DRTIMWHITE.COM

In response to the many negative commits from McLaren’s blog mentioned in Part 1, McLaren posted a second blog defending his view:

Please be assured that as a pastor and as someone who loves and seeks to follow   the Bible, I am aware of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and related texts. Believe me, I have read them and prayerfully pondered them, and have read extensively on all the many sides of the issue. I understand that for many people, these verses end all dialogue and people like me must seem horribly stupid not to see what’s there so clearly to them. I wish they could understand that some of us encounter additional levels of complexity when we try honestly and faithfully to face these texts.[1]

Let’s examine how homosexuals interpret these pertinent Scriptures. There are pro-homosexual Bible teachers who claim that the Word of God does not condemn homosexuality such as Walter Barnett and John J. McNeill. McNeill writes: “Nowhere in the Scripture is there a clear condemnation of a loving sexual relationship between two gay persons.”[2]

Genesis 19:1-11

There are six passages that deal with homosexuality about which these Gay theologians claim no condemnation. The first passage is Genesis 19:1-11. The first homosexual interpretation states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not simply homosexuality but homosexual gang rape. “Jude 7 gives a commentary on this passage. It clearly states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange or different flesh. It is no accident that Jude describes their actions by using ‘fornication.’ The verb definitely refers to sexual immorality.”[3]

The next homosexual reinterpretation claims that the sin of Sodom was a gross violation of a hospitality code. Lot broke the code of hospitality because he was a resident alien. He received two foreigners who might have hostile intentions. The two visitors should have first been received by the citizens of Sodom. If this was the case why did Lot not just introduce everyone if the problem was a breach of hospitality? Why did Lot offer his daughters for sexual pleasure, if the problem was a lack of hospitality? If the sin of Sodom was a breach of the hospitality code, Lot broke it and not the inhabitants of Sodom. But Lot was not judged and the two cities were.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Another passage the pro-homosexuals reinterpret is Leviticus 18:22. In Leviticus 18:3, God commanded Israel not to live like the unsaved nations of Egypt and Canaan and then proceeded to specifically instruct what this meant. In two passages, God forbad the practice of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 forbids homosexuality and 20:13 assigns the death penalty for homosexuality. Here is how one pro-homosexual advocate dismisses these prohibitions:

It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have taken other proscriptions found in the same Old Testament Code, e.g.: rules against eating of rabbit (Lev. 11:26), oysters, claims, shrimp, and lobster (Lev. 11:10ff), and rare steaks (Lev. 17:10). Evangelicals do not picket or try to close down seafood restaurants nor do we keep kosher kitchens. We do not always order steaks “well-done.” We eat pork and ham. The wearing of clothes made from interwoven linen and wool (Deut. 22:11) does not seem to bother us at all. Evangelicals do not say, in accordance with these same laws of cultic purification (Lev. 20:13), that those who practice homosexual activity should be executed as prescribed. Evangelicals do not demand the death penalty for the Jeane Dixons of this world (Lev.20:27) nor do we “cut off” from among the people, as is demanded by this same Code, those who have intercourse with women during menstruation (Lev. 20:18) and those who marry women who have been divorced (Lev. 21:14). Evangelical do not keep out of the pulpit those who are visually handicapped or lame or those “with a limb too long” (Lev. 21:18ff).[4]

McLaren is very sympathetic with Bair’s view of the irrelevance of the Old Testament Law and Evangelical inconsistent application of the Old Testament Law:

These questions are all the more challenging for some of us when we realize that the Leviticus texts themselves, if taken literally, call for the death penalty. Nobody (I don’t think?) takes that literally, nor do we take many of the other 611 Mosaic proscriptions literally. Why take these selected verses literally, and only partially so? And it gets even more complex for some of us when we realize that people in later Biblical times didn’t enforce some of these proscriptions literally either. For example, David committed adultery but wasn’t killed as Leviticus 20:10 would require; why didn’t Nathan require the death penalty for David and Bathsheba when he brought the word of   the Lord?[5]

The issue with the priestly Holiness Code of Leviticus is not a literal hermeneutic but whither God’s people today are dispensationally still under the Law as a rule of life. The answer is no. Still there are moral principles from the Old Testament reincorporated in the New Testament that are binding today. Some of these restated moral principles were before the Law such as the capital punishment requirement in Genesis 9 which is restated in Romans 13. As in David’s case, there are exceptions which do not eliminate the rule. While the civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of the Law were terminated with Christ (Romans 10:4) some of the sins condemned in the Old Testament are likewise condemned in the New Testament.

The Mosaic law has been done away in its entirety as a code. God is no longer guiding the life of man by this particular code. In its place He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the individual commands within that law are new, but some are not. Some of the ones which are old were also found in the Mosaic law and they are now incorporated completely and are forever done away. As part of the law of Christ they are binding on the believer today.[6]

Romans 1:26-27

In the New Testament, Gay theologians use the “abuse argument” to justify homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. The most common reinterpretation is that Paul is condemning unnatural homosexual acts. For example:

In his catalog of vices in which homosexual behavior is listed, it should be noted that it is included with what the apostle regarded as certain heterosexual sins such as adultery, fornication, Epicurean over-indulgence, and general abuse of the body. For perspective, note should be taken of Paul’s equally weighty inclusion in this passage of drunkards and the repeated censure of the greedy, the grasping, and those who steal. Here are simply other examples of sinful abuse, since, for example, Paul advocated alcoholic temperance but not necessarily abstinence. He recommends to young Timothy that he drink some wine for his (1 Tim. 5:23). Elsewhere, Paul urges whole-hearted enthusiasm in all that one undertakes, but that does not mean the abuse of over-indulgence, greed, or coveting in the process (1 Cor. 10:31). One should not assume uncritically that there is in the Corinthian passage a proof text against all homosexuality or even all homosexual acts   Of course, homosexual behavior can be perverted and sinful and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be – or any kind of activity can be – but this is not the same as rejecting either sexual orientation or specific acts as sinful as such.[7]

It is correct that Paul is condemning abuses in this vice list. However, for a vice to be an abuse there must be a corresponding norm that is godly and healthy. The adultery and fornication is the abuse of the “one flesh” relationship of marriage that God ordained in Genesis 2. What is the responsible norm that homosexuality is the abuse of in Scripture? The norm is not godly or responsible homosexuality but heterosexuality as stated in Genesis 1 and 2.[8]

It is also argued by pro-homosexual advocates that to  go “against nature” in Romans 1:26-27 is for an heterosexual to commit homosexual acts, which is against his nature or unnatural, and not for constitutional homosexuals to be involved in homosexuality which is natural for them.

The homosexual is not desirous that everyone should be like him or her in sexual preference. Homosexuality is a variation from what is normal, i.e., heterosexuality. It is not, however, a sin or disorder. Nature is full of variations from its overall design. Some people are midgets, others are albinos, still others are left handed. These, like homosexuals, are and always will be minority variations from the majority. These differences are not unique to our culture and time. They have always existed and will continue to do so. They evidence neither sin nor the fallen condition of humanity, but merely the lack of uniformity in nature. Rather than condemn them, we should affirm them and rejoice that they exist.[9]

There are two reasons this is a faulty argument for the meaning of “against nature.” The reason this argument is eisegesis is because homosexuality is not genetic or the result of being born a constitutional homosexual. Studies have not proved this. In addition, how could God condemn as sin a condition for which the person is not responsible? The second reason is that “against nature” means against the natural order for sexuality that God established in the Garden in Genesis when He stated “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul includes in these two sin or vice lists homosexuality. The Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai refer respectfully to the passive and active partners in homosexuality. The homosexual interpretation states that this list cannot be taken seriously because we all are covetous.[10] “To say that a sin in a long list does not draw special condemnation does not mean Scripture approves the action. A vice list is still a vice list. Moreover, there is a failure to make a biblical distinction between a repentant sinner who seeks with God’s help to be free of some sin but who may at some time fail and an unrepentant sinner who follows a planned and uninterrupted course of disobedience. The vice lists refer to the latter, not the former. There is grace and forgiveness for the former.”[11]

Conclusion

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture like other sins. Homosexuality is not genetic nor the result of someone’s environment. Homosexuality is a choice and homosexuals are responsible for their actions. Therefore homosexuals should not be given a minority status. As Carson predicts, this will soon be a battle for the church of epic proportions: “I suspect that in our generation, for better and for worse, the homosexuality issue is becoming one of these triggering issues (like indulgences at the time of the Reformation) that is forcing upon us some profound reflections on whether we will submit to Scripture.[12]

Homosexuals can be saved just like other sinners (1 Cor 6). God loves homosexuals, Jesus died for homosexuals, and believers should seek to win them. But making excuses for their behavior or being uncertain if homosexuality is sin or not, as McLaren and other Emerging church leaders do, is not in the best interest of homosexuals and will not help lead them to Christ and out of their sin.

“I believe many emergent leaders are truly torn up inside over homosexuality. They don’t want to hurt anyone. But their refusal to take a stance (and sometimes their decision to take an unbiblical stance) also hurts people—it hurts those struggling to overcome sexual temptation, it hurts those gently calling homosexuals (along with other sinners) to repentance, and it hurts those who dare to speak with certainty on this issue.”[13] An example of some leaders who are already paying a price for taking a stand against homosexuality is Peter Akinola, primate of Nigeria, and Archbishop Livingstone Mpalanyi Nkoyoyo of Uganda who sacrificed financial aid from the West rather than be implicated in the Episcopal church’s homosexual scandals, and the rest of the global South who know exactly what emerging leaders should think about homosexuality.”[14]