Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian (Part 3 of 3)

Reaching Homosexuals With the Gospel

     Today’s church overall (myself included!) has done a miserable job evangelizing the homosexual community and effectively ministering to Christians struggling with same-sex attraction. To help rectify these regrettable shortcomings, the following is proposed.

     First, we need to reverse our reputation (justified or not) for being judgmental, negative, and homophobic. This can only be accomplished by developing and maintaining regular and meaningful contact with the broader community. Rather than withdrawing from society, God’s people must be actively engaged as shining lights (Matthew 5:14-16), while providing a safe, loving environment for those held captive to sin.¹

     Second, we need to do a better job contextualizing the biblical message to more successfully reach the postmodern world. The presuppositions of today’s younger generation are not the same as past generations (see Part 1), and our outreach approaches should be adapted accordingly. But even this is futile unless we exemplify the gospel with lives of confidence and hope.² Efforts can be made to demonstrate that (a) objective reality exists (Romans 1:18-20); (b) knowledge of truth is attainable (John 8:31-32); (c) there are exegetical principles for properly understanding the Bible (Ephesians 3:1-4; 5:17); and (d) the truth of God’s word is absolute (1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:2; James 5:19).³

     Third, we must lovingly communicate the truth without compromise. A balanced biblical message affirms both the love of God and the holiness of God (1 Peter 1:16; 1 John 4:8); both the grace of Christ and the truth of Christ (John 1:14, 17). While postmodernism has left an intellectual and moral emptiness, void of significant ethical standards, there are still honest souls who seek genuine answers from the Bible with a willingness to be corrected. Offering anything less “amounts to the death of truth.”⁴

     Fourth, we must exhibit a strong faith in the transformative power of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:9-10). The concessive message of pro-homosexual advocates (see Part 2) essentially undermines God’s ability to change lives. But if active homosexuals in the first century were capable of repenting and being transformed by the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:9-11; 15:1-2), surely the same divine message is just as powerful today.

     Fifth, we need to promote alternatives to the homosexual lifestyle. Same-sex attraction is fundamentally no different than opposite-sex attraction when it comes to God’s expectation for purity (1 Corinthians 6:18). If marrying someone of the opposite sex is not considered a reasonable option for some, biblical singleness and the blessings of a single life devoted to God cannot be discounted (Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:32-35; Philippians 4:11-13).⁵

Conclusion:

     In the postmodern world, a person’s identity is defined by his/her sexuality with accompanying desires, attractions, and perceived orientation. But from a biblical standpoint, superficial matters of gender, race, ethnicity, social status, and even sexual proclivity are not the characteristic traits of one’s true identity (1 Corinthians 7:19; 12:13; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). God created male and female in his own image (Genesis 1:27) with clear relational and functional guidelines (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; etc.). 
     When studied carefully and honestly, without the distraction of preconceived bias or agenda, the Bible unmistakably condemns homosexual behavior in all contexts. While teaching against any sin must never be done arrogantly, unsympathetically or unkindly, teaching against active homosexuality with compassion and gentleness is biblically mandated (Galatians 6:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:22-26). At the end of the day, the gospel is still “good news” to all who are receptive to it (Mark 1:14-15; 8:35; 10:29-30; 16:15-16).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Carson 147, 154; Gilmore, “Jesus” 135-37.

     ² Sanders 201-204; Gilmore, “Jesus” 131, 135. On the biblical concept of contextualization, see 1 Chronicles 12:32; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; cf. Acts 13:16 ff.; 17:22 ff.

     ³ Gilmore, “Postmodernism” 142. See K. Moore's Relativism Vs. Objective/Absolute Truth.

     ⁴ Gilmore, “Postmodernism” 142; see also Carson 154, 183-87; Erickson 126-27.
     ⁵ See Moore, The Single Missionary.

Works Cited:

Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Erickson, Millard J. The Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of Our Age. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.

Gilmore, Ralph. “Can I Have Jesus Without the Church?,” in Perfecting God’s People: Christ and Culture in Corinthians. Ed. David L. Lipe. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2010: 131-38.

---. “Postmodernism: Change in World View/Change in Truth View,” in At His Coming. Ed. David L. Lipe. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 1998: 137-44.
Moore, Kevin L. The Single Missionary. Winona, MS: Choate, 1998.

Sanders, Phil. Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 2000.

Related Posts: Postmodernism & the Homosexual Christian Part 1, Part 2, A Heterosexual, a Homosexual, and a Pedophile Walk Into a Church

Related Articles: Jean Lloyd's Seven Things; Jonathan Parnell’s Why Homosexuality Isn't Like Other Sins, Guy Hammond, Accepting LGBTQ+ Lifestyles 

Image credit: http://augsburgchurches.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/prayer-612x3001.jpg

Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian (Part 2 of 3)

Attempts to Harmonize the Bible and Homosexuality

     Matthew Vines, one of the leading and more influential proponents of homosexual Christianity, is the founder and president of “the Reformation Project,” seeking to reform church teachings on “sexual orientation.” In March 2012 he posted “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality” on the Internet¹ and later published God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships (2014). In the opening pages of the book, Leonard Pitts, Jr. describes Vines as “a committed, theologically conservative Christian, who also happens to be an out gay man,” and Justin Lee submits the following: “Many people believe you can either hold a high view of Scripture or affirm gay relationships, but not both. Matthew Vines proves them wrong.”

     Vines acknowledges that he is not a Bible scholar, though his study professes to be “the product of four years of meticulous research, building on four decades of high-level scholarship” (2-3). His core argument is that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships” (4). The book opens with an emotional appeal based on Matthew 7:18. The assertion is made that the “bad fruit” of guilt, depression and suicide among gay Christians has been generated over the years by the sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, whereas loving, same-sex relationships produce the “good fruit” of relational joy, mutual love and companionship. Moreover, since biblical authors presumably did not comprehend “sexual orientation” as it is understood today, to use their writings to forbid same-sex partnerships (including marriage) is to be guilty of unwarranted hostility and false teaching. The Bible merely condemns homosexuality in the context of a “vice of excess,” not in the context of a “loving and committed relationship” (5-20).

     Vines then examines six passages of scripture “that speak most directly and specifically about same-sex behavior,” namely Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10. He alleges that none of these texts addresses homosexual orientation or the loving, consensual same-sex relationships as understood and practiced today. Genesis 19 only condemns injustice, gang rape, arrogance and inhospitality (59-76). The Leviticus passages simply denounce the improper switching of gender roles in a patriarchal society, although the old Jewish system is no longer applicable under the new law of Christ (77-94). In the first chapter of Romans the issue is lustful excess, elevating sexual pleasure above God, and the rejection of traditional gender roles (95-116). The passages in the Corinthian and Timothy letters merely censure the sexual exploitation of others (117-32). According to Vines, therefore, the employment of any of these texts to condemn committed same-sex relationships is misdirected, since none addresses the more moderate lifestyles of modern gay Christians. 

A Response

     Even though Vines maintains that his work is based on “high-level scholarship,” he has been very selective in his sources, relying heavily on liberal writers with a pro-homosexual bias.² The study confirms his open admission that he is not a biblical scholar and consistently undermines his purported “high view” of scripture. The author engages in blatant eisegesis (reading into the text) throughout, beginning with the assumption that God accepts same-gender relationships, then attempting to find scriptural justification and alternative meanings. But when the relevant biblical texts are more carefully assessed in their respective historical and literary contexts, the innovative conclusions of Vines and his scholarly cohorts simply do not stand.

     Contextually the “bad fruit” of Matthew 7:17-18 is applicable to false prophets and their corrupt teachings and sinful living. The emotive description of the “bad fruit” of guilt, depression and suicide is Vines’ own distorted perception shrewdly inserted into the text. His declaration, “I believe all of Scripture is inspired by God” (2), is hard to reconcile with his underlying premise that “sexual orientation” is a fairly recent understanding that biblical authors did not comprehend. Seeing that the God who communicated through these inspired writers is the same God who created mankind, how is it that he was unaware of what has only recently been discovered by his human creatures? Either the God of the Bible is not omniscient or the modern notion of persons being “born gay” is false. Despite the bold contentions of postmodern enlightenment to the contrary, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NKJV).

     While the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah no doubt included injustice and inhospitality (Genesis 19:4-11), absent from Vines’ exposition is the stated reason for their condemnation according to Jude 7: “having given themselves over to sexual immorality [porneia] and gone after strange flesh …” (cf. Ezekiel 16:50). The prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 involve both active and passive participants in the homosexual act, denounced as “an abomination” (ṯō·w·‘ê·ḇāh).³ It is true that Old Testament regulations are not binding on Christians, unless of course they are reaffirmed in the New Testament. The Greek word porneia, the umbrella term for all forbidden sexual behavior, refers to any kind of unlawful (immoral) sex.⁴ Besides intimate relations within a heterosexual marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2), what other sexual relationship is biblically sanctioned? Leviticus 18 provides a list of sexual sins, including intercourse with near kinsmen (v. 6), father or mother (v. 7), father’s wife (v. 8), sister (v. 9), granddaughter (v. 10), step-sister (v. 11), aunt (vv. 12-14), daughter-in-law (v. 15), sister-in-law (v. 16), and animal (v. 23). Are we to believe that homosexuality (v. 22) is the only one of these no longer prohibited?

     An impartial reading of Romans 1:26-27 reveals the contradiction of seeking God’s approval while at the same time disregarding his natural design. “The appeal to nature in [Romans] 1:26-27 has to do, at least primarily, with the visual perception of male-female bodily complementarity (the fittedness of the sex organs)” (Gagnon 257). Trying to affirm same-gender relationships (committed or otherwise) by restricting this passage to lustful excess and sexual idolatry requires some cunning exegetical gymnastics.

     In 1 Corinthians 6:9 two descriptive terms are used for homosexual behavior: malakoi, in reference to passive homosexual partners, and arsenokoitai, referring to active homosexual partners. Although gay-friendly interpreters try to limit this passage to “economic exploitation” (male prostitution and pederasty), the term arsenokoitai is a compound of arsēn (“male”) and koitē (“bed”) with intrinsically broader application. These words appear together six times in the LXX, the translation Paul extensively quotes in 1 Corinthians, four times referring to men lying with women (Num. 31:17, 18; Judg. 21:11, 12) and twice in reference to men lying with men (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).⁵ As far as 1 Timothy 1:10 is concerned, in addition to what has been noted above, God allows sex exclusively within the context of marriage, which biblically requires a man and a woman (Matthew 19:5; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See <www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY>.

     ² John Boswell, James Brownson, Michael Carden, Justin Lee, Dale Martin, Robin Scroggs, et al.

     ³ Cf. Leviticus 18:26, 27, 29; Deuteronomy 7:25, 26; 12:29-32; 13:13-14; 17:1-4; 18:9-14; 20:18; et al.

     ⁴ Cf. Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; et al.

     ⁵ Note Paul’s familiarity with the book of Leviticus in Romans 10:5; 13:9; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 3:12; 5:14.

Works Cited:

Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001.

Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships. New York: Convergent Books, 2014.
*Another helpful source is S. D. Forston III and R. G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: the Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.

Related Posts: The Delusion of Gay Marriage, Postmodernism & the Homosexual Christian Part 1, Part 3, The Queen James Bible, Born Gay? A Scientific, Commonsense, Biblical Perspective

Related articles: Kyle Butt's "Jesus Didn't Condemn Homosexuality", Dave Miller, "Strange Flesh"

Related videos: GBN, The Bible and Same Sex Relationships

Image credit: http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002822121/2547425688_homosexual_gay_xlarge.png

Postmodernism and the Homosexual Christian (Part 1 of 3)

     In March 2011 a website was covertly launched on the campus of one of our Christian universities, promoting the homosexual lifestyle. When the administration blocked the site on the university’s network, activists printed and distributed across campus a thirty-two page manifesto pushing their agenda. The school’s president then issued a public response during the chapel assembly the following day, respectfully but firmly denouncing the defiant initiative.¹

     How could such an alarming state of affairs surface on the campus of a Christian university affiliated with mainstream churches of Christ? While the gay rights movement has increasingly influenced and noticeably shaped secular society in the United States since the 1960s,² religion has not been unaffected. In 1972 the United Church of Christ was the first mainline denomination in the USA to ordain openly gay clergy, and subsequent decades have witnessed practicing homosexuals unconditionally accepted and incorporated into numerous denominations and independent religious groups.³

     Among churches of Christ, Dave Miller prophetically warned in 1996, “While the liberal element in the church has not been drawn into a wholesale endorsement of homosexuality, philosophically, the liberal mindset will inevitably relax its opposition to those who insist upon their right to engage in homosexuality” (Piloting the Strait 345). A few years later Phil Sanders observed that congregations sometimes fool themselves into thinking they are immune from the volatile mentality of the times, even though what “happens in the world has always profoundly affected the church; today is no different” (Adrift 14, 21).

The Rise and Influence of Postmodernism

     As “both a broad cultural and sociological phenomenon and an ideology,” postmodernism is hard to define (Erickson 12). The term itself is descriptive of the changes in knowledge perception in popular culture, and it stands in stark contrast to the concept of modernism. At the risk of oversimplification, modernism can be characterized as the pursuit of truth, certainty and absolutism with linear thinking and rationalism. It seeks undisputed foundations and rigorous methodologies for attaining knowledge. Postmodernism, on the other hand, is a reaction to what is perceived as the inflexibility, arrogance and attempted control of modernistic thinking. It advocates “knowledge” as the product of cultural conditioning, shaped by emotions, experience, aesthetics, and environment. In the realm of religion, modernism is viewed as the rigid pursuit of truth versus error and right versus wrong, whereas postmodernism is a softer and more flexible approach that emphasizes love, relationships, tolerance, acceptance, authenticity, and relativism (Carson 26-34).

     Postmodern secularism maintains that there is no universal or absolute truth with respect to morality. Religion, therefore, especially Christianity, is to be summarily dismissed because of its traditional stance against "secular values" (e.g. abortion and gay marriage). However, postmodernism has also made significant inroads into religion and into the contemporary Christian movement in particular (Erickson 59-69). “Notions of objective morality are among the first things to be questioned,” D. A. Carson observes, and professing Christians are increasingly changing their views on moral issues (101). According to recent studies by the Barna Group, a leading research organization focused on the relationship between faith and culture, only 34% of American adults believe that moral truth is absolute, while less than half of those claiming to be religiously “born again” (46%) believe in absolute moral truth.⁴ There was a time when affirming an openly homosexual lifestyle demanded the complete severing of ties with orthodox Christianity. But nowadays, thanks to postmodern rationalization, embracing same-sex relationships while claiming allegiance to biblical teaching is normative.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See <www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/03/04/harding-president-address-gay-website#readerComments>; also <www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qKNze-C3uk>.

     ² Recent studies show that about 62% of the American public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society. See Pew Research Center, “Views on Religion, the Bible, Evolution and Social Issues,” 26 June 2014, <www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-5-views-on-religion-the-bible-evolution-and-social-issues/#>.

     ³ Jaweed Kaleem, “Unearthing the Surprising Religious History of American Gay Rights Activism,” in Huffington Post (28 June 2014), <www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/28/gay-religious-history_n_5538178.html>.

     ⁴ The Barna Group, “Barna Survey Examines Changes in Worldview Among Christians over the Past 13 Years,” 6 March 2009, <https://www.barna.org/barna-update/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years#.VFT3wN7SHFK>.

Works Cited:

Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Erickson, Millard J. The Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of Our Age. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.

Miller, Dave. Piloting the Strait: a Guidebook for Assessing Change in Churches of Christ. Bedford, TX: Sain Publications, 1996.

Sanders, Phil. Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 2000.

Related Posts: Postmodernism & the Homosexual Christian Part 2, Part 3, Relativism Vs Truth

Image credit: http://www.stephenblack.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Gay_Christianity1.jpg