26.3.16
Robert Gagnon the Hypocrite
Snippet of E-mails Robert Gagnon received and his responses taken from Gagnon's own website that shows his bias:
"How do you think pastors should deal with the question of divorce and remarriage?"
Gagnon's response:
The divorce-remarriage thing is difficult. While a serious issue it is not as serious as... homosexual practice."
The question of heterosexuals living together outside of marriage asked Gagnon with the header; "Is heterosexual cohabitation grounds for denying church membership?"
Gagnon's response:
"My answer is: No, it is not as serious as homosexual practice..."
Robert Gagnon the Ass
A snippet of an E-mail Robert Gagnon received from a gay Christian and his response taken from Gagnon's own website:
"I pray that God will show you more compassion and love towards your gay brothers and sisters in the future."
Gagnon's response:
"Your prayers are self-serving and based on your own flawed logic and poor reading of Scripture. The remark is, frankly, arrogant on your part."
One blog critic had Gagnon prefacing a rebuttal with saying the blog author lost his job. The sole purpose of this was to embarrass him.
"I pray that God will show you more compassion and love towards your gay brothers and sisters in the future."
Gagnon's response:
"Your prayers are self-serving and based on your own flawed logic and poor reading of Scripture. The remark is, frankly, arrogant on your part."
One blog critic had Gagnon prefacing a rebuttal with saying the blog author lost his job. The sole purpose of this was to embarrass him.
10.3.16
9.3.16
MENTIRI TE
The newly started "Viceland Channel" played their segment on ex-gay therapy to a televised nation tonight (before you could only see it on their website and few did) and I wanted to re-post what I wrote about "ex-gays" a few months back that included the Vice link.
After watching it again it struck me that these men who want to be "real men" believe you can find being a man with being a husband, a father and having a white picket fence (what they actually stated). What they don't get is that's not what being a man is about. Being a man is rising above adversity with your head held high no matter the cost, having the strength, the fight, to come out and be true to yourself with who you are with what looks like, and sometimes is, institutions in our society like the Church fighting against you in finding peace in a grounded, gay, identity.
These are cowards you see in the Vice story. They just don't want to go through the tough life of being gay in a straight world... they've taken a coward's way out and that is not being a man.
4.3.16
Just Stop
Franklin Graham is in the news again (remember this publicity hound?) and this time he's aiming his guns on little girls who brave the cold outside of supermarkets to sell cookies. I have to be in agreement with Franklin on this one because ever have a Thin Mint Cookie? Only something that good can come from the depths of a burning HELL of delicious!
This is a good thing, again.
“We have allowed the enemy to come into our churches. I was talking to some Christians and they were talking about how they invited these gay children to come into their home and to come into the church and that they were wanting to influence them.”
“And I thought to myself, they’re not going to influence those kids, those kids are going to influence those parents’ children. What happens is we think we can fight by smiling and being real nice and loving. We have to understand who the enemy is and what he wants — he wants to devour our homes. He wants to devour this nation.”
- Franklin Graham
This is a good thing, again.
“We have allowed the enemy to come into our churches. I was talking to some Christians and they were talking about how they invited these gay children to come into their home and to come into the church and that they were wanting to influence them.”
“And I thought to myself, they’re not going to influence those kids, those kids are going to influence those parents’ children. What happens is we think we can fight by smiling and being real nice and loving. We have to understand who the enemy is and what he wants — he wants to devour our homes. He wants to devour this nation.”
- Franklin Graham
25.2.16
Thursday with John Holbert
Mr. Holbert is a retired Professor of Homiletics and Religion and has a PhD in the Hebrew Bible. He's Pastored in a Methodist local church, preached and taught in more than 1,000 churches in 40 states and 20 countries and authored 40 books.
20.2.16
18.2.16
Helping Francis
Like with my Tim Keller post, I like to give sane and reasonable Christians who differ with me on the Bible and homosexuality a little time on my blog when I can find them.
Que Francis Chan.
I found this little gem from Francis. What he said from the 5:00 mark on made me replay it to make sure I heard him right with saying he can be convinced homosexuality isn't a sin if you can give him the argument from Scripture.
Que Francis Chan.
I found this little gem from Francis. What he said from the 5:00 mark on made me replay it to make sure I heard him right with saying he can be convinced homosexuality isn't a sin if you can give him the argument from Scripture.
31.1.16
Mad*esh Kad*esh
I touched on the Quedesh, also spelled Kadesh, whose spelling I'll use here. The Priesthood from Deuteronomy in this post. Granted, the Leviticus verses don't state directly; "It's the Kadesh cult practices being talked about in Leviticus and not a prohibition of homosexuality as a general rule," but two points, if true, will leave the connection with the Kadeshem to Leviticus without question for the naysayers.
2. That the Canaanites frowned on homosexuality outside of cult worship settings and that the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 can't be anything but homosexuality in the context of ONLY cult idolatry.
The first point is easily proven by the Bible Itself:
1. That homosexual cult prostitution already existed in Canaan before the time the Israelites entered the land.
The first point is easily proven by the Bible Itself:
Leviticus 20:5: "... then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut him off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Moloch."
1 Kings 14:24 and 22:46:
"There were even male shrine prostitutes Kadesh (qā·ḏêš) in the land... "
"He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (haq·qā·ḏêš)... "
This is also backed by the historical record.*
The second point clinches it because Leviticus 18;3 states the Israelites were not to do the practices of the Canaanites:
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Now if it can be shown that the Canaanites did not practice homosexuality as a norm outside of their cult ceremonies or even prohibited homosexual practice, that means homosexuality was not one of the Canaanite "practices" God is forbidding to the Israelites and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 falls ONLY in the 'cult male prostitution' category the Canaanites DID practice.
Records from the Canaanite civilization are silent on homosexuality either way, but In his book "The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship," Frederick Greenspahn states the Canaanite law codes where directly copied from Mesopotamian Law Codes and what do we find in MALC (Mesopotamian Law Code), Tablet A: 19, 20? A rumor of homosexuality being slanderous and a general prohibition of homosexuality outside of idolatry. We can now say homosexuality was not only not a "practice," but it was also prohibited by the Canaanites if they indeed copied Mesopotamian Law.
(note; there was no variance in views within the Mesopotamian Nations on homosexuality. What you read here is all there is on it.)
The Hittites would also have copied the Mesopotamian Law Codes on homosexuality because they lived in the same era and were close neighbors to the Canaanites, but nothing is stated outright about homosexuality either way with the Hittites. What we do have though are several Hittite historical documents that hint at how homosexuality was held by these people. One is the; "Siege of Ursu" text that had a Hittite army commander criticizing his men for acting as "Kulessar," what historians believe is acting like a passive homosexual. The other is an exorcism text called the "Ritual of Anniwiyani" whose purpose was to exorcise an "effeminate" demon.**
As for Egypt? The land the Israelites left to go to Canaan whose "practices" they were ALSO forbidden to follow by God? Even homosexual desire was condemned according to the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and Derrick Sherwin Bailey states the ancient Egyptians regarded homosexual practices as; "... morally objectionable and personally degrading."
So there you have it. Homosexuality was rejected by the Egyptians whom the children of Israel left and from the evidence shown, also forbidden by the Canaanites whose land the children of Israel were going into. This would make "homosexuality" not one of the practices God forbids in Leviticus with the two lands and that would make homosexuality ONLY in the context of Canaanite idolatry the Canaanites probably abhorred as a people outside of idolatry
This is an angle no researcher has gone into as far as I know.
"There were even male shrine prostitutes Kadesh (qā·ḏêš) in the land... "
"He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (haq·qā·ḏêš)... "
This is also backed by the historical record.*
The second point clinches it because Leviticus 18;3 states the Israelites were not to do the practices of the Canaanites:
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Now if it can be shown that the Canaanites did not practice homosexuality as a norm outside of their cult ceremonies or even prohibited homosexual practice, that means homosexuality was not one of the Canaanite "practices" God is forbidding to the Israelites and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 falls ONLY in the 'cult male prostitution' category the Canaanites DID practice.
Records from the Canaanite civilization are silent on homosexuality either way, but In his book "The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship," Frederick Greenspahn states the Canaanite law codes where directly copied from Mesopotamian Law Codes and what do we find in MALC (Mesopotamian Law Code), Tablet A: 19, 20? A rumor of homosexuality being slanderous and a general prohibition of homosexuality outside of idolatry. We can now say homosexuality was not only not a "practice," but it was also prohibited by the Canaanites if they indeed copied Mesopotamian Law.
(note; there was no variance in views within the Mesopotamian Nations on homosexuality. What you read here is all there is on it.)
The Hittites would also have copied the Mesopotamian Law Codes on homosexuality because they lived in the same era and were close neighbors to the Canaanites, but nothing is stated outright about homosexuality either way with the Hittites. What we do have though are several Hittite historical documents that hint at how homosexuality was held by these people. One is the; "Siege of Ursu" text that had a Hittite army commander criticizing his men for acting as "Kulessar," what historians believe is acting like a passive homosexual. The other is an exorcism text called the "Ritual of Anniwiyani" whose purpose was to exorcise an "effeminate" demon.**
As for Egypt? The land the Israelites left to go to Canaan whose "practices" they were ALSO forbidden to follow by God? Even homosexual desire was condemned according to the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and Derrick Sherwin Bailey states the ancient Egyptians regarded homosexual practices as; "... morally objectionable and personally degrading."
So there you have it. Homosexuality was rejected by the Egyptians whom the children of Israel left and from the evidence shown, also forbidden by the Canaanites whose land the children of Israel were going into. This would make "homosexuality" not one of the practices God forbids in Leviticus with the two lands and that would make homosexuality ONLY in the context of Canaanite idolatry the Canaanites probably abhorred as a people outside of idolatry
This is an angle no researcher has gone into as far as I know.
“Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.”
- Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics; p.130.
*Two more resources on the Kadesh backing my claim:
*Two more resources on the Kadesh backing my claim:
"The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament" by John Grey.
“The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Histoical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew qadesh-qedeshim” by Phyllis Bird.
**To the ancients, a passive male, willingly, was what they would have the closest definition of a "homosexual," at least in their minds. A male who was penetrative in a homosexual act, either to humiliate the defeated in battle or as a sexual outlet was never considered a male desiring other males.
How much the ancients knew about a 'gay orientation' as we understand it today is for another discussion.
**To the ancients, a passive male, willingly, was what they would have the closest definition of a "homosexual," at least in their minds. A male who was penetrative in a homosexual act, either to humiliate the defeated in battle or as a sexual outlet was never considered a male desiring other males.
How much the ancients knew about a 'gay orientation' as we understand it today is for another discussion.
27.1.16
If Your Name Isn't On It Gagnon...
Steven Tuell, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I found him by accident when I stumbled across his blog. What's unique about Mr. Tuell is that he was at the same theological seminary Robert Gagnon went to, but unlike Robert, he is gay affirming with the Bible.
In honor of Mr. Tuell who loves Appalachian music.
In honor of Mr. Tuell who loves Appalachian music.
19.1.16
11.1.16
10.1.16
Scholar James Brownson on Gagnon's "Gender Complementarity"
Reviews of Brownson's book; "Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships:"
*"Brownson does a great job of explaining the difficult verses in context and history. Over the years, as I have had conversations with conservative pastors in hopes that they would consider broader understanding of biblical texts, it is apparent that many of these pastors have relied heavily upon the writings of Robert Gagnon. Prof. Brownson tackles Gagnon's objections with ease. Gagnon is masterful at taking a verse, making a supposition, calling that a fact and creating a "biblical truth." Brownson skillfully confronts those assumptions...
If I were to pick ONE book, and have it placed on the desk of every conservative pastor in the United States, that book would be Brownson's book."
- Barnes&Noble review.
*"This work is the only one I know of that gives such extended attention to dissecting and deconstructing arguments against same-sex relationships based on "gender complimentarity." Brownson clearly defines the different ways of understanding what is at the heart of different gender complimentarity arguments, and then proceeds to dismantle these arguments through very careful and close readings of the relevant biblical texts, especially Genesis 1-3. His critical interaction with the complimentarity arguments of Robert Gagnon, who has written the strongest and most comprehensive work for the traditional view, is worth the price of the book."
- Amazon review.
*"Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can’t think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed (bold italics by author). True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” terms that incite more than they describe but as “traditionalist” and “revisionist.” And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon’s focus on the gender non-complementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon’s argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner)."
- Christian author Matt Rogers.
*"Brownson does a great job of explaining the difficult verses in context and history. Over the years, as I have had conversations with conservative pastors in hopes that they would consider broader understanding of biblical texts, it is apparent that many of these pastors have relied heavily upon the writings of Robert Gagnon. Prof. Brownson tackles Gagnon's objections with ease. Gagnon is masterful at taking a verse, making a supposition, calling that a fact and creating a "biblical truth." Brownson skillfully confronts those assumptions...
If I were to pick ONE book, and have it placed on the desk of every conservative pastor in the United States, that book would be Brownson's book."
- Barnes&Noble review.
*"This work is the only one I know of that gives such extended attention to dissecting and deconstructing arguments against same-sex relationships based on "gender complimentarity." Brownson clearly defines the different ways of understanding what is at the heart of different gender complimentarity arguments, and then proceeds to dismantle these arguments through very careful and close readings of the relevant biblical texts, especially Genesis 1-3. His critical interaction with the complimentarity arguments of Robert Gagnon, who has written the strongest and most comprehensive work for the traditional view, is worth the price of the book."
- Amazon review.
*"Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can’t think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed (bold italics by author). True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” terms that incite more than they describe but as “traditionalist” and “revisionist.” And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon’s focus on the gender non-complementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon’s argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner)."
- Christian author Matt Rogers.
14.11.15
Pastor Randy Morgan
A powerful sermon from a Pentecostal Pastor.
I'm taking a break from putting up new postings. I'll still check my blog on a daily bases for any new comments.
"By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you."
Amen.
Proverbs 24:3-4, Cor. 13:11.
I'm taking a break from putting up new postings. I'll still check my blog on a daily bases for any new comments.
"By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you."
Amen.
Proverbs 24:3-4, Cor. 13:11.
10.11.15
Charles Stanley
Lay Christians like to listen to "Preachers" rather than real Bible "Teachers." The latter can go to the Bible languages of Christ and Paul to get what both were saying. Having a familiarity with the ancient texts outside the Bible is also a tool they go to that shines a better light on certain passages. We know the story of the good Samaritan, but if you go to the outside sources of the Bible, you'll know that the Jews and the Samaritans were mortal enemies, and knowing that gives more depth to the Samaritan story with making him different from the previous two passerby's who saw the robbed man on the side of the road.
Old school "Preachers," like Charles Stanley, talk from a cursory read of the Bible that they picked up at a local Christian book store and that's the extent of their knowledge of the passages. Bible scholars are just too involved and they need you to invest in studying with them and the average Pew Christian just doesn't want to bother when they can have people like Stanley around to spoon-feed on subjects they don't have a vested interest in like homosexuality. It helps Stanley in that he comes off like a kindly grandpa who must know what he's talking about because he's been around longer than you.
Stanley did a segment on his "In Touch Ministries" show about a gay Christian whose parents are having all kinds of problems with him because he won't follow the Christianity of his parents' preachers who condemn him, instead, he follows the Christianity taught by teachers and that doesn't sit well with Stanley at all who makes it sound it's all about the gay Christian's "feelings." Stanley believes gays have no joy or happiness no matter what gays say. He once gave this corny line; "(Homosexuality) leads to one place of extreme emptiness where wind and sorrow breach the soul," what he would LIKE to believe. He hints the son of this couple is going to Hell, unlike a Tim Keller I just posted on, and that the parents should make the life of their Christian gay son miserable, bringing a misery, ironically, that isn't coming from homosexuality, but coming from his Christian parents with not accepting him and if they don't? They are disobeying God Himself according to Stanley.
A little story...
A few years ago a gay pride parade had a route going past his church. Needless to say, Stanley was furious and told his churchgoers to stand outside on the church steps and scream Scripture and condemnation at them (the media reported they screamed anti-gay slurs). Across the street was Methodist church St. Marks who instead of screaming and accusing, passed out plastic cups of water to the parade passerby's because it was a hot day. Who was the greater of the two with the witness of the Gospel?
Don't ask Stanley.
Old school "Preachers," like Charles Stanley, talk from a cursory read of the Bible that they picked up at a local Christian book store and that's the extent of their knowledge of the passages. Bible scholars are just too involved and they need you to invest in studying with them and the average Pew Christian just doesn't want to bother when they can have people like Stanley around to spoon-feed on subjects they don't have a vested interest in like homosexuality. It helps Stanley in that he comes off like a kindly grandpa who must know what he's talking about because he's been around longer than you.
Stanley did a segment on his "In Touch Ministries" show about a gay Christian whose parents are having all kinds of problems with him because he won't follow the Christianity of his parents' preachers who condemn him, instead, he follows the Christianity taught by teachers and that doesn't sit well with Stanley at all who makes it sound it's all about the gay Christian's "feelings." Stanley believes gays have no joy or happiness no matter what gays say. He once gave this corny line; "(Homosexuality) leads to one place of extreme emptiness where wind and sorrow breach the soul," what he would LIKE to believe. He hints the son of this couple is going to Hell, unlike a Tim Keller I just posted on, and that the parents should make the life of their Christian gay son miserable, bringing a misery, ironically, that isn't coming from homosexuality, but coming from his Christian parents with not accepting him and if they don't? They are disobeying God Himself according to Stanley.
A little story...
A few years ago a gay pride parade had a route going past his church. Needless to say, Stanley was furious and told his churchgoers to stand outside on the church steps and scream Scripture and condemnation at them (the media reported they screamed anti-gay slurs). Across the street was Methodist church St. Marks who instead of screaming and accusing, passed out plastic cups of water to the parade passerby's because it was a hot day. Who was the greater of the two with the witness of the Gospel?
Don't ask Stanley.
8.11.15
Pastor Tim Keller
The Joe Dallas post left a really bad taste in my mouth, so I want to be fair with showing what others have to say who are less loathsome with this topic even though they still believe homosexuality is not compatible with the Biblical ethic. Tim Keller is one of those people who even though we disagree fundamentally on this (his "flourishing' argument is one of the easiest to take apart), I respect his Christ-like approach and tone.
I give equal time to Michael Coren, and not just because he looks like Keller.
4.11.15
Something About Robert
When Rob Bell said God was accepting of homosexuals, it really rattled the Evangelical world if you knew the place Rob had with them. Evangelicals felt it was a deep betrayal and turned there backs on him with calling him everything from a reprobate to a 'Dark Shepherd,' it didn't help when others sided with Rob like Brian McLaren, but oy, like most on my side with the Bible and homosexuality, they're just really crummy with debating. Rob is new to this and it's too early for him to stand up to anti-gay prats like Wilson who's good at slipping things into the conversation as a given. This is unfortunate because If you have ever heard Rob preach, you know he's a brilliant speaker, just not now, just not with this.
Rob is debating Andrew Wilson and of course Rob looks like he doesn't know where his car is parked.
He should have answered the question directly. Yes Andrew, the Bible and Jesus don't say it's sinful. Now what?!
Notice how Wilson implies those who believe like Rob don't get their view from the Bible, but instead get it from wanting to move people forward in history with a worldview? Rob should have stopped him right there and made it clear that the only reason he now believes as he does comes from Scripture, only Scripture, to win this.
Paul wouldn't be saying; "That's just great guys!" If two men were in a relationship at Corinth because he wouldn't even be saying that to a straight couple in Corinth. Did Andrew forget Paul said it's better to be single and if you HAVE to marry, do it so you "don't burn?" Paul saw ANY relationship as taking away from the work that needed to be done with bringing people into the Kingdom with the short time we tarry on this Earth.
Rob should have turned the question back on Andrew with saying; "Are you saying Jesus was talking about homosexuality because He was talking about "sexual immorality?" Because the Greek word Paul is saying for sexual immorality, porneia, in the passages you just quoted me, Matthew (5:28), Romans 1 (1:29), Revelations (18:3), it never refers to homosexuality. Fornication, harlotry, but never homosexuality of two committed men or women.
Andrew prattles on about the creation account that in no way CONDEMNS gay unions in Christ and notice he brings up Moses? Not any other patriarchs who had multiple wives and concubines, just Moses with the one wife. Still not a very smart move on his part when the Bible narrative hints Moses had two wives in the book of Numbers.
Rob should have stopped him again when he said 'arsenokoitai' is the active and 'malakoi' is the passive in a gay relationship. See how he makes it sound like it's a given? James White does this same thing when discussing these two words.
(Rob by now looks like he wants to hide in the bushes outside of the studio)
When Andrew is giving the line that gays in his church have left homosexuality, I'm glad Rob at least brought up the examples of gay Christians he knew who are active in the Body of Christ. There are countless testimonies of men and women that Andrew is ignoring who serve God in their gay identity, AS a new Creature who died to self IN a resurrected life in Christ. Slander and greed are offenses against another and against oneself, homosexuality isn't a breaking of "Shalom" Andrew.
I don't know what Andrew is trying to say starting at the 12:10 mark, even Rob had to ask. He's wrong though with saying all scholars believe as he does, a fact admitted by Gagnon and White with saying they are now in the minority, and that the early church had this view of homosexuality the church has now, it didn't. Andrew doesn't see church traditions with homosexuality being wrong, but he will be the first to say we should leave church tradition behind because these are dead traditions. Andrew can't go to Paul's words, he can't go to the Torah (when he says "Torah," he really only means Leviticus), he can't go to the prophets (When did Micah talk about homosexuality?) because they don't make these sweeping claims prohibiting homosexuality which he says they do.
(Rob is now looking at the host like he just got caught shoplifting hairspray)
Andrew is right with hinting Rob didn't bring anything to the table to change his mind. I do give Rob credit for calling out the bias of the host.
I do want to add one more thing from a personal perspective. I won't break bread or drink of the wine with someone like Andrew Wilson. I don't call him a brother in Christ and I know he won't call me brother. I will with someone like a Frances Chan who even though he believes as Andrew does, does it from a place of reluctance with what he sees as staying true to the Word. He's also willing to change his mind on this subject if a solid Biblical argument can be made. Something Wilson would never do no matter what truth is brought to him.
Rob is debating Andrew Wilson and of course Rob looks like he doesn't know where his car is parked.
He should have answered the question directly. Yes Andrew, the Bible and Jesus don't say it's sinful. Now what?!
Notice how Wilson implies those who believe like Rob don't get their view from the Bible, but instead get it from wanting to move people forward in history with a worldview? Rob should have stopped him right there and made it clear that the only reason he now believes as he does comes from Scripture, only Scripture, to win this.
Paul wouldn't be saying; "That's just great guys!" If two men were in a relationship at Corinth because he wouldn't even be saying that to a straight couple in Corinth. Did Andrew forget Paul said it's better to be single and if you HAVE to marry, do it so you "don't burn?" Paul saw ANY relationship as taking away from the work that needed to be done with bringing people into the Kingdom with the short time we tarry on this Earth.
Rob should have turned the question back on Andrew with saying; "Are you saying Jesus was talking about homosexuality because He was talking about "sexual immorality?" Because the Greek word Paul is saying for sexual immorality, porneia, in the passages you just quoted me, Matthew (5:28), Romans 1 (1:29), Revelations (18:3), it never refers to homosexuality. Fornication, harlotry, but never homosexuality of two committed men or women.
Andrew prattles on about the creation account that in no way CONDEMNS gay unions in Christ and notice he brings up Moses? Not any other patriarchs who had multiple wives and concubines, just Moses with the one wife. Still not a very smart move on his part when the Bible narrative hints Moses had two wives in the book of Numbers.
Rob should have stopped him again when he said 'arsenokoitai' is the active and 'malakoi' is the passive in a gay relationship. See how he makes it sound like it's a given? James White does this same thing when discussing these two words.
(Rob by now looks like he wants to hide in the bushes outside of the studio)
When Andrew is giving the line that gays in his church have left homosexuality, I'm glad Rob at least brought up the examples of gay Christians he knew who are active in the Body of Christ. There are countless testimonies of men and women that Andrew is ignoring who serve God in their gay identity, AS a new Creature who died to self IN a resurrected life in Christ. Slander and greed are offenses against another and against oneself, homosexuality isn't a breaking of "Shalom" Andrew.
I don't know what Andrew is trying to say starting at the 12:10 mark, even Rob had to ask. He's wrong though with saying all scholars believe as he does, a fact admitted by Gagnon and White with saying they are now in the minority, and that the early church had this view of homosexuality the church has now, it didn't. Andrew doesn't see church traditions with homosexuality being wrong, but he will be the first to say we should leave church tradition behind because these are dead traditions. Andrew can't go to Paul's words, he can't go to the Torah (when he says "Torah," he really only means Leviticus), he can't go to the prophets (When did Micah talk about homosexuality?) because they don't make these sweeping claims prohibiting homosexuality which he says they do.
(Rob is now looking at the host like he just got caught shoplifting hairspray)
Andrew is right with hinting Rob didn't bring anything to the table to change his mind. I do give Rob credit for calling out the bias of the host.
I do want to add one more thing from a personal perspective. I won't break bread or drink of the wine with someone like Andrew Wilson. I don't call him a brother in Christ and I know he won't call me brother. I will with someone like a Frances Chan who even though he believes as Andrew does, does it from a place of reluctance with what he sees as staying true to the Word. He's also willing to change his mind on this subject if a solid Biblical argument can be made. Something Wilson would never do no matter what truth is brought to him.
3.11.15
Julie With Waffles
When I leave a comment on YouTube, I'm always surprised when I go back and it's still there. I'm not kidding. I almost want to send a little handwritten thank you note and a 5-dollar Lotto scratcher in gratitude.
My comments are always with teaching, sometimes a rebuke, but nothing I wouldn't stand by if Christ was looking over my shoulder with what I wrote.
I won't delete comments on this blog or on my YouTube channel unless you insult me, you're promoting yourself or some goofy site, links, unless they're delicious hotlinks.
----
I realize I only give the perspective of a Christian gay man. This is a site from the perspective of a Christian lesbian for all the lovely lady lovers out there.
Julie Rodgers
My comments are always with teaching, sometimes a rebuke, but nothing I wouldn't stand by if Christ was looking over my shoulder with what I wrote.
I won't delete comments on this blog or on my YouTube channel unless you insult me, you're promoting yourself or some goofy site, links, unless they're delicious hotlinks.
----
I realize I only give the perspective of a Christian gay man. This is a site from the perspective of a Christian lesbian for all the lovely lady lovers out there.
Julie Rodgers
2.11.15
Nadia Bolz-Weber
When I was first putting this blog together, someone pointed me to Nadia. I became a fan.
"As a teenager, I began to question the Great Christian Sorting System. My gay friends in high school were kind and funny and loved me, so I suspected that my church had placed them in the wrong category... Injustices in the world needed to be addressed and not ignored. Christians weren't good; people who fought for peace and justice were good. I had been lied to, and in my anger at being lied to about the containers, I left the church. But it turns out, I hadn't actually escaped the sorting system. I had just changed the labels.
- Nadia Bolz-Webber.
"As a teenager, I began to question the Great Christian Sorting System. My gay friends in high school were kind and funny and loved me, so I suspected that my church had placed them in the wrong category... Injustices in the world needed to be addressed and not ignored. Christians weren't good; people who fought for peace and justice were good. I had been lied to, and in my anger at being lied to about the containers, I left the church. But it turns out, I hadn't actually escaped the sorting system. I had just changed the labels.
- Nadia Bolz-Webber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
copyright
