Baby Jeebus accepting The Gay? Bring on the Christian resentment
I was reading Dan Goldfinch’s excellent Christian blog today while watching my Fantasy Football team get drilled. I was looking at one of his most recent posts about the fantastically overblown Kathy “Suck it, Jesus” Griffin episode that I think has revealed more about Christian insecurities than it has about some imagined Hollywood anti-Jesus movement, and this statement by Dan caught my attention.
“What about those ‘Christians’ who say things about Jesus that are beyond offensive (things like ‘Jesus said it’s OK to be a homosexual’)?”
I understand that most Christians have interpreted certain passages in the Bible to say homosexuality is a sin and all that. I think it’s yet another example of cherry-picking which parts of the Bible to adhere to and which ones not to, but that’s really beside the point. What I don’t understand is why a Christian (no, wait, a “Christian” because Christians like to call the messenger into question when they don’t like the message, like when they say someone isn’t a “true” Christian because they did something bad) would not just say this person is wrong but that his statement is “beyond offensive.”
How do we know everything Jesus said? Everything we know about Jesus indicates he was accepting of a lot of people who most people didn’t accept. All the historical accounts we have show Jesus to have been a man who was drawn to outcasts, at least partly because he was a sort of outcast himself. It seems entirely within Jesus’ character to have said homosexuality was OK. And I’ve said Maybe this Christian knows something you don’t.
But let’s say he doesn’t. Let’s say this Christian is merely speculating based upon what he knows of Jesus’ life. And, as a Christian, let’s say you think he’s wrong. Why is his opinion “beyond offensive”? It seems like it has some reasonable historical data to back it up. And even if you do, in fact, believe God really hates homosexuality, is it that hard to believe that Jesus might not agree with every single opinion of his Father? Maybe they differed on this particular issue. Maybe they didn’t, and Jesus took just as hard a line on this as God allegedly did. But this statement by a Christian isn’t completely without merit.
But what if it were? What if there was no historical evidence to suggest Jesus may have been cool with homosexuality, regardless of what God may or may not have thought? I still don’t understand why this statement would qualify as “beyond offensive.” There are a lot of actions and lifestyles condemned in the Bible that even Christians aren’t at all bothered by today. Would saying “Jesus said wives divorcing their husbands is OK” be “beyond offensive” even if untrue? And furthermore, why would you be so offended because someone claims Jesus said something you don’t believe he said? Even if it were something you believe Jesus vehemently disagreed with? Wouldn’t you just say to yourself, “Phf. Jesus wouldn’t have said that” and be done with it? What are you afraid of?
I’ve never understood the mentality of love thy neighbor…unless he’s different than you are, anyway. That seems like a crappy way to treat other people.
Jeff,
As much as I enjoy your blog, there is so much wrong with your logic and with your understanding of Scripture that I cannot even begin to repond to it all. Instead, I’ll just pick on one part. You wrote: “And even if you do, in fact, believe God really hates homosexuality, is it that hard to believe that Jesus might not agree with every single opinion of his Father?” It is, in fact, impossible to believe such a thing as Jesus testified time and time again that he always does what pleases the Father, and He only says what He has heard in His Father’s presence. There is, in fact, no contradiction between the will of the Father and the will of Jesus. On this, you are, sadly, in great error.
I do want to clear up one other point. No one in the Christian church, except for a few ignorant people, has ever said that Jesus hated/hates homosexuals. No, the truth is, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Nevertheless, it is Jesus, the Head of the Church, who sets the standards for membership in His Church. In Corinthians, the apostle Paul wouldn’t even accept heterosexual misconduct and perversion in the church. Since homosexuality is, by nature, perversion and it is declared by Scripture to be sin, what part of it should Jesus accept in His Church? A repentant homosexual is more than welcome in the church as is the repentant thief. And there will probably be times when the repentant homosexual is tempted to sin. But that in no way reduces the fact that it is sin. No one who persists in practicing sin will inherit the Kingdom of God.
Even atheists are welcome to worship, but if they persist in their sin of unbelief, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Finally, truth be told, we don’t know everything Jesus said. John admits as much in John 21. However, we are not accountable for what we don’t know, but what we do know. Jesus said to all sinners: Repent and leave your life of sin behind.
Anyone is welcome to worship with my congregation any Sunday they wish: homosexuals included. But there should be no mistaking the difference between someone who can worship and someone who is a disciple of Jesus Christ. A practicing, unrepentant homosexual is not a Christian anymore than a practicing, unrepentant gossip or thief or liar. Worship they may, but persistence in sin, an unrepentant heart, and non-submission to the Lordship of Christ is unacceptable according the Scripture and will in fact prevent entrance into the Kingdom of God. That’s not my will or word, but the Scripture.
I hope this helps clarify the point.
your friend,
jerry
PS–I hope my spelling is alright. I’m watching the Steelers beat down another team and hoping Jeff Gordon gets a few more places on the track.
[...] My friend Jeff at atheocracy.com has posted a rebuttal to my thoughts on Kathy Griffen. His take deals with one sentence in all that I said in my last post. It has to do with homosexuality and the church. I posted a reply to Jeff’s thoughts. Baby Jeebus accepting The Gay? Bring on the Christian resentment. [...]
Dan-
Thanks for the response. I always appreciate it when you share your views.
Frankly, I fail to see where “there is so much wrong with my logic and understanding of scripture” in this case, but it’s possible you’re right. This is why I ask these questions, because I don’t have as much knowledge of scripture as do many Christians, and I don’t understand statements like yours on your blog. I’m hoping for an explanation, and you gave me one. I thank you for that.
First of all, let me point out that I didn’t say God hated homosexuals, only homosexuality. That’s directly from my writing, as you quoted yourself. So, while it’s possible you simply wanted to alert the reader to that difference, I would appreciate it if you would also note that I did not make a mistake in that respect. Just for the sake of clarity.
It seems I was right that we don’t know everything Jesus said, so I at least knew that much. Your response, while mostly well-reasoned and intelligent, does not address my stated point: Why would the statement that “Jesus said homosexuality is OK” be “beyond offensive”?
Even if everything you said was true (and who knows … maybe it is), why is it so offensive to differ with your viewpoint? There are tons of different sects within Christianity, and within those sects people believe all sorts of variations on interpretation of the Bible. So can someone not interpret the Bible such that homosexuality is not all that wrong? Plenty of “sins” in the Bible have basically been dismissed in today’s world. Why can’t this Christian believe homosexuality is one of them? Maybe he believes this passage is a product of another time or is allegorical of something else, as many other passages have been interpreted by many Christians.
I recognize my understanding of scripture may not be at the level of some, but I think my questions are valid. You don’t need to dismiss them because you think my understanding of Bible passages is not up to your standards. I’m not even saying you don’t have valid reasons for your opinion, but I simply don’t know what they are, and your response does nothing to address this fundamental question.
Why would this statement by a Christian be “beyond offensive” even if untrue?
Jeff,
Your logic only fails if one takes the position of the literalist.
There is little question that the Bible condemns homosexual activity. It also condones genocide (in God’s name of course), woman being taken forcibly as plunder and stoning rebellious children. As you aptly point out, we tend to ignore things we want to ignore.
The question I have no answer to is how much of the Bible is colored by societal norms. Woman as plunder was common in the time of Joshua. Less so today. That’s one of the reasons I don’t spend much time condemning homosexuals–I have no real idea how to decide God’s will for homosexuals who love Jesus. Luckily, they don’t answer to me anyway any more than I answer to them.
What if God hates the Bengals? Can I still be saved if I love the Bengals (who are right now losing 14-10 to Seattle)?
I shudder to think.
Whore (I love being able to call you “Whore” and not be insulting) -
If you love the Bengals, you’ve got bigger problems than the eternal resting spot for your soul.
[...] I Feel About Homosexuals Today I was acquainting myself with WordPress and I ran across this post about how I may feel about [...]
“Jeebus” - not original, but I chuckle every time one of you calls me that!
Jeff, I am so glad I made you the way I made you. Sharp mind, my son.
I mentioned you on my new blog today.
Look at the Pingback above. Jesus has a blog! And he reads mine. I never knew. Maybe I should be nicer to him from now on.
Yes, “Jeebus” isn’t really meant to be original. It’s only a “Simpsons” reference that I enjoy. Keep ‘em comin’, Jesus. And please tell your dad to smack some of his followers.
Jeff, as hard as it is, I encourage you to be patient with some of my followers. Most of them are victims of centuries of abusive leaders who saw me as a ticket to power, wealth, or sex.
It is only now, when mankind has advanced enough to give up many of their superstitions, that I am able to use people like you to point out obvious deficiencies in their faith.
I mean that: You are doing my work, and I appreciate it.
A couple christmas’s ago my wife and I played in a cantata which a cousin of mine put on for several churches. He is the minister of music at one of the churches, and he is gay.
Now, people who can’t stand gays in those churches (his own parents and a brother included)view this as something, well different. It is said, he’s not really gay, just finding himself. He’s just showing off to get attention. Or, (deep breath) he’s “one of the ‘good’ gays”. Still trying to figure that one out.
I can drive an hour and a quarter on any road and find Methodists, Baptists, Calvinists, Mennonites, Amish, two mosques (one Shia, the other Sunni, luckily no Ismailis), three Friends Meetings, three different Hutterite communes, a Primitive Church (with Signs), and a Reformed Church that no one really knows reformed from what to what) and many others of Primitive, Evangelical, Full Gospel and many other stripes. Many of these churches are splinters from others, and as I play in many, I’ve heard all about the schisms. Seems it’s usually some scriptural interpretation and which is right and wrong. Ah, well. Turns out they all ‘prayed over’ the problem and got the answer: You’re right, the others are wrong.
The people from the Reformed Church came by the house to do a survey when they openned, and I happened to be giving a lesson. I told the surveyers that I felt that an Incorrigable Church or at least a Recidivist Church would be more appealing to me.
The girl I was giving the lesson to and her mother both agreed that Incorrigable would probably suit me best.
What with the roleplay? Did I accidentally step into a dirty chatroom or something?
I enjoyed the post. As a homosexual post-Christian, I definitely appreciate the sentiments in your blog. After I left the church to pursue my own life, every one of my friends left me except two. I’m glad to see someone’s asking the same questions I did.
Have a good one!
Jeff,
While it is true the Bengals lost again today, the defense improved over last week and because of injuries our special teams has been emaciated. We will have a great season. We will. I have faith.
Jeff,
I owe you an apology. It is unfortunate that I cannot edit replies I leave at others’ blogs. I regret that I insulted you and I assure you that even though I wrote it, the statement simply didn’t come out the way I expected it to. I hope you can forgive me this blunder. Also, I didn’t mean to imply that you said Jesus hated homosexuals. Again, I wrote quickly and hit the post button before thoroughly proofreading. Again, I ask for your forgiveness.
The statement that some people make: “Jesus said it is OK to be homosexual” or any of its variants such as, “God made this way” or “All that matters to God is Love (when it comes to a sexual partner as long as it’s monogamous)” or “You can be a Christiand and a (praciticing) homosexual” are offensive because Jesus did not say anything of the sort. In fact, Jesus affirmed the sanctity of a One Man, One Woman marriage as being grounded in the Scripture, grounded in History, and grounded in the will and purpose of God for humanity when he said this concerning divorce, “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law…But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefored, what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10:5-9, NIV).
My point, then, is that those statements are offensive because they a) violates the command of God, b) mocks the will of God, c) change the Word of God to suit their own prejudice and d) make Jesus say things that he in no way said. Those who say that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality have not read the Scripture I just quoted above. And those who say that (practiced) homosexuality is compatible with Christian faith are just biblically, historically, theologically wrong.
Again, Jeff, I appreciate your friendship and our conversations and I am deeply sorry that I insulted you. I assure you that it was unintentional and I deeply regret it. I hope this reply explains my position a little more clearly. And, to be sure, I’ll be much more careful next time I hit the submit button.
jerry
PS–Steelers are now 3-0. To the Whore, The Bengals stink. PS, I was just down in Cinci last week. I love it down there, but not nearly as much as I love the Burg!
Finch,
Moses also gave several reasons for divorce that Jesus vetoed.
Just something to consider.
The Steelers are good, no doubt, but I’m betting Roth will fold like cheap origami before the season is out.
I think rage clouded my reply. I just re-read yours.
Jesus was correcting the law of Moses, not saying anything about homosexuality. You have no way of knowing whether the commands regarding homosexuality were due to hard hearts, the will or God or the current social situation.
Sorry I responded so knee jerk in my last.
Rage over the Bengals/Steelers, just to be clear. Golly, I hate not having emoticons.
Church,
That’s exactly the point. We cannot ‘go beyond what is written’. ‘We’ meaning the Christian. Of course the person who is not a Christian is under no obligations whatsoever, in my judgment, to live by the Christian standard–in fact, most will not, and I think it is rather fruitless to impose such standards on people (but don’t misunderstand what I’m saying). Some will continue to live by the law ‘written on their hearts’, but even still mere good behaviorism is not the same as discipleship in Christ because of the cross.
I agree that Jesus was making a point abour divorce, I stated as much. Nevertheless, notice that Jesus a) quotes Scripture as authoritative, b) uses historical precedent to make his point and c) quotes Scripture as historically valid and accurate. I cannot go beyond what is written when it comes to morality or what Scripture says about sin, repentance, and discipleship, nevertheless, I believe that God has also given us a mind and common sense. Simply invoking the genocide passages without understanding the theological and historical reasoning behind them is just bad reasoning.
To your point: It is irrelevant what the the reasons for the ban on homosexuality were–although the clearest reason is that it is an aberration of the God ordered creation in which male and female were given in marriage. The fact is, it is banned (or labeled as a sin that must be repented of) in both the Old and New Testaments. It is not permitted and is incompatible with the Scripture that informs the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ. No matter what argument you use, ‘hard hearts’, ‘will of God’ (which is no argument), or ‘current social situation’ it is a sin that must be repented of just the same as the sins of lust, or envy, or pride, or murder, or blasphemy, or idolatry, or adultery, or cursing.
The fact is, we are all sinners. I would be no more welcome in the Kingdom of God if I were an unrepentant, practicing, heterosexual adulterer than will be the unrepentant, practicing, ‘monogamous’ homosexual. I have no right to reinvent the Scripture to suit or please any particular group. The Scripture is what it is.
I can’t wait for that Bengals/Steelers match-up. That will be the game of the year for me. Black and Gold!
jerry
Understandable, Jerry. Your previous comment did seem somewhat out of character for you, but it happens. Certainly has happened to me at times. We’re all offended from time to time; no reason to get upset about it. Thanks for the apology. It’s accepted.
Now, back to the issue at hand …
You say the statement is “beyond offensive” for 4 reasons: a) violates the command of God, b) mocks the will of God, c) change the Word of God to suit their own prejudice and d) make Jesus say things that he in no way said.
As I’ve said previously, though, there are all sorts of different interpretations of the Bible. This is a book that says a lot of things people either ignore or dismiss:
“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean … But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” (Leviticus 12:2 and 12:5) — A woman who has a female child must endure a purification ritual.
“As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may aquire male and female slaves.” (Leviticus 25:44, NRSV) — You can attain slaves from neighboring countries.
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalms 137:9, KJV) — It is good to kill your children.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) — You should hate your family.
“Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” (Judges 19:24-25) — Gang rape of women is OK.
Now, I’ve included my (and many others’
interpretations of these passages. If someone says, “Jesus did not condone slavery,” is that “beyond offensive”? If someone says, “Jesus did not think women who have female children should be tortured near death,” is that “beyond offensive”?
My point is, passages like these are basically dismissed or ignored by most Christians. So, if people are picking and choosing what they follow anyway, why can’t someone dismiss the ones that would seem to be against homosexuality? Or why can’t someone have a different interpretation of the Bible than do you?
Therefore, they wouldn’t “violate the command of God” because this Christian would interpret the Bible differently from you. For the same reason, his statement wouldn’t “mock the will of God” or “change the word of God to fit his prejudice.” As far as “making Jesus say things he in no way said,” you said yourself we don’t know everything Jesus said. And if you think the passages on homosexuality should be dismissed along with several of the other heinous statements in the Bible, you have plenty of reason to think Jesus may have been cool with homosexuality.
There are tons of different interpretations of the Bible, Jerry. Does one have to agree with yours in order to not be “beyond offensive”?
Thanks again for stopping by, Jerry. I hope you know I’m not trying to be disrespectful at all; I’m just trying to get to the heart of this matter. Thanks.
[...] we seen signs like that? Jeff Haws has written an interesting commentary in response to this entry from Dan Goldfinch. The reasoning behind that sign underlies Jeff’s [...]
Jeff,
I’d direct you to #21. There are some good thoughts there that will help. I think that post answers a lot of your questions. I’m kind of pressed for time and can’t put all those passages you quoted into their proper historical, biblical, and theological context. I will say this much, such Scriptures will make perfectly clear sense only in Christ. Paul the apostle wrote about this in 2 Corinthians. I have written elsewhere, perhaps at my blog, about the New Testament stance on slavery. The New Testament does not condone slavery. In fact, the Apostle said if a slave can get out of slavery he should.
Other passages, when yanked out of their context, can mean anything you want them to mean. Gang rape is not condoned, it is reported de facto: It happened (more than once!) Doesn’t mean that it is right or condoned.
I can make a case that ‘hating the family’ is a hyperbolic way of stating that nothing takes the place of devotion to Christ.
I’ll say this much: Put those passages into their proper context and read them through the Spirit of Christ. Then those passages will begin to make much better sense. You know the old saying, “A text without a context becomes a pretext for a prooftext.” Context matters.
your friend,
jerry
ps-thanks for the forgiveness.
Jerry-
Interesting response. Thanks for that.
I realize these can be taken out of context, but aren’t passages like these dangerous? They can be interpreted exactly how I interpreted them. Easily, in fact. You say I have to read them “through the Spirit of Christ,” which sounds a bit like saying, “It’s a Christian thing; you wouldn’t understand.” But this is the most popular book in the world. Most people who read it aren’t going to have the level of intellect (or spirituality) to interpret these in a positive manner, even if they are meant that way.
Are you going to tell me that most Christians interpret the Bible literally and don’t dismiss parts of it as out of date or allegorical? If they do, why can’t they do so with the ones about homosexuality without deeply offending you?
Jeff,
Don’t take this in a condescending way, but to an extent it is ‘a Christian thing’. The Bible may very well be a popular book, but popularity is not the objective. The Scripture was written to reveal to us the Will of God, and ultimately, Jesus Christ. And while I’m a firm believer that any Christian can read the Scripture and make sense of it, there is also a sense where people who are not Christians will be blinded to the truth–as we are told the god of this age enjoys doing so. (This is also in the Bible.) I don’t say that to be mean, it’s what is in Scripture.
I said somewhere else that even though Scripture is sometimes difficult to interpret, God does give people common sense. However, the Scripture also says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth. This means that the Holy Spirit cannot lead us into error. Now this is not to say that people will not be in error, or that they will not deliberately misrepresent the Scripture. It is to say that the Holy Spirit will not deliberately lead us into error. After all, though, we are still sinners in need of regeneration. Furthermore, it is somewhat impossible to be entirely error free. One reason, I think, for the presence of denominations is just that reason. It is to check spiritual hubris, ecclesastical arrogance, and private pride. You know how accountability works. It’s why you have an editor and a fact checker and an email where your readers can contact you and why letters to the editor are published.
Scripture is also clear that sexual sins are ’sins against the body’ (See 1 & 2 Corinthians). In my understanding, sexual sins are ‘worse’ precisely for that reason: They are done ‘in the body.’ The marriage of one man to one woman is a model of the relationship between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5). In this sense, the marriage of one man to one woman is sanctified and holy. Thus marriage is not merely the means by which we procreate, find companionship, and raise a family. Marriage is also, if I may use this figure of speech, a living metaphor. It demonstrates the relationship between Christ and His Church, something we dare not take lightly.
No, I’m not telling you that most Christians interpret the Bible literally and dismiss parts of it as out of date. Obviously, we don’t sacrifice animals any longer because Christ is sufficient. We wear clothing of mixed fabrics, and plant gardens with mixed vegetables. We don’t slaughter Sabbath breakers nor do we persecute adulterers (except in Islamic nations under Sharia law.) Nevertheless, this does not mean that adultery is somehow right. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take a Sabbath. Certain parts of the moral code were obviously culturally specific, but most of the moral code of the OT was actually repeated in the NT and is, for the church, binding. Especially as it relates to sexual conduct.
In the church purity, holiness, matters. In the church attention to these things is required. But I keep pointing out that in this sense, homosexuality is no different from heterosexual adultery or any other un-repented-of sin. Sin is still sin and it makes no difference what culture or generation we live in. So we have to learn, and there is something called natural law. Some things are beyond obvious. The very nature of homosexuality should tell people it is wrong–there’s nothing natural about it, and love is not all that counts. The very way homosexuality is practiced should tell people that it is naturally and morally sin.
As a Christian, as a preacher, as someone who believes the Word of God to be binding and authoritative for the Church–not culture in general, but the church–I don’t have a choice but to say: Homosexuality is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sin (which is another problem for the homosexual because God defines marriage as one man and one woman for life; how then can a homosexual be legitimately married and practice sex in a marriage? How can they procreate? How can two men or two women model the relationship between Christ and his Church?) Stealing is wrong. Lying is wrong. Coveting is wrong.
So, while we understand that the Bible is part law, part history, part apocalypse; contains parables, proverbs, psalms, riddles, extended metaphors, letters, decrees, prophecy and more; we also understand how to tell the difference between those parts and interpret them according to the Spirit of Jesus Christ and as revealing Jesus Christ (Luke 24, John 5). Ultimately, Scripture was given to reveal to us Jesus Christ. What we practice and preach must be done in accordance with the Words of Christ. The Christian simply has no other option, and no authority whatsoever to alter the content.
I hope this makes sense. Thanks for the space.
your friend,
jerry
[...] Baby Jeebus accepting The Gay? Bring on the Christian resentment [...]
[...] Jeff’s Errors on Homosexuality, pt. III Posted on October 16, 2007 by Cory Tucholski This portion is easy to answer: But let’s say he doesn’t. Let’s say this Christian is merely speculating based upon what he knows of Jesus’ life. And, as a Christian, let’s say you think he’s wrong. Why is his opinion “beyond offensive”? It seems like it has some reasonable historical data to back it up. And even if you do, in fact, believe God really hates homosexuality, is it that hard to believe that Jesus might not agree with every single opinion of his Father? Maybe they differed on this particular issue. Maybe they didn’t, and Jesus took just as hard a line on this as God allegedly did. But this statement by a Christian isn’t completely without merit. (source) [...]