It is my strong belief that the reason there is so much controversy over homosexuality in the church and culture is not because belligerent and rather disgusting figures like Fred Phelps have suddenly started persecuting gays. It is not as though homosexuality is something new and the church has never dealt with the issue in the last 20 centuries. Nor do I believe the primary issue is a lack of compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction, although certainly that common failure is worth noting.
The reason there is controversy is that a political movement has attempted to make homosexuality a civil rights issue and has aggressively and relentlessly forced that issue into public debate.
Conservatives have responded, of course, oftentimes inartfully. And in true Alinskyite fashion, the reaction by conservatives has often been used by the political wing of the LGBT movement as a club to beat key targeted figures with, to use the emotion associated with perceived injustice as evidence of rampant injustice and sway the opinions of those who don't bother to think too deeply.
And of course the "sympathetic" figure always helps sell an idea. (More)
One such is Justin Lee, a very compelling figure whose book Torn seems to get a lot of play in progressive "former evangelical" circles and some evangelical ones. Rachel Held Evans gave it a glowing review. Tony Jones with his usual incendiary rhetoric linked to Lee's book in a post that began with a lament that the new Archbishop of Canterbury was not pro-gay. And now Scot McKnight has weighed in with "Back to the Bible with Justin Lee" a series of posts that summarize Lee's position without much in the way of comment from the blogger, at least thus far.
I've noted in the interest of fairness and accuracy here before that Scot McKnight has stated in the past he is not in lock step with the pro homosexual push, but recent posts seem to also suggest he is not likely to offer much theological or political resistance to the movement. What strikes me is that New Testament Scholar McKnight who is often critical of real and alleged bad theology on the part of conservatives he disagrees with seems to give a pass to some really horrible exegesis on the part of Justin Lee.
Lee's story is one of being a good Christian kid who did his best to deal with his same-sex attraction and eventually came to a conclusion that maybe change was not possible. He comes off as honest, sincere and believable. If someone really tries, prays, weeps and does everything they can to change and God doesn't give them victory, then is victory possible? And that is a compelling question. Yes we can feel a bit of empathy, because we have all faced struggles of some sort.
But Lee's story is no more compelling than the stories of Christians who still struggle with gambling, pornography, alcoholism, a bad temper, a foul mouth after years of work and prayer and counsel. We are fallen beings. Still, if Christianity is true, then the teachings of scripture as understood for 2000 - 3400 years has to be taken very seriously and read very carefully and here is where I have an issue. Justin Lee's exegesis fails badly.
The argument Lee makes is essentially the same argument made in the "translation" of key passages in the Queen James Bible, a pro homosexual reworking of the King James to eliminate so-called " interpretive ambiguity" in the 8 key verses related to homosexuality. The QJB does so by appealing to historical "context" to either rewrite phrases or include words found nowhere in the text. (A good point by point analysis of the QJB on this issue can be found here.)
Essentially, Lee's exegetical position is this: the key verses related to homosexuality in the Bible are often associated to idolatrous worship. Therefore, since many homosexuals are not engaged in the temple worship of Molech or some equivalent, the passages do not refer to "committed monogamous" homosexual relationships, but to extremes fueled by idolatry. He uses Romans 1 to bolster this viewpoint, as Romans 1 links the suppression of knowledge of God and the creation of visible idols to Paul's warning about the wrath of God. So "committed monogamous" gay relationships that are not tied to some sort of idolatry are not in Paul's view. In the end the command to love is cited to resolve any remaining dissonance about the disagreements on this issue.
Reading the comments following McKnight's post, as well as Rachel Held Evans' review I am amazed at how few responses dealt with the flow of either the Leviticus 18 passage or Romans 1. Instead, even among academics, the emotion of compassion seems too often forwarded as a serious argument for a position. One common "argument" is essentially this: "These gay Christians have prayed really hard and tried really hard to change and they can't, so the text must mean something else".
The problem is of course that that is not a reasoned argument about the text at all.
Setting emotional appeals aside, there are some very simple reasons the position of the "Queen James Bible" and Justin Lee cannot hold.
Take Leviticus 18:22. Lee's contention is that Lev 18:21 provides the contextual clue that associates the imperative "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" with the ritual worship of Molech, a view identical to the "translation" in the QJB that reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination." The QJB added the italicized words to the text. They are not in the original.
The problem is so obvious a high school kid with a middling ACT score can see it but academics in pursuit of a social cause apparently cannot. Leviticus 18 gives a long list of different activities that were forbidden in the Old Testament. It begins with incest, adds such things as adultery, bestiality, homosexual sex acts and child sacrifice. If some homosexual acts are condemned only because they occur in relation to ritual idolatry but are permitted outside of that context (specifically committed, monogamous ones) then by the same logic, one would have to say some cases of committed, monogamous incest would also have to be OK as well, if not in the context of ritual idolatry. If context demands that only same sex acts in temple worship are an abomination, then it must hold that only idolatrous adulterous acts are an abomination. For that matter, child sacrifice that is not a matter of idol worship would also have to be given some consideration as not always being wrong.
Of course no Bible teacher would allow such abuse of "context" in the interpretation of any other verse when it would wreak havoc on the rest of the passage, so why is this interpretation even given a moment of credibility? Wouldn't any first year bible student get a major dose of red ink for such a clumsy example of reasoning?
In reality the reference to Molech makes sense in a more conservative vein. Marriage and sex are related to child-bearing, which is why the ideal is for a heterosexual pairing that leads to the propogation of a family. Sacrificing one's children to an idol, apart from the idolatry, is a betrayal of the family unit and the command to "be fruitful and multiply" given to the first human couple. Child sacrifice is always wrong, particularly in worship of Molech, but always wrong.
Lee's use of Romans 1 fares little better. While I would argue that Justin Lee has part of the story right in that Romans 1 does put the focus on idolatry, his conclusion is obviously nonsensical. The list of unrighteous activities to which God gives up those who refuse to think clearly about Him include sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, gossip, hatred of God, violence, pride, disobedience to parents, unforgiveness. Again he attempts to allow for committed monogamous homosexual relations on the grounds that Paul is dealing specifically with a form of idolatry that provides a contextual clue that the homosexual acts referred to are among those who have changed orientation from straight to gay.
The same rebuttal as that offered for the Lev 18:22 argument holds. If "men burning with lust for each other" is only sinful when it is formerly straight folks who change orientation as a result of ritual idolatry, then shall we also say that gossip, pride and murder are also wrong only relative to idolatry? Of course not. Murder is never right. Gossip is never right. Taking note of a specific cause of a transgression does not alter the moral requirement.
Paul's point is that God holds all men accountable for refusing to acknowledge the truth about Him. ALL MEN know intuitively and from the testimony of creation itself that He exists as creator, but they hold that truth at arms length, and instead create new gods more to their liking. As a result, God lets US go OUR own way, falling into all kinds of evil attitudes and activities, even to the point of foolish ideas. Homosexuality is one of many sins, but it is a vivid example of the irrationality that occurs when the true knowledge of God is twisted and denied, so that even the wondrous male-female relationship with it's clear complementary benefits and connection to procreation is turned on its head in favor of something that makes no sense at all - biologically, psychologically, ethically.
What Justin Lee fails to consider is that gay Christians who claim to know and worship God may be guilty of exactly the negative thing Paul is talking about in Romans 1, holding the truth at arms length and refashioning God into a version of him they are more comfortable with. Which is not to say Justin Lee has never been or cannot be a Christian - that is for God to judge - it is to say we all face the temptation of twisting the truth, altering our image of God to avoid the need to face up to our own broken ways. We can be guilty of idolatry even if we are genuine believers. Paul's warning is universal.
Now about compassion: I do understand the struggle. Who doesn't? What Christian hasn't dealt with a nagging sin or infirmity that never seems to let up?
Do gay Christians think that the alcoholic or drug addict or porn addict who struggles with a particular sin for years, who prays for healing but still struggles can't understand the frustration of a seeming lack of "victory over sin"? Shall we say that because the drug addict falls back into old habits it must be because God made him that way and we need to redefine addiction as a gift of God and seek a political solution to discrimination against addicts? Churches often have a hard time figuring out how to deal with more visible and "shocking" sins, and that is unfortunate. Yes, a bit more compassion and less concern about respectability can make ministry more effective. But other sins don't have a vocal and well funded political lobby demanding that their particular sin be reclassified as good and normal. And that is why this issue is so controversial, not because homosexuality is something new or shocking, but because the political push to normalize it is so relentless and unyielding and wrong.
The irrational inconsistency of the GLBT position was illustrated when I tried to interact. In an earlier post on this topic on Scot McKnight's blog, I commented and referenced the conversion of Rosaria Champaign Butterfield. I simply wanted to point out an example of someone who had left not only the "lifestyle" but had rethought her commitment to post-modernist rationalism. In her case one specific turning point seemed relevant: "...John 7:17: "If anyone
wills to do [God's] will, he shall know concerning the doctrine" (NKJV).
This verse exposed the quicksand in which my feet were stuck. I was a
thinker. I was paid to read books and write about them. I expected that
in all areas of life, understanding came before obedience. And I
wanted God to show me, on my terms, why homosexuality was a sin. I
wanted to be the judge, not one being judged.
But someone responded to my comment and suggested that since Butterfield had been in heterosexual relationships before she became a lesbian, her story was irrelevant - in essence she wasn't really gay or not gay enough. Leaving aside the irrationality of including bisexuals and transgenders in the definition of sexual inclusiveness on one hand while excluding gays who change on the other, this illustrates the point - reason and logic are not particularly relevant to debate on this issue.
The issue is not about reason or logic or evidence. It is all about emotion and the perception of fairness. It is clearly not about exegesis of the relevant Biblical passages.
It is not about there being no reasons to oppose gay relationships other than Bible verses (as I wrote about here, here and here.) It has primarily become a matter of an unthinking public being asked an emotional question, "do you think it good to be nice to people who seem to be nice people even though they have a different sexual orientation". And then comes the bait and switch - "if you want to be nice, you need to agree that same-sex relationships are good and normal." And in the cognitive dissonance, unthinking people more often than not take the path of less conflict.
I don't want this conflict. I don't want to be accused of being a hater, a backwards fundy, a bigot and essentially in league with nasty moralists who cause young gay teens to commit suicide. That is the conflict that is being relentlessly forced upon me - increasingly by professing Christians in the progressive movement who have a lot of visibility and influence. But I can't just look the other way and pretend it doesn't matter.
Justin Lee may be a very nice guy, a very sincere man and I have no reason to question his pain or his struggles. But that does not give him a blank check to offer tortured twisting of scripture to convince Christians of his point of view. I would hope someone with a bit more influence than me would simply and forcefully call bad exegesis what it is. Christ was compassionate about many things - I'm not sure turning scripture on it's head was one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment