Category: 
There are some folks who seem to think I am pro-emergent, when (as I’ve shown in numerous comment threads and a recent article) what I really consider myself is “pro-balance” – balance between inward/outward and temporal/eternal focus within the church.
In the Emergent Church movement, I have a serious problem with the EC churches which have come forth from liberal denominations (in the same way I have a problem with their non-EC predecessors). Today, as a case in point, TheOoze has posted an article which would be classified in rabbinic language as ‘abolishing the law’ (i.e. interpreting scripture in such a way as to lead people to break it). This article, called “Beyond Gender” is another sad attempt to create Biblical justification for sin – declaring what is evil ‘good’. (HT to Slice of Laodicea – don’t anyone ever say I didn’t compliment them when compliments were due, though I disagree with the attempted GBA attacks on Donald Miller & Rob Bell within the article. I’m sure David Koresh had books written by folks loved and adored by Slice, but, well, you know what I’m saying…)
(For folks interested in deep, hermeneutical analysis of the homosexual issue – and other trans-cultural issues – I would suggest the following book: Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb. While I disagree with some of his conclusions for cultural reasons in which I liken our culture to that of Ephesus, his method of analysis is helpful in analysis of Epistles written to different cultures.)
Before I really get started, I would like to state that the evidence that people are ‘born gay’ is still not all that convincing, with independent research unable to repeat results of studies which were most likely biased by those conducting them. And, even if there is genetic evidence for people being predisposed to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, a person’s behavior is still a matter of choice: to give in to temptation to sin or to resist the temptation (I’m not Arminian or Calvinist, so don’t get me started down that blind alley, as it’s just a matter of semantics in this discussion.)
There is ample hermeneutical evidence that homosexual behavior is condemned both in the Old Testament and the New, without regard to cultural aspects of the recipients of prohpetic/teaching messages. All the verses are well known across the debate, so I won’t go about re-posting them here. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not an absence of hospitality, and we can’t just write Paul off as being ‘mistaken’ that homosexuality was ‘unnatural’ (and therefore a product of lust). No accepted method of hermeneutics would come to this conclusion, either.
At current issue is Matthew 19:12
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:8-12)
What does this have to do with homosexuality? In a word: nothing. However, the argument is that because Jesus refers both to eunuchs who were made that way by men (as in formal court eunuchs, or those who have fallen to misfortune), this somehow means that Jesus recognized that people could be born without sexual inclinations (suggesting that these ‘natural born eunuchs’ were actually latent homosexuals). Even were this so, if this verse is to be taken in context, it would mean that someone who is a ‘natural born eunuch’ should not marry (which would, therefore, mean that any sexual activity would be sinful). However, this is not the case.
In Semetic cultures, the importance placed on children and their place in continuing to provide for the family was second to no other earthly reward. It was to sons that land would be passed, and it was through children that the parents would be provided. If a son was born with physical deformities which would prevent having children, Jesus is affirming that they should not be married, because any woman he might marry would not be able to have children to care for her, should she outlive him (which was often the case). Widows in semetic cultures were in a desperate situation, and anything which could be done to prevent the situation was best for her and the community. (See the institution of Leverite marriage.)
Additionally, in Genesis 1, God’s first command to the creation made in His image was to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexual relationships do nothing to meet this first commandment, and cannot – by their very nature – build the community. They are a dead end. As such, they were unnatural and could carry the death sentence.
Yes, it is true that God is love. But it is also true that He is just. As such, when people choose to engage in behavior that feels good – even if it seems to involve human ‘love’ – if that behavior is condemned by God, it is not His love that is in question, but human selfishness.
So, what should the Christian response be to people who are attracted to members of the same sex? What should be the Christian approach to people who are addicted to alcohol? What should the Christian approach be to people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married? The answer to all these questions is the same, which is just as much a condemnation of my past response to fellow human beings who were homosexual, as it is a condemnation of the sinful behavior some of them wish to justify, when no justification exists.
Comments
This entry was posted on Monday, October 16th, 2006 at 11:31 pm and is filed under Emergent Church, Liberalism, Religion/Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Thank you for posting this, Chris. I haven’t read it in-depth as yet (hey, it’s getting late and I’m tired, what can I say?) but I was hoping to see another take on this, and a response to Ingrid’s broad painting of the EC as a whole, which I also don’t have a stance on yet, as I don’t know enough about it. I have, however, learned to take the postings at Slice with a grain of salt. Anyway, I’ll read this in-depth tomorrow, and I’ll try to post something more intelligence and relevant to the article. Really, I will.
Drash (compare and contrast)
As we have seen before Matthew has three parallel outlines beginning with Matt 5 and Matt 8 with Jesus going up the mountain and coming down the mountain.
Matt 19:8 falls in the middle of the second block of parallel text beginning with Matt 12 and Matt 18. The linking texts are “At that time†and “At that hourâ€.
The title of each block will suggest the linking concept by comparison or contrast. This is the drash. The purpose of Drash is to suggest additional related information concerning the idea being presented to richen your ruminations. The third block of Drash not only enriches our meditations on the word, but actually reveals the abomination that causes desolation.
Temptation
Matt 12:33 `Either make the tree good, and its fruit* good, or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad, for from the fruit is the tree known.
Matt 19:3 And the Pharisees came near to him, tempting him, and saying to him, `Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’
* fruit is the symbols of temptation from the Genesis story.
Hint at the Genesis story
Matt 12:34 `Brood of vipers! how are ye able to speak good things–being evil? for out of the abundance of the heart doth the mouth speak.
Matt 19:4 And he answering said to them, `Did ye not read, that He who made them , from the beginning a male and a female made them,
* ‘viper’ and ‘from the beginning’ both point to the Genesis story
Marriage is a good thing
Matt 12:35 The good man out of the good treasure of the heart doth put forth the good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure doth put forth evil things.
Matt 19:5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be–the two–for one flesh?
* This will be a thematic inclusio
A reckoning
Matt 12:36 `And I say to you, that every idle word that men may speak, they shall give for it a reckoning in a day of judgment;
Matt 19:6 so that they are no more two, but one flesh; what therefore God did join together, let no man put asunder.’
* The final reckoning is God vs. man
Words condemn you
Matt 12:37 for from thy words thou shalt be declared righteous, and from thy words thou shalt be declared unrighteous.’
Matt 19:7 They say to him, `Why then did Moses command to give a roll of divorce, and to put her away?’
Matt 19:8 He saith to them–`Moses for your stiffness of heart did suffer you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so.
* The stiff hearted used words to put away their wives. These words declare them stuff, unrighteous.
Adultery
Matt 12:38 Then answered certain of the scribes and Pharisees, saying, `Teacher, we will to see a sign from thee.’
Matt 12:39 And he answering said to them, `A generation, evil and adulterous, doth seek a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet;
Matt 19:9 `And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.’
* Adultery
Dead
Matt 12:40 for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
Matt 19:10 His disciples say to him, `If the case of the man with the woman is so, it is not good to marry.’
* Since marriage is a good thing, the disciples have demonstrated their dead condition by calling good ‘evil’.
Received the word
Matt 12:41 `Men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, for they reformed at the proclamation of Jonah, and lo, a greater than Jonah here!
Matt 19:11 And he said to them, `All do not receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given;
*The Ninevites received the word, others do not. Remember Drash can be compare or contrast.
Receive it
Matt 12:42 `A queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and lo, a greater than Solomon here!
Matt 19:12 for there are eunuchs who from the mother’s womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive it –let him receive.’
*Queen and those with ears receive it.
Marriage is a good thing for those who are able to receive it. Singleness is appropriate for those who can receive it.
As with Remez, this drash calls to memory the creation story and the story of the Ninevites. The phrase “he who is able to receive it†is reminicent of “he who has ears†and so, suggests a ‘sod’.
The ‘sod’ of the creation story is that God created a man in His own image. This man is Christ (see the drash of Heb 11.3), hence his wife is the church. Only in Christ is man truly found to be in the image of God. The command to replenish the earth was a command to bear children in the image of God, not merely living bodies of flesh.
The Ninevites will stand in judgment on this generation because they became living children of God by the word of Jonah. This generation is only bearing children of flesh who call good ‘evil’.
Marriage or singleness is appropriate as it best suites God’s purpose of begetting living children.
Sorry. “The title of each block will suggest the linking concept by comparison or contrast. ” should read
“The title of each verse grouping below will suggest the linking concept by comparison or contrast.”
The third block starts with Matt 23 and Matt 26 “he spake” and “he finished his sayings”. This last block has longer thematic groupings rather than the nearly one-to-one correspondence we see in the drash above.