Same Sex Controversy

R. White James, D. Niell Jeffrey

Description

In the guise of tolerance, Hollywood and modern culture have granted "alternative lifestyle" status to a behavior condemned by Scripture. In the Same Sex Controversy, the authors clarify and defend the Bible's stand on homosexuality as they expand on key passages. Subjects include the basis of biblical morality, biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality, the new "homosexual apologist," and both Old and New Testament witnesses against homosexuality. They also provide information on how to lovingly and biblically reach out to those caught up in its grip.

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie

Informations

• Publié par: Baker Publishing Group
• Date de parution: 01 avril 2002
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781441211651
• Langue: English

Extrait

Copyright © 2002 James R. White & Jeffrey D. Niell
Published by Bethany House Publishers 11400 Hampshire Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55438 www.bethanyhouse.com
Bethany House Publishers is a division of Baker Publishing Group, Grand Rapids, Michigan. www.bakerpublishinggroup.com
Ebook edition created 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher and copyright owners.
ISBN 978-1-4412-1165-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Unless otherwise identified, Scripture quotations are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ® , © Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission. ( www.Lockman.org )
Scripture quotations identified NKJV are from the New King James Version of the Bible. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations identified NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Cover design by Uttley/DouPonce Designworks
The internet addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers in this book are accurate at the time of publication. They are provided as a resource. Baker Publishing Group does not endorse them or vouch for their content or permanence.
This book is dedicated, with thankfulness, to the congregation of Emmanuel Covenant Church and in the hope that the church in our day will be strengthened to the glory of God. Let us never fear faithfulness to God’s Word.
Jeffrey D. Niell
CONTENTS
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
C HAPTER O NE - The Unthinkable Has Become Thinkable
C HAPTER T WO - Revisiting Sodom: The Lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah
C HAPTER T HREE - Recycling the Older Testament: Introducing the Leviticus Passages
C HAPTER F OUR - Recycling the Older Testament: The Leviticus Passages Part One
C HAPTER F IVE - Recycling the Older Testament: The Leviticus Passages Part Two
C HAPTER S IX - Unnatural Affections, Unnatural Interpretation: Romans 1
C HAPTER S EVEN - Desperately Defining Terms: 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy
C HAPTER E IGHT - All You Need Is Love and Other Justifications
C HAPTER N INE - Conclusion: A Pastoral Appeal
A PPENDIX A - The Relationship of Law and Grace in Romans 6:14
A PPENDIX B - John Chrysostom (347–407) on Romans 1
A PPENDIX C - Homosexuality As an Abomination: Moral or Ceremonial Uncleanness?
A PPENDIX D - Augustine (354–430) on Romans 1: Sin and the Penalty of Sin the Same
Bibliography
Recommended Reading
About the Authors
BHP Books by James R. White
CHAPTER ONE
The Unthinkable Has Become Thinkable
O ur culture is inundated in print and on screen with the idea that homosexuality is a normal, proper, and healthy expression of “love” between persons. This view has successfully infiltrated our TV sitcoms, magazines, bookstores, and coffee shops, but now we are being told that homosexuality in either orientation or act is something approved by God and therefore consistent with biblical morality. The growing number of proponents of this view tell us that the Bible (rightly understood, interpreted, or translated) does not condemn homosexuality and that it even contains examples of loving, committed homosexual relationships within its pages. We are witnesses of a desperate clamor to move the authority of the Bible to the side of those who claim that homosexuality is an acceptable, God-approved lifestyle.
The call to receive homosexuality as a morally acceptable belief, or belief and behavior, [1] is now being heard in the church and by the church. The volume of this call is increasing as is the volume of books that are being produced. A proliferation of literature teaching this “new morality” under the guise of “right understanding” or “proper biblical interpretation” is resulting in the twisting of Scripture, the confusion of many, and the weakening of the church. With increasing vigor we are told that the previous ways are wrong and unenlightened. We are told that the Bible previously thought to condemn homosexuality does no such thing and that homosexuals (either in practice or merely in interest) need to be embraced by the church and allowed, if they so aspire, even to hold positions of authority in the church.
This push is evidence of a tragic cultural transformation that has occurred in recent decades one that pertains to the ethical, to the moral, and to that which is right and wrong. Yesterday’s outrage has become today’s standard. Today, homosexuality, which at one time was morally unthinkable, is on parade before us as normal, acceptable, and in order to show its authoritative status unquestionable. Francis Schaeffer wrote,

There is a “thinkable” and an “unthinkable” in every era. One era is quite certain intellectually and emotionally about what is acceptable. Yet another era decides that these “certainties” are unacceptable and puts another set of values into practice. On a humanistic base, people drift along from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes the thinkable as the years move on. [2]
Schaeffer, writing in the 1970s, perceptively continued,

The thinkables of the eighties and nineties will certainly include things which most people today find unthinkable and immoral, even unimaginable and too extreme to suggest. Yet since they do not have some overriding principle that takes them beyond relativistic thinking when these become thinkable and acceptable in the eighties and nineties, most people will not even remember that they were unthinkable in the seventies. They will slide into each new thinkable without a jolt. [3]
Schaeffer was not arguing that something is worthy of emulation simply because it was previously done. By itself, Dad and Mom’s conduct, while often qualitatively better and more polite than that of their children observed at the local mall, is not an adequate standard for morality. In fact, the point is that the basis of yesterday’s morality was of such poor quality that it could not prevent its “unthinkables” from becoming “thinkables” in short order. One of yesterday’s unthinkables the social and moral acceptance of homosexuality in both orientation and act, in both desire and deed is presented to us today as quite thinkable, and though we are speaking of morality and not the changing tides of fashion, our modern society can seldom tell the difference.
Furthermore, we must recognize with Schaeffer that this is the way things play out when performed upon a humanistic stage that views man (or, more precisely, self) as the lead character the measure of all things, the center of it all and casts God (if He even exists) in a subordinate role. In much of this discussion, God has been relegated to the periphery and man has taken His place. This practice is reflected in the quip “God created man in His image, and ever since man has returned the favor.” A humanistic approach to morality suffers from the “immaculate perception” that says, “My ways are always right and everything else must fit.” This approach has the effect (whether admitted or not) of viewing God’s standards of morality to be the equivalent of a wax nose capable of being shaped according to the whim of the shaper. “Wax nose” morality renders God’s moral pronouncements to be temporary and optional. In all of this, God’s authority is questioned (“Has God said?” [4] ), and therefore, what God has declared about righteous behavior may make for nice history (for other people!) and perhaps exhibit keen insights from which we may glean some guidance, but is, according to this new (im-)morality, archaic and repressive. We are witnessing what happens when God’s absolute, authoritative standard is removed or redefined. Sliding into some kind of “new morality,” some kind of the unthinkable, and doing it without a jolt becomes easy.
H OMOSEXUALITY …C ONSISTENT W ITH THE B IBLE ?
As noted above, however, this clamor for the acceptability of homosexuality, which is heard even in the church, is not without a stated authoritative base. The people making this claim appeal to the Bible and assert that a homosexual lifestyle is perfectly compatible with its teaching.
The same-sex controversy is, at its core, a controversy over the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Throughout the history of the church, and revealed in the historical understanding of Scripture, [5] homosexuality has been seen as contrary to the morality set forth in the pages of the Bible. Today, however, we are being told that the moral opposition to homosexuality, based in and upon Scripture, is actually a rather recent phenomenon. We are being “informed” that the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality as it is predominantly known and practiced today and that, as a matter of fact, a lifestyle of committed homosexuality is consistent with biblical morality.
Ironically, this makes for a remarkable case of selectivity in submitting to biblical authority. What we are observing is, on one hand, a mocking rejection of much of the teaching of the Older Testament and, on the other hand, a claim that the Bible endorses homosexuality. It is not uncommon to hear ridiculing murmurs about many things in the Bible, including the authority and observance of the Sabbath, dietary and cleanliness (or purification) laws, legislation regarding slavery, the death penalty, the sacrificial system, and the priesthood, just to name a few. Yet these criticisms are uttered with the same breath that exclaims with incredulity, “Why do you quote the Bible regarding hom