Dear Mr. Fielding (minister of the Denton Unitarian Universalist Fellowship):
Your August 28th column in the Denton Record-Chronicle was most instructive, if not edifying. First of all, you have an “I” problem. Like the rich fool in Luke 12:16-20, who left God out of his life, you leave God out of your column except for taking cheap shots at the Book He authored.
Eleven times you use the pronoun I in your column, and usually it is to set yourself above the Scriptures. You frequently use such expressions as “I say” and “I think.” With all due respect, does it matter what you think any more than it does what I think? Who made either of us, as human beings, experts? If everyone lives according to “I think,” then there can never be a standard of morality–only chaos (see Judges 21:25).
Although this article takes strong exception to what you wrote, you are to be commended for one thing–your honesty. So many people try to twist the Scriptures to make it appear that homosexuality is acceptable. You did not try to justify the sin by avoiding the obvious meaning of numerous passages; you just threw out the whole Bible and said that It does not matter. This is pretty shrewd thinking on your part.
Many feel guilty in practicing evil. They want to sin, but they want to think God accepts them, also. Many have done so with respect to unlawful divorce and remarriage. By the time they have finished wringing a text, they have it saying the very opposite of its obvious meaning. How refreshing to hear someone be honest enough to admit, in essence, “We don’t care what the Bible says; we like this sin, and we’re gonna do it!”
There is no way to know yet how “religious”-minded homosexuals are going to react to your column. After all, they have been working hard to get the Bible to endorse their sin. But maybe your willingness to publicly trash the Scriptures will inspire them to abandon their hypocrisy.
Your brilliance in taking this new approach, however, is also your biggest problem, because you are gravely wrong about the Word of God. There is no greater mistake that anyone could make. Following are some of your reckless statements with appropriate responses.
Isn’t it obvious that it is marriage, a loving relationship between any two beings, that is sacred, not some ancient book? If one must choose between a loving relationship and scriptures, I say opt on the side of love! I say, instead, whenever any loving relationship is contradicted by any scripture, throw out the scripture, not the relationship (6B).
To answer your first question, “No, it is not obvious to everyone that a loving relationship takes precedence over Scripture.” John did not think the loving relationship between Herod and Herodias was more important than God’s teaching on the matter. John said, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). He later lost his life for defending the Word of God; this won’t happen to you, will it, Mr. Fielding?
Homosexual “marriages” (an oxymoron) are not authorized in Scripture because the practice itself is condemned. It remains a “vile passion” and “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). And no one who practices such can enter the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Furthermore, God did not recognize the “loving relationship” between the Christian in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and his father’s wife. Paul commanded them to withdraw fellowship from such a person.
In the Old Testament, God did not recognize the loving relationship between Israelite men and their pagan wives; they had to put them away in order to be pleasing to Him (Ezra 10:44). Perhaps you have been watching too many Hollywood movies lately and are getting your theology from them instead of the Bible. Loving relationships! It is estimated that the average male homosexual has 500 “loving relationships” during his short life, every one of which is an abomination to God.
Your real problem is expressed by your brutally honest statement–“throw out the scripture.” What a keen idea. What will be next–“Kill any one who stands in the way”? After all, if the “loving relationship” is the highest thing there is in life, then why are a few stodgy old legislators standing in the way? Get rid of them; take them out. What? You say that murder is wrong? Why? Because some ancient book says so? I say, “Throw the Scripture out and kill anyone who stands in the way of loving relationships.” Such is the result of your irrationale.
We are buying into centuries old prejudices that the Hebrews wrote into their scriptures. Do we really want to perpetuate such insanity, just because it is scriptural? I think not! (6B).
Well, thank you, Mr. Fielding, for enlightening us about the Hebrews writing their prejudices into their Scriptures. We would not have known that without your exhaustive research to declare it unto us. But now that we know, we can really be free. Some of us have often felt intimidated by the Hebrew prejudices against rape. Please explain to any daughters, nieces, etc., how great it is to feel uninhibited. What? You say that rape is illegal? No problem. We’ll just lobby a few legislators to change that.
Oh, and while we’re at it, those old Hebrew prejudices against stealing have stymied some for a long time. Don’t you agree that people are just selfish when they try to hold on to things they have worked for and earned? The “have-nots” have probably just been deprived by society anyway; stealing is just a way of “evening” things up. And who cares what some ancient book or a few out-of-touch legislators think? After all, you admitted it. Abiding by such ancient ideas and prejudices is just perpetuating insanity.
For a long time people have critiqued scripture on the basis of unlikely events: living in a whale’s belly for three days, walking on water, virgin births, etc. Darwin’s science challenged the Genesis story with a more rational explanation of our origins. Now we find that there are perhaps moral reasons to critique scripture as well (5B).
We now abandon showing you the absurdity of your statements in favor of a serious analysis. What you are really saying here, whether you realize it or not, is that you do not believe in God. If God were powerful enough to create this universe, then what would be the problem with walking on water–or any of the other things mentioned? Anyone who denies the evidence of God’s supernatural actions is essentially denying His existence.
It was precisely the miracles that convinced people of the Deity of Christ (John 20:30-31). Denying the validity of this proof constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32). You have placed yourself in sorry company.
Darwin may have challenged Christianity, but he did not do so with a “more rational explanation of our origins.” Darwin admitted that his theory had problems, and no evolutionist today believes the mechanisms suggested by Darwin. Actually, your rebellion against Biblical morality is not new; Sir Julian Huxley (whose ancestor, Thomas Huxley, popularized the theory of evolution) made this admission: “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of the Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” If God interferes with the lusts of men, mankind determines that He therefore cannot exist; if the Scriptures interfere with man’s perverted choices of sexuality, “throw out the scripture.”
It’s true we need something to turn to for moral and theological authority, but no book written by human hands can ever provide that authority. No Hebrew book, no Greek book, no English book, no book–no Scripture! (5B).
Human hands wrote down the Scriptures, but they were inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). But infidels such as you have rejected the Word of God in any form. God spoke directly to Balaam, and it made no difference whatsoever. Oh, Balaam spoke God’s Word when he prophesied, but he was covetous to the core.
If there is one claim the Scriptures make throughout, it is that they are inspired. You have, in effect, called Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter , and Jude LIARS!! They claim they were speaking the words of God; you say they are not. Whom should we believe?
So no book is to be trusted? Then what, pray tell, shall people use for moral and theological authority? You cite a quotation from an 1841 book by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Wait a minute! What happened to not using any book as an authority? Yet after denouncing books, you turn right around and use an uninspired book by Emerson as your source of authority. Emerson wrote: “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” These may sound like high and lofty words for Americans who grew up on Christian principles, but it is doubtful they would have made much of an impact on Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan. Even for those who have been taught Christian ideals, however, this statement is gibberish. As with humanism, it makes man the measure of all things. “I decide what’s right for me.”
You wrote that “we all have to use our intelligence to make it through this world in a loving fashion” (5B). Oh, really? Who says so? Who decided that love was important? Certainly, we would not want to cite those old prejudices of the Hebrews, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). “Have to?” There is no such thing as “have to.” The sacred integrity of my mind says I don’t have to do anything you think is a standard, such as love for others. As far as I’m concerned, such sentimentality is for chumps; I’ll take what I can get and do what I can get away with.
“Using someone else’s standards will eventually clash with our own,” you write. Exactly. Which is the reason I refuse to use your ideas; they clash with mine. Now what has been gained by rejecting the Scriptures?
Finally, you ask us to respect the Scriptures of the past (even though they are filled with prejudices and biases), and then you add: “None of them, however, is binding, and to the extent we treat them as though they are, it is we who are the lesser” (5B).
So the Scriptures are not binding because you think they are not. Well, that should convince just about everybody. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away” (Matt. 24:35). The words of Jesus and His apostles and prophets, Mr. Fielding, will haunt you throughout all eternity. You will forever be able to ponder those “nonbinding,” eternal words. And you will be judged by those “nonbinding” words, too. Jesus, who wants you to be saved from your sins, said, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Now would be a good time to repent of your blasphemy against Jesus and the Bible.