The Authority of Scripture?

“When [LGBTQ-affirming Christians] tell me that I am wrong for saying that [homosexuality] is a sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the Holy Scriptures, I point him to this sacred record [the Bible], and tell him, in all candor, as my text does, that his teaching blasphemes the name of God and His doctrine.

"“The tree of [affirming homosexuality and transgenderism] is evil and only evil…[it] is nourished by an utter rejection of the Scriptures.” – Rev. Henry Van Dyke

Many Christians today would agree whole-heartedly with Pastor Van Dyke's statements here. But keep in mind that what he was actually defending here was slavery and his opponents were Abolitionists. Still, his position in favor of slave-holding was very strongly supported by the Holy Scriptures. One cannot deny that he was right about the fact that the Bible did not condemn slaveholding outright.

But we cannot miss the fact that it is more than possible for someone to be Biblically-correct about something and still be very, very wrong at the same time.

The struggle for many of us is that we have been told for so long that we need to be "Biblically-minded" that we have forgotten that this same Bible teaches us to listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd and affirms that we have the mind of Christ.

Furthermore, the same Bible also teaches us to love extravagantly - as Christ has loved us - which was unconditionally and before we did anything to change our minds about Him, or how we live.

Here are Van Dykes actual comments about Abolitionists made in 1860:

“The tree of Abolition is evil and only evil…[it] is nourished by an utter rejection of the Scriptures....When the Abolitionist tells me that slaveholding is sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the Holy Scriptures, I point him to this sacred record, and tell him, in all candor, as my text does, that his teaching blasphemes the name of God and His doctrine.”-– Rev. Henry Van Dyke (1860), “The Character and Influence of Abolitionism” (sermon), p.11.

Now, listen to what pro-slavery Christians said in the 1800’s about Abolitionists and substitute the topic of homosexuality and you’ll see that the arguments used today are exactly the same:

“[Opponents of slavery] decide a priori [in advance] what the Bible ought to speak, and then turn it over in order to see how they can make it speak what they wish…When Moses speaks the words of the God of the Hebrews, it is for us to listen, not to call into question.” – Bernard Whitman (1831), Two Letters to the Rev. Moses Stuart: On the Subject of Religious Liberty”, p. 30-42.

“If the present course of the abolitionists is right, then the course of Christ and the apostles were wrong.” – Charles Hodge (1860), “Bible Argument on Slavery” in E.N. Elliott’s “Cotton Is King”, p. 849.

“The tree of Abolition is evil and only evil…[it] is nourished by an utter rejection of the Scriptures.” – Rev. Henry Van Dyke (1860), “The Character and Influence of Abolitionism” (sermon), p.11.

“Those who oppose slavery are engaged in willful or conscious opposition to the truth…Who are we, that in our modern wisdom presume to set aside the Word of God, and…invent for ourselves a ‘higher law’ that those holy Scriptures which are given to us as ‘a light to our feet and a lamp to our paths’ must answer?”-  Episcopal Bishop John Henry Hopkins (1864), “Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery.”, p.16

Those who opposed slavery [the Abolitionists] had very little scriptural support for their position, but they were on the side of Christ all the same.

Why is it so hard for us today to see that there are times when we need to listen to the mind of Christ and the voice of the Good Shepherd in order to fulfill the law of love?

As Henry Brinton said recently: 

“An answer based only on Biblical quotations may put us on the side of Southern theologians who supported slavery and lost their way.” [Quoted from CNN, Oct. 15, 2014] [John Blake, “How the Bible Was Used To Justify Slavery, Abolitionism.”]

Sometimes, to obey Jesus we might have to admit that the Bible falls short. In those cases, we must cling tightly to the Good Shepherd and remember His command:

“Love one another as I have loved you.” – Jesus

Today, almost no Christian would argue in favor of slavery, in spite of the fact that it is quite “Biblical.”

So, the question of “authority” immediately comes to mind. Some argue for the inerrant and infallible authority of Scripture as the rule for a Christian’s life. But others, like me, suggest instead that our authority is Christ and that it is still the Holy Spirit who cries out to the Body of Christ today.

Sadly, many of us will not, or cannot, listen because we are convinced that our Bibles – and only our Bibles – have authority over us.

Are we willing to submit ourselves to the Holy Spirit? Are we courageous enough to allow Jesus to be our guide?

Keep in mind that the Bible never holds itself up as our final authority. Instead, the Bible points us to Jesus and reminds us that He is the Head of the Church.

In the words of our Abba Father who thundered from heaven, “This is my Son. Listen to Him!”

-kg

THE ABOMINATION OF A CLOSE SHAVE

In the New Testament scriptures, the Apostle Paul speaks out against a trend that he sees as being “unnatural” and an “abomination” and warns that Christians need to be on their guard against this dangerous practice.

What is it?

[It’s not what you think].

See, in Paul’s day being a man meant keeping your hair short and your beard long. Why? Because women had long hair and smooth faces. So, to Paul – and many others in his day – if a man had long hair and shaved his beard off, he was accused of "going against nature.”

The Greek word Paul uses to describe this trend is “malakoi” and the best translation of the word into English is “effeminate”.

In the first century, “malakoi” was most often used to reference men who shaved daily and had no beards. These men were often ridiculed and accused of wanting to look like women with clean-shaven faces.

This term was used as an epithet against men who are not masculine enough, as in, “You punch like a girl.”

Plato, for example, in his “Republic”, wrote famously that “too much music made a man soft [malakoi], and feeble; unfit for battle.”

Aristotle also warned about the dangers of men becoming too soft [malakoi] by over-indulging in pleasures rather than balancing out their lives with acts of physical and mental discipline.

Even Josephus, the first century Jewish historian [and contemporary of Jesus and Paul] used the term “malakos” to describe men who were weak and soft through lack of courage in battle.

So, the word “malakoi” refers to being “soft”, rather than masculine, and it occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. [Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing, for example, in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25].

Now, here’s the problem: “Malakoi” is translated in most English Bibles today as “homosexual”.

Seriously.

Do you think that a man who shaves his beard and has long hair and enjoys music is a homosexual?

Hopefully not. 

Paul and others in the first century didn’t either. How do we know that? Because the word is never used to refer to someone who is homosexual. It is always used to describe a heterosexual male whose behavior is more feminine, or “soft.”

This is what Paul had in mind in 1 Cor. 6:9. In fact, if you go to the actual Greek language, this verse does not refer to homosexuals, even though most English Bibles use the phrase “men who have sex men” rather than “effeminate.”

In the Greek the text actually reads:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..” – 1 Cor. 6:9

But the definition of “effeminate” is not the same today as it was in the first century, is it?

Back then it was “unnatural” for a man to shave his face and grow a mullet. Today, mullets still aren’t so popular, but we wouldn’t say that a person who sported one was “unrighteous” and unwelcome in the Kingdom of God. [Again, I would hope not].

The term “effeminate” is based on a cultural bias, not an absolute rule.

If you want to make it an absolute statement, then we must adopt Paul’s first century ideals about what makes a man “effeminate” and that means that all men are forbidden to shave their beards or wear their hair below their ears to be considered godly. It also means that women can’t wear pants, or cut their hair short [and who wants to be in charge of defining “short” for the rest of the Christian world?], etc.

So, do we all want to adopt Paul’s ideas about cultural norms? Are we willing to live by this rule?

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” [1 Cor. 11:14-15]

We have to decide if we honestly believe that a man with a clean-shaven face is an abomination or not. We have to decide if guys with long hair aren’t welcome in the Kingdom of God, or if perhaps in this case, the Apostle Paul might have only been speaking to the Christians in first century Corinth about what it meant in their day to conform to cultural norms.

What do you think?

Please leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts.

If this article blessed or challenged you, please consider sharing it on social media.

Thanks,

Keith

READ MORE ON THIS SUBJECT?

*Romans Re-Examined
*Blessed Are The Eunuchs
*A Love That's Better Than Sex

ROMANS RE-EXAMINED

What is Paul really talking about in the first chapter of Romans?

 The recent shooting in Orlando has re-opened lines of dialog on social media concerning Islam, gun violence, and homosexuality, especially from Christians in my online circles.

Because of this, I wanted to focus primarily on what Paul seems to say about homosexuality in Romans and hopefully point out a few things that I think many seem to miss when they read these passages.

I’ve already written quite a bit about this topic, but with recent events being what they are, I thought it might be helpful to revisit some of this again.

Let’s start with Romans 1:18 to try to understand what Paul is really talking about here. I think it helps to actually start “from the top”, as it were.

In verse 18, Paul starts to talk about a group of people and this is how he identifies them:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.."

Who is he talking about here? He’s talking about “godless” and “wicked” people, in general.

In v. 21 he says those same people's thinking, "became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened".

Then he says in v. 22 that those same people "claimed to be wise but became fools".

And in v. 23 he says that they: "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

That is idol worship. In summary, these wicked and godless people denied the knowledge of God and began to worship idols.

Because of this:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." [v.24]

So, because they denied God and worshipped idols God's response was to give them over to "shameful desires of their hearts...for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

Please Note: Sexual intercourse in pagan temples was quite common in the worship of idols. This is what Paul is referring to here, and he continues to describe this in verse 25:

"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised."

This is all about idol worship and it involved sexual intercourse. What Paul is condemning here is the use of sexual intercourse as part of the worship of created things, or idols.

Lust is lust. Ritual pagan sex qualifies as "degrading their bodies with one another" whether gay or straight.

Now, Paul continues his progressive thought by saying, in verse 26:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts."

Ok, wait...because of what? Because these people, who were engaged in worshipping idols, started degrading their bodies with one another in ritual sexual intercourse: "God gave them over to shameful lusts."

So far, this would be bad no matter if the sex were gay or straight.

There’s a lot more to point out, but let me pause here a just a moment to say this:

I don’t know anyone who is gay due to the effects of worshipping idols through sexual intercourse.

Do you?

Maybe those people exist, but I would venture to say that the majority of people who identify as being gay today did not end up that way because they used to engage in pagan sexual practices in the temples of Zeus or Artemis.

I don’t even know any gay people who feel attracted to people of the same sex due to denying that God exists. In fact, just the opposite, I know many people who identify as gay who profess saving faith in Christ and who even demonstrate the heart and character of Christ. They do not engage in "shameful desires of their hearts" any more than my straight Christian friends do. They also do not “worship and serve created things rather than the Creator”.

Having said that, let’s go back to Paul and continue the study.

After this Paul says,

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Please try to follow the flow of Paul’s statements here:

There were people who denied God. They started to worship idols. That worship involved sexual intercourse. That intercourse aroused unnatural lusts. The end result was a judgment within their bodies for denying God and engaging in pagan ritual sex rites.

Keep in mind: anyone who is "inflamed with lust" is in sin - whether gay or straight. But Paul's entire flow of thought begins with a discussion about those who deny God, worship created things rather than the creator, engage in ritual sexual intercourse as part of that worship, and then...BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS, God has judged them and given them over to their lusts.

Let me ask you: What if Paul’s descriptions here went like this:

*People denied God

*Those people worshipped idols

*They worshipped idols by engaging in male/female sex acts

Would you conclude that God hated male/female intercourse?

Why not? Isn’t that what people do when he goes on to describe their acts of homosexual intercourse?

If we don’t read Romans 1 as a de facto condemnation of straight sex [and the majority of the chapter is about straight sex], then why do we read it as a condemnation of gay sex acts?

Could it be because we have a bias against gay sex that we don’t have against straight sex?

If we lay aside our inherent bias against gay sex, we can see that Paul's entire point is that the denial of God and the worship of idols through sexual intercourse [gay or straight] is what is "shameful" and not the type of sexual intercourse itself.

Sexual intercourse in the worship of idols is evil. This is Paul’s entire point.

Straight sex is not evil. What matters is the context. Is it between two people who love one another and who also love and trust in God? Then it isn’t what Paul is speaking of here in Romans 1.

My point is simply this: Romans 1 doesn’t try to provide any commentary on whether or not gay sexual intercourse is “good” or “evil”.

Paul's purpose in Romans 1 isn't to explain why homo/hetero sex itself is wrong/right. His point would be exactly the same if he were describing straight sexual intercourse used in pagan ritual worship.

Does that make sense?

That same judgment they received would come equally to those who engaged in gay or straight sexual intercourse if it was for the purpose of pagan idol worship.

Believe it or not, there really are Christians who ARE gay, and they DO worship God and they DO love Jesus and they do NOT engage in fornication and they are NOT consumed by their lusts.

So, this passage does not apply to them.

In conclusion, I wish that I could introduce you to the gay and transgender Christians I know. If I could, you might find that these are not "perverts" or “abominations”. Instead, you might see what I have seen, which is an exceptional grace for people who shun them and marginalize them.

They are quick to even forgive family members who shame them. They are obedient to Jesus to pray for those Christians who slander them and call them names [like "pervert" for example] with tears in their eyes and pain in their heart.

I’ve seen Jesus in the lives of my gay and transgender brothers and sisters over the last few years in deeper and more profound ways than I believe I have ever seen in many of my straight Christian friends.

I hope to learn from them how to love and forgive and walk in grace and mercy towards everyone, even those brothers and sisters who cannot accept them for who they really are.

Peace,

Keith
**
READ MORE?

*THE NEW SAMARITANS
*OUR MISSED OPPORTUNITY
*BLESSED ARE THE EUNUCHS
*A LOVE THAT'S BETTER THAN SEX