On June 7th in The Dallas Morning News there were three responses to Murchison’s column on Bishop Spong: one agreed, and the other two defended the Bishop. Space allows us to deal with only the first of these letters this week; the second will have to wait until next week.
Jim Wasserman (“Demonizing the Left”) wrote, “To go straight to the source, the Bible, nowhere does Jesus in his documented sayings condemn or speak out against abortion. Similarly, nowhere does Jesus speak out against homosexuality.”
Let’s consider abortion first. Was abortion being widely practiced in the first century? Were there Planned Parenthood clinics in Jerusalem? Yes, evidence indicates that in portions of the world there were some abortions being done. Far more common, however, was exposure of infants. If they were unwanted, the newborn were just exposed to the elements until they died. Jesus never specifically spoke against this practice, either. Possibly the Lord figured that by affirming respect for life, people might have enough sense to know that innocent human life should not be disregarded. Did He not say of little children, “Of such is the kingom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14)? The Scriptures do call the child in the womb by the same term as the child out of the womb (Luke 1:41,44; 2:12, 16).
Probably the most often-repeated piece of disinformation is that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. Jesus did not specifically speak out against rape, incest, or bestiality. Would Mr. Wasserman like to defend those sexual immoralities, also? The fact is, however, that Jesus did condemn all of these things in His use of the Greek word porneia. According to Thayer: “a. prop. or illicit sexual intercourse in general” (532). This word is usually translated “fornication” in the KJV and “sexual immorality” in the NKJV. It is an all-encompassing word that includes homosexuality, incest, relations between people who are not married–or not married to each other (adultery), or any other aberration that the mind of man can invent.
Once again, Jesus taught what God had authorized (see Matthew 19:3-9 and the Scripture on which Jesus based that teaching, Genesis 2:18-24)); therefore, when one affirms what is correct, it is not necessary to then teach against everything that has not been authorized. When God appointed the Levites as priests, for example, He did not then have to tell the other tribes one by one that they could not be priests. Furthermore, Jesus did not sanctify any sexual sin defined in the Old Testament. He did not say, ÒUnder my covenant homosexuality will now be considered all right.”
Wasserman is not through, however; he has some other arguments which are equally invalid.
As for condemnations of homosexuality elsewhere in the Bible, they may be found among many prohibitions conveniently forgotten, such as the dietary laws of Leviticus or the New Testament admonishing against women adorning themselves of wearing gold and pearls (1 Timothy 9:9 [sic]) (3J).
First of all, has anyone argued the point that homosexuality is a sin based on Leviticus 20:13? It is often pointed out that homosexuality has been a sin under every covenant. It was wrong during the Patriarchal Age, as demonstrated by God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was wrong under the Law of Moses, as already noted. And it is still considered a vile passion and “against nature” in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26).
Comparing the condemnation of homosexuality to the dietary laws of the Jews is apparently the new popular defense of this sin, though it is lame and easily refuted. The dietary laws were not in force prior to the Law of Moses, and they are not part of the new covenant, either. Peter was told that such animals were now clean (Acts 10:15). When the Jerusalem conference met, they did not bind any of these Old Testament laws upon anyone–except the eating of blood or things strangled (Acts 15:29). Jewish brethren were to accept Gentile brethren who ate things they had formerly been forbidden to consume. But, as has already been pointed out, where did God “cleanse” homosexuality? He did not, but continues to define it as sin.
Being charitable, as is our custom, we will assume that the newspaper was responsible for 1 Timothy 9:9 when there are only six chapters in the book. But the reference, even if it were 1 Timothy 2:9, would still make no sense. There is not a verse about homosexuality anywhere near the passage discussing how women should adorn themselves. That being the case, we can only assume that his point is that the entire New Testament is “out of touch.” Of course it is Mr. Wasserman who is “out of touch” with the meaning of the passage (he should not give up his day job). Even a superficial check of commentaries would have apprised him that this passage is one of emphasis and contrast. Few have ever understood it to be literally forbidding such things.
We notice that Mr. Wasserman failed to comment on Jude 7, in which the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are cited as an example of “sexual immorality” who are “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The reason is that he, like Spong, does not believe the Bible. Because the Bible condemns that which these men want to defend (either because they practice it or have friends or family members who do), the Bible must be wrong. The Bible must be discredited because it condemns sin. Not everyone executes a personal vendetta against the Scriptures, but many reject them rather than repent.
Wasserman’s last paragraph also deserves to be commented upon because it is also becoming popular to mouth these or similar sentiments.
Jesus’ life and ministry were simply and unequivocally about love, of God and each other. To turn such a message into one of hate and intolerance is the epitome of a “perversion.”
A more flagrant misrepresentation of Jesus and the gospel would be hard to imagine. Although Jesus taught significant ideas about love, that was not the focus of attention in His ministry. The first message preached by John and Jesus was, “Repent” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). People need to practice love, but they also need to repent of their sinsÑsuch as homosexuality.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for Jesus to tell us what His purpose in coming to earth was (instead of Mr. Wasserman, who thinks the New Testament is outdated anyway). Jesus said, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). People who practice homosexuality (and rape, incest, etc.) are lost in their sins. They need to repent, which means “give them up.” Mr. Wasserman mistakes itolerance for love. Love communicates to people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
Jesus said He came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). John added that the Lord came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). Jesus taught love all right, but He did not define love as advising people do their own thing. He taught spiritual realities and truths; He taught that if people want salvation from their sins and eternal life, they must be willing to give up their sins.
Wasserman implies that anyone who teaches against sin (particularly homosexuality) is a person of hate and intolerance. Jesus said that sins such as fornication defiled a man (Matt. 15:18-20); and He told people that unless they repented, they would perish (Luke 13:3). By Wasserman’s definition Jesus was full of hate and intolerance. Obviously, Wasserman has constructed a vision of Jesus that is not Biblical, and his definitions are erroneous.
The theme of the entire Bible is redemption. Sin separated man from the fellowship of God (Gen. 3:8; Isa. 59:1-2). Not only is the Old Testament the struggle of God’s people trying to be holy (which charge God gave them), it is also the story of their bringing The Holy One into the world to redeem mankind. Consequently, if we have repented of our sins and been baptized, we have been washed, sanctified (made holy), and justified–even those who have given up homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-11). “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1). Holiness, like love, is the message of Jesus and His apostles.