Head and right shoulder of Rodin's Thinker

Perversity or Perplexity?

Should churches accept and seek God’s blessing for certain same-sex relationships, or should they not? This question is being hotly debated among Christians. Many conservative pastors and teachers think that the Scriptures in Leviticus 18, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6 settle the matter with no room for doubt. They are right that those passages have all forms of same-sex relationships in view, including those that might have been consensual, committed relationships between people whose lifelong orientation had been toward their own gender. All such relationships were forbidden to the Israelites when God gave them the law through Moses, and were also proscribed by Paul when the New Testament church was established.

However, several circumstances have worked together over recent decades to stir many pastors and teachers to ask whether God would have the Church now lift part of that proscription. The first circumstance is that in many jurisdictions same-sex relationships are no longer outlawed. Consequently, it has become possible to gain a much more objective, statistics-backed understanding of the homosexual world. It has therefore become clear to many that same-gender attraction is not a wilfully chosen deviation from heterosexual normalcy but is something that the person may have felt from childhood, even before there was any element of sexual stimulation in it.

The second circumstance is that, except in the most red-necked of conservative congregations, professing Christians who feel same-sex attraction are more willing to discuss it openly with their pastor. Pastors are therefore learning three things:

  • Some people who have a credible testimony of faith in Christ and whose Christian lives are exemplary in every other way find their same-sex longings overwhelmingly strong.
  • Many such people testify that, despite their prayers and struggles, God has not given them the grace for a celibate or heterosexual life. Believing with standard church teaching that their temptation arose from Satan, they have attempted to resist the devil but found that he did not flee. Therefore, they have wondered whether same-sex longings were a sinful temptation at all, or something else in God’s eyes.
  • A response along the nouthetic lines, “Well, you just haven’t yet prayed long enough or resisted hard enough,” is a denial of the energy that many have put into their struggle and the agony they have felt.

Some pastors may have noted another anomaly, too, because Romans 1 teaches that the ancient world’s adoption of homosexual practices arose after societies replaced the worship of the creator with the idolatrous worship of humans and other creatures, because God then removed his restraining hand from them. Modern pastors, however, are meeting people who believe every word of (say) the Nicene Creed and who worship the Triune God who is represented there, and who affirm the goodness of God’s creation design, but who nevertheless find no release from their same-sex attraction.

It is valid to take from Romans 1 that the existence in the world of homosexual desires and relationships is a consequence of the Fall, but it is not valid to reason in the opposite direction and assert that everyone who experiences same-sex attraction or engages in a same-sex relationship is shown to be an idolatrous rebel against God. Kevin DeYoung is wrong in logic when he asserts, “According to Paul’s logic, men and women who engage in same-sex sexual behavior—even if they are being true to their own feelings and desires—have suppressed God’s truth in unrighteousness” (DeYoung, 2015, p. 52).

The question is therefore not resolved as simply as DeYoung and other respected conservative teachers believe it is. As I continue this series of posts I will, God willing, try to answer some of the other objections that have been raised against the idea of a change in the Church’s stance – for instance, DeYoung when he says, “It would be strange for the prohibition against homosexual practice to be set aside when the rest of the sexual ethic is not” (p. 48) and “If the “is-ness” of personal experience and desire determines the “ought-ness” of embracing these desires and acting upon them, there is no logical reason why other sexual “orientations” (say, toward children, or animals, or promiscuity, or bisexuality, or multiple partners) should be stigmatized” (p. 111).

I will also attempt to show that

  • A change in the Church’s standards toward people in certain same-sex relationships would not run contrary to the doctrine of the unchanging simplicity of God.
  • The Church has a God-given responsibility and authority to consider and make such a change.
  • Such a change can be made consistently with a conservative view of the authority of Scripture. It does not require its holders to adopt a view of the kind that says that scripture is just the sum of believers’ imperfect and fallible testimonies to their experience of God.

What Does the Bible Teach about Everything?

Kevin DeYoung’s book. “What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?” (DeYoung, 2015) is an excellent exposition from a learned man who holds to a conservative position on this currently controversial topic. I agree with almost every point he makes en route to his conclusions but I think he falls at the final hurdle and draws some absolutist conclusions that are unwarranted. This post is the first of a series I will make, in which I will discuss those places where I believe DeYoung misses the mark.

Despite my disagreement with some of his major conclusions, I believe that his book deserves to be read by everyone who is weighing these issues.

What Does the Bible Teach about Everything?

The book’s introductory chapter is entitled “What Does the Bible Teach about Everything?” It is the right starting point and a brilliant one. DeYoung argues that the central plotline of the story of Scripture is, “a holy God making a way to dwell in the midst of an unholy people.” In this story, “[t]he Promised Land was a type of Eden” and “[t]he Promised Land was a lens through which God’s people were supposed to look back to the Eden that was and look forward to the Eden that was to come again” and, in the New Testament, “the picture of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 is a portrait of Eden restored.” I think most conservative scholars would agree with him so far.

DeYoung cites further passages from the New Testament and correctly states, “The garden, the land, and the temple did not prefigure a day when holiness no longer mattered”. He also cites Revelation 21:8, “But … the sexually immoral … will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death” and therefore concludes that “determining what constitutes sexual immorality in God’s mind has everything to do with the storyline of Scripture.” That leads him to pose the question, “Is homosexual activity a sin that must be repented of, forsaken, and forgiven, or, given the right context and commitment, can we consider same-sex sexual intimacy a blessing worth celebrating and solemnizing?” The rest of his book attempts to prove that the answer to the first part of the question is, unequivocally, “Yes”, and to the second part, “No”.

However, I believe that DeYoung has already demonstrated in this introductory chapter some ways in which his perception is blinkered, and I believe that the answers to the two parts of his question are not as unequivocal as he thinks

His summary is too compressed when he says, “As often as God had made a way to dwell in the midst of his unholy people, just as often had they squandered their God-wrought restoration. So God sent his Son…” (p. 12) (emphasis mine). I am sure that DeYoung believes with the writer of Hebrews that the acceptability to God of the Old Testament structures and sacrifices was entirely dependent on the foreknown sacrifice that would be made by Christ. Every sacrifice, from Abel’s through those of the Job, Abraham, and the first and second temples was only accepted because of Christ. The old Covenants and even the people’s failures under them slowly prepared the way for the coming of the Saviour. Despite all the unfaithfulness of Israel, and against the background of that unfaithfulness, the pedagogy of the law prepared a people from whom Jesus Christ could draw his disciples. Those disciples, further enlightened by what Jesus taught on the Emmaus road, were equipped to take the gospel of salvation by grace through faith to the world. The time had arrived of which Simeon spoke after the birth of Jesus, “…my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel”.

The storyline of Scripture describes a concave arc, down from Eden through the fall and the increasing depravity of mankind, and then upwards – despite the many grave failures of God’s called people – through the old Covenants to the era of the new Covenant and at last the new Heavens and Earth. This storyline includes the news that the kingdom of God has intruded into the world and has begun to change it – see Matthew 13:31-32, “He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches’” and Matthew 13:33, “He told them still another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about thirty kilograms of flour until it worked all through the dough.’” We therefore live in a world where the kingdom is partially realised but not fully so, and where the degree of manifestation of the kingdom has changed with time.

DeYoung’s summary misses the element of what we might call God’s practical graciousness toward his people along that whole arc from the Fall to the present time. None of those whom God has accepted have been perfect in their repentance or faith or holiness or even in their understanding of what holiness ought to be, but their imperfection in those areas has been covered by the blood of Christ, just like any of their other sins. DeYoung concentrates on the end points, the perfection of Eden and of the new heavens and earth, but in Eden, the Fall had not occurred and in the new heavens and earth, its every last vestige will have been removed. What, though, of us who are not there yet? What does the gospel set out as the strategy for our sanctification, we who struggle against whatever stumbling blocks were put in our way by our birth into a fallen family in a fallen world, and our life in a still-fallen world?

By missing God’s practical graciousness and by failing to recognise that we are at a different place on the storyline than even the Apostles were, DeYoung has failed to see some possibilities that may be open to the Church in our present time that were not open in previous generations. I will enlarge on that in future posts, as I respond to other chapters of DeYoung’s book.

Pragmatism – or Something Else?

Peter Carrell has kindly made some comments at Anglican Down Under on my previous two posts, and I want to reply here to one of those points. My response to other points will follow in a later post or posts

Peter says inter alia that my post “opens up a possible way forward towards blessing of same sex partnerships which might, just might receive agreement in our church if we saw our way to a pragmatic, pastoral approach.”  NB: you need to read that sentence in its full context to understand Peter’s own view of the matter – don’t read it as an affirmation of my position. However, here I simply want to discuss the use of “pragmatic”, as it is not a word I would use myself in connection with what I have proposed in my posts.

I do think that there is a kind of pragmatism that is Biblical. For instance, Jesus tells us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves in our dealings with the world. We therefore need to weigh the biblical options and act in any particular situation so as to best serve the πραγμα of the gospel. Nevertheless, I would rather avoid using the word pragmatism in case anyone should misunderstand it to mean something sub-Biblical. Rather, I understand that it will be a momentous thing for the Church to make the kind of change that I have advocated, and, if it happens in a way that includes conservative Christians, it will be because the Holy Spirit has brought the great majority of us to that viewpoint. If that comes to pass, it won’t be as a capitulation to expediency but as a true, principled application of the Word of God.

I have already posted a review of Ken Wilson’s book, “A Letter to My Congregation.” Wilson is a conservative pastor who is troubled by the disconnect between what he sees as the gospel testimony and good character of LGBT people he encounters and the prima facie Biblical prohibitions of such relationships, and he is deeply touched by the anguish of soul they feel. I don’t believe he is the only one troubled that way. I think it is likely there are many thousands of conservative pastors and teachers worldwide who are similarly concerned. Is this just the spirit of this age working to deceive, if possible, even the elect, or is it the Spirit of Christ urging us all to revisit the matter and think it through again, bringing to bear on it the whole revelation of God? I think it is the latter, and we will come in the end to a common, Word-based understanding.

The Just Justifier

I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

I believe that the inspired Word lays out the story of God’s people as a concave arc, from the original paradise of Eden, down through the Fall and ever-increasing depravity of mankind, then upwards through Sinai and the Cross of Christ to paradise fully regained in the new heavens and earth.

I believe that no scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction or training in righteousness if it is interpreted in a way that wrenches it from its particular place on that arc. Careful exegesis shows that some scripture is always timelessly applicable, but that must be shown passage by passage; it must not be not be adamantly presumed. Yes – by all means make it a working hypothesis in your personal Bible study that any Scripture that you have newly come to is one of the timeless ones, but understand that deeper study may require you to change that understanding.

I believe that God intends us to engage our minds with his world and his word. The prototype for this is found in Genesis 2, when God brings the animals to Adam “to see what he would name them” – that is, how he would classify them.

I believe that our intellectual faculty was corrupted by the Fall, but that it shares in the restoration being brought about by God’s grace. While sometimes God has given his people a command and required obedience without explanation, as in the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this is not the paradigm for our general relationship with his Word. A person who worships God mindlessly does not worship God as He actually is.

I believe that the prohibitions in the Mosaic Law and the New Testament against same-sex relationships allowed no exceptions, but that was because of the place that had been reached on the redemptive arc when those prohibitions were given. At Sinai, the Lord was setting up walls to protect the Hebrew people from the corruption of the surrounding nations while he prepared the way for the coming of Christ. In the New Testament era, the apostles were the servants of Christ as he began to build a church whose mission would include the task of cleaning the Augean stables of the pagan world. At both junctures, less than a total prohibition would have put the main objective at risk. Without it, we would not have come to the place of widespread grace where we find ourselves today.

On the basis of those beliefs, I believe that the time has come when the Church can:

  • Heed the testimonies of LGBT believers who tell us that their orientation dates from earliest childhood and that it was not wilfully chosen, and that supposed re-orientation therapies do not work for them, no matter how whole-heartedly they engage with them.
  • Heed their testimony that they are not able to form a meaningful, soul-satisfying heterosexual relationship, yet feel barred by the Church from entering a relationship with someone of their own orientation.
  • Hear their anguish at this state of affairs.
  • Recognise that a faithful same-sex union is not a threat to the Kingdom of God if it is welcomed and guarded with the same pastoral care as a heterosexual union.
  • And therefore declare that, while same-sex unions were not part of God’s pre-Fall design for humankind, faithful unions of that kind are covered by the grace of Christ in his redemptive plan and can be accepted and blessed within the Church.

The God who reveals himself to us through the Scriptures is a God of blazing light and overwhelming holiness. If we were to see him, our first reaction would be like Isaiah’s or John’s: “Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts”, and “I fell at his feet as dead.” But, just as he did for Isaiah, God has sent an angel – Christ Jesus himself – with a coal to purge our unclean lips, and Jesus himself lays his right hand upon us and tells us to “fear not”, for this God reveals himself as both love and light. Through the cross of Christ, he has provided the act of mercy by which he can remain just and be the justifier of everyone who trusts in Jesus. The mercy of his love is able to triumph over the judgment of his light without dimming the latter. It is the post-conversion work of the Holy Spirit that shows us where we must amend our ways so that they conform more perfectly to his light – and I do not believe that the Spirit any longer requires believers to foreswear same-sex relationships, but simply to ensure those relationships strengthen and bring glory to the Kingdom of God.

Dear faithful, conservative pastor-teachers, I appeal to you. Please lift your eyes from your systematic theologies and look unblinkingly at the God whom your studies should have revealed to you. Engage both your heart and your brain. Cease selling God’s love short by trying to make his judgment triumph over his mercy when you deal with LGBT people, by demanding of them what, after all, God does not. Recognise instead that, as Cranmer put it in his great Eucharistic prayer, God is “the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy.” Be imitators of him, your Saviour.

I’ll Trust God’s Mercy and Grace

When religious leaders watched to see if Jesus would heal a sick man on the Sabbath (Luke 14:2-6), Jesus said to them, “Which of you, if you have a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?”

Those religious leaders had the Hebrew Scriptures. They had studied them minutely and were sure they knew, jot and tittle, what the Scriptures taught about Sabbath observance. They were wrong, but Jesus did not in this instance debate with them directly about texts. Instead, he pointed out something in their relationship with the world around them that should have alerted them that their book-bound scholarship had led them in a wrong direction.

Their consciences were clear that it was lawful to attend immediately to an accident that occurred on the Sabbath, even one that endangered just an animal. Scriptures such as Proverbs 12:10, Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 25:4 show us that God’s merciful concern extends to animals, and God’s people were right in this case to understand that Sabbath laws needed to be interpreted and applied in the light of God’s character. The same principle should have told them that it was right to carry out any form of healing of man or beast on the Sabbath, not just those urgently needed because of an accident. However, in their zeal for minutia, they had lost sight of God.

I have now read many stories from people whose testimony of Christian faith resonates as credible with me (see, e.g., John Shore, “UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question”), yet who testify of an overwhelming longing for same-gender relationships and inability to form deep heterosexual ones. When I read those stories, I do not hear the voices of people who are trying to stir up our sympathy so they can maintain a way of life they secretly know is sinful. In fact, I do not hear the voices of sinners at all, except in the general way that all of us are sinners. I do not see people who culpably chose to foster longings for kinds of relationships that prima facie belong in the set that God calls abominations. I hear the voices of people who are in distress.

Ever since John Boswell’s deeply-flawed book, “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality” was published in 1980, gay and gay-sympathetic Christians have repeated his contention that the Biblical injunctions against same-sex relationships are aimed only at those that occur in an abusive or idolatrous context, where people whose natural orientation is heterosexual wilfully enter into same-sex relationships. I agree with the many conservative scholars who argue that Boswell’s argument and subsequent variations on it by others all fail. The contentious texts in the Pentateuch and the letters of Paul do have all forms and contexts of same-sex relationship in view, including loving, faithful ones.

Nevertheless, the world is not the same place it was when the Old and New Testament Scriptures were written. The gospel has been at work for almost 2,000 years and it has changed the world profoundly. I believe the time has come when the Church collectively, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can recognise that the Scriptures prohibited all same-sex relationships because that was absolutely necessary in the days when the Mosaic law and the gospel were first delivered, but God has now brought us to the place where we can make a distinction and act on it.

In a previous post, I argued that we should not define the word “abomination” by our own gut reaction to some of those things that the Bible terms abominations. Instead, we should define “abomination” as any deed that by its nature fights strongly against the development or presence among us of God’s kingdom and the sanctuary it provides. With that definition in mind, I can see why the Biblical prohibitions against same-sex relationships allowed no exceptions. Surrounding pagan cultures included homosexual acts in their religious rites and cultural world, and – at least in the Greco-Roman world – youths were likely to be inducted into homosexual relationships by older men even though the older and younger men were capable of engaging in and enjoying heterosexual relationships.

These practices attacked the kingdom of God in at least two ways. Firstly, inclusion of homosexual acts in religious rites was an expression of the belief that inversion of the normal order was necessary to ensure fertility of the people and the land, and thus it was a denial of the good providence of God. Secondly, when homosexuality gains acceptance in society as just an alternative version of “normal,” that alternative “normal” can become a viable option for husbands and wives who are disaffected in their marriage. The gay neighbour can therefore become a threat to marital faithfulness and domestic accord that ranks with the seductress of Proverbs 5.

In the face of such threats, when God first called a people out of Egypt to be a holy people, and then again when he sent the disciples of Jesus into the world to proclaim the kingdom of God, it was necessary to prohibit same-sex unions absolutely. Only when the kingdom of God had significantly permeated the world would the people of God be able to rethink the matter of faithful same-sex unions without opening the kingdom to grave danger.

I believe that time is now. I know where I stand, but I am not claiming a special revelation, just the systematic application of the whole counsel of Scripture. And – yes – I acknowledge the large number of godly evangelical theologians to whom I saying, “With respect, you’ve got it wrong”.

It is a dangerous place to stand. If I am mistaken, I will be assuring people of their forgiveness through Christ when after all they cannot be forgiven unless they forswear same-sex relationships.  If I am right and keep quiet about it, I will be withholding the assurance and acceptance to which they are entitled. Nevertheless, at the judgment seat of Christ I would rather be charged with putting too much trust in God’s mercy and grace than to be like the people who incurred Christ’s displeasure in Mark chapter 3, where Mark records, “He looked around at them in anger, grieved at their hardness of heart.”

In order to anticipate some of the questions that would otherwise come in as comments, I now need to press on and make this post longer than ordinarily ideal for a blog post.

Welcome to the Battle!

When welcomed into the life of the Church, gay Christians will not find that they have thereby escaped ostracism and suffering. They will be subject to the same attacks as any other Christian who stands up for the kingdom of God against the secularism of our age, bringing down upon their heads the McCarthyist wrath of today’s illiberal liberals.

The blessings of the beauty and peace and safety of God’s kingdom can be seen foreshadowed (though imperfectly) in all cultures that have been deeply influenced by Christ. Many in the secular gay world and the wider secular world want to extend gay “rights” and other sexual “rights” in such a way that those blessings will inevitably be lost. The secularists fail to foresee that outcome, but gay Christians will be able to see it as clearly as any other Christian and will be called by Christ to raise their voices against it. They will therefore be flamed in the blogosphere and called bigots, and will face new kinds of societal discrimination – no longer for their sexual orientation, but for daring to speak out against the spirit of the age.

“Normal” as Regards Inclusion but “Not Normal” as Regards God’s Design

In the Urban Dictionary, the most-voted-for definition of “normal” is, “a word made up by this corrupt society so they could single out and attack those who are different”. From this point of view, there is no such thing as normal. Diversity is the good above all other goods, and there is no basis for discrimination against anyone else, no matter how extreme their difference. The knowledge of God gives Christians a different definition of “normal” and brings them into conflict with those who sympathise with the Urban Dictionary definition.

One of the arguments brought against same-sex relationships is that they are not “normal”. This is heard from both Christian and non-Christian opponents of such relationships. On a coldly statistical basis, the argument is sound. The majority of people prefer heterosexual relationships, so, statistically, the minority are not “normal”. However, the way society treats someone with a minority characteristic varies. It is not statistically normal to have six digits on each hand, but we do not exclude such people from “normal” society. They have all the same rights and freedoms as anyone else, and we do not expect that their hexadactylism will somehow invalidate or vitiate their ability to share productively in our culture. From the cultural point of view, they are as normal as someone whose characteristics are those of the statistical majority.

On the other hand, it is not statistically normal to have psychopathic traits, but society treats that minority very differently from people with six digits. Those who by violence or murder manifest psychopathic traits are not included in normal society but are locked away where they can do no harm. However, the number of statistically abnormal characteristics that lead to that kind of exclusion is small.

LGBT people have fought for a long time to have their distinguishing difference treated the same way as any other evident but benign difference. They have sought for this to be recognised both in law and in their practical interactions with the rest of society. They have at last succeeded, and I am glad for the removal of the pressure that has been upon them. Nevertheless, LGBT Christians will soon find themselves at odds with many who have been their allies until now.

From the secular point of view, the concept of what is normal is very broad and the only justification for discriminatory treatment is the likelihood of harm, and “harm” is just whatever they themselves define it to be. Christians, though, operate in the knowledge that we live in a broken world, one that was corrupted by mankind’s fall into sin, a fall that damaged the natural world as well as the moral one. The criterion for what is normal is God’s revealed original design, and the criterion for what is harmful is anything that hinders the restoration of that design. That perception should put heterosexual and gay Christians alike at variance with their unbelieving neighbours when the question of what is dangerous arises. Our perception of what is harmful is acuter than theirs, and we will continue to speak against many things that secularists consider harmless.

The secular world through its media presents serial promiscuity as the norm and as a good thing, a path to enjoyment of life. Heterosexual Christians who are sincere in their prayer, “Thy kingdom come” must commit themselves to a perfect standard of sexual faithfulness because anything less undermines the kingdom. Promiscuity may give short-term pleasure but it causes widespread and long-term harm. God who created the pleasure of sex for us sees the chaos brought about by promiscuity and commands faithfulness.

Likewise, gay Christians who are passionate to see Christ’s kingdom grow strong must reject many of the attitudes and much of the behaviour seen in the secular gay world. The way they arrange their lives as gay Christians must strengthen the kingdom, not join the secular attack on it.

Nor should they consider their same-sex orientation to be normal from the point of view of God’s original design. From that point of view, hexadactylism is not normal, either. Neither state is reason for anything but full acceptance within society, but neither state is normal in terms of God’s design. Under the banner of the rainbow, many in the LGBT community seek to canonise their orientation, and every expression of their lifestyle, as though these things were given by God or nature to enrich us all. I suspect that many LGBT Christians have derived a false comfort from that idea. When we measure ourselves against God’s design, not one of us is “normal” – we all miss the mark. Our one true basis for self-esteem is in God’s merciful esteem of us in the gift of Jesus Christ. Don’t look to any other imagined sort of specialness as grounds for self-acceptance.

Acts chapter 8 records the story of the conversion of an Ethiopian eunuch, and says that after his conversion he “went on his way rejoicing.” I don’t think any of us suppose that the thought in his mind as he rejoiced was, “Hallelujah! It was part of God’s rainbow design for this world that some of us should be castrated against our wills and so made eunuchs. I’m someone special!” No, his joy was because he had discovered and believed that Jesus was the Lamb of God.

As a eunuch who was now a Christian, could he then bring unique and useful insights and sensitivities to the church? Of course he could. God is the one who in all things “works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). We live in a broken world and each person is broken in a different way. Thankfully, God can take whatever our wound is and turn it into a blessing, but if you have this God-centred view of what makes you different and blessed, you will be counted as an enemy by those who want their difference accepted on purely naturalistic grounds.

For a later post…

It would overload this post to explain in detail why I believe that the position I have outlined here is required by the inspired Word of God. I will leave that for a later post. In the meantime, for me, “God says it; I believe it; that settles it.”

May I therefore ask anyone who comments on this post not simply to quote some favourite anti-gay scripture as though that settles the matter against me? I think anyone who would reply in that way is interpreting scripture piecemeal and failing to see how each part fits into the whole of scriptural revelation.

Please don’t quote Jude 4, either regarding “ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness.” I do not find gay Christians advocating that in what they write and say, and I hope this blog post shows that neither do I. If you assert that every faithful same-sex relationship is nevertheless a species of licentiousness and that settles the matter, you have closed your ears to the possibility that you are wrong. Listen up!

Nor should you take this post as supporting the extension of Christian marriage so that it includes same-sex relationships. That is a different matter, and my personal view is that the Church’s historic understanding of a marriage as a union between a man and a woman is correct, for reasons that are not affected by the question of whether a same-sex relationship can be accepted and blessed within the Church.

I am publishing this post as a contribution to the debate that is swirling in the Christian world on these matters. I fully trust that the Spirit of God will lead the Church together into the truth. I expect that the Holy Spirit will so work in the compassionate pastor-hearts of every teacher he has appointed over the Church that they will one by one recognise that they have been out of step with God thus far in their pastoral dealings with LGBT people, and they will come to see that the Word of God, taken in its entirety, requires something altogether different.

“Gunning for God” Review, Part Eight

Chapter 9 of “Gunning for God” contains Lennox’s final reflections on the material he has been discussing.

According to the Bible, God reveals his existence to all people in two ways – through the created world and through our moral conscience. For those who have access to the scriptures, a third way is added, namely, the revelation of God which they contain.

The New Atheists lock the doors irrationally against the first. “They openly confess that they are not prepared even to listen to arguments that go outside the bounds of their naturalism. Of course it is honest of them to say that they have decided to imprison themselves inside the small world of their naturalistic castle. But whether that attitude is reasonable, or whether there is a world outside that they have put beyond their own reach, is of course quite a different matter” (Lennox, 2011, p. 229).

As cited by Lennox, Oxford philosopher J. L. Mackie, an atheist, admitted: “If there are objective values [of morality], they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.” (Lennox, 2011, p. 229). The New Atheists fail in the attempt to find a naturalistic ground for morality, but remain irrationally resolute against finding it in God.

Lennox does not discuss any further here the New Atheists’ rejection of Biblical testimony, but it is obvious from the previous chapter that they lock the door against this possibility, too. They do so by their question-begging refusal to accept as a reputable authority anyone who does not share their own naturalistic presupposition.

Lennox’s closing words are these” “Atheism has no answer to death, no ultimate hope to give. It is an empty and sterile worldview, which leaves us in a closed universe that will ultimately incinerate any last trace that we ever existed. It is, quite literally, a hope-less philosophy. Its story ends in the grave. But the resurrection of Jesus opens the door on a bigger story. It is for each one of us to decide whether it is the true one or not” (p. 231).

“Gunning for God” Review, Part Seven

Having discussed and shown the weakness of arguments against miracles in general, Lennox turns in chapter 8 to arguments against the reported resurrection of Jesus.

He quotes Richard Dawkins, “Accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension are about as well documented as Jack in the Beanstalk”, and Christopher Hitchens who speaks of, “the highly questionable existence of Jesus”, and criticises them for seemingly not  having consulted any reputable ancient historian.

The quotation from Hitchens comes from page 114 of “God is not Great“, and indeed Hitchens does not seem to cite any specific authority for his statement, simply asserting on the next page “The contradictions and illiteracies of the New Testament have filled up many books by eminent scholars, and have never been explained by any Christian authority except in the feeblest terms…” (Hitchens, 2008, p. 115). To anyone immersed in the field of Biblical scholarship, that is laughably untrue.

Dawkins, though, seems to be relying on the work of Professor G.A. Wells, and Lennox is too peremptory, I think, in dismissing Wells just because he “is an Emeritus Professor of German”, writing out of his field of primary expertise. I think that Wells made a reasonably scholarly attempt in his discussions of the historicity of Jesus, even though in the end his reasoning is faulty and his conclusions cannot be sustained. Dawkins should indeed have read more widely, though, for Lennox goes on to cite several reputable authorities who have a very different opinion than Wells, Dawkins and Hitchens – Ed Sanders of Duke University, Christopher Tuckett of the University of Oxford, and Gerd Thiessen, a leading German New Testament historian. And, of course, he could have listed dozens of others.

Hitchens and Dawkins are equally remiss in the “authorities” to whom they turn to support their view that the Bible is unreliable. Hitchens cites satirist H. L. Mencken (Hitchens, 2008, p. 110), and Dawkins cites Bart Ehrman, Robin Lane Fox and Jacques Berlinerblau and then asserts, “…reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament … as a reliable record of what actually happened in history” (Dawkins, 2006, pp. 121-122). They are inevitably guilty of begging the question by designating as “reputable” only those authorities whose work is shaped by the same naturalistic presuppositions as their own.

Over against the circularity of those authorities, Lennox summarises the very great evidence that the Biblical texts are highly reliable, and cites in support the opinions of Sir Frederic Kenyon (a leading authority on ancient manuscripts) and Bruce Metzger, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary (Lennox, 2011, pp. 190-194). And, again, he could have listed dozens of others.

Lennox completes the chapter by discussing the evidence for the historical reliability of the evidence for the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and ends with this paragraph:

“The reader will note that there have been relatively few references to the New Atheists in this section on the resurrection. There is a simple reason for that. For all their vaunted interest in evidence, there is nothing in their writings to show that they have seriously interacted with the arguments, many of them very well known, that we have presented here” (Lennox, 2011, p. 223).