The Denton Record-Chronicle, on the last day of last year published an article by three ministers in Argyle in which they set forth what they believed to be a Biblical way in which to deal with the sin of homosexuality. Although the men were both cautious and kind, apparently no one can possess even a tolerant attitude toward sin these days-at least, not this one. Three responses to their article-none of them kind in return-vaulted into the editor’s office and were published.
What did the three men say to warrant the subsequent attacks leveled at them? These are their words: “The Bible teaches that when it comes to homosexuality, or any other sin, redemption–not acceptance, not violence, and not hatred–should be our response.” Now most people probably think such a statement is well-reasoned and balanced. First of all, it did not isolate homosexuality as the only sin–or even the worst sin. Their statement acknowledges that there are other sins in society today. Second, they clearly stated that the individuals who practice homosexuality should not be hated or treated violently. How much fairer treatment could someone want?
Apparently, the hostility was generated by the sentiment that homosexuality cannot be accepted, either. The men presented it as a sin of which people must repent and from which they need redemption. What a radical idea! How dare someone call a sin a sin and suggest that its practice should cease! Yet John preached precisely that message (Matt. 3:2). Jesus also proclaimed repentance (Matt. 4:17; Luke 13:3). Paul told Gentiles, in his oft-quoted sermon on Mars Hill:
“Truly these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).
People do not like to be told they sin. John was beheaded; Jesus was crucified. Paul was constantly opposed and eventually put to death. Frequently, those with the most sin are most likely to cast the first stone-and the second one.
A guest column, reeking with vitriol, was published in the paper on January 21st. The author of it, Philip Young, owns a retirement and estate planning firm here in Denton. He begins with a personal attack against the three ministers, saying that if they “preach sermons that are as cloudy in language and content as their guest column…they shouldn’t be surprised if thinking members of their congregations fall asleep while they are speaking!” (all references are on page 8A). He went on to complain that he could not determine what they meant, but it is obvious that he did indeed understand their position. Young, who studied Hebrew and Greek at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, continues:
The article had nothing of any practical value to say, but merely spewed forth prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance toward those outside that God-ordained norm of the traditional family with which the authors feel comfortable. It showed no recognition of variance in God’s creation, and totally ignored the issue at hand: how the Church (not God) should relate to homosexuals.
The disturbing thing here is not that people might disagree on a certain topic, but that they would demonize their opposition. Young’s assessment that these men “spewed forth prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance” is simply not the case. They were very cautious in the way they expressed themselves; they tried diligently not to be offensive. This man stands guilty of what he charges against others.
The fact that people are uncomfortable with the practice of homosexuality is irrelevant. Would that Christians would be uncomfortable with all sin! The three men did not argue against the practice on that basis, but rather a Biblical one. What does Young mean when he says that they failed to recognize “variance in God’s creation”? Is he implying that God created homosexuals? If so, it is easy to see why he left this point in the realm of implication-since he could offer no evidence of it whatsoever!
The author of the guest column proceeds to tell the three men how they should have written their column-if only they had his wisdom. Again he resorts to personal assaults upon their character:
Instead, we are given nothing but a bunch of well-worn, familiar platitudes about how God views homosexuality. (And I’m sure that all three of these preachers have discussed the issue personally with Him, and therefore couldn’t possibly be misinterpreting anything in the Bible).
Sooner or later, it just had to worm its way into the discussion, did it not? If the Scriptures do not agree with a certain position, and reason and logic do not help the cause, then everything becomes a matter of interpretation. That copout is so old we are surprised that Eve did not use it to reply to God after she ate the fruit. “Well, yes, you said not to eat of the fruit of that particular tree, but my interpretation is different.” At least Eve was wise enough not to use that old dodge.
The title of Young’s column is “Gay-Bashing Preachers Exposed.” He may or may not have chosen that title himself (since editors reserve the right to make up their own), but certainly the writer would not have opposed such words, since he eventually gets around to calling the ministers bigots. He closes his guest column with these thoughtful words:
Perhaps it would be more honest if each of these preachers hung a sign on the door of his church: “Let no homosexual pass this threshold on pain of hellfire!” And while they are in the process of maintaining the purity of their congregation, according to their personal interpretations of the Bible (there it is again, gws), they should also eliminate the adulterers, the liars, the gluttons, the implacable, the unmerciful, etc. from their midst. That way they can keep themselves undefiled, and pray with the Pharisee: “I thank Thee that I am not as this homosexual! I only exercise in a Christian Life Center; I send my children to a Christian School; I only dine with Christian couples; I buy all of my cars from Christian car salesman; and I would never dream of going to a gay hairdresser, or eating in a restaurant which employs a gay chef-let alone inviting practicing homosexuals into my church, as that apostate Jerry Falwell did!
He concludes with the Pharisee praying for Jesus to come quickly “and destroy all the homosexuals with fire and brimstone, as you did the Sodomites. Amen.” Although Mr. Young does echo Jesus’ warning against self-righteousness, one cannot help but wonder if his motivation in doing so is the same as the Lord’s or if he just chooses to put everyone into that category who disagrees with him.
He also makes a valid point about Christians avoiding the practice of being isolationists; we are to be in the world but not of the world. But by and large his accusations are excessive. Christians are called to holiness (1 Thess. 4:7); are they to be blamed for teaching people to become godly-to repent of lying, adultery, and homosexuality? Would he prefer that preachers tell their congregations, “Hey! We all sin. Sin is cool”? Perhaps a discourse with the following title would please Mr. Young: “We All Sin; So Let’s Not Condemn Anybody Else For Any Wrongdoing.” 1 Corinthians refutes that notion; a more selfish, off the mark, group of Christians could scarcely be found anywhere; yet Paul told them to withdraw from the brother that was practicing immorality (1 Cor. 5).
This column screamed for a reply, but I did not think I could answer it in the conventional way, as we have done so here, by showing the fallacies of the argumentation every step of the way. Newspapers generally do not like to publish a response to a response. They usually think that enough has been said on the topic for a while, and they want to move on to other subjects. Also, I was once forbidden to write anything further on the subject of homosexuality (actually, I could write volumes if I wished, but they will not publish any of it).
Instead, I tried a humorous approach, covering much of the criticism towards Christians expressed in the guest column. But what should the person be called who corresponded to Mr. Young? Young, or a variation of it, would be too obvious. Looking at the column again (particularly the last paragraph, it struck me how bitterness seem to permeate everything that was written. Also noticeable was how the author just seemed to rant and rave continuously. He was a bitter raver, but to use Bitteraver, as Dickens would have done for one of his characters, would still be too obvious; so he became Bittaravah. Such is the background of the following article, which the Denton Record-Chronicle published on the Religion page on January 28th, with the title, “Sinful Behavior Not Open to Interpretation” (10A).
Someone once said that no good deed ever goes unpunished. Consider Moses who was commissioned to stand before Pharaoh and on Jehovah’s behalf demand, “Let My people go” (Exodus 5:2). Not only did the Pharaoh hold him in contempt; his own people complained against him. Even after Moses, through the power of God, delivered them out of Egyptian bondage, they continued to murmur and complain for years in the wilderness.
Bible students are familiar with the rebellions of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16), who challenged Moses’ leadership, but few are familiar with the apocryphal account of the Israelite known as Bittaravah, a rather wild, lustful, and (at times) incoherent fellow who frequently grumbled against Moses. All the way to Sinai Bittaravah bickered with Moses about the standard of morality that Moses was promoting; it seems he objected to teaching against adultery. “That’s just your opinion,” he would argue. “There’s nothing written in stone.”
Then came the day when God spoke the ten commandments from Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17). After Bittaravah recovered from the awesome sights and sounds of that day, it occurred to him that God had said, “You shall not commit adultery” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:14, 17). He went to Moses to ask what those words meant. Moses replied that the meaning was obvious-that a man was not allowed to desire another man’s wife or sleep with her.
Bittaravah chided Moses for such a literal “interpretation” of those words and said that it was no wonder that half of the “thinking” Israelites fell asleep when he addressed them publicly. He reminded Moses that, above all else, God is love, and that he had not heard anything about love anywhere in the list of ten commandments. “I’m willing to stand behind you on ones like, ‘You shall not steal,’ because I’m planning to go into business, and that has some practical value. But why do you have to concern yourself with what a person does in his private life?”
Shortly thereafter Moses went up on the mount to receive the ten commandments. Bittaravah was one of the leaders (although his name is not mentioned) who helped coerce Aaron into making the golden calf (Exodus 32:1). He was among those who led the way in the lascivious behavior that followed (v. 6). He was indeed very happy until Moses came down from the mount.
Before Moses reached the camp, Bittaravah (who had been watching for his return) met him and asked to see the tablets of stone. When he saw that the seventh commandment was still on there, he pleaded with Moses not to give the people a bunch of well-worn familiar platitudes about how God views adultery. “Next thing you know,” he told Moses, “You’ll be putting to death these worshippers of the golden calf,” which is precisely what happened (v. 27).
Of course, we live in different times. Christianity is not a theocracy; we have no authority (nor do we want it) to put people to death for violating God’s commandments. In fact, when we call people to repentance, often we are the ones who are attacked. God calls all of us to repentance from what the Scriptures define as sin, but His attitude toward it remains the same: sin will be punished. Shall we take heart and repent, or punish those who have done a good deed in warning us?