Leonard Pitts, who writes for the Miami Herald, wrote an interesting column dealing with the controversial subject of homosexuality; it appeared in the Dallas Morning News on June 6th. Although it echoes some of the arguments examined in earlier articles, it is a model of how liberals evade and obfuscate the issue.
This is for those who hated my recent column about Ellen DeGeneres and Jerry Falwell–the lesbian comic and the preacher who finds her disgusting (29A).
It is for the ones who pointed me to the Bible, specifically Leviticus 20:13, which calls homosexuality an “abomination” worthy of death.
Finally, it is for those who, in light of this, dared me to explain how I can scorn the preacher and defend the lesbian.
Let me begin by saying I have no answer.
This last statement is disingenuous. If he truly has no answer, the column should end here. The answer is that he prefers the practice of homosexuality over the teachings of the Bible, which is obvious throughout his column. This “no answer” ploy is nothing more than a mechanism to make himself sound humble. It fails.
The reader may wonder why Pitts specifically cites Leviticus 20:13 when many of his readers must have pointed out for his consideration Romans 1:24-28, which does not involve the death penalty and is from the New Testament. After all, we are not under the Law of Moses, although it reflects God’s consistent attitude toward the sin of homosexuality (see Gen. 19 and Jude 7).
When it comes to reconciling the words in the ancient book with the conundrums of modern life, such is often the case.
What does this statement mean, if not that the Bible is not relevant to our age? What so many fail to see is that “modern life” began about one year after the Bible was completed. Can we not imagine those who wished to disregard the Bible’s condemnation of sin saying, “Oh, come on. You can’t believe the teaching of those old dusty manuscripts. This is the second century!”?
The problem for Pitts and other media liberals is not a lack of relevancy. The problem is that the Scriptures are all too relevant. There is not a moral or ethical problem that the Bible does not deal with in principle; human beings, despite all of our technology, are the same as they have always been–sinful. The Bible is a complete revelation, as evidenced by Jesus’ promise to the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:12-13) and the fact that we have been given all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). The idea that modern civilization is just too complex for the Bible to be relevant is false.
The same chapter of Leviticus, for instance, also mandates death for cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9) or committing adultery (Leviticus 20:10).
Why aren’t those who quote Leviticus as literal law rushing to obey this injunction? Why aren’t the streets running red with the blood of sluttish spouses and spoiled brats?
I have no answer.
Come on, Leonard; you’re a bright fellow. How about this explanation: “America is not a theocracy”? Those laws were given to Israel, which was a theocracy; they are not repeated in the New Testament. In fact, under the Christian system capital punishment is the responsibility of the state, not Christians (Rom. 13:1-7). Pitts’ dealing with the subject in this way is nothing more than a diversionary tactic so that he does not have to say, “I think the Bible is wrong about homosexuality,” which he obviously thinks, but that statement would not sound so nearly as humble as, “I have no answer.”
It is emphatically not my intention to ridicule God’s Book. However, I do mean to challenge those of his would-be soldiers who seem to take their faith as an excuse for spurning two of his greatest gifts. Meaning a heart that knows compassion and a mind that entertains questions.
We are happy to know that Mr. Pitts means no disrespect toward the Word of God, that “ancient book” whose teachings are so hard to reconcile “with the conundrums of modern life” (as if homosexuality were a modern problem). No, it’s only the followers of that book that are so messed up. Surely Mr. Pitts is not being at all judgmental when he says the Book’s followers lack compassion and can’t think worth a flip.
Jesus asked a lot of questions (some of which His adversaries couldn’t answer), and His compassion cannot be questioned in light of His death on the cross for all the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). Yet He condemned sin, including fornication, which includes the sin of homosexuality (Matt. 5:32, 19:9). [Out of curiosity, just what passage of Scripture tells us that compassion and asking questions are God’s two greatest gifts?]
They claim there is nothing personal in their persecution of gays. They are, they say, just following God’s law.
But we seldom hear of anyone getting this hot and bothered over faithless spouses or ill-mannered children, both worthy of capital punishment according to the Bible.
For that matter, you seldom hear rage over men with long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14) or women who speak out in church (1 Corinthians 11:34-35)–both also scorned in the Bible.
And so, if these people are honest with themselves, they must admit that their antipathy toward gays has less to do with God’s law than with human aversion–the visceral shudder of revulsion many still feel at the thought of all things homosexual.
This conclusion wouldn’t be just a tad judgmental, would it? Liberals never notice when they are being judgmental. Furthermore, they are confused enough to think that when someone stands up for Biblical truth by condemning sin, that they are guilty of judging.
These four paragraphs could be reduced to: “They claim that there is nothing personal in their persecution of gays, BUT THERE IS!” The first flaw in this reasoning (beyond Pitts’ judging of and lacking compassion on “would-be soldiers”) is his use of the word “persecution.” Are homosexuals being rounded up and shot? Has somebody forced them to march in “gay pride” parades in major cities across the United States?
The homosexuals are the ones on the attack, bad-mouthing everyone who objects to the public acceptance of their sin, and calling them homophobes and bigots (with the liberal entertainment and news media joining in). Mr. Pitts certainly knows what this battle is all about. His attempt to shift the blame for the current confrontation onto Christians is a typical liberal technique: Accuse those who are defending Biblical morality, which has also been the ideology which has permeated America up until the last fifteen years.
Perhaps Pitts and his friends are not disturbed over faithless spouses, but Christians are. We do not exercise the death penalty, but we do withdraw fellowship from those who sin and refuse to repent. It is society in general that cares little about adultery–not Christians. “Ill-mannered children” is not quite the concept of Leviticus 20:9, which describes “cursing.”
Many people protested men wearing long hair back in the sixties, but people rejected the Bible then too and said, “Oh that’s just a cultural phase.” Many of us still protest women speaking in public (1 Tim. 2:11-14), but the majority of the “Christian community” has said, “Oh, that was just cultural stuff that has become outdated since the first century.” [Let this be a lesson to all who have given up the Bible’s teachings based on “culture.” Pitts has them on this point. His argument is that homosexuality is just another “cultural” thing that’s changed since the Bible was written. He has no argument, however, against those of us who have remained faithful to the Word.]
Probably most Christians do have a “visceral shudder of revulsion” at the thought of homosexuality. It is, after all, a “vile passion” and “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). In fact, it will be time to worry when that feeling does not occur. But that alone is not the reason for opposing homosexuality.
Christians have fought against pornography–and lost. We have fought against the evils of alcohol–and lost. We have fought against no-fault divorce–and lost. We have fought against gambling–and (for the most part) lost. We have fought against fornication–and lost. We have fought against the taking of innocent lives (abortion)–and lost. Now we are fighting against homosexuality, for which Sodom was destroyed (not for having long hair). Christians think that this is the last battle. If we lose, America is finished. Without a moral foundation, national defense is useless.
Same Old, Same Old
Pitts next appeals to the diversity of interpretations of the Bible to try to discount the Bible’s teachings against homosexuality, such as snake handlers. The problem is that these aberrations do not prove his case because they are not parallel. Snake handlers build their entire doctrine around one passage of Scripture (Mark. 16:17-18), concerning which they do not consider that their interpretation might be mistaken.
But there is no principle in the patriarchal period or under the Law of Moses that predates this action. Furthermore, snake handling does not involve a moral principle; homosexuality does. God has always considered it a perversion, and He still does. Attempting to compare strange, non-mainstream doctrines built upon a flimsy foundation with Biblical morality is not only unfair; it is too blatant to be considered accidental.
Pitts next throws in a few barbs about interpreting the Bible according to one’s own “narrow-mindedness and bigotry” and ignoring passages which say “men ought not to judge.” The condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible does not require interpretation; it is about as straightforward as any Biblical doctrine. In fact, one would have to “interpret” it incorrectly to justify homosexuality (2 Peter 3:16).
After all the judgmental statements that Pitts has made, he finds fault with others who (he perceives) do the same thing. Actually, God made the judgment concerning homosexuality; all Christians do is recognize His definitions.
Is homosexuality an abomination?
No answer for that, either, except that if I was given heart and mind, the giver must have wanted me to use them. No answer except that my heart and mind find it difficult to justify loathing or impeding people who have done me no harm. No answer except to note that God is mercy. And, of course, he is love.
Well, Mr. Pitts, we are sure you have no intention to ridicule God’s Book, but when you ask the question, “Is homosexuality an abomination?”, you have demonstrated that you do not believe God’s Book. God says homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 20:13). What part of that didn’t you understand? Paul says it is “against nature.” What is complicated about that?
No one has asked you to loathe homosexuals, but when you lend support to their sin, you certainly do not love them–rather, you are encouraging them to forego even thinking about repentance. Yes, God is love. He is also merciful TO THOSE WHO REPENT OF THEIR SINS! But to those who die in them (refusing to repent), God will judge (Heb. 13:4). By the way, Mr. Pitts, those who would turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (by justifying their abominations) shall also be condemned (Jude 4).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “EVASION (7/27/97).”