An unsettling article: reading Dr. Mark Achtemeier

A good friend recently asked if I had read Dr. Mark Achtemeier’s two papers “And Grace Will Lead Me Home: Inclusion and Evangelical Conscience” and “Unsettling Questions.” My friend, a pastor, is beginning to lean toward the ordination of LGBT people and was influenced by Achtemeier’s papers. He wondered what I thought of the papers. Because I had already read “And Grace will Lead me Home,” and told him my thoughts on that paper I decided to read “Unsettling Questions,” a paper presented at the 2007 President’s Colloquium at Austin Theological Seminary.

I believe the arguments for LGBT ordination in this paper can be divided into three sections and I will address those in order. However Achtemeier’s main concern is that the Church be aware of the lack of pastoral care being shown to LGBT people. I will comment on that at the end of this critique.

The first argument deals with Genesis 1 & 2. Achtemeier writes:

Remember how God creates the world in six days, and declares all of it “very good.” But there is one aspect of the original creation that the Lord declares “not good”—do you remember what it is? Genesis 2:18, “Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the human being should be alone; I will make a helper corresponding to him.” (Italics mine)

Achtemeier goes on to explain how the desire for intimate communion is an innate part of humanity built in at creation. As he puts it, “This creation for nuptial fellowship is not a choice that can be simply unmade or undone. It is deeply inscribed in our nature as the good gift of our creator.”

But Achtemeier too quickly passes over the whole text of the scripture he has pointed the reader/listener to. Genesis1 embraces the creation of male and female as that which God calls good. God’s pronouncement of goodness over the original creation includes the coupling of Adam and Eve, a man and a woman.

So although it may be that there is an innate desire for nuptial fellowship, still that desire is meant to be toward the opposite gender. It should not be a surprise that the goodness of God’s creation is reversed in the fall. But God promises mercy at the very beginning of the fall and it meets each contradiction of God’s good creation caused by the fall.

Achtemeier’s next step is the usual insistence that those biblical texts that condemn homosexuality are not referring to those kinds of committed same gender relationships the modern and postmodern world knows. To speak to this I refer to an article, my good friend Dr. Tom Hobson recently wrote on the Presbyterian Outlook blog. Entitled “A progressive myth,” Hobson lists with many quotes the evidence for just such homosexual relationships in the ancient world. For instance:

During Roman times, Callicratidas makes a speech worthy of "Brokeback Mountain," where he pledges lifelong undying love for his male lover, and calls for their ashes to be mixed together after death:
“I pray that it for ever be my lot to sit opposite my dear one and hear close to me his sweet voice, to go out when he goes out and share every activity with him. But, if … illness should lay its hold on him, I shall ail with him when he is weak, and, when he puts out to sea through stormy waves, I shall sail with him. And, should a violent tyrant bind him in chains, I shall put the same fetters around myself. … Should I see bandits or foemen rushing upon him, I would arm myself even beyond my strength, and if he dies, I shall not bear to live. I shall give final instructions to those I love next best after him to pile up a common tomb for both of us, to unite my bones with his and not keep even our dumb ashes apart from each other” (Pseudo-Lucian, Erōtēs 46.4–10).

Beyond that, as I have stated in another post, “Lev 18: 22 and Lev 20:13 are set in the midst of texts that deal with sexual immorality within family relationships and also murderous idolatry that involve families.” And I added, “all of the sexual sins are exploitive simply in the sense that families, individuals and communities are brought to ruin.” Jesus is also addressing family issues when he refers back to Genesis and marriage between a man and a woman. (Matt 19: 3-6)

Third, Achtemeier, using Calvin’s reasoning about allowing interest from investments although the Bible forbids the use of usury refers to Calvin’s manner of interpreting scripture, stating:

Calvin argues that it is not enough to judge this matter simply ‘in accordance with a few passages of Scripture.’ Rather, Calvin believes that in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of the biblical commandments, we must go beyond a mere surface reading of the texts and consider instead the intention of the Lawgiver. Its not enough to focus simply on what the commandments say; to interpret the biblical commands faithfully we have to think about what God is trying to accomplish in giving them.(Italics the author’s)

Although, according to Achtemeier, the information about usury is in Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice he refers to Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion when explaining biblical interpretation. And here, in the Institutes we find that Calvin is not throwing out the commonsense meaning of the word but instead is filling it with its full meaning and demand upon our lives.

Calvin writes:

… there is always more in the requirements and prohibitions of the law than is preserved in words. This, however, must be understood so as not to convert it into a kind of Lesbian code [The term is undoubtedly not to be understood as a reference to any kind of homosexuality but rather to some kind of extravagant code coming from the island of Lesbos.] and thus, by licentiously wrestling the Scriptures, make then assume any meaning that we please. By taking this excessive liberty with Scriptures, its authority is lowered with some, and all hope of understanding it abandoned by others. (Book II, chap viii, 8)

Calvin then goes on as Achtemeier has suggested explaining how to grasp God’s meaning of the text. But this does not mean that the full prohibition or demand of the text is dropped but instead enlarged or filled out. As Calvin explains using the first commandment:

The principle of the first commandment is, that God only is to be worshipped. The sum of the commandment, therefore is, that true piety, in other words the worship of the Deity, is acceptable, and impiety is an abomination to him. So in each of the commandments we must first look to the matter of which it treats , and then consider its end, until we discover what it properly is that the lawgiver declares to be pleasing or displeasing to him. Only we must reason from the precept to its contrary in this way: if it pleases God, its opposite displeases; if that displeases, its opposite pleases: if God commands this, he forbids the opposite; if he forbids that, he commands the opposite. (Book II, Chap viii, 8)

An even better example of Calvin’s interpretation method is his explanation of “Thou shalt not kill,” where he fills in with a positive, “we are to aid our neighbor's life by every means in our power.”(9) And perhaps this is as good a place as any to look at Achtemeier’s plea for pastoral ministry for the homosexual community.

He lists all of the prevailing problems. The long term committed relationships, the feelings of inferiority or discrimination experienced by those who are not eligible for ordination, the utter despair of not being able to put aside their orientation. And yes the church must deal with these feelings, and must minister through the love of Christ to the needs expressed by the gay community. “We are to aid our neighbor’s life by every means in our power” “We must not kill.”

And that is perhaps the hardest calling the Western Church is given today. Because in this case we must love but speak truth. We must encircle and show hospitality but speak truth. We must stand while stooping to wash the sinner’s still dirty feet, as Jude puts it, “on some have mercy with fear.” Achtemeier speaks referring to human experience, but God in the cross of Jesus Christ offers the church a transforming power that is greater than human experience. God offers a love, unbelievable in terms of human experience, that is deep, powerful, redemptive and transforming. That is the church’s message; it cannot be changed. That is the church’s ministry she cannot disengage.

Tricia Dykers Koenig, "Because of Scripture and Theology": The soul of the Church at risk

Tricia Dykers Koenig, National Organizer for the Covenant Network, has written three articles under the series title, “Why We Repeatedly Revisit G-6.0106b (and Will Continue to Do So Until It’s Amended).” The second article is entitled “Because of Scripture and Theology.”

Koenig explains how she interprets the Bible’s commandments against homosexual sex. She also addresses theological views about God’s nature and grace and how her views affect her understanding of homosexual activity. As the debate is not new her points are not new. However, they should be taken seriously. The soul of the Church is at risk because some of Koenig's ideas have significant meaning since both mainline denominations and the nation are turning towards an unbiblical morality.

I also write that Koenig’s views are significant because I believe there is some truth in what she writes. I explain below. As usual, among those who advocate for the ordination of practicing LGBT persons, Koenig believes that the homosexuality condemned in the scriptures is either exploitative sexuality or cultic sexuality. She mentions the actions in Sodom as an example of exploitive and sees laws on what is unclean as well as idol worship involving sexuality as cultic.

She also goes on to assert that the Bible simply reflects the cultural attitudes of its time, and then points to the tenth commandment to suggest that in that commandment women are seen as property. Koenig believes such a view should change the reader’s viewpoint about how to see scripture. One tosses out the idea that women are property (since that is cultural) but keeps the timeless principle that people should not covet. As Koenig puts it:

Our guidelines for biblical interpretation involve figuring out which timeless principles underlie particular biblical provisions, then applying those principles to our circumstances.

But the Bible is not about timeless principles but rather it is the story of God and his amazing redemption of his people through the eternal Son, Jesus Christ. Within that story the commandments of God are important. They bring us to God by showing that we are unable to live up to them. A school master, Paul calls them. They also guide us in our walk as those redeemed, as does the entire Bible. So looking at that last commandment it is coveting that is addressed with a very definite “Thou shall not.”

Therefore, property or not, a man’s wife and a woman’s husband should not be coveted. The commandments of God bring us to God and guide us as we walk with Jesus.

In the same manner, in Leviticus 18:22 a man lying with another man is also a “shall not.” And both Lev 18: 22 and Lev 20:13 are set in the midst of texts that deal with sexual immorality within family relationships and also murderous idolatry that involves families. The truth is, Koenig is partly right, all of the sexual sins are exploitive simply in the sense that families, individuals and communities are brought to ruin.

And just as in the same passages, sacrificing children to the idol Molech is forbidden and is cultic in nature (a part of religious ritual and devotion) although it has to do with parents and families, so homosexual sex in this text may be cultic with out changing the fact that it is between consenting adults. To clarify, it is cultic in the sense that life among those communities which do such things takes on a cultic nature in that all that is unnatural is lifted up and seen as a sacred part of daily living.[1]

And this is easily seen in Romans chapter 1 where God, because of idolatry, gives humanity over to their degrading passions, which includes gay and lesbian sex. The text goes on to list many, many sins which are not sexual in nature. They are all a sign of the rejection of God and his word. However, homosexual sex is listed first and connected to the worship of that which is not God.

Koenig next gives some rather illogical thoughts concerning intimate relationships. She suggests that because the Bible tells of marriages among the ancient patriarchs which consisted of more than one wife and/or concubines God’s plan for marriage did not center on only monogamous relationships between one man and one woman. But Jesus bypasses the sinfulness of humanity and when speaking of marriage goes back to creation.

Although Jesus is speaking about divorce he nonetheless is speaking of marriage:

And he answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate(Matt 19:4-6).

Koenig attempts to reverse the words of Jesus by suggesting that when Adam exclaimed about Eve “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken,” he meant Eve was his kin. And Koenig uses the words of Laban to his nephew Jacob as proof. (Genesis 29:14) But to insist on Koenig’s interpretation is to ignore the words of Jesus. Jacob and Laban did not become one flesh.

And further, we know that when God states that he is giving Adam a helpmate the word is the same one used of God when he is a helper to us. And while this elevates Eve’s job description it does not elevate her to Godhood. Neither was Eve ever able to help Adam in the same way God was able. Laban’s exclamation to Jacob does not, in the context of the passage, carry the same meaning that Adam’s does.

At the end of this particular section Koenig attempts to negate God’s commands with the use of God’s grace. She writes that “even if one believes that the order of creation is proscriptive, Christ’s grace supersedes that order:” and then she quotes Galatians 3:24-28.

Here she is implying that because of God’s grace given as forgiveness and reconciliation, even if one believes that marriage between a man and a woman is God’s order, still it is alright to be in a same gender sexual relationship. In other words, because Christ has died for us we can go on living in habitual sin without repenting.

But Paul in another place in Galatians answers such an absurdity. “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. (5:16)” The problem is that Koenig is mixing up attempting to be made righteous by following the law, an impossible position, with a refusal to be transformed by the Holy Spirit through the life of Christ. Paul lists the deeds of the flesh which includes sexual immorality. And he lists the fruits of the Spirit which include self control and faithfulness. Biblically we are all called to walk by the Spirit.

Koenig lists nine “overarching themes” which she believes leads the Christian away from “treating LGBT persons as defective or less-than.” I will look at them in my next posting.



[1] In this context I suggest the book, Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice-Love, ed. Marvin M. Ellison and Sylvia Thorson-Smith. I am thinking of such chapters as “Gay Erotic Spirituality and the Recovery of Sexual Pleasure,” or “Receptivity and Revelation: A Spirituality of Gay Male Sex,” and “Embracing God as Goddess: Exploring Connections between Female Sexuality, Naming the Divine.”

Christian students facing an oppressive atmosphere at Bowdoin College because of their views on homosexuality

Professor A. J. Robert Gagnon, who had asked for prayer as he was giving a presentation on homosexuality at Bowdoin College near Portland, Maine, on Friday Oct. 30, has now posted information about both his presentation and the extreme opposition that both he and Intervarsity experienced.

He begins his report with these words:

"My speaking engagement at Bowdoin College near Portland, Maine, on Friday Oct. 30 presented me with a glimpse into the oppressive future of homosexualist ascendancy. The talk was attended by about 150 persons, including a large contingent of “GLBT”[1] students and staff who, I heard from other students, had been planning how they might derail my presentation. During the Q&A time after my presentation the Director of Student Life, a homosexualist activist named Allen DeLong, called me “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and made an implicit threat to the Intervarsity staff responsible for bringing me there.

Before I go into the details, first a little background information. I was invited by the Intervarsity chapter at Bowdoin to give a presentation on the Bible and homosexual practice primarily intended for Bowdoin’s Christian fellowship group but also open to the whole campus. There were pleasant features about Bowdoin College. I found the Bowdoin campus to be aesthetically pleasing. Another nice thing about Bowdoin is the presence of two outstanding Intervarsity staff persons, Robert and Sim-Kuen Chan Gregory, who have committed their lives to helping the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship (BCF) over the last five years. They have done so at considerable financial cost and sacrifice to themselves.

Yet, if you are thinking of sending your child to Bowdoin, consider this: Bowdoin suffers from a major inhibitor of free speech. Let’s just say that if you want to go to a college where homosexualist ideology reigns supreme at the highest levels, a place where you will be belittled as a homophobic bigot if you express your conviction that homosexual practice is wrong, then Bowdoin is the place for you. Bowdoin has not only the usual “Gay and Lesbian Studies” program but also a special “Resource Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity,” just recently renamed from the more descriptive “Queer-Trans Resource Center.” The Center has its own building and full-time director.

If you go to Bowdoin’s website, click on “Campus Life,” and scroll halfway down, you will see a prominent reference to this Center that takes you to “Bowdoin Queer Web.” Here one finds prominently displayed a statement from the Bowdoin Student Handbook that forbids “discrimination or harassment of others because of … sexual orientation” and requires “respect for the differences of all.” From what I can gather from my own observations, this statement means: The “GLBT” community can slander at will anybody who declines to pay homage to the homosexualist agenda, while all others have to shut up about that agenda or face dire consequences. I have seen firsthand the very real fear and intimidation that students experience as regards expressing any criticism of homosexual behavior.

You can link from the “Bowdoin Queer Web” not only to the “Sexual Diversity” resource center, but also to the “Bowdoin Queer-Straight Alliance” and to “Faculty-Staff Advocates.” The latter includes the Director of Student Life, Allen DeLong (mentioned above), who (the site declares) also “holds a monthly dinner conversation for Men who Date Men”; the Director for Career Planning for all students; and, of course, the Director of the “Queer-Trans” Resource Center. In short, homosexualist activists at Bowdoin control all student life activities and all use of career planning resources. "

To read the whole report go here, Back to the Oppressive Future:
Homosexualist Attempts at Suppressing Rational Debate at Bowdoin College and the Maine “Gay Marriage” Referendum.

Disregarding the Hebrew Bible/ the effect on two subjects: homosexuality & the Jewish people

In my last posting on the Reformed Faith and the Jewish people, Writing about the Jewish people and Christian theology - 2 I stated that I would look at the use Christians have made and must make of the Hebrew Bible in regards to the Jewish people. This is not that posting but it will do for a lead in to the subject.

As the next General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) nears the overtures will start piling up and we are all fairly certain that one very large issue will be homosexuality. But another issue, that is rarely connected to the first one, will also contribute to the work at GA. That is, Middle East concerns. And I suggest, with this posting, that they are connected.

Many of the issues surrounding the ordination of those who are practicing homosexuals have to do with scripture and its authority. All of that authority is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament.

For instance Jesus refers to the creation account of the Hebrew Bible when he speaks of marriage. He reminds his listener’s that God created the first two people as man and woman and brought them together as husband and wife. All New Testament ethics are Hebrew.

In the same manner the Christian connection to the Jewish people is tied to the Hebrew text. Every promise that anchors the Christian in the kingdom of God finds its foundation in the Hebrew Bible. Without the historical account of ancient Israel, the ancient people of God, the Christian’s faith floats in an uncertain universe tied only to whatever cultural milieu exists. Christ is no longer the promised one but simply a surprising creature arising out of anyone’s myth.

And so both become problems when those who proclaim the word begin to disconnect Christianity from the Jewish scriptures. And I have seen this happen lately. On homosexuality it was evident in the preaching of several women at the Presbyterian Women’s gathering. Most speakers were not pushing for homosexual ordination, but those who were either discredited some of the main texts of Joshua or misused the text for their own particular agenda.

For instance one speaker used the command in Joshua for the tribes to sanctify themselves as a means of insisting that part of that sanctification process means following God into “new landscapes and unknown territory.”Sanctify Yourselves

But in order to be faithful to the text as well as the history of the Jewish people one must be honest about what it meant to sanctify or as my translation puts it consecrate. And like the Israelites who came to the mount where the law was to be given the people were to separate from the unholy or even from the mundane; circumcision was a part of that. Yet the speaker led with her idea of a ‘new landscape’ until she was able to connect sanctification with the ordination of practicing homosexuals. She stated:

“A marvelous wonder will occur the day when the Church no longer needs to sort believers into specific boxes, because everyone is fully welcomed at the Baptismal Font and the Communion Table; and because everyone’s gifts are affirmed through the outpouring of baptismal waters and ordination oil; and because everyone’s ministry is empowered though the sharing of opportunities and resources.” (My emphasis)

Another speaker detached Jesus from the promises that arise out of the sacrifices and rituals of the Jewish Temple. She too called for the ordination of practicing homosexuals by suggesting we start kicking in some roofs. “Meddlin’”

On the other hand such groups as the Israel/Palestine Mission Network detach the Hebrew Bible from the Jewish people of today. They do this by either denying the text of the Old Testament or by denying the ethnicity of the Jewish people.

There is a need to return to the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible. First one reads and studies in the Hebrew Bible the histories of the Jewish people as true and important. Then the fleshing out of Jesus Christ as he is found in all the promises, theophanies, shadows and types will allow once again our faith to rest in the Old Testament as it so securely does in the New. If Jesus the Christ is secured in the Old he is Lord of the Old. The commandments are his; the call for holiness is his. And the Christian is not disconnected from the Jewish people.

As Karl Barth puts it “… it is the unanimous opinion within the Church, that God is never for us in the world, that is to say, in our space and time, except in this His Word, and that this Word for us has no other name and content but Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is ever to be found on our behalf save each day afresh in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. One is not in the Church at all if he is not of a mind with the Church in these things.”

Instead the Church is being fed morality disconnected from the promised Messiah of the Hebrew Bible. At the same time Christ himself is anchored in our various cultural stories and disconnected from the Hebrew Bible. I believe we can expect a continuing barrage of unholy overtures on both issues which will grow steadily worse as Christ is moved further and further away from the Hebrew Bible, and as the Old Testament is further eroded by progressive exegesis.

About God, homosexuality and animals!

Sometimes I read something that is meant to be serious but is so utterly nuts that I just have to say so. My husband pointed me to a piece in the SFGate titled “Confirmed God is slightly gay: Just ask the animals. As soon as they stop having all that sex.” It is by Mark Morford.

My husband hoped I would write about the article.

I really didn’t want to but then I read one of the articles Morford linked to. The linked article with one paragraph destroys Morford’s whole thought.

Starting with a book, And Tango Makes Three about two male penguins in the Central Park Zoo who mated and when given an egg successfully hatched and raised the chick, Morford writes insultingly awful about Christianity and is eloquent about homosexuality.

His thesis is that since there is homosexuality in most animal groups and since animals including humans are parts of nature and since God is by many understood to be nature then God insists on all kinds of sexuality. So the implication is get with it everyone!

Morford is honest to a certain degree. He admits that life is not only pleasurable but also bloody. Yet he also implies that animals are happy about being homosexual. Morford emphatically writes:

“This, then, is what science appears to be trying to tell us, has been telling us, over and over again: Nature abides no narrow, simplistic interpretation of her ways. Nature will defy your childish fears and laughable behavioral laws at nearly every turn. God does not do shrill homophobia.”

One of the two articles he links to is in Live Science and is entitled “Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals,” The staff that wrote the piece comes to their conclusion by quoting Nathan Bailey “a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Riverside.” They write:

"'Like any other behavior that doesn't lead directly to reproduction — such as aggression or altruism — same-sex behavior can have evolutionary consequences that are just now beginning to be considered,' Bailey said. 'For example, male-male copulations in locusts can be costly for the mounted male' and this cost may put evolutionary pressure on the locusts, he said. As a result, a larger number of males may secrete a particular chemical that discourages the mounting behavior, he added.”

So—that really says it all.

But I will go further. Morford doesn’t think much of Christianity so this is not addressing his screed, but a Christian should know better. We answer to a different God. We don’t answer to a god that is sexually capricious as well as red in tooth and claw. Deviant sexually based in a morality that is itself based in nature will eventually come with all the other deviant behaviors found in a fallen world.

A society that bases its morality on nature will in the end surrender all to nature. That was the problem with ancient Israel’s neighbors. Their nature religion not only led them to religious prostitution, it required the throwing of children into the fiery arms of Moloch. If we look to nature for moral guidance we will cast away our true humanity which is found in Jesus Christ.

If the world wants to follow the animals in their sexuality, gently but fervently shout at them. Pray for them. Tell them of the transforming grace of Jesus Christ.

If I could write a letter to Lisa Larges

If I could write a letter to Lisa Larges:

Dear Lisa,

I read your article “The Advocate: God vs. Gay,” at "That All May Freely Serve.” I am almost certain that I am one of those Christians you are calling “extremist right,” and “homophobic.”

And I feel bad not because you have called me this but because you have called millions of Christians who have lived out their faith in the midst of joyful witness with bloody persecution, for almost two thousand years, this name. For they stood where I and others stand now.While their Lord loves them in their faithfulness you dishonor them.

In the seventies there was a Christmas song I loved, the title escapes me. But to paraphrase, it says something about the few shepherds and wise men that attended the Savior’s birth but then goes on to say and a multitude of angels. In the same manner I see that you give as the most obvious reason for staying within the Christian Church that you want to directly counter ‘my presence’ as well as thousands of others. You write:

“First, there’s the obvious. The Christian extremist right, which has increased its influence in mainline churches, must be countered. Many of the Christian denominations have a history of being moderate on many things and progressive on others. In the last three decades that moderate Christian voice has been drowned out, silenced, or taken over. The influence of the Christian right must be countered directly and from the inside. While the Christian right is regrouping, reviewing the payout of its last homophobic spending binge, and wearing that deer-in-the-headlights look, now is the time.”

This only leaves me with a few more words to say about your feelings about myself and my brothers and sisters. We do love you and pray that you might find the transforming power of Jesus Christ in your life.

We pray that God’s perfect will, will happen in your life. That is not praying something easy for you; instead it is a journey taken by all who call Christ Lord. It means dying to self and sin. It means repentance but new life. May it be so for you.

But to go on, you write of God and spirituality and suggest that those of us you consider homophobic are religious but have no spirituality! You also write about the Church and God.

“God still shows up at these things [the trial]. (You might be thinking that it was just caffeine, some other hormonal imbalance, or a perverse quirk, but let’s just call it God for the moment.) It was a God that was patient but frustrated, loving but forceful, and alternately laughing and crying over what some followers do in God’s name. There was a magnificent gaggle of young queers who turned out to observe the trial. Some of them were asked to leave on account of illegal twittering. So there they were, full of love, vibrancy, strength, and faith. I say that’s the church. So sue me.”

Well, I don’t wish to sue you, but if that is your understanding of God and the Church, may I sadly say you hold a kind of spirituality that is foreign to the Scripture. You are equating God with the sinfulness of humanity which leaves us all out in the cold.

Only one human who is also God has that uniqueness. Jesus Christ is the unique incarnation, the one who died for all our sins, whether homosexual or heterosexual. We all need his redemption. We all need to bow before his cross offering him our brokenness for transformation. Love, ”does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth:” (I Cor. 13:6)

Lisa, you are asking others to return to their faith tradition, including those who were raised in the Christian Church, for the purpose of insisting that those already in a faith tradition learn to be inclusive as far as sexual orientation goes.

Once again I am sad. You, who are seeking to be ordained, rather than call people to Jesus Christ, you call for others to join our Churches to teach Christians to allow unrepentant sinners to continue in their sin. You are calling for the destruction of the Church of Jesus Christ.

May you find mercy and forgiveness in the blood of Jesus.

Sincerely from someone who prays for you with sorrow.

Half a Story: a Review of "For the Bible tells me so"

A half story is a story that only tells one half of the plot and therefore there is no proper ending. Daniel Karslake, producer and director of “For the Bible tells me so,” is telling such a story with his film.

The movie is praised as a film which reconciles homosexual practice and the Bible. And in an extra feature, Karslake interviewing Gene Robinson, the first Episcopal gay bishop, states that the film was intended to, “elevate the conversation about homosexuality and religion to a higher level.” He concludes that it simply “comes down to love.”

Part of the film is about five families who have gay children, including the families of former House Majority, Richard Gephardt, as well as Bishop Gene Robinson. A great deal of the focus is on how the families reconcile their Christianity with their children’s homosexuality.

There are a couple of important truthful points in this film.

1. Parents should love their children unconditionally.

2.Abusive name calling, picketing with signs that say such things as “God hates faggots,” hate mail and death threats are terribly wrong. Some of such actions are criminal and all of it is sin.

But there is so much in this film that is wrong including the way Karslake explains the only two real truths he offers. Indeed, my main focus in this review will be explaining how the film tears apart real Christian love and makes it at best a sentimental human trait unconnected to the love of Jesus Christ.

There are at least three ways the parents in this film react when they find out their children have a homosexual orientation. Most, after the initial shock, accept both the children and their sexuality. They even go so far as to believe God is using their child to further the rights of homosexuals.

One mother is extremely judgmental of her child and believes that is the reason her daughter committed suicide. One couple, Brenda and David Poteat, keep loving their child, yet because of their belief in the authority of the Bible do not agree with the child’s sexual lifestyle.

The Poteats, who disapprove of homosex on the basis of Scripture, are made to seem backward and uninformed. This is done by jumping immediately to a scene of progressive biblical scholars refuting what the Poteats have just said about the Bible’s views on gay sex. It is also done by zooming in on a booklet in the Poteat's home, entitled “Why you should speak in tongues,” as though believing in the gift of tongues could somehow be a sign that anything you believed about the Bible was wrong.

In fact, throughout the film, there is a constant use of progressive scholars and pastors, between each story, as a means of clarifying, affirming or denying each person’s beliefs. The scholars and pastors include Reverend Mel White, Reverend Peter Gomes and Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene. All who disagree with their progressive interpretations of the Bible texts are put into a category titled fundamentalist.

In truth, all Christians who hold to the authority of Scripture are lumped with the most outrageous religious bigots and notorious tyrants of the last few centuries. For instance there is a constant interweaving of pictures of the notorious Phelps’ family with other Christians such as Billy Graham.

Even the President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw, is treated atrociously, in that his explanations about the biblical text and homosexuality are corrected by progressive scholars’ viewpoints. Yet the progressive speakers, in other places in the film, are allowed to speak without evangelical interference.

So, now here are the basic false perspectives in this film, which in many cases are stated not by words but by the interweaving of images of hate with other parts of the film:

1.Parents can only show unconditional love to their children by accepting, as righteous, their children’s participation in homosex.

2.Most Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that homosex is sinful are fundamentalists who are hate filled and bigots. Their beliefs are equivalent to those of the Ku Klux Klan, Hitler and Fred Phelps and his cultish family.

3.The Bible does not teach that homosex is sin.

4.Although this film is about Christians and the Bible, the gift of Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection and his transforming grace are totally missing. The distortion in this part is that Jesus’ gift of salvation has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality.

Of course, the second and third false suppositions are the cause of the first untruth. If the authority of the Bible can be explained away, or it can be reinterpreted within a cultural context then what it states about homosex does not matter.

The fourth false supposition, that the transforming power of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection has nothing to do with a Christian’s view of homosexuality,” is the distortion that caps all others. Looking at the Scriptures from a Christian point of view, the Bible’s most basic story is that the Father promised and gave his Son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross as a ransom for our sins. The Hebrew Bible holds the promise; the New Testament is the fulfillment. That promise and fulfillment entails all other details of our walk with Christ.

One of the ‘big’ ideas, stressed several times, in this film is that the statement in Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them,” is no different then the food laws in chapter eleven where such food as shrimp is considered “abhorrent,” (NAS) or “detestable” (NRSV) Another text referred to is Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Beyond the fact that the food laws of the Bible are different than the biblical laws dealing with immorality which include such immoral acts as bestiality, incest, homosex and burning children before false gods, when the work of Christ is applied to this problem there is more clarity.

Turning to the N.T., Acts 10: 9-16, a different understanding emerges. This is the story of Peter’s vision of the unclean animals being lowered in a sheet from heaven for him to eat. When Peter is troubled about God’s command to eat, he answers, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” But a voice from heaven tells Peter, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Notice the emphasis here is on what God has cleansed.

The work of proclaiming clean and cleansing belongs to the Lord. God uses his own analogy of unclean food to call Peter to Cornelius house where he would make clean the Gentiles who trusted in Jesus Christ.

Both creatures and humanity are made clean by God, but the cleansing of humanity required the blood of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this does not mean that sins, like homosex, are turned into something good but instead, the person is cleansed and transformed. The call to discipleship is open to the new Christians in Cornelius house. They are called to a new life which includes striving to live holy lives.

In another text Paul reminds Christians that although they had practiced all kinds of sin including homosex, they were now”washed,” “sanctified” and “justified.” He tells them to “flee immorality.” (1 Cor 6:11, 18)

The real plot of the story of sinful humanity is God’s call to love, suffering and redemption. Just as we were chosen in love to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, just as we were bought with great pain because of our Father’s love, we can also choose to love in just that way.

When one chooses to love a child who is living in rebellion against God’s authority it is painful. The future may be filled with sorrow, uncertainty and suffering. But that is God’s call. He calls us to embrace with love the child while suffering the painful awareness of their sinful lifestyle. That is a deeper love than a love which merely enfolds the sin of the child thus avoiding the pain. It is a love that must be drawn from Christ

The theme of the story is that a God who suffered on the cross will stand with those whose children and family members are caught in the bondage of a homosexual lifestyle. The end of the story is that Christ will forgive and transform the sinner no matter what the sin. The glory of the story is a future with Jesus Christ where there is no longer any sin.

***************************************************************
I am placing the trailer of "For the Bible tells me so" here to give the reader an understanding of how this movie is put together. Most of the scenes featured here are spread out more throughout the movie but the effect is the same.