Jonathan Dudley has written a provocative piece on how people use the Bible to condemn homosexual marriage and yet turn a blind-eye to other wrongs due to self-interest. The author points out that modern evangelicals reveal their personal bias when they oppose same-sex marriage since they do not endorse other standards in the Bible with the same zeal. In short, there are issues such as hair length, celibacy, when life begins, divorce, etc. that have changed over time. Therefore, since we no longer view these items as sacrosanct in the church due to the accepted evolution of religion within culture, we should not oppose same-sex marriage since it is simply the latest expression of the religion/culture adaptation.
In advocating the merits of his position, the author offers the following examples.
If nature tells us it is wrong to participate in homosexual activity due to the fact that it is “unnatural” (Romans 1) then why do Christians not adhere to Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11:14-15 where he says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (1 Corinthians 11:14-15)?
Again,
… the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy. When a theologian named Jovinian challenged that hierarchy in 390 A.D. — merely by suggesting that marriage and celibacy might be equally worthwhile endeavors — he was deemed a heretic and excommunicated from the church.
Another example of personal bias vs. Biblical obedience would be the incredible inconsistency of the church when it comes to divorce.
Although there is only one uncontested reference to same-sex relations in the New Testament, divorce is condemned throughout, both by Jesus and Paul. To quote Jesus from the Gospel of Mark: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”A possible exception is made only for unfaithfulness. The community most opposed to gay marriage usually reads these condemnations very leniently. A 2007 issue of Christianity Today, for example, featured a story on its cover about divorce that concluded that Christians should permit divorce for “adultery,” “emotional and physical neglect” and “abandonment and abuse.
Jonathan reveals the motivation for the glaring inconsistencies by opponents of gay marriage when he says,
… it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.
What do you think? Read the entire article and let’s consider the conclusion of the author based on the merits of his rationale.
Jonathan confuses 2 things, the consistency of historical Christians and the consistency of God. He admits that Romans 1 does teach that Homosexuality is a sin against God. When he mentions 1 cor; his argument would be a good one for saying men should get hair cuts but not a argument that homosexuality should not be practiced. It should not be practiced because it is an outworking of their rebellion to God.
He then goes on to parallel, in the same way, inconsistency in historical teaching on marriage, abortion, and celibacy. Again his argument turns on the idea that inconsistencies in historical christian teaching is the same thing as inconsistency in the bible.
So, how can you know if the leaders who should know the bible the best are interpreting and teaching it badly? I think it takes hard work, and community. Understand the Gospel first and foremost. All men are under the wrath of God, and only the mercy bought by the Cross can redeem anyone. Second, it takes a commitment to humility and repentance; both for bad beliefs and bad actions.
There’s a lot there but I think the underlying problem is his approach to Biblical interpretation. First of all he has no concept of the scriptures being ‘God breathed.’ He seems to view them as a collection of the opinions of the men who wrote them. Secondly, he breaks one of the rules of good hermeneutics by using a less clear passage (I Corinthians 11:14-15) to interpret a clear passage (Romans 1). He’s incorrect when he says Paul’s reason for condemning homosexuality is that it’s unnatural. Paul condemns homosexuality because God condemns it and God condemns it in both the Old and New Testaments. Homosexual behavior is not unnatural because most people find it unappealing, it’s unnatural because the God of the universe, who “created them male and female” shows us throughout scripture that it’s not the way He designed the sexual relationship to function.
Sadly he’s correct with regard to the church, at least in many cases, being hypocritical in their treatment of divorce vs. homosexuality. However, that’s not a reason to jettison the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality but to bring our views on divorce more in line with the scripture’s teaching.
Given the subject matter, I thought another resource would be helpful when considering the subject of homosexuality. Benoit Denizet-Lewis of the New York Times writes a unique article that highlights the journey of Michael Glatze from homosexual activist to born-again Christian. What I found interesting is the sheer disbelief by the gay community that a person who once sought to champion the “gay lifesyle” could truly change and become a heterosexual. Adding insult to injury, Michael has gone so far as to become one of “them,” a fundamentalist Christian.
The level of intolerance and judgmental hubris that oozes from the pro-gay contributors to the story is striking. The mantra of equal rights and personal freedom are denied when those rights and freedom clash with the homosexual agenda. Read the Story: My Ex-Gay Friend.
Larry, I think you point of, “… [hypocrisy is] not a reason to jettison the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality but to bring our views on divorce more in line with the scripture’s teaching” is spot-on. For example, would a person reject all medical doctors because there are some who are quacks? Yet, it seems that Jonathan wants to do just this when it comes to religion’s issues. I think it makes much more sense to not adhere to a “one-size-fits-all” critique of how religions apply certain standards, but to follow the centerpiece of all Biblical Christianity, namely, Jesus Christ. In Christ, I find no inconsistency, manipulation, or hypocrisy. It is for this reason that I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I recognize that all other religious leaders will, at various times and in various ways, be inconsistent and even, sadly, hypocritical. This is why we all need a Savior. I don’t think this is an excuse, but an understanding consistent with a Biblical worldview.
Hypocrisy is never an excuse. If I tell my kids not to eat the Cinnamon Toast Crunch or the Honeycombs and they both poor themselves a bowl, neither child’s disobedience is excused because of the other child’s disobedience.
I have recently been rethinking a lot of these same issues with hair, dress, etc. that many Christians lazily excuse as “cultural” commands. I see Larry’s point but the hair argument is fascinating to me. In the animal world it is usually the male that is more adorned than the female.
It might be something that we can address as a church on how to think through everything coming into play on these topics. “Aren’t we free from the law? Why follow some but not all OT laws? Does it have to be in the NT to be a “real” command? Etc.”
Speaking of other resources on this issue, if you’ve not seen Dr. Mohler’s excellent response to a question on homosexuality at the recent SBC meeting it’s worth watching:
http://sbcvoices.com/al-mohlers-response-to-peter-lumpkins-the-complete-video/
Oooooooo, thx Larry, I’ll check it out.