claim additional information and “revelation” from God. Who is to vouch for those “revelations”? Jesus words? Did Jesus announce Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven? Did Jesus announce the addition of veneration of a black rock? Did Jesus claim that men would become gods like the Mormons and Catholics do?
As for me and my house, we will rely on the original words of Jesus and those He chose to write the record He wished to be left for us. Not some words of a supposed “prophet” or “magesterium” who proclaim knowledge beyond what Jesus and the Apostles by God’s inspiration saw fit to leave as a full and complete account and proclaimed it to be enough to be “prefect, thoroughly furnished”.
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
There may be differences in interpretation of scripture but to add to that the words of fallible men is pure folly and a sure road to distruction.
That’s exactly what the Mormons and the Muslims say.
Any good Christian understands that hatred of homosexuals is wrong. No doubt people sometimes get carried away and say hateful things, but that is not endorsed by traditional Christian teachings.
The teaching of the Catholic Church, and I would venture to say of most decent Protestant pastors, is that homosexuality is a disorder. It is unnatural, because the basic intention of nature and nature's God is that male and female should come together to produce children. And, of course, with human beings that includes marriage. Even Darwin would say that homosexuality is a disorder, because it does not lead to the propagation of the species.
Having a disorder is not in itself sinful. Most true homosexuals simply cannot help their inclinations and desires. But it becomes a sin if it is put into actual practice--or if it becomes a political argument where the proponents try to convince others that homosexual acts are good in themselves.
Homophobia is one of those invented words, used in Orwellian fashion to disguise the true facts. Christians are NOT homophobes--i.e., haters of homosexuals. Rather, as Jesus taught, they hate the sin, but not the sinner.
In some cases, homosexual inclinations seem to be built in, in which case the Christian thing to do is to avoid doing it. In other cases, kids have been mistaught, and it is possible to convert them to being normal heterosexuals.
But, of course, there's another Catch 22 there. According to PC doctrine, it's OK to teach kindergarteners to be homosexuals. But it's WRONG to give grown up homosexuals a chance to change their ways. Under the name of tolerance, the leftist teachers of these sorts of practices are, as usual, extremely intolerant.
You’re welcome!
Dear Cynical Bear, that is not my intent. I'm on your side,and on the side of the traditional, historic understanding of Scripture. It's obvious that most people who have adhered to "Sola Scriptura" over the last 5 centuries are also AGAINST the Gay Agenda. Anyone can see that.
My point is that "Sola Scriptura" alone doesn't refute the Gay Agenda in a disposative way as long as "Gay Christian" theologians can bring forth their own "Scripture scholarship" which sets aside the traditional, historic understnading of the Church, as explained in Post # 65, and at truly boggling length at the many "Gay Christian" websites (Link).
You can tell them, "Your 'gay interpretations' are not what the Church has traditionally thought to be the meaning of Scripture".
And they will say, "So what? We don't care what you traditionally thought. We think the Church was in error for all those centuries. WE are the ones who are going by Sola Scriptura."
Here's what I want to know. At that point, what do YOU say?
“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.”
Good point for continuity.
“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.”
The writer of the book The Savage Text states that the passage “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” seems to be gay-friendly. He also states there are four references in the Gospel John (13:22-5, 19:26-7, 21:20-3) where Jesus has a particular love for a disciple that seems different than just a general love for all. He quotes another author, Theodore Jennings, who suggests that this might be “love characterized by erotic desire or sexual attraction.” There are other examples that the author uses that suggest the apostle writers knew that something was up with Jesus.
Yes, this opens the door to the slippery slope argument where other perversions raise their nasty heads in hopes to be “normalized” and accepted into the community.
There’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or not, about what sola scriptura is.
Scripture is the final and ultimate authority. God’s word is settled in heaven and not the least stroke of the pen shall pass away from it. It is what it is, the inspired, Spirit breathed word of God.
If Scripture needs interpretation, then something like the CCC needs interpretation. The CCC is not exempt from needing interpretation any more than Scripture is and is just as prone to misinterpretation as Scripture is.
Just as there is no way that anyone can prevent someone from deliberately misinterpreting Scripture if they so choose, just as there is no way of preventing anyone from deliberately misinterpreting the CCC if they so choose.
So the contention that because Scripture can be misinterpreted therefore the concept of individual interpretation is rendered invalid is an invalid argument itself. EVERYTHING that humans produce is subject to errors in or deliberate misinterpretation. It is not the fault or responsibility of the author, nor does it discredit the work. It only discredits the person doing the misinterpretation.
Scripture is true, inerrant, infallible, God breathed. You line up with it or you’re wrong.
We all have areas of weakness in which we are tempted that are unique to us. My temptations are not the same as others.
OTOH, I have no such temptation for gambling or drunkenness as some others struggle with.
But temptation is not sin. The temptation to engage in homosexual behavior is not sin. Those who struggle with it do not sin unless they give into it. They struggle with the sin, not what they are. To identify yourself as a sin or as a disorder *I’m a homosexual* or *I’m a diabetic* or *I’m a ____________* anything, is, for the Christian, to deny Christ in them.
A Christian is a son of God, not a sin or disorder.
What changed is how we relate to each other.
The moral absolutes, good and evil, sin and holiness are not up for negotiation. Those will never change because God never changes.
Thanks for your input. I agree the Bible can be twisted (Shakespeare says “even the devil can cite scripture for his purposes”). You’re right about twisting the Bible to suite our lifestyle. A lot of people want the easy, feel-good lifestyle where Jesus is a nice guy. I heard it said that trying to know God is like looking into a well — you end up seeing your own face. Today’s idea of god is just that — a reflection of today’s easy going values. To my mind that is not Christianity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.