This was originally part 4 of a 5 part series I did on the problems with pro-gay theology. I was reminded of it when refuting the UCC “God is still speaking,” slogan used by false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie and others who dislike gays so much that they refuse to tell them the truth about what God’s word says.
The UCC doesn’t have a monopoly on bad theology — though not for a lack of effort! — as the example below is one of the bad Methodists (maybe we could trade all our extreme liberals for the seven orthodox believers remaining in the UCC?).
Read it for an analysis on the many flaws with the belief that God is changing his moral laws and only telling Western Liberals who don’t believe that He got the Bible right in the first place (so you can totally trust them to be his current prophets!). I wonder what standard they use to know if it is God speaking and not Satan? I would use his written word, but they don’t trust that. But you can be sure they know the difference, right?
Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories. Today we cover the final line of thinking. Then I’ll have a summary post.
- The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the probitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
- The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
- The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically condemn gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.
The third view attempts to affirm scripture but makes a major theological mistake afterwards. Think about the premise: God is allegedly overturning a moral law and simultaneously making it immoral to quote the Bible.
One denomination has a slogan that “God is still speaking.” This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word. However, liberal theologians tend to use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws.
Some people appear to believe in Dalmatian Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. That is the first error above. However, those in this third category appear to hold to Advanced Dalmatian Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.
This category overlaps a bit with those who don’t think He communicated his laws in a discernable way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.
Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.” She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.
Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.
The problem is her poor Biblical analysis. There are at least nine things wrong with this view:
- The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church. It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
- The visions were clear and emphatic. Peter was given the vision three times.
- Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this “new revelation.”
- There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion.
- This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it. I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible. It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason. God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
- This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law. There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws. In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.). The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
- The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny his Word to begin with! So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations? Go figure.
- If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal? Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
- The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.
And here’s a repeat from yesterday: Even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture. Luke Timothy Johnson said:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.
There are simply no good reasons to believe that God is changing his moral laws (dropping those against homosexual behavior and adding those saying not to preach against it) and only informing selected people (as opposed to the Apostles and their direct followers) through revelation or “experience.”
Again, consider that:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Let me point you again to the introduction to ensure you understand my perspective. I think we should treat homosexuals with the same love and respect we’d extend to anyone else. But we should not edit the Bible to match our culture and we should not condone false teachers. God’s way is the best way. I don’t mean that as a sound bite. It really is the best way to live life – now and for eternity.
Comments are welcome, but please stick to the topic. We aren’t debating secular views, we aren’t demonizing anyone (pro-gay or orthodox) and we don’t need straw-man arguments (“You just don’t love them,” etc.).
Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and I believe the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.