Back in the Saddle

 It feels good to be blogging again.

I have no idea if I will garner an audience again.  Over two years of silence is not conducive to building your brand.  😜 

But I am no longer blogging to build a brand anyway.  Lots has changed since I began this blog. Lots will no doubt change in the years ahead.  In a very real way, there has been a great reset, and that is why I also deleted all comments from my previous blogs and will no longer allow comments on future blogs.  I am not interested in internet battles which have no victors.  Most folks, as am I, are so seeped in our own convictions that we do not hear arguments.  I know that is the case for me in the past.  Reading old comments has taught me that.  If you want to dispute something I say, I am fine with that.  Write a blog tearing down my arguments.  I welcome that.  Perhaps we shall actually further debate that way.  Likely not, but that is a conversation for another time.

At this time, I would like to write a word or two for those who may happen upon my blog and have some curiosity as to why there is over a two year gap between posts.  Was it because I lost a love for writing, or for talking about the Christian faith, or did not have thoughts on current events?  Not in the least.  I voluntarily silenced myself because of church conflict.

Fortunately, I had been prepared for such a thing by mentors and classes that I had taken.  But classroom learning and deep conversations only take you so far.  When you are hit by wave  upon wave of false accusations, lies, innuendo, and outright demonic behavior, your mental, physical, and spiritual health suffer.  I am thankful that my health did not suffer as bad as it could have.  There are still moments...

Perhaps one day, I will describe the details of what happened to end my tenure at St. John Lutheran Church of Cat Spring.  Perhaps I will describe what happened to end a relationship that I held dear--for a pastor serving in a congregation is oftentimes like a marriage.  I loved that little church, and still do even though I fell out of favor with a small minority of people there.  Those people made my life and my family's life a living nightmare for a year or so, and that is why I stopped blogging.

There were several reasons contributing to my decision.  The first of which is that it was awful tempting to go into attack mode and air all my grievances.  Perhaps in decades past this would have been acceptable: to call out those who were attacking me; to strive to set the record straight.  Recently, I came upon a quote by John Calvin, "A pastor needs two voices: one to gather the sheep, and the other to drive off the wolves and thieves."  I think this is oh so true, but in our day and age, and in my particular denomination, a pastor who dare use a voice of driving away wolves and thieves would be considered angry, hostile, and unfit for ministry.  The days of a Luther who rebuffed his attackers with driving words and cagey insults are gone.  Instead, the Luthers of the world have been replaced by bishops and administrators who would prefer you to get scratched, bitten and eaten instead of defending yourself.  I provided undisputable proof of the lies that were told about me, and...crickets.  So, with no one to defend you and actually receiving criticism if you defend yourself, and the when anger builds...sometimes it is better for self-preservation to slide into silence.  Sometimes it is better to keep thoughts to yourself that you would like to express.  Sometimes it is better to just let things pan out instead of go on the offensive.  

In the big picture of things, I cannot complain.  The Lord led me to a place of soft landing--to a congregation where I can use more of my gifts for ministry; to a wonderful, picturesque setting, to being a part of a team of people who work together using strengths and weaknesses effectively for ministry.  I marvel at how our ministry team works together--a function that I had not been able to experience until now.  And so far, I do not have to worry about the other reason I muzzled myself.

No one is taking my words and warping them for their own purposes.  Geez, that happened so many times by those seeking my departure, it was not even funny.  Things that are of truth: comparing sin to cancer that grows and kills; saying that a portion of the book of Romans is a bit dark; apologizing that an air conditioning unit needed to be replaced.  All of these things were used against me to portray me as unfit; evil; uncaring; dictatorial.  Ah, and not to mention that some things were brought into public that were meant to be kept in confidence--nothing, mind you, that even crossed the line into inappropriate behavior.  There was a moment when I was fending off the wolves in a meeting that went into executive session...  But, it was still used against me.  When patterns of behavior develop in such a fashion; when your words are warped beyond the context you spoke them and they are used by people who should know better, when boundaries are crossed and confidentiality is broken, it is better to refrain from using words and allowing them to be misappropriated.  It is better to keep your mouth shut and speak only those things you are required to say.  There was enough material in my sermons to enrage those who were attacking me--not that I was trying to expose them in the least.  I wasn't.  The Law does a good enough job of that without my help, and as a Law/Gospel preacher...well, I hope you get the gist.

It has taken a couple of years to overcome the fear of speaking and writing once again.  It has taken that long to become comfortable in thought that the attacks will not come.  Perhaps they will.  Perhaps the reach of the internet will stoke the anger of those who attacked me, and once again they will become infuriated.  

But maybe not.  Maybe I now have an opportunity to type once again.  To share thoughts once again.  To reflect once again.  My words may indeed be warped, but comments are off, and I know what I said and what I meant.  And I will remember that as I climb back in the saddle.  I hope there will not be such a pause again...at least until I decide to retire from the ride.

The Ability to Speak

"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."  Qui Gon Jinn

Those words have become a reminder to me during this crazy time.  A time of pandemic.  A time of civil unrest.  A time of political division and sometimes outright hatred of opposing views.  

As a pastor, there is an awful temptation to speak to all of these things.  There is an awful temptation to grab an event; a riot; a political action; you name it, and speak to it.  Pontificate.  In churchy language, "Bring faith to bear on it."  And you have to do it fast!  Get ahead of everyone else who is ready to chime in.  

And chime in, we do.  We speak.  And speak.  And speak.  And speak.

Oftentimes before we think it through.

Oftentimes before we hear relevant facts.

Oftentimes based upon questionable sources.

Oftentimes because it confirms a particular narrative or ideology we adhere to.

But none of that matters: we have the right to speak!

And, now, because of the internet and Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and Instagram and blogs and comment sections on articles, we can use our voices as much as we want.

But "the ability to speak does not make you intelligent."

No.  It doesn't.  

But we are made to feel as though our voices are important.  We are told that our voices count.

I once told my bishop that I was not going to attend a Synod Assembly, and his comment was, "Your voice is important."

I responded, "In what fashion?  (Because of my positions on many issues in our church...) As a foil so that people can say, 'Oh my, I can't believe that someone in this church believes that!  We have so much work to do.'?  No thank you."

You see, it is a fallacy that our voices always count--at least in the way that we think they should.  We think that they should be considered; that they should be respected; that they should be honored and given dignity.  But they aren't.  Not by everyone.  Not by a long shot.  We are all guilty of tuning certain voices out.  All of us.

And I think I have been in the process of learning, especially over the last year, that sometimes, it is much more important to bite my tongue; to wait an indefinite amount of time before speaking or typing or posting.  

And maybe, just maybe, when I open my mouth to speak, it might just sound intelligent.

A Response to Justin's View: A Defense of Christian Marriage

 

I have been urged by a friend and colleague to write a response to many of the arguments set forth in a popular article about the Bible and Homosexuality: The Great Debate: Justin’s View.  Her urging is due to a re-opening of sorts  on seminary campuses of the debate about LGBTQ+ marriage and its place in the church, particularly in my own denomination: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  Since 2009, my denomination has affirmed LGBTQ+ pastors in “committed life-long relationships,” and since that vote took place, it could be said that more “conservative”/orthodox voices have been silenced in the debate.  I am encouraged that other voices are seemingly being asked to rejoin the conversation, and I hope to contribute to that conversation in some small manner.

 My friend directed me to Justin’s article, and I read it.  There were numerous points that caught my attention that I thought deserved rebuttal, and I will do that shortly.  But before I do so, I want to lay out a few of my assumptions which guide my arguments.

 1. I consider the Bible to be God’s revelation to humankind about who God is and what God has done.  I do not view the Bible as humankind’s thoughts about God or ideas about God. To view the Bible in this second capacity opens up the Pandora’s box of allowing me to shape God into my own image instead of the other way around.

 2. I view the Bible through the lens of Christ and the “chief article of faith.”  In Lutheran-speak, this means Christ is the center of the biblical message, and that message centers on the justification of sinful humans as they are reconciled to God through the work of Jesus.  There are a lot of theologically loaded terms in that last statement, ones that would need a lot of unpacking in a longer essay, but be that as I am trying to keep this one as short as possible, I will not unpack them now.

 3. I also operate under the principle that scripture interprets scripture–that the best methodology of understanding certain words and texts are to look to other similar words and texts within the Bible itself and then secondly to outside sources.

 4. I also deeply respect and honor the historical situation these books were written into.  I believe the author’s intent is primary and that we should not be imposing modern definitions on the Greek and Hebrew words.

 5. While I hold no PhDs in biblical interpretation, I tend to spend quite a bit of time doing exegetical research, particularly in the New Testament.  On my bookshelf are numerous commentaries from the following series: Pillar New Testament, Word, New International Commentary of the New Testament, Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, and Expositor’s Bible Commentary.  I’ve also read N.T. Wright’s Matthew-Romans “For Everyone” Series. These commentaries make up the bulk of my biblical studies along with numerous lectures from scholars on YouTube.  I am much more comfortable with New Testament scholarship than Old Testament scholarship, yet there are still some places where I have studied deeply.  You will see some of that commentary later. 

 6. I also hope to do justice to Justin’s arguments and commentary.  If I have misunderstood them or misrepresented them, please call me out on it.  Too often, in my estimation, arguments today are geared towards what we think was said and not what was said.  I oftentimes see people talk past each other and not fully engage with what was said.  I will try my best to NOT do this but rather to engage the scope of what I hope is being said.  Again, I hope you will critique me should I miss the mark.

 Justin’s View can be read in its fullness here:

 https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/?fbclid=IwAR2jg_

 I am pleased that Justin is what I would call a moderate supporter of the LGBTQ+ position; although he would call himself a conservative/evangelical.  He is conservative in that he believes that proper sexual expression be expressed within the bounds of “a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship.”  There are some these days who believe this definition to be too narrow and want to do away with any sort of boundary for sexual expression.  I side with Justin on this one.  Sexual relationships have certain boundaries.  In this, we are in full agreement.

 I am also in full agreement with Justin that many heterosexual marriages do not meet the standard that he sets forth.  Many heterosexual marriages are not Christ-centered, and many are certainly not life-long.  The divorce rate is just as terrible among Christians as it is among those outside the Church.  This is a huge black-eye for the Church and makes Christians look like hypocrites when we speak about the sanctity of marriage.  And yet, perhaps we shall touch upon this as we continue through this essay.

 Where Justin and I are not in agreement is his argument that the gender of the people involved in “committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong Christ-centered relationships” is unimportant. This takes him squarely away from the position of a conservative/evangelical which is why I would call him moderate.  Justin takes some time to argue why he holds this position pointing out perceived flaws in the traditional argument for marriage between a man and a woman before offering his apologetics for LGBTQ+ marriage.

  I will first take a look at some of Justin’s rebuttals to what he calls traditional arguments.  I will rebut some of his biblical interpretation, and I will seek to give a defense of traditional marriage which is not based in any of Justin’s criticism.  Rather, my argument is based on a response to the grace of God given through Jesus Christ.

 First, let’s take a look at Justin’s rebuttal of the four major arguments that Traditionalists offer.  I will not print out any of Justin’s arguments themselves.  You can read them for yourself on his post.  Instead, I will respond with simply my rebuttals/agreement.

 Argument #1 “Our bodies were designed for heterosexuality.”

 Justin tries to refute this argument by offering the following premise: just because our bodies were designed one way does not mean using them another way is sinful. 

 He uses this argument to support this premise.  1) Sometimes the design does not work correctly.  2) When we use alternative means to overcome the malfunction, no one deems this sinful. 3) If using things to overcome the malfunction were sinful, we would have to outlaw a whole lot of things. 

 I agree that sometimes the design malfunctions and does not work as intended.  There are a host of ways this happens, some through our own actions and some through no fault of our own.  And I also agree that using methods to overcome these malfunctions are not sinful.  But if Justin is saying that homosexual urges are malfunctions and not part of the design, then it would follow that one does not seek to enhance the malfunction, but to find a way to mitigate its effects.  A deaf person (in Justin’s own example) uses sign language to communicate.  A paralyzed person uses a wheel chair to become mobile.  A surgeon does open-heart surgery to fix a malfunctioning valve or bypass a clot.  But Justin isn’t suggesting that those with homosexual inclinations do such a thing.  He is not arguing that they use external assistance to correct or mitigate the malfunction.  He is arguing that the malfunction be accepted and engaged in.

 Because Justin’s conclusion does not follow from his premises, his refutation of Argument #1 falls far short.  However, Justin does have a legitimate question, and I will attempt to answer it when I give my reasons against LGBTQ+ marriage below.

 Argument #2: Sex is for procreation.

 I agree with Justin on this point. 

 Argument #3: There are no examples of same-sex marriage in the Bible.

 I also agree with Justin on this point as well.

 Argument #4: Because God says so. (a.k.a. There’s a rule against it.)

 Justin argues that this is what the whole argument comes down to.  Actually, it isn’t, but again, I will deal with that in my apology for heterosexual marriage below.  Yet, it is important to deal with Justin’s use and interpretation of the biblical texts that he cites.  He makes four points under this argument.  I will not deal with points #1 and #3.  The story of Sodom (point #1) does deal more with a lack of hospitality and the threat of violence than it does homosexuality, and “arsenokoitai” (point #3) has just enough mystery around it since Paul made that word up (although there are still some solid exegetical reasons for using it).  So, let’s delve into the other two texts:

 Romans 1:

 Justin argues that Paul begins this passage looking at all of humanity and then narrows it down to idol worshipers in Rome who belong to fertility cults.  Therefore, this passage does not apply to all of humanity, but is geared towards a specific situation that Paul’s readers would have easily understood and known beyond a shadow of a doubt was sinful.  Justin’s interpretation (based upon very recent scholarship) allows wiggle room for homosexual behavior outside of fertility cult worship.

 However, Justin (and the scholars who follow this interpretation) miss the bigger picture of what Paul is trying to accomplish in the second half of Romans chapter 1, chapter 2, and first half of chapter 3.  Paul is laying out his argument for the necessity of the Gospel which he articulates in Chapter 3 verses 27-28.  Paul intends to show that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Paul uses chapter 1 to show how ALL Gentiles have fallen short, and then uses chapter 2 and part of 3 to show how ALL Jews have fallen short.  This text in chapter 1 is meant to apply to all of humanity.

 The question that arises is this: if this text is meant to apply to all of humanity, then why did Paul choose homosexual acts as the defining sin of idolatry?  Why didn’t he choose one or more of the Ten Commandments?  He could have easily chosen stealing or murder or lying or coveting.  Why not these?

 The answer is: Paul is dealing with what we might call the natural law and natural order.  “What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.”  Romans 1:19-20, NRSV.

 Paul has in mind here Genesis chapter 1 and the creation of humanity.  He also has the first command of God ever recorded in the Torah–a command that was not given on tablets of stone, but was written into the very fabric of creation: Be fruitful and multiply.  This command is known throughout every culture and every society.  It is as natural as the air we breathe.  It extends to plants and animals alike.  And once the creation exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a human being or animals; once humanity began glorifying the creation instead of the creator, even the most basic command was broken.  Then, everything else went to the proverbial hell in a handbasket to the point where “They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die–yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.”  This statement would not have been specific to Roman fertility cults, but to the corruption of all of humankind.  For ALL have sinned.  That’s Paul’s point.  And homosexual behavior is a part of that sin as it breaks the first command recorded in the Bible.

 Leviticus 18-20

 Justin’s foray into biblical interpretation here is ripe with problems.  Justin lumps all of these laws as “given to keep the Israelites pure and separate from the polytheistic culture around them.”  And since these laws served that purpose, they have fulfilled their purpose and gone the way of the dinosaur.  Furthermore, he argues no one looks to Leviticus for morality.  So, let’s put this to the test and look at a few more of those laws given to “keep the Israelites pure and separate them from the polytheistic culture around them.

• You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. Leviticus 19:11
• You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. Leviticus 19:13
• You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:18 
• When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:33-34 (All NRSV)

I could quote a few others, but here is the question, at least according to Justin’s logic: shall we throw out these commands and consider them “side dishes at a buffet?”, picking them because they look good while others do not?  I would hope not.  And just to make it abundantly clear, when asked for the most important commands of Scripture, Jesus quoted first Deuteronomy 6:5 and then Leviticus 19:18.  Jesus himself looked to Leviticus while offering moral guidance.  Perhaps we should as well.

 I do need to take a moment here to point out that oftentimes, Lutherans have been accused of (well, because we do) oftentimes separate the Old Testament Law into: moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civic laws.  The Leviticus 18 passage is often viewed as a ceremonial/purity law so that the people of Israel will not be like the Canaanites who are living in the land who have defiled it—and so that the land doesn’t “vomit them out.”  I truly wonder exactly how the land would do such a thing…but, well, that’s beside the point.

 Let’s consider this argument for a moment.  Verses six through 18 offer a gigantic list of people who you “should not uncover the nakedness of” (NRSV).  This is actually a Hebrew euphemism which means have sexual relations, which is why the NIV translates it as such.  Reading through that list, one has to ask if these prohibitions were simply put in place to differentiate the Israelites from the Canaanites or if having sexual relations with your mother, sister, aunt, granddaughter, etc. are meant to be more universal?  Perhaps that is a rhetorical question.  These commands are not simply ritualistic commands intended to keep the Israelites away from fertility cults, but part of the moral law, and they are very close to the commands regarding men lying with men and women lying with women.

 It is also important to note that scholars oftentimes refer to this section of Leviticus as the “Holiness Code.”  (Based on Leviticus 19:2)  The purpose behind this section is to have a people who mirror the holiness of God—not simply set apart from the ritualistic worship of surrounding cultures, but set apart from the ethics and morals of those same cultures.   As such, this text is not simply about purity, but about holiness and mirroring the holiness of God.  Justin’s rebuttal does not take these things into account, and when these things are brought forward, his rebuttal seems overly simplistic and very shallow.  

 As far as I can tell, given the weakness of Justin’s refutations of these two biblical texts, the “God says so” rules still apply.  But, and you may be surprised at this, I would not use these texts as evidence against gay marriage.  I believe they point out that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Law of God.  But, you see, Christians are no longer under the Law...

 And this may be a very good place to deal with Justin’s major objection to what he might call the Traditionalist’s major problem: there is no “clear, consistent standard that we can apply across the board.”

 Paul actually gives us this standard in the book of Romans chapter 6.  This is a very difficult chapter to understand because it involves a way of thinking that is quite foreign to us but was not foreign at all to the ancient world.  Paul begins with what we might call representative thought.

 Essentially, it boils down to this: whatever happens to Christ happens to us.  Christ is our new representative–as compared to Adam who is our old representative.  What does this mean?

 I think I can best sum it up with the Old Testament story of David and Goliath. Goliath was the champion of the Philistine army, and every day he would challenge someone in the Israelite army to come and fight him.  The fear of fighting this giant went far beyond simply individual combat, for you see, the person who accepted Goliath’s challenge wasn’t just fighting for himself.  He was fighting for the entire nation of Israel.  If the Israelite lost to Goliath, that meant the entire nation lost, and vice versa.  This was one of the methods armies used to avoid massive death and blood shed.

 Goliath represented the country of the Philistines.

David represented the country of Israel. 

David won/Israel won.  That’s how it worked.

 In a like manner, Jesus becomes our representative when we place our trust in Him.  And Paul lays it out: what happens to Jesus also then happens to us.  Jesus died, and he died to sin.  Therefore, we have died to ourselves and died to sin.  Jesus was raised from the dead to live a new life.  Therefore, we are raised to live a new life.  The life Jesus lives, he lives for God.  Therefore, the life we live, we live for God.  And since we live for God, we do not seek to sin.

 Paul then fleshes out what this means even further in the second half of Romans 6.  Paul says we have a new master.  We were once enslaved to Sin.  We were curved in on ourselves, but because of our new life in Christ, we are now slaves to God.  (Yes, I know the language is problematic for some today, but there are two important points here.  First, the slavery mentioned in the New Testament is nothing like the slavery practiced during the African slave trade.  Slavery in the New Testament was something someone voluntarily entered into so that he or she could pay off accumulated debt.  When the debt was paid off, the slave was now free.  And, of course, someone could redeem you or pay off your debt and set you free.  Secondly, whether we know it or not, we are all slaves to something—usually our heart’s greatest desire.  If that desire is not God, you have an idol—an idol that will demand your very life.  The only Master who grants you freedom through servitude is God.)  And being slaves to God, we long to honor and serve our Master with our entire being.

 How does that play in dealing with homosexual relationships?  There are two salient points here.  The first is realizing the importance of the design of humanity, and the second is honoring the Designer.

 To realize the importance of the design, we must turn to Genesis chapter 2.  I know that there are many who appreciate Genesis 1 and treat God’s calling of the creation (including humanity) very good as serious business, but who turn around and ignore and call Genesis 2 & 3 a myth.  As far as I can tell, Justin doesn’t do such a thing.  Justin admits to a very high appreciation and understanding of scripture.  He appeals to its authority.  This is why he spends so much time trying to interpret it in a fashion that justifies his position.  And while his interpretation may be lacking, his stance on its authority is not.

 Therefore,  we turn to Genesis 2 and the creation of humanity recorded there.  Hopefully you are familiar with the story.  Man does not have a suitable helper and is alone.  God recognizes that this situation is not optimal, so God creates the animals.  None is found to be “suitable.”  I included quotation marks around the word suitable because the connotation of this word is not simply relational in the sense of companionship—it is also relational in the sense of sexual.  One can imagine Adam looking at a rhinoceros and saying, “Nope. Don’t think so.  Try again.”  (Paul uses this understanding in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 when he argues against prostitution.)

 Therefore, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and God removes a rib to create woman.  There is something very significant about this.  We must remember that ancient Jews viewed God as perfect; whole.  Therefore anything in creation that was not whole was actually diminished and further from God.  If someone lost a hand or foot in battle, they were considered diminished and further from God.  If someone was deformed by leprosy or illness, they were diminished and further from God.  If a eunuch, well, you get the idea.

 But here in the creative process, God diminishes His own creation and makes Adam less than whole.  And woman, who is taken out of man is also less than whole.  But when they are joined together...well, that wholeness returns.  “For this reason a man leaves his mother and is joined to his wife.”  Something quite marvelous is taking place in this union, and it is why Jesus offers the council, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no human tear apart!”

 I am Lutheran and believe in 2 ½ sacraments, but the Roman Catholics may be onto something in their calling marriage a sacrament.  There is definitely something very holy taking place here–something that can only take place between a man and a woman—not only relationally, but sexually as the word “suitable” suggests.  That’s the way it was designed.

 And it goes beyond relationships involving people of the same sex.  Men are missing something that was taken out of them.  Two men share the same lack—at least according to this part of the creation story.  Two women share the same lack.  Only through the relationship between a man and a woman can this lack be filled.

 This understanding of marriage takes us much deeper than those who argue that marriage is a cornerstone of society especially for raising children.   I agree that marriage is this, but this definition does not capture marriage fully because there are many families that struggle with conceiving children (like my own) or who choose to not have children or who are unable to have children.  Their relationships are still marriage despite exclusion from the raising children/cornerstone ofsociety definition.

 This understanding of marriage also takes us further than those who propose it as the means where you express your love (and receive love) as a part of personal fulfillment.  While marriage does have an aspect of this, relying on this definition alone is problematic especially when love fails—as it does often.  It is much easier to seek fulfillment and love elsewhere when relationships become problematic than it is to work to mend relationships and grow through problems.  Personal fulfillment is inherently selfish and is likely the primary reason for the high divorce rate. 

 The understanding of marriage that I propose found in Genesis 2 and affirmed by Jesus in his teaching of divorce provides a very deep, very powerful, foundation for understanding the reason we get married and work to stay married.  It also provides the reason marriage is between a man and a woman.  Man and woman are meant to complete each other.  That’s the design.

 But, we must now deal with Justin’s objection: just because our bodies are designed one way, is using them in another way sinful? 

 I want to remind us here, that we are no longer under the Law.  Paul even agrees with the Corinthians who write to him and say, “All things are Lawful.”  Paul’s retort: all things are Lawful, but not all things are beneficial.  And here is how they are not beneficial.  I will begin with an analogy–even though all analogies are not perfect, but this one is quite understandable for many.

 A treadmill is a wonderful tool that was invented so that we can exercise indoors; however, many folks use treadmills to hang dirty or even clean clothes on for extended periods of time.  Is such an act sinful? 

 Well, we would say no.  Not in the least.  We might do it all the time.  But is this beneficial for us?  Well, no.  We should be using the treadmill for that which it was designed.  It is healthier for us to do so.  There is definitely self-interest for us in doing so–even if we don’t feel like exercising or are not attracted to exercising.

 But, there is another reason that goes beyond our own self-interest.  In using the treadmill for its purpose, we honor its creator.  I mean, what if the inventor of the treadmill walked into a house and saw his wonderful, intricate creation being used as a clothes rack?  Would he be disappointed?  Outraged?  Upset?  Would he shake his head in bewilderment that his design was being coopted and corrupted in such a fashion?  I mean, he knows he doesn’t own it. He knows people are free to do with things as they choose, (and we are) but does that diminish his disappointment or frustration in those who abuse this freedom (of course it does)?  And of course, we are free to hang clothes on that treadmill if we choose.  We have complete and total freedom, but are we bringing honor to the one who made it for a different purpose?  Of course we are not.

 In a like manner, we know the original design for marriage.  We know God’s original design for our bodies, and we bring honor to God by using them as they were intended.  We do not bring honor to God by using them as they were not intended.  This is why Justin’s argument about two couples who are living godly lives in all things except for one being heterosexual and one being homosexual fails.  They may each be producing fruit, but one of these is not bringing honor to God.

 Before we begin using this standard to deal with many of Justin’s examples of problems with the Traditional view, we need to also deal with the purpose of the Law.  Justin argues that God’s Laws (or rules as he states) have a purpose behind them.  Once those laws fulfill their purpose, they become irrelevant.  Therefore, each law should be looked at one by one to see which ones have been fulfilled and are no longer relevant.  (Interestingly enough, Justin does not show how the laws/rules regarding homosexuality have been fulfilled.) 

 Yet, orthodox Christianity has taught from very near the beginning that the Law of God; the Rules of God serve two purposes–purposes that are ongoing and never fully fulfilled by us.  Mind you, they have been fulfilled by Christ, but not by us.

 The first use of the law is to reveal our sin. Romans 3: 19-20 (NRSV), “Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For ‘no human being will be justified in his sight’ by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.”  The Law is constantly revealing our sin to us.  It never stops doing this to us.  It condemns us all the time.  When we fail to care for our neighbor, the Law convicts.  Whenever we think evil thoughts, the Law convicts.  Whenever we fail to worship, the Law convicts.  The Law will always point out our sin.  It’s purpose is ongoing.  It’s purpose is to drive us to the Gospel.

 Yet, there is a second use of the Law.  To restrain evil.  In our ongoing battle with sin, we need to know the boundaries.  We need to know what is right and what is wrong.  We need to know when sin is operating within us to lead us astray.  The Law gives us those boundaries.  And when we transgress those boundaries, use number one kicks in.

 And now we must remember the Gospel: that we are now justified by grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.  (Romans 3:27-28) We are not saved by our own actions, but by Jesus’ actions.  We are not saved by our following the Law, but by Jesus’ following the Law and then imparting his righteousness to us.  And in thankfulness to that righteousness, we seek to bring honor and glory to Jesus; to God; through our daily living. 

 Keeping all this in mind, we now turn to Justin’s difficulties with the traditional view and dealing with the biblical issues he points out:

 Head Coverings

 There are definitely some interesting exegetical issues with 1 Corinthians 11, not the least of them being “because of the angels.”  It’s also tough to know whether or not Paul is talking about head coverings or hair styles.  And let’s throw the monkey wrench in there about whether or not praying and prophesying is a compound meaning worship or if this is simply praying and prophesying.  It’s a tough passage!!  But knowing that Paul is dealing with a cultural issue is not one of the difficult exegetical issues.  Scholars are pretty sure that Paul is dealing with Roman, cultic issues trickling into the church, and he is trying to draw a hard line to keep those outside influences, well, outside!

 When Christian practices looked like idol worship, that certainly was not honoring God.  Christians were separating themselves from the “spirit of the age,” and were living and worshiping in a different manner.  Such a thing was God honoring.  So, it made sense for Paul to draw that line hard and fast.

 But what about us?  Does it still make sense in light of the Gospel?  Does it still make sense knowing that our righteousness and our purity does not come from any external sources, but it is what comes out of our hearts that makes us impure (Mark 7:14-23)?  The clothing we place upon our heads does not make us pure (neither does what we eat), but it is what comes out of us that glorifies God.  In that situation–in Corinth, the outward dress was not glorifying God–just as we might object to someone wearing a satanic shirt or Hindu priestly garb or Buddhist priestly garb to our worship. Comparing this to homosexual marriage isn’t even close.

 Romans 13:1

 As I said early in this document, I adhere to the supposition that Scripture helps interpret scripture, and it is this principle which helps us with this text.  Justin doesn’t seem to be applying this principle, so he misses a very important caveat in scripture.  This is not the only place where obeying government authorities is talked about.  In Acts chapter 5, the Apostles were brought before the civil authorities who had ordered them to stop preaching the name of Jesus.  The apostles didn’t hesitate in their reply, “We must obey God rather than men.”

 This governing principle has always been in effect for Christians.  Their calling is to honor God above any civil commands, and this is why Martin Luther King, Jr. and southern black churches were at the head of the civil rights movement.  They knew they were following God’s command even though society’s laws were against them. It was also the reason many Christians turned against the slave trade and worked to outlaw it. (Justin’s continued references to slavery in the Bible actually deserve some response, but I will not do so in this paper.  I will point you to Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster for some understandable and thorough reading on the subject–reading that will open your eyes if you believe that slavery was always accepted by the Church.)   Obeying civil law when it contradicts God’s commands does not bring honor to God.

 Romans 13:8-10

 Justin calls this section a problem for the traditional view.  However, in reality, Romans 13:8-10 is actually problematic for Justin’s view because what Paul is saying is that when one is full of agape—what he calls the deep, abiding, unconditional love that comes from God—one is obedient to the commands of God.  As Timothy Keller says in his commentary on the book of Romans:

In other words, Paul refuses to pit love and law against each other.  The obedient thing is the loving thing; the loving thing is the obedient thing!  If we want to love others, we will obey God’s commands.¹

And God’s commands on same-sex sexual relations are pretty clear, at least as I have outlined above.  Therefore, once again, Justin’s argument fails.  “But wait – the very definition of the Traditional View says that even when two relationships are equally loving – even when they’re motivated by the exact same selfless desires and the exact same servant hearts – that one of them can be ruled sinful just because of a person’s gender.” 

The two relationships might be equally loving between the partners, but they are not equally loving towards God.  One of those relationships is breaking the commands of God and not honoring God.  The criteria from Romans 6 once again defines one of those relationships as sinful.

Sabbath Law Breaking

Justin misses Matthew’s point terribly in his commentary regarding Sabbath Law breaking. 

First, he misses the fact that the Pharisees had instituted a whole lot of human laws regulating what it meant to work on the Sabbath.  Those weren’t dictated by the Torah but by the religious institution.

Secondly, Justin misses the crux of the argument Jesus puts forward.  Jesus does not indicate that it is okay to violate the letter of the Law.  Jesus tells the Pharisees what the Law means because He is “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Verse 8)

After all, Jesus was there from the beginning of creation, and through Him all things were made.  Jesus knows the proper understanding of what the Sabbath is to be about, and he is pointing out that the Pharisees had it all wrong. Their understanding of the Law was backwards.  It is not okay to violate the letter of the Law.  Neither is it okay to misinterpret it.  That is certainly not honoring God.

Because of some questionable biblical interpretation, a failure to realize the purpose of the Law, and a failure to realize that the Traditional view is not based simply on “God said so,” Justin fails in his attempts to undermine the Traditional arguments.  So, let us now look at some of Justin’s reasoning for promoting LGBTQ+ relationships and marriage.

Exegesis versus Eisegesis

Justin makes the assertion that we can glean from the biblical text deeper meanings than even the authors themselves intended.  “But the abolitionists argued that Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that there was a deeper meaning here that even Paul himself might not have realized.  It’s a great argument, and I agree 100%.” This is a dangerous game to play–in fact it is a game that has been played many times throughout history oftentimes with disastrous results. 

The Roman Church played this game long and hard before the Protestant Reformation using allegorical interpretations of the text to subjugate people and keep itself in power.  This is why they fought so hard to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common folks. When you read things into the text that are not intended by the author, you can manipulate the masses very easily.

In our own day, we have televangelists who do this very well.  Prosperity gospel preachers add their own “spirit filled” interpretations to the text giving ideas and thoughts to the text that the original authors never imagined, and they have led many astray.

Here’s a helpful thought: you don’t need to use Galatians 3:27-28 to build a biblical case against slavery.  All you need is the book of Philemon.  When, as Justin says, Paul was using this text to help readers understand their identity in Christ and that nothing should divide them: not race, social status, or gender, that interpretation is enough.  There is no need to look for deeper meaning.  All one should do at that point is say, “What conclusions can we draw from this meaning.”

The Final Argument

Justin’s final argument is based on the good fruit that homosexual relationships bear.  But Justin misses something entirely: there are many people and things which are outside of God’s purview that bear good fruit.

I mean, I have known some atheists whose morality and generosity far exceeds my own.  I have known Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Muslims who are some of the kindest and gentlest people on the planet.  In the church, we call this common grace.  It is not saving grace.

Saving grace takes a person and transforms them. Saving grace takes a person and reframes their vision and their attitudes.  Saving grace takes them away from themselves and leads them to a life of honoring God.  I do not know Justin and am not sure what he would say at this moment, but I have heard other homosexual Christians claim that their sexuality is central to their identity; that their attractions to the same sex are something they were given by God and to be blessed by God.  Such a claim is making an idol out of their sexuality.  While they produce other fruits, they do not honor God in continuing to give in to their sinful nature which basically says, “I’ll give up everything for you except this.”

Am I calling anyone who says such a thing a sinner?  Yes.  Join the club.  I am, too.  And I’ll invite you to put your trust in Jesus like I have.  I’ll invite you to go through the heart wrenching transformation of grace that will tear you apart, bring death to your self, destroy all the things that you once thought were important and made you who you thought you were, and then reconstruct you into a totally different being.  It’s a terrible process to go through, but in the reconstruction, you will find a totally different way of being.  And you will desire to honor God in all things.

¹Keller, Timothy. Romans 8-16 For You. USA, The Good Book Company, 2015, p. 141