I promised to get back to that article I referenced yesterday so here we go. And I realized that I forgot the link to the actual article yesterday so here it is. In today’s world, we often see our media of various types misrepresent what the Bible actually says. From the news media to the discovery channel..and unfortunately sometimes from a church. It makes it that much more important for us to understand what the Bible actually says. It is something we stress to the youth in our church and to ourselves. Know what God’s Word says so you know when something is not right…whether it comes from a friend or CNN. Such is the case when Daniel Helminiak gave the following thesis:
“We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.”
Anyone that has read the Bible knows that the last line does not exactly hold water. Helminiak himself alludes to some of these verses, but here they are. Two verses from the Old Testament and two verses from the New Testament that shows the Bible opposes homosexuality.
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22)
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Lev 20:13)
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Rom 1:22-27)
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)
I thought it was very interesting that he did not mention that last verse. You can attempt to twist the meaning of those other verses, which he certainly tries to do later, but that last one is pretty straight forward. Probably why he did not mention it. And as a friend commented yesterday, homosexuality is not THE sin, but it is a sin nonetheless. And if that sinful nature defines you and you do not turn away from it and give your life to Christ, you will go to Hell. The same holds true for all of those other sins that are listed in the same verse. The idea behind this is that if you call yourself a Christian and continue to live a sinful life in rebellion against God and do not think anything is wrong with that, you have to ask yourself if you were ever truly in Christ. Such is the case with someone like Mr. Helminiak who goes as far as trying to justify it with the Bible. I could end the argument here, but I would like to address some of his specific arguments.
In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.
In this first argument, Helminiak tries to promote the idea that we just know more about sexuality now than they did in the past. Unless the procreation of the human race has changed over the years, I do not think this is the case. Perhaps we understand more of the dangers that exist with diseases that are propagated through homosexual conduct, but what it is has not changed throughout history. And the people in Biblical times certainly were grappling with the moral implications of such behavior. Otherwise, it would not have been specifically listed as one of many sexual sins in Leviticus. The same holds true for New Testament believers. And it is revealed if you continue reading 1 Corinthians 6. Verse 11 says the following.
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
And such WERE some of you. What a great line. Right after listing all of these sins, which included homosexuality, he states that some members of the church in Corinth were living in these sins, but now have turned away from that lifestyle and are following Christ. This indicates that it was a moral issue that members of the Church had struggled with and were probably still struggling with. The same way some Christians struggle with that sin today. But there is a deeper issue at the heart of Helminiak’s argument. When he says we understand the morality of homosexuality better today than they did in Biblical times he is forgetting that the Bible is not stating that the people believed homosexuality was immoral, it is stating that God sees it as immoral. From there you can make one of two conclusions. That we understand the morality of homosexual conduct better than God or that while God said that back then, his position has evolved over time…more specifically since the writing of the Bible. The first elevates man’s understanding to the level of God, and the second says that God changes. The first is obviously wrong and the second violates one of the Biblical characteristics of God, immutability. (Psalm 102 and Malachi 3:6 as an example).
That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night. The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12). But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35). How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story. Once again Helminiak has left out some critical information. First, I would point out that the books of Wisdom and Sirach/Ecclesiaticus are not books of the Bible. They are a part of what is called the Apocrypha. Books that the Catholic Church has added to their Bible that are not part of the Christian Cannon. But this fact does not really affect this particular argument. The real issue is that he says that the Bible does not specify the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, therefore it is not an argument for the sinfulness of homosexuality. I would argue that it does. While homosexual activity was certainly not the only sin of these people, it is one that is specifically pointed out. For those not familiar with the story, I will paraphrase. Lot receives male visitors in his home while living in Sodom. Men from Sodom come to Lot’s home and tell him to turn over the visitors so that they may have sex with them. Lot refuses, even offering his own two daughters instead of the visitors, but the men of Sodom refuse and demand the men. Verse 4 and 5 show it was a widespread issue as well:
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
So while these men probably were indeed going to try to rape the visitors, which would be sinful, they were going to do this to a man, which is also sinful according to the other verses I have already listed. There were multiple sins involved and Sodom was destroyed because of this sin. Getting more specific, in the New Testament Jude 1:7 lists these unnatural relations as a reason for judgment on Sodom.
“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
So not only does Genesis 19 refer to homosexual actions as sinful, it is also referred to in the New Testament, a passage that he conveniently left out. As a side note, I thought his final statement of that paragraph about evangelicals and Catholic Bishops was extremely unfair. Sexual immorality, in whatever form it may be in, is a sin and Christians and the Church have a responsibility to call it such. It is not a litmus test, it is a responsibility. But this responsibility does not mean we cannot show love and compassion to our neighbors. One does not exclude the other.
The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul’s writing. It carries no ethical condemnation. Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay “unnatural” hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation. Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.
Obviously, Helminiak is stretching pretty far here to try to find a meaning that justifies his lifestyle. There are significant problems with his argument. First, despite what he says para physin is properly translated as unnatural. In the ESV translation, it is actually translated contrary to nature. Like in any language, the context of the text is important as well as the context of the Bible. Throughout the Bible it recognizes homosexual relations as sinful and it is contrary to nature…just use a little common sense. Why would this one passage affirm something different. The fact is it does not. Add that Para physin was used in literature outside of the Bible to describe homosexual relations as contrary to nature and his argument really loses any kind of traction.
In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: “God gave them up … to impurity.” But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart. “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law. In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.
Helminiak’s basic argument is this (dancing around as he was): Paul simply says homosexual actions are a physical impurity and Jesus taught that Jewish requirements for physical purity do not matter before God. Purity of heart is the only thing that matters. Homosexuality is not a sin; therefore it is not an issue of the heart.
A pretty dangerous argument with eternal consequences. God has already shown us with the previous passages from the Bible that homosexuality is in fact a sin and being such, it is a matter of the heart. There goes his argument. But there are other issues here as well. When Jesus said it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles, he was not talking about the moral law from the Old Testament. He was referring to the man made traditions that the Jewish leaders were using to show that they were “godly”, when their hearts were far from God. Jesus was not replacing the law, but fulfilling it.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matt 5:17-18)
He was telling the people that they were missing the point. The same goes for Jesus’ example of anyone who looks at a woman with lust. You can say I have not committed adultery, but if you are looking at every woman you see with lust in your heart and think that is ok…well, it is not. You have a sinful heart. None of this helps Helminiak’s case. Actions reveal what is in the heart. If you are carrying on a homosexual relationship, your heart is not with Christ. If it was, you would not be purposely sinning against God.
As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.
The design for marriage is laid out in Genesis 1 and 2 and it was referenced by Jesus when he said:
“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:3-6)
From the beginning it has always been one man and one woman. The fact that man has screwed that up is not evidence against what the Bible says. It just means we are screw-ups. The Bible does reference polygamy. You can read Genesis 16, Genesis 29-31, 1 Samuel 1, 1 Kings 11. It does not hide its existence, but you will find one common theme in each of those chapters. The problems polygamy caused. There are also additional prohibitions of it in the Bible. Deuteronomy prohibits Israel’s Kings from doing it and 1 Timothy 3:2 prohibits men who practice it from being elders in the Church. The last line was purely made up conjecture from the author. There is nothing that supports that statement. I guess he is once again trying to justify his own lifestyle by any means possible.
The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.
Here he kind of goes off on a couple of tangents so I guess I am allowed to do so as well. The Book Song of Songs is traditionally used as an example of Biblical dating/courtship/marriage for teenagers in the Church. Written by King Solomon, it describes a courtship in which the male and female show restraint from sexual relations before being married. It gives descriptions of the ideal mate in the process. Helminiak’s description is pretty skewed from the traditional reading, which is not surprising considering his lifestyle. It is true that Jesus did not mention same sex behaviors. What he does not tell you though is that the reason that would be the case is because that would not have been something that Jesus and the Jewish leaders would have disagreed upon. Jewish tradition thought of homosexuality as a sin because the law told them so. It was not an issue. By saying the Greek word ‘pais’ means male lover, Helminiak is once again trying to give an alternative meaning to a Greek word in order to justify his stance. Pais, according to the Greek Lexicon, can mean child, boy or girl, a servant or a slave. It does not mean a male lover of the Roman Centurion. That would be using it out of context.
Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation.
I have never heard the reason for Paul’s opinion that it would be ideal to not marry because he thought the world would soon end. Does not really matter though. Nor does it matter that Paul never linked sex to procreation. God did and that is good enough for me.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:27-28)
Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.
That about does it. Except for talking about the other part of his little thesis:
We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction.
Every time a Christian tries to express their viewpoint to others and support legislation that supports these Biblical views, we are suddenly forcing our religion on others. I guess in a way completely different than the people forcing their pagan beliefs on us…sarcasm included. I find it especially painful when Christians use this logic to support legalizing same sex marriage. They forget another Biblical principle on civil government. If I may steal a line from my study Bible, “proposals for governments to recognize same-sex marriage should be evaluated in light of the Bible’s teaching that one role of civil government is to “praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). Making gay marriage legal carries with it the endorsement of the government which also grants certain other benefits to include legal and financial. As Christians in a country that has a government controlled by the people, we have just as much right to support laws we believe in as anyone else. Biblically speaking, I would go as far as say we have a certain responsibility to do so.
All of that being said, that was not my main purpose for going into so much detail in taking on Daniel Helminiak’s argument. It was for those who perhaps do not know the Bible very well and could be led astray by his post. For most, I could imagine me rambling on about stuff you already know was pretty mundane, but hopefully for some it was worthwhile. And hopefully it shows that you can call something what it is and still care for those struggling with it. Just because someone is living in a sin such as this one, it does not mean you have to treat them differently. You are never going to bring them to Christ by treating the people themselves with disdain.
{ 0 comments }