A Tangled Web

BIBLE BASHING AND OTHER STUFF.



Right. Let's be straight on one thing. ATW is a political site and we welcome political comment. On a recent thread on Slugger O'Toole, I felt that we were being subjected to the smug complacency and self-congratulations of the pro-Gay lobby. However, each to their own. They have their opinions and I have mine.



However, part of the discussion broached into a smart-alec attack on Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a lady whose opinions I respect. (Though not always agree with)

By way of balance, I posted some insight into the agenda pursued by GLAAD - which is a Gay Rights activist cabal that leads the charge against Dr. Laura. This was met with some comment, particularly by ATW visitor, Davros. (Leader of the Daleks) I promised him I would open the topic up here a little and this is what I will now turn to.



Now, to cut to the chase, here is my take on homosexuality. I abhor the sin, but not the sinner. I believe everyone makes their own decisions and will face the consequences. Fair enough?



I am also a believer in the Bible. The Bible, for me, is pretty clear on the topic of homosexuality. It is a sin! That's the very point that those who do NOT believe in the Bible contest. They try to imply (using Leviticus) that the Bibles teachings are silly, contradictory, anachronistic and invalid.



Here's what Leviticus says,



"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is abomination" ~ Leviticus 18:22



"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death...." ~ Leviticus 20:13



Now the anti-Bible brigade immediately jump on the "putting to death" line to ridicule the statements made. However, if one reads the New Testament it does not rebuke the content of the Old Testament. Certain other cultural norms may alter - the central point that homosexuality is wrong does not change.



I think that Chris Ash eloquently argues the logic and I quote him as follows,



"A careful analysis of the conclusions reached by the ‘Council at Jerusalem' (see Acts 15:19–21) reveals that Gentiles were accepted into full fellowship with Jewish believers on the basis that they accepted essentially the same ethical boundaries that had guided the gentile ‘God-fearer' on the fringes of the synagogue – namely a rejection of idolatry, violence and sexual immorality.



Indeed, the New Testament writers consistently regard OT sexual ethics as universally binding. Attitudinally, then, the life that pleases God is, and has always been, a life of faith; but in terms of its moral shape it is a life lived in harmony with created order as revealed in the OT and restored and redeemed in Christ



So what about Leviticus 18?



Of the three criteria noted above, both the second and third (applicability both to resident aliens and to foreign nations) apply to the catalogue of sexual offences condemned in Leviticus 18.



Both Israelites and, importantly, resident aliens were not to do any of the things listed there. ‘The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things.' (v.26) These prohibitions were not merely boundary markers for Israel , but moral necessities for all. And – and this is very significant – at the end of the chapter we are told in no uncertain terms that the flouting of these laws caused the land of Canaan to ‘vomit out' the pre-Israelite inhabitants. The Canaanites had no written law from God, but – according to Leviticus 18 – they ought to have known that their culture of sexual greed and indiscipline was abhorrent to God. Male homosexual practice is mentioned as just one of a long catalogue of sexual malpractice, most of the others being incestuous.



For these reasons Christian people have concluded with the apostolic church that the sexual behaviours of Leviticus 18 were not just abhorrent then, but remain displeasing to God. They may be old laws formulated for ancient Israel , but they bear witness to enduring principles. Applying these principles today needs both clarity and pastoral sensitivity. Above all, they must be imbued with a spirit of love for all people whatever their behaviour."



I also would agree with the point made by David Reid that;



"Some well-meaning people attempt to soften the strong words of the Mosaic Law by reminding us that we are no longer under the Law of the Old Testament­­we are now under grace! They point out that we don't put homosexuals to death today because "Christ is the end of the Law" (Romans 10:4). This is all very true, but this does not mean that God has changed His view on homosexual practices! While the ceremonial and civil laws and penalties of life under the Old Covenant are no longer in effect today, the moral values of the Creator have not changed. God's moral standards never change. (See Malachi 3:5­6.) If we say that homosexual activity is no longer sin because it is no longer punishable by death, we are deceiving ourselves."





Quite so. That is the correct Christian response.



Against all of this, one can but agree with Dr. Laura and view her critics with disdain.