The author of this article is one such fellow: First, he tells you that he really has no business talking about matters of theology ("I'm no theologian...") and then....arrogantly flings his idea at the reader as if to say "Yes, I am ignorant of the Bible, Church History! I have never read what men like James White, John MacArthur, and John Piper have written. My beleif is simple and you can't judge a simple sincere belief. Lets examine a few of his statements.
Another issue of contention stems from a misconception about Jesus. Some Christians would like to forget that Jesus was a true radical; he incited the hatred of most of the traditional religious figures of his day.
Here we have a classic use of a loaded term. When we talk about a radical today, many of us think of Islamic Jihadist terrorism or something similar. Someone who blows up a building or themselves to make some kind of point. Dictionary.com defines radical as: "thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms." So, I suppose, you could say that Jesus was a radical in its definitional form but is this what the author intends?
Why is Jesus considered a radical by this author? He sees Jesus as bringing change, but what kind of change are we talking about?
Jesus' many discourses on the law reveal that Judaism had become a legalistic religion that was only concerned with outward appearances. Jesus did not do away with law, he refocuses it. He made people see that the law was not meant to make anyone righteous but was intended to drive the people back to God in repentance. In short: the law is supposed to make you cry out for mercy and grace. Why? Because you cannot possibly live up to it!
"He associated with the crudest of characters—prostitutes, gamblers, thieves—while shunning those who were too haughty and pious for their own good. Jesus would have embraced homosexuals as brothers and sisters in Christ, not condemned and denounced them"
He's half right - Jesus did indeed associate with what the Pharisee's would have considered the scum of the earth. But what Mr. Stensland-Bos fails to tell you is that these scuddzy people were repentant. Never do we read of a sinner coming to Jesus and being allowed to continue on in their sin. One does not have to search long in the Gospel accounts before we see Jesus calling people to repent: Matt 4:17, Mark 1:15 tell us that the entire ministry of Jesus was summed up by calling people to repent (i.e. Stop sinning!) Here are a few examples of the repentance of those who Jesus interacted with: Zacchaeus (Lk 19:8), The woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), the thief on the cross (Lk 23:40). The Old Testament: The Israelites ( Judges 10:15), David (2 Sam 12:13), Manasseh (2 Chron 33:12-13), Job (Job 42:6), The city of Nineveh (Jonah 3: 5-8) The New Testament: The Corinthians: a place where homosexuality rampant! (1Cor 7:9-10), The Seven Churches of Revelation (Rev 1-3) - those are just the examples that come to mind.
"Two of the primary Bible passages that anti-gay conservatives rely on to defend their arguments come from Leviticus. The problem with using these passages is that they refer to pagan fertility rituals, not homosexuality."
Really? What are these passages? We are, of course, not told. It does not take long before we find them, however. They are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. If what Mr. Stensland-Bos says is true it should be painfully obvious in a plain reading. Lets read them one at a time:
Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB95)
Leviticus 20:13: ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (NASB95)
Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are on the same subject: starting in verse one, is about immoral relations. (Since chapter 20 contains the same subject matter I will only discuss chapter 18.) We are also told that the people of God should not have sex with any relations. And just to make sure that the people God the point, God goes into detail. The people of God should not have sex with: their own parents, their own siblings, your fathers wife, your grandchildren, your aunt or uncle, your nieces or nephews, etc. Then God goes further: Don't have sex with your neighbors wife. After this, God addresses matters of a more perverse nature. Do not sacrifice your children to Molech -a deity in that children were sacrificed to by rolling them, alive, down the red hot arms of the statue into the furnace. Now we come to the verse in question. It is after a discourse on immorality that we are told not to have sex with the same gender. But God doesn't stop there: We are also told not to have sex with an animal. It is painfully obvious that while these two verses have a connection to paganism, they are what they seem to be: a prohibition against immorality. If they were simply dealing with pagan religion, one must ask the question: is homosexuality ok? Not only that but is having sex with my parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew ok? How about my neighbors wife? How about an animal? How long do you think it will be before pedophilia and animal love are being promoted as "perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyles"? He continues on saying
"Some anti-gay Christians cite passages from the New Testament, as well, particularly in the writings of Paul.Again, they conveniently miss the point. When considered in literary and historical context, it's obvious that Paul's writings have nothing do with homosexuality."
What is the point then, Mr. Stensland-Bos? What could Paul possibly be saying other than "homosexuality is sin"? Why would Paul go to such pains as to paint homosexuality in this light when he really had no intention of calling it a sinful practice? Romans 1 makes it very clear that homosexuality is a "vile passion" and a "shameful act". Over and over again Paul exhorts the churches to flee from sexual immorality and always lists homosexuality in his lists of sins. He even says that some of the Christians in these churches are former homosexuals (1 Cor 6:9-11).
The word that Paul uses is a compound word: ἀρσενο-κοίτης (arseno-koites). ἀρσενο, which an older form of the word ἔρσην (ersen)for "the male sex." κοίτης which comes from κοῖτος (koitos) which means refers to the sexual acts of the marriage bed. So to put that together, Paul is using a word that refers to two men committing acts that are are done by a married couple. Is that clear enough?
Beneath their tenuous theological arguments, the anti-gay crowd is hypocritical and deeply afraid of a terrible specter of an unknown—gays becoming equal in the eyes of the church.
Obviously, Mr. Stensland-Bos has never read the New Testament. He has never read First Corinthians 6 where Paul says that the believers there were, at one time, people who engaged in a long list of sins, of which homosexuality was included. Paul says "such some of you were." -indicating that their lives were no longer marked by these things. The Church is made of repentant sinners, Mr. Stensland-Bos. That is the chief mark of a Christian: repentance. If you are not repentant, than the church is not for you. Those who are unrepentant are not allowed to share the Lords Supper. They are not allowed to serve in leadership positions. They are not allowed to shepherd a local body.
They fiercely condemn homosexuals as unrepentant sinners until someone in their family comes out. Then they are forced to learn and accept with open hearts, and without exception, their views shift.
What exactly does it mean to "learn and accept" here? Clearly, Mr Stensland-bos means that what God has said should always be subject to our emotional experiences. According to this, my conviction about homosexuality must change when someone close to me comes out. Why?
One of my best friends is a homosexual. Granted, I have "learned" how to counsel her. I have "learned" how to exhort her to holiness and encourage her to wage war with the flesh. But that has no led me to condone her homosexuality. Should I use this standard when someone says they have a compulsion to molest small children? Surely not! Homosexuals, murders, thieves, adulterers, blasphemers - they all have one thing in common: they are sinners under the wrath of God. Homosexuals are guilty of breaking all ten commandments as surely as I, a heterosexual, am guilty of breaking all ten commandments. God calls homosexuals to repent and God calls heterosexuals to repent - there is no partiality with God.
It does not matter how much time passes nor how loud the debate grows, now how large the majority is; God's word does not change. The Church is indeed made up of all kinds of people, all kinds of sinners but these sinners are different. The sinners who make up God's people are the ones who daily repent of their sins. The real church is made of of sinners who daily wage war with the flesh, who deny their sinful desires-all to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ more and more glorious.
The decision of the ELCA to allow gay ministers is really just the newest development in a long succession of compromises that always happen when liberal theology gets into a church. When a church disregards what God has spoken the result is always the same: Sin will abound and a complete departure from the historic Christian faith will eventually take place. The ELCA is certainly not the first "church" to follow this pattern and I fear it will not be the last. The argumentation used by Mr. Stensland-bos is nothing new. Dr. White addressed these kinds of arguments are more it in his book The Same Sex Controversy and I'm sure many more books will come out with each succession generation of God's people.
This issue will not go away-there will always be people who seek to destroy the church by teaching things contrary to God's word and this should come as no surprise to God's people. False teachers have troubled the church all throughout church history. There never was a generation that was free or immune from false teachings. The treatment is simple. The marching orders of the church haven't changed: preach the whole counsel of God with no compromise and let God take care of the rest. To do otherwise is simply, well, amusing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment