Another Study on Christ

Hey this is Heart of the Matter out of Salt Lake City, and I’m Shawn McCraney your host. Our show tonight is called Another Study on Christ.

Let’s kick it off with a prayer.

Community Updates

Got a lot to cover from YOU all as we have had a number of emails and insights and criticisms of things that have been on Heart over the past month or so. But first, a couple matters of information.

Two weeks from now, on March 30 starting in Salt Lake City there will be a March downtown to support Sam Young and his drive to get the LDS church to stop allowing men of their priesthood to take kids (under 18) into closed rooms without a parent and to discuss sexual things with them – a practice the LDS church defends to this day. I have NEVER supported any kind of March in the streets or protests but I will support Sam and this cause and invite you all to do the same.

Also, I had a phone conversation with a Baptist Pastor last week and he turned me onto a book and the ideas of one Roger Williams of 17th Century Church fame. I have quickly grown in tremendous appreciation of him and his spirit as in the end he took a strong stance again the organized religion of his day and especially fought for a separation of church and state – something I have LONG maintained as an essential of the faith – and much to the chagrin of many Evangelicals who used to support this ministry. In my estimation most Christian Evangelicals are just America’s Taliban.

Heroes of Faith

I got to thinking about other heroes I maintain in the faith with Roger Williams just topping the list. And I’m thinking of doing some short clips on their lives so you all can see that WE are not alone in the way we see this wonderful faith amidst horrid wolves. So expect some highlight reels in the future on

Abelard (and of course Heloise) Erasmus Doestoyevski Michael Servetus Tolstoy Thomas Jefferson Balthasar Hubmaier Hans Denck Jacques Gruet Fausto Sozzini John Thomas (founder of Christadelphianism)

And many more as my list is growing due to the kind influence of great men of God who are brave enough to look outside the dogma of Traditions. So stay tuned.

Eschatological Views

Okay, so let me work backward over the past few weeks. Last week, our brother Nate Taylor and our time together. First, I think Pastor Nate has full right to his opinion of things and in them to be seen as a brother and lover of all things Jesus. Second, Nate may have greater insight on some things in scripture but he has allowed the blinders on when it comes to end times or eschatology.

Wisely, he knew that our differing views on this subject resulted in our differing views on almost EVERYTHING else – and so he kickstarted the discussion on the resurrection. For those still confused by how our different eschatological positions affect things, let me quickly go to the board.

Pastor Nate vs. Pastor Shawn: A Comparison

Pastor Nate
FUTURIST ESCHATOLOGY
Believes that all the physical things in the NT, as well as many prophecies still apply to us, including Jesus' Second Coming.
Takes the Bible and uses it – without any real indication that He has the authority to do this – as a manual of material religion on others.
Promises Jesus' return and an end of this world to give material hope to congregates.
Demands allegiance to doctrines he prescribes.
Teaches of a fiery eternal hell for all who die without believing the Gospel. Expects people to play church (like in the NT).
Still preparing people after 2000 years) for Jesus to come with his Kingdom to save them by playing church.
Believes in Church discipline Teaches tithes Still trying to implement elders boards, deacons Debates and divides with others over biblical interpretation.

Pastor Shawn
FULFILLMENT ESCHATOLOGY
Believes that all the physical things in the NT, all prophecies and events – including Jesus' Second Coming, have happened. THIS IS KEY TO EVERYTHING
Teaches the Bible as a book of spiritual principles to be discerned by the hearer and reader. Let’s the Spirit move the person not the interpretation.
Proves clearly that Jesus has returned, He has introduced the resurrection which is now spiritual and occurs upon the death of each individual.
Hell and Satan are over.
Doctrinal allegiance comes from the heart of the believer.
Realm of Sow and Reap.
No reason to play church anymore. Preparing people to live their lives here and to enter into life there.
No such thing or need.

Exploring Religious Beliefs and Personal Experiences

Warns of self and encourages hope in God by Jesus. Believes in His interpretation of the Bible. Believes the Spirit reigns and the Word ought not be debated.

Here is the Bible. Old and New Testaments.

Until the body as a whole wakes up with regard to Jesus' return we will forever stand at this impasse—with some well-meaning brothers and sisters trying to keep the fires burning waiting for Jesus and others proving that he has come and we are now all totally free to love God and Man…or not.

Reflecting on Theological Debate

Got this email from Brother Kev in Alabama. It said:

Shawn, Recently you had Dr. James White on your show telling you how wrong you are. Then you had a Presbyterian pastor who would not call you a brother in Christ over theological differences. It greatly troubles me when people, within the Church, tell you how wrong you (Shawn McCraney) are. It bothers me because I was raised, front and center, inside Evangelicalism and understand how judgmental people can be. I have been an ordained minister myself and it really bothers me when you become a victim of religious pride. I wish could be there to warn or council with you. But, I know you're not an idiot and already understand what's going to happen but it hurts me none the less.

I have come across a message on YouTube that I believe is not only relevant but informative and would be inspiring to you. It is from Dr. Heiser, a Biblical Scholar, … maybe you have heard of him. He normally teaches on 'the council of the gods' from the OT. He has had his own little 'run-in' with Matt Slick as well as other 'gatekeepers' to the faith. This is not Dr. Heiser's normal topic(s) and he is not the most exciting speaker…but you should watch. Maybe it will be a good reference/inspiration for a message of your own. Please give it a fair watch/listen. It's about 40 minutes long.

Kev and Sandra Lane

Insights from Near Death Experiences

Next, my brother and friend Eric, wrote something interesting, saying:

Brother Shawn, Something interesting I thought I'd share with you about near-death experiences; not one person who has had an NDE (verified dead body that has been resuscitated) has been told or shown that this church or that church is THE true church. Not one! I've read countless NDEs and not one person is ever told or shown that ANY denomination is God's approved church or doctrine. Just thought you'd like to know.

God bless my brother, Erik

Then he followed up with a few more insights, saying:

One of my Admins is an NDEr named Robert Osgood (I sent you a link to his YouTube NDE interview a few weeks back). Anyhow during his NDE he had a million questions for Jesus. He asked Him; which church is the true church (I'm paraphrasing) and Jesus replied to Him "All of them and none of them." He (Jesus) said that the importance was the love they had for Him and EACH OTHER. Also, well-known NDEr Howard Storm (his book is 'My Descent Into Death'), who also saw and felt Jesus' Love, said to me personally (I've spoken with him on the phone) "God is NOT so concerned with our theology as He is with our HEARTS." This is in harmony with what you teach at CAMPUS. It's why I'm drawn to your ministry. You GET IT. From preterism to subjective Christianity, it all dovetails into the NDE. It's like a beautifully woven rug.

As an FYI, Eric is the one who heads the NDE group, The Christian Near Death Experience and the guy knows his stuff. The exciting thing is we are going to have Eric on the show in May and I’m telling you it will be a blessing to your heart NOT because of the stories (which are wonderful) but because of his brain on the subject.

So look forward to that.

Alright, finally let’s get to two emails which were really well written, from the heart of long-time viewers and frankly made me put my thinking cap on because so much of what they say is dead on.

We will start with an Email from Aaron M.

Understanding Sin in a Theological Context

and we will conclude with an Email from Jordan in Oceanside. Now, both of these emails are loaded with very good insights. And when it comes to the polarizing, incendiary topic like gays and God, it is really easy to misstep and let emotions take over. Real Christians seek to love all people while putting God first – this makes these emails difficult to navigate. In the first email from Aaron his defense of my saying homosexuality is a sin is more theological than Jordan whose is more humanitarian. So let’s get to Aaron’s first. I am going to read and respond to this rather than read the whole thing and then respond:

Aaron's Perspective

Aaron writes:

Homosexuality & gluttony are not sins. On your show last week, you stated that homosexuality and gluttony missed the mark of God and thus were sins. Adultery is not a sin. Murder is not a sin. Theft is not a sin. There is no sin. Sin was done away with in Christ. Sin always implies a law. There is no law. There is no mark.

Ooookay, some real truths here and some real over-extension of these truths. I am the first one to admit that the law and letter killeth – but we have to remember the context of what Paul was talking about – which were primarily the laws of purity under which the Jews sweated under. External rites and rituals and even doctrines written in stone – done. That’s a very good point by Aaron here. But in relation to those written moral laws which Aaron mentioned – Jesus did something – He AMPLIFIED THEM – making complicity to them even more difficult and the breaking of them more regular. On Adultry Jesus said, It is written thou shalt not commit adultery BUT I SAY . . . But I say that if you even look upon a woman with lust you have committed adultery already in you heart. IN YOU HEART. So we see that Jesus did not remove directives, He amplified them.

Aaron wrote:

“There is no sin. Sin was done away with in Christ. Sin always implies a law. There is no law. There is no mark.”

I agree with this – in part. I agree with, there is NO sin. Sin was done away with in Christ,” and, “Sin always implies a law.” All of these statements are true relative to sins committed past present and future. True true true. And I made it clear that the sin of homosexuality has been done away with by Jesus Christ. Paid for, once and for all by Jesus. And Aaron again is right when he says:

“Sin always implies a law.”

But then he makes his fatal flaw when he says (relative to this discussion)

“There is no law. (And therefore) There is no mark. (to miss)” (so therefore no sin in anything).”

“Oh contraire, my brother. And before I explain the Contraire, let me read a little more from Aaron where he says:

“I'm wondering why you keep referring to sin, where you imply that the law is still active. The gay person who emailed you, wanted you to say that homosexuality is not a sin. It's not a sin, and when you call it sin, you're denying Christ in the establishment of law once again.”

The Existence of Law

The fatal flaw in Aarons points are when he definitively states:

“There is NO law, therefore there is no mark.”

If he was saying this with some qualifiers I would agree but he added none, and so I think he really means this across the board. And here is where we arrive at the Oh Contraire! See Jesus not only affirmed the Law in the Two Great Commandments, he reiterated the second of them when he told us to Love. This was a COMMANDMENT – a LAW, if you will. And where there is a law, like Aaron admits, there can be sin. So there can be a failure to hit the mark of the Law of Love. And we would call that a sin.

But love is NOT the only commandment (LAW) given in the New Testament to Christians. The first commandment for Christians is to believe – have faith – in God and Christ and the second (which encompasses the two Great Commandments upon which hang all the Law and the Prophets) follow in after.

The Basis of Christian Commandments

This is supported by 1st John 3:23 where it plainly states

“And this is his commandment,” (en-tol-ay = “authoritative precept – so LAW) “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ,

Love and Accountability

and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” Faith first in Jesus Christ and then love, which proves our faith in Him. The LOVE Christ demanded was defined by Him as first, to love God with all our everything and the second is to love our neighbor as ourselves.

No law, Aaron? Jesus said, IF you love me, KEEP my entolay – my authoritative precept to LOVE GOD with your everything and to LOVE your neighbor like you love yourself.” Sorry Aaron, but that is a law, and our failures to comply to it misses the mark of God and is sin. So where mortal sins of the flesh are over and paid for, and there is NO sin for which we are held accountable for in the failures of our flesh, we are ALL held accountable before God for our faith and our love – first for God and second, for our neighbor).

Faith, Love, and Judgment

And again, we CAN and WILL be guilty for our failures in FAITH and our failures to LOVE God and others. I hope that this is clear. For it is in these fields that we all sow as followers of the King – in fields of faith and love – sowing to the things of the Spirit and looking to a harvest of the same. Aaron does get to this point, and does say:

“Now there is love and not love. Either we're connected to God, and His love emanates through us, or we're in the dark, and there's no love flowing through us. This connection to God is established by our faith, or belief.

I think this is astute and I agree. But then he says something contrary adding:

“Those who judge, who call something sin, or not sin, are disconnected from God, for it's impossible to believe in law, and to be connected to God at the same time, where love can flow through us. It's either law, or love, but it's not both. The requirement to connect with God, that His love would flow through us, is that we reject all law.”

How can we reject ALL law when there is clearly a law to believe and love from the mouth of Him who established it? Now, I think its important that when I say something is sin does not and should not imply a judgement on my part of their person. I am not condemning them in that factual statement neither am I saying that on God’s behalf – and I think this is part of the problem here.

Understanding Sin Without Judgement

I am merely stating what the Bible states as missing the mark. I’m NOT saying its not forgiven, permissible in this age of Grace or anything else. Perhaps to most when we say something is a sin they believe it is a judgement. Not so. Its like a friend of mine who is a cop who personally likes pot but doesn’t smoke it because he’s a cop.

If I asked him if smoking is against Utah law he would say yes, smoking pot breaks the law. (In other words, it is a sin). But he is not judging me for liking pot or even smoking it (which I don’t – I eat it) He is simply stating a fact. This generation takes the statement of a fact as a judgment but its not. And the factual statement is homosexuality misses the mark. When a gay person admits this brokenness is the result, and the honest relationship between them and God is enhanced.

This is my point. But under the influence of censoring fact statements, Aaron continues and says:

All who love, who genuinely love, who walk in the Spirit, don't judge (that is true with judge being defined as sin), and don't label anything as sin or not sin (Oh, so wrong), but all they feel is love, “for to judge, to consider something as sin, is to introduce the notion of hate.”

Here, again, he equates the evil of condemning or judging with the rationality of calling something a sin from the biblical perspective. We don’t condemn but we acknowledge.

He adds a final thought:

If we love something that's obedient to law, it implies that we also hate that which is not obedient, so that type of love is not of the Spirit, but is of the flesh. And herein lies another nuanced idea I think Aaron misses:

Under the law written in stone his comments are correct. If we love something that's

The New Covenant and the Law of Love

"Obedient to law, it implies that we also hate that which is not obedient, so that type of love is not of the Spirit, but is of the flesh."

But UNDER THE NEW COVENANT, which is TO love all unconditionally and to exercise that love continually, it is impossible to hate those who do NOT love – that’s illogical! In this we are able to see that the Law of Love for God and Man ARE able to speak truth BUT to love those who fail to live it. And it’s the difference between laws written in books and stone and His Law (love) which He writes on our hearts.

This email was great because it reveals the heart of a man who is grasping the things of God in a deep and meaningful way. I am just of the opinion his zeal overcame a few things. And again, before we go to our next email, this stuff is NOT just black and white, win the fight, you're either in the day or in the night. We are working through it all together.

Jordan's Email on Homosexuality and Sin

Next, Jordan’s email, another well thought out communication, which reads:

Hey Shawn!

Saw your show regarding Beny and homosexuality being a sin. Just want to reach out and let you know why I believe your stance is damaging to the LGBTQ community and hindering the Kingdom of God. It seems you come from a biological stance as in "men and woman = baby". Or, that this "act of homosexuality is CLEARLY off the mark". This is a bias heterosexual perspective. In the end, your stance has brought many LGBTQ people to suicide, despair and ostracization.

Here is a great article (below in bold) that helped me see the error of my ways (use to be the same boat as you). Would love to see you do a show on this topic regarding this article. It is from Matthew Distefano (Allsetfree.com). He is a heterosexual Christian. Thanks for your time!

Response to Jordan

I WROTE BACK

I read the article and appreciate the added dimension to the topic, Jordan, but I think you miss the mark when you begin with the claim that calling homosexuality (same lying with same) a sin causes lgbt to commit suicide. All I can say is exactly. All of our sin, no matter what they are, causes us to long for death. It's the result of sin in us and God USES our sin to reach us. To remove the onus is to keep the sinner from God, and does not typically bring them to him in a genuine sense. Your view is couched in modernist views of Man and ignores the broader view which, in the end, is not only most loving, it Is most effective in reaching all people who seek God. I would lovingly suggest a rethink on your argument.

JORDAN REPLIED (to which I am going to respond to as I read it for efficiency)

I get that God uses sin to reach us. I am with you. BUT, saying that, in regards to homosexuality suicide, this is leading someone to God, is insane!

Whoa whoa whoa my brother. I do NOT think the suicides of others leads people to God and is a good thing for society. I am merely saying that it is the presence of our respective sins that can have the tendency to humble us before God, that’s all.

Do you know the context of suicide when it comes to the church and trying to "cleanse" homosexuals of their sins? There are huge ministries that reach out to homosexuals to get rid of their "sin nature" (Gay-to-Straight retreats). This has a lead to huge amounts of depression and suicide. Are you telling me that this is what God wants?? Bullshit. The Father of Christ is the giver of life not death.

Again, this is NOT what I am saying or have ever said or even intimated. The goal of the faith is not to cleanse sin – the goal is to increase faith and love. Ministries and churches aimed at cleansing sin are ridiculous, and that has always been our stance. God takes us all as we are. It is OUR faith and love He seeks. But to say something is not a sin that is off the mark is detrimental to truth and detrimental to the well-being and spiritual health of the individual.

JORDAN CONTINUES

There are only 6 texts in the whole bible that have a "smidge" of homosexual references. A man laying with a man is a sin, huh? What about stoning your kids if they disobey

Understanding Biblical Context

you? Or, not wearing certain clothing material? Or eating pig? If we are bringing the OT into this, it needs to be in the proper context. The OT was discovering God. They did not get it all right. And so the justifications come in this age of wanting to take our opinions of matters over the presence of biblical evidences. What does stoning disobedient children have to do with the Bible saying man lying with man is a sin? The Bible could NEVER speak directly to a subject and it doesn’t mean it contextually supports something. We can look to Sodom and Gommorah to see God’s response to the lifestyle under the Law and before Christ. But I’m only looking back to that time to prove my point. We have Christ now and forever and SIN has been taken care of by Him. We now walk in faith. But this does not mean we can justify actions which are contrary to the target of God as NOT sinful WITH sin being defined as missing THE Mark – even if we miss it because we were born that way. The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart and saves such as have a contrite spirit – whether straight or gay, this is the goal.

To take the target missing action off the table lends to the opposite of what God seeks in all of his children – a broken heart and a contrite spirit and instead produces PRIDE.

Arguments and Counterarguments

JORDAN ADDS

Oh, but the NT confirms homosexuality as a sin. No! The article I laid out previously showed in the proper context these were discussing pagan orgies and pedophilia. Not loving relationships with the same sex couples. Again, the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels, nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty.

Nowhere does the Bible talk about a loving and committed homosexual relationship. The only thing the authors of the Bible knew about homosexuality was that which they saw expressed in the pagan worship of Baal, the temple prostitution, et cetera. To use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, as we see, involves a projection of one's own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. I agree that the Bible has been twisted Jordan, but I am not talking about twisting anything in the Bible.

The Complexity of Scripture Interpretation

Yes, you have provided a case to defend homosexuality as acceptable and not sinful in the lives of people on earth. But you have conveniently glossed over the main passages relative to the lifestyle – It is a sin for man to lie with man. All your contextual argumentations included, this remains the case and is supported by reason taken from the creation story of man, not sola scriptura.

I also understand that Jesus never talked about homosexuality, Jordan. He never talked about pedophilia either (hurting one of these little ones is not that) nor did he speak of screwing your dog, or having multiple wives. It’s because He did not come to condemn the world, he came to save it – homosexuals, heterosexuals, pedophiles, dog bangers – all of us – by faith. But homosexuals don’t get a pass, brother – it’s their burden and God works with them on it, as they are – as they are – and nobody gets the right to say anything about it.

But your proposed position HURTS the souls of the gays I love – in their minds, and their wills, and their honesty before God – it’s a platform that takes a humanist view of things over a spiritual view – and the spiritual is the eternal – and the characteristics that are eternal is what true love looks toward.

Let me give you an illustration of what you are doing in the propagation of this view – You are doing the equivalent of taking a ship full of young teens who have zero training in combat and your destination is

The Consequences of Avoiding Truth

An island full of the most vicious, bloodthirsty, war-torn barbarians on the face of the earth. But instead of telling these unsuspecting teens the truth, you tell them to really enjoy their time on the water because you don’t want them to feel pain. So, you instruct them to live it up and bask in creature comforts, and drugs and sports and recreation.

And after a month at sea when you COULD have prepared them for what their destination was all about, they arrive with you encouraging them to avoid the pain. And they step on the shores like lambs to the slaughter wholly unprepared for what awaited them.

That’s the part of the story that has the most application. You are proposing a mindset and worldview that tells people and encourages them to believe that their natural man is NOT in need of self-reflection, NOT in need of humility, not in need of contrition but should be PROUD. And in the context of heaven, the barbarians of true humility, and contrition, and brokenness will slaughter the pride YOU promote – and in people I love – not people I am against.

Understanding the Greatest Commandments

Interestingly, Jordan continues and asks the following:

“Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.’ (RSV Mat. 22:36-40).

I would ask you the same question, Jordan? God’s love is not painless romanticism based on human proclivities. There is an order there. Love God first. Did you catch that? That means in my book to put Him and His ways ahead of our own – the ways that come naturally to us – especially in our minds. Let me repeat this – especially in our minds.

So while the flesh is weak and will indulge in all manner of things opposite God’s mark, the heart and mind of a lover of God admits this and with his or her mind serves the Lord while their flesh serves sin. You, Jordan, are making the mind and heart of the Homosexual allegiant to themselves and their desires – and are not allowing for the homosexual mind to contritely love God in Spirit and in Truth. YOU, Jordan, in all your wisdom, are giving him a pass. And when the mind and heart of a person (again, not their body) passes on loving God (which means God’s ways) first, that’s a problem – for them.

The Importance of Honesty

Of course, Jesus and God love all people – again, as they are – but the Lord is near to those who have . . .

A broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Honesty before God is key for these characteristics to prevail. I know a married couple who live in Spain – Christopher and Author – and I love them with all my heart. When you speak to them about homosexuality they get it and they are honest about it. I have never and would never try and alter their actions – their actions are theirs and mine are mine – we are all in fallen flesh.

But Christopher and Arthur understand that while they are both gay men, and were born gay men, and that they are loved by God as gay men, it is a burden they bear in the flesh, and would not choose it if they had their druthers. But druthers they do not have. Their approach is very different as Christians who are gay. They GET IT relative to God and the way He established things. I love them, as they are, dearly.

Jordan concludes with

We shall know them by their fruits. The fruit of saying "homosexuality is a sin" is rotten to the core.” Love to hear your thoughts.

You’ve heard them. The syllogism of by fruit we know a person, and saying that homosexuality is a sin is fruit rotten to the core is from a myopic perspective. You’re looking at earthly fruits and the comforts of eating them. My ambitions are for the hearts of all men and women to stand broken and contrite before the living God. I understand love and loving all people – so much so that I am not willing to give people passes on issues that are harmful to the core of their eternal souls.

Reflections on Judgment and Love

Do not judge anyone for anything they do in the flesh – except myself. But when the mind and heart belligerently maintain attitudes contrary to the mark, out of real love – the kind of love that has a cost and price – I act. I don’t believe in this case you are doing the same.

PHONES

REMEMBER

March 30th
Erik
John Dehlin

Challenging Traditional Beliefs

Understanding Hermeneutics

“Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines God’s created order where He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28). Homosexuality cannot fulfill that mandate.”— Matt Slick[1] “Homosexuality is a result of the rejection of God (Rom 1:21–25). Gay marriage is the institutionalization of the rejection of God . . . The Bible teaches how Christians should respond to gay marriage. Don’t condone it; no matter how much we may love our friends and want to see them happy, real love is bringing them to a saving relationship with Jesus, not encouraging a sinful lifestyle.”— Got Questions Ministries[2]

For the good part of thirty years, I held to the belief that homosexuality was a sin in the eyes of God. I was handed this view from my parents and the evangelical church at an age I cannot remember, and they had it handed to them from people and places of which I could only speculate. In all likelihood, they would tell you that their view came directly from the Bible, but I have since learned that really means their interpretation of the Bible.

After all, every single one of us, from the conservative pre-millennial dispensationalist to the liberal Anabaptist, has a hermeneutic. That is to say, everyone has a lens that they view the Bible through, whether they admit it or not. I’ll even take that one step further. Everyone has a lens that they view everything through, and so we can never escape our own subjectivity. So, when it comes to a Christian’s attitude toward the LGBTQ community, we must keep this humbly in mind and not be cavalier about rejecting these folks, labeling them “sinners” based solely on their sexuality. To the contrary, it’s my strong contention that we actually have a duty to wholly and openly affirm this group.

Biblical Context and Misinterpretations

That Pesky Bible The strongest “Christian” case against affirming the LGBTQ community comes from the Bible. Duh, right? But let me be clear, even that case is thin in terms of how much weight is even given to the issue. Out of the over thirty-thousand verses in the Bible, you can count on two hands how many cover homosexuality. These are what are commonly known as the “clobber passages.”[3] This raises the question: why does this topic cause such a stir within Christianity? One would think that Christians would be far more concerned with practicing compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience (Col 3:12), loving thine enemies (Mark 11:25; Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27), helping the poor (Matt 19:21; Gal 2:10), the orphans and widows (Js 1:27), showing mercy and grace to the world (Matt 9:13; Luke 6:36; John 8:1–11), and living in the Spirit, whose fruit includes love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22–23). Isn’t this focus the overarching message of the Bible, particularly the New Testament?

Furthermore, one only needs a friendly reminder from the Apostle Paul as to why we should not point the accusatory finger at others: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). So judge not, lest ye be judged (Matt 7:1). This much we should all agree on. Now, with anything, context is crucial. As Jarrod Saul McKenna reminds us, “A text without a context is a con.”[4] If we miss this, we’ll risk missing everything, including how, as post-postmodern followers of Christ, we should approach the issue of homosexuality.

For instance, does it make any sense for a Christian to pluck Old Testament verses from their original historical and cultural context in order to clobber others, given that we are not under the Law but under Grace? It seems it would be a con to the very faith we proclaim! Remember, if you add just a little bit of law to the Gospel, you have no Gospel at all (see Gal 1:6–7). If we are willing to clobber gay people with Leviticus 20:13, for example, are we also willing to be consistent when it comes to tattoos (Lev 19:28), eating bacon-wrapped shrimp (Lev 11:2–11), or wearing cotton/poly blends (Lev 19:19)? Do we stone women to death if they are found to have lost their virginity prior to being wed (Deut 22:13–21)? Do we execute children for cursing their parents (Exod 21:15)? Do

Contextualizing Biblical Teachings on Sexuality

we execute those who break the Sabbath (Exod 31:14)? Do we execute rape victims who don’t cry out loud enough while being sexually assaulted (Deut 22:23–24)? For the love of God, and I mean that in the sincerest sense, I hope not!

Shifting our focus onto the New Testament . . . First, allow me to note that Jesus never once explicitly discusses “homosexuality” or “homosexual marriage.” Neither does Paul — not in the way we, in the twenty-first century, would. How could they? These were not classifications present during the first century. Here’s how the Oxford Classical Dictionary begins its entry on what homosexuality was and was not in classical antiquity:

“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality, and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behavior according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in a sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reason of their gender, age, and social status … The application of “homosexuality” (and “heterosexuality”) in a substantive and normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”[5]

Paul's Perspective on Sexual Acts

This is not to say that Paul did not admonish against “male prostitution and sodomy” (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) or men engaging in “shameless acts with men” (Rom 1:27[6]), because he did. He also warned against a host of other immoral acts. Again, though, context is crucial. As I’ve already noted, the concept of “homosexuality” was not present in Paul’s day, at least not in the modern way we view it. So, when Paul talks about unnatural acts between same-sex partners, it seems reasonable to think that he was speaking of something else entirely, something relevant to the issues he would have been facing as a first-century Christian. John Shore succinctly explains what that was:

“During the time in which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between themselves and boys. Such acts were also common between Roman men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.”[7] Adding insult to injury, because sexual relationships tended to be hierarchical — the penetrated being subservient to the penetrator — being on the receiving end of such a coercive relationship meant one would be stripped of a more desirable social status. Pardon the pun, but it was quite the double-whammy.

Modern Implications and Unity in Christ

So, we must ask ourselves: Is this the phenomenon we are witnessing today? Are gay couples clamoring to have the right to coercively engage in sexual acts with unwilling partners? Are they hell-bent on garnering the legal right to participate in pederasty? Of course not! Using the writings of the Apostle Paul outside of this context in order to create any division is blatantly out of line. As Christians, we should understand this, for it is Paul himself who plainly teaches: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28, emphasis mine). In other words, for Paul, there were to be no dividing lines in the Church. In the first century, those lines included whether your table was kept kosher or not, whether you rested on the Sabbath or not, and whether, if male, some of your penis skin was cleaved off or not. Ouch!

But, in the twenty-first century, we could include the modern sociological dividing line of “gay” and “straight,” of which I’d have to guess Paul would emphatically rebuke as part of a false gospel that inevitably only leads to death (Gal 1:6, 2:19).[8] Admittedly, this is speculative, but given the context of Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians, it seems in line with his radically inclusive message.[9]

At the end of the day, what matters most — especially as Christians — is how we love. The writer of 1 John teaches us that “God

Understanding Love and Acceptance

“God is love” (1 John 4:8). Paul sums up the entire law in one sentence: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal 5:14). Jesus himself teaches us that the greatest commandment is to love God and our neighbor as our self (Matt 22:36–40), and that in order to be his disciple, we must “have love for one another” (John 13:35). This obviously includes those who identify as LGBTQ! To have love for them is not to condemn them because of their sexual preference. How can that be what it means to “love our neighbor as our self?” Do those who identify as heterosexual have any tacit knowledge of what it is like to be homosexual, for example?

A Thought Experiment

So, do a thought experiment for me. Imagine you are a married, heterosexual person, and imagine your life up to this point altered in only one way, that instead of being partnered with someone of the opposite sex, you had partnered with someone of the same sex. All of your shared experiences are the same. All of your loving moments are the same. All of your times of joy, hope, even suffering, alike in every way save for one. How, then, would it be sinful if the only variable is that you are sharing these experiences with someone who shares your gender? How would you be violating what Jesus calls the greatest commandment: that we are to love God and neighbor?

A Personal Reflection

Questions like these should give us great pause. Once upon a time they forced me to stop and reflect. And when I did, I could no longer stand justified in front of my God and my neighbor in telling any two consenting adults that they couldn’t share their lives together in the same way I was sharing my life with my lovely wife. So, I repented — that is, I changed my mind — and I started practicing how to love my LGBTQ family in the same way Christ Jesus loves them, beginning by openly welcoming them into the blessed community that has no dividing lines.