Disclaimer, I am annoyed by the word bully.  This word covers everything from calling someone a name to actually physically hurting someone in a big way.  Now GLBT community practically owns the word and every time the church stands up against homosexuality it gets labeled as being intolerant and pro-bullying, but the truth is the church was anti-bullying long before everyone else jumped on board.

Since the beginning of the human race there has always been someone bullying someone else.  As a matter of fact it didn’t take long before bullying led to murder in the story of Cain and Able.  Of course it wasn’t always so severe Jacob simply decided to steal Esau’s birth right and Josephs brothers simply sold him into slavery.  Jesus was bullied by religious hypocrites who were threatened by what He was teaching.  It still happens today, but there isn’t one group of people that owns the anti-bullying platform.

From the beginning Israel and then the church have been called to be a blessing to the nations, to Love God, and as a result to love others.  In reality it is the teachings of found in the Bible and especially in the teachings of Jesus that promote true tolerance and love.

In Romans 5:8 Paul reminds us of the love Jesus had for us: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  Earlier in Romans 3 Paul reminds his readers of their sin and how that sin angers God.  God’s love is in spite of His anger.  That is true tolerance.  The Gospel message is in itself the greatest anti-bullying message there is.

Let’s think about this.  Our sin (not matter which one you choose to focus on) offends God to the point where God has wrath towards those who have sinned against HIm.  God the Son then chooses of his own volition to sacrifice himself and be the victim of one of the greatest exhibitions of bullying ever to be displayed.  He does this for the purpose of saving those who have sinned against Him and causing Him to become angry.

During his ministry Jesus taught things like turn the other cheek, love your enemies, and forgive those who have sinned against you.  Some might say the church has lost its way and no longer teaches such principals.  To be sure there are some churches where this may have happened, but overall this is simply not the case.  Instead what has happened is that those who don’t like what the church says about their particular issue say the church bullies those they disagree with and that the church is intolerant.  In reality the church is calling all sinners to repentance to receive the grace provided by Jesus on the cross.  The idea that the church is intolerant is, for the most part, an urban legend caused by a misunderstanding of the message found in God’s word.

The church is called to love and accept, but it is also called preach the truth and the truth is often a stumbling block for those who would rather hang on to sin than accept the grace provided by our Lord and our God.

In my recent debate with Imam Karim Abuzaid he used a few arguments to prove that Jesus could not have been divine.  First, he said Jesus was born therefore he could not be God.  I blogged about that here.  He also used the argument that Jesus had needs like eating, going to the bathroom, sleep, etc…  God does not have needs therefore Jesus could not be God.  Once again I don’t find this argument very compelling but some people do so I thought I would take some time to address it.

• Jesus had needs

This premise is partially true.  What is interesting is the Muslims see this as a problem and Christians rejoice in a God who was willing to give up some of his divine privileges (Phil. 2) in order to take on human nature while at the same time keeping his divine nature.  There is no doubt that Jesus bled, slept, ate, cried, and according to Luke 2:52 he grew.  Once the Son of God took on the nature of man he willing took on the needs that human nature required of him.  You might ask if the Son of God could have shed his humanity and the needs that came with human nature.    I think the answer to that question would be yes, He could have.

• God doesn’t have needs

This is certainly true in some sense.  Prior to the incarnation God the Son did not need sustenance and He did not need to take bathroom breaks.  When God the Son emptied himself and took on the form of man he also voluntarily took on the limitations of his humaness.

• Therefore Jesus could not have been divine

Imam Karim held a very high view of God and believed that God could do anything.  At the same time Imam Karim would tell of all the things God could not do like taking on human nature, eating, or taking a bathroom break.  I believe God is powerful and cannot do those things which are contrary to His nature.  The idea that God would want to engage his creation in order to redeem it seems like something very much within His nature.

In the end when God volunteers to do something for the purposes of bringing Glory to Himself it is not fair to say that God “needs” those things.  Instead it would be better to say that God the Son wanted to take on those limitations for the sake of His creation.

In my recent debate with Imam Karim Abuzaid he used a few arguments against me regarding the divinity of Jesus. One of those arguments goes something like this:

• Jesus was born
• God cannot be born
• Therefore Jesus was not God

I have taken the argument and put it into the previous syllogism, but I believe it to be a fair representation of the Imam’s argument.  Let’s take a look at the two premises and see if the conclusion follows.

• Jesus was born

Of course we all agree that Jesus was born, but it would be a mistake to conclude that the birth of Jesus was like any other birth.  Both Muslims and Christians believe Jesus was born of a virgin.  As a matter of fact this is recorded both in the New Testament and the Quran.  In the New Testament it is recorded in Luke 1:26ff.  In the Quran it is recorded in Surah 19:16-22.

If Jesus had an earthly father and mother as the rest of us do this premise would be solid, but that is not the case.  According to both traditions there is an earthly mother but not an earthly father.  Clearly there is something miraculous in the birth of Jesus.  For the Christian there is s simple explanation.  The eternal Son of God who created all things (Col. 1:16-17; John 1:3) took on the form of man (Phil. 2:6-8).  The process is miraculous for the Muslim and the Christian, but the Muslim tries to deny what the earliest and most reliable sources tell us regarding this event.

Because of the lack of an earthly father and the miraculous nature of this event we should not hold an a priori view that Jesus was not divine.  This is exactly what the Muslim does.  Because they deny the trinity and this would be a significant blow to the non-trinitarian view of Islam the Muslim is forced to take this position.  Though this premise is true, it is not sufficient.  The miraculous nature of this event changes te significance of this premise in this argument.

• God cannot be born

If Jesus was divine this is clearly not the case, but I don’t want to get sucked into circular reasoning so I will simply ask a question.  Why not?  Again there is an a priori stance that God cannot be born.  Perhaps this is because being born is often put in the same category as having a beginning.  This is in fact an argument developed by Muslims and often used by Christians for the existence of God.  The argument is called the Kalaam argument suggests that there must be an uncaused cause for all that has a beginning.  This is in fact one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God.

This begs the question, is being born the same as beginning?  The answer is “no” in a couple of ways.  First, even in the case of normal births the person who is born existed inside the womb of the mother prior to being born.  Clearly this proves that being born is not the same as beginning.  You may think I am splitting hairs and we should simply ask this question:  Does conception mean something began to exist?  In normal circumstances I would answer yes, it does mean that a new life has begun to exist and therefore that life could not be divine.  As we see above that is not the case in the conception and birth of Jesus.  There is clearly something miraculous going on.  Since we do not have an earthly father and a normal conception and birth we should not conclude that the eternal Son of God could not have been born.

• Therefor Jesus was not God

Based simply on this argument we cannot conclude that Jesus is not divine.  Because there are extenuating circumstances regarding the nature of the conception and birth of Jesus and both Christians and Muslims agree on this point we cannot conclude that being born means Jesus is not divine.

Conclusion

In this post I did not provide any positive evidence for the divinity of Jesus because that was not my purpose here.  Instead I simply wanted to point out that Jesus being born does not mean he is not divine.  The virgin birth does not prove the divinity of Jesus, but it does open the door for the possibility that Jesus is divine.  Since the door is open to the possibility of Jesus divinity we should probably look to other evidence to help us decide if this is the case.

Let’s take a few minutes and consider the preponderance of the Biblical evidence that homosexuality is indeed a sin.  Even though it is a sin there is no Biblical evidence that this sin has any different eternal consequences than any other sin.  This is not a salvific issue and it is not the most important issue for Christians to deal with.  It is however controversial in our culture. See my previous posts here:  Post 1 – Post 2 - Post 3 - Post 4 - Post 5.

Here is a summary of the evidence:

• Gen. 2

This passage teaches us about God’s design for marriage in a positive way.  Notice it isn’t about “love” as much as a covenant between a man and woman.  It is the context in which procreation is possible.  The family unit was designed by God with children in mind.  As a matter of fact Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply…to fill the earth.  Whether this has already been accomplished to the liking of God doesn’t matter, this is what the covenant of marriage was for.

• Lev. 18 & 20

Yes it is true that this is the Old Testament and we need to be careful as to what we apply and what we don’t apply from the Old Testament. It is also true that there are many things we do apply from the Old Testament.  If these two passages were the only passages relevant to the issue of homosexuality I too would simply suggest that this may be cultural and we should ignore it.  That is not the case.  We have all kinds of passages that teach about sexuality.  Sex outside of marriage is considered a sin in the ten commandments, with Abraham, 1 Cor. 7, any of the places the word fornication is used, and many others.  We also have the New Testament Passages that confirm this command and I would argue that Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 6:9 suggests that he was virtually quoting the Leviticus text out of the LXX (Septuagint).

• The teaching of Jesus in Mark 10
• And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ⁷ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ⁸ and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

No, Jesus does not mention homosexuality here.  What he does mention is marriage and God’s intentions.  Nowhere in scripture do we see any hint of a positive case for homosexuality and we certainly do not see any hint of same sex marriage.  We do see a positive case for a man and woman getting married.

• Romans 1

This passage is very clear in regards to homosexual activity.

• 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10

These two passages are very clear in spite of what many have suggested.  When we look into the original language we don’t see more ambiguity, we see more clarity.  See my last post for a more thorough examination of the language.

Conclusion

The case against homosexuality isn’t based on one passage, but several.  Perhaps one could argue away a couple passages, but there seems to be a consistant message throughout scripture.

• Marriage was designed with a man and a woman in mind.  Procreation isn’t just a benefit, it is part of the purpose of marriage
• Jesus words reaffirming the original intent for marriage
• Sex outside of marriage is a sin
• Homosexual practice includes sex outside of marriage and is therefore a sin
• The multiple texts dealing specifically with homosexuality all condemn the practice
• There is not one single passage in the Bible that promotes homosexuality in any way

There is a preponderance of evidence against the practice of homosexuality for a Christian perspective.

We are almost done with this series of posts.  I think we may have a couple more to go.  This is the last one that will deal directly with Scripture.  The author of the Soulforce article again tries to claim ambiguity in this passage.  As in all the posts so far I am summarizing and trying to stay concise as apposed to going into great depth.  If you missed the last 4 posts you can find them here:   Post 1 – Post 2 -Post 3-Post 4.  I want to reiterate that I am not writing these posts to harm or offend anyone.  We all have sin in our lives and are in need of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.  Paul, in Romans, reminds us that we should not simply go on sinning just because we have grace.  This is simply an attempt to bring clarity regarding whether practicing homosexuality is a sin or not.  That’s it.  People who lie or cheat are sinners.  The difference is that we all pretty much agree that those things are sin so we don’t argue about them most of the time.  That said I have had more arguments with teenagers about whether certain types of cheating are sin or not than I have had about the issue of homosexuality.  The difference…one gets more media because there is more controversy surrounding it than the other.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10

Those who defend the practice of homosexual activity like to cause ambiguity where there is none.  These two passages are perfect example of that technique.  I will quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 which is very similar to 1 Timothy 1:10:

“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…”

At first read this appears pretty clear, but if you look at the Greek (not to in depth) it becomes less clear.  There are two words here that elude to homosexual activity.  The first word does not appear in the Timothy passage but it does in 1 Corinthians 6.  That word is μαλακός which appears to mean effeminate and might be referring to young boy who are mature.  That said we don’t know that for sure.  I might point out that there is a word in the Greek for Pedophilia and Paul choses not to us that word here.  Because Paul choses not to use that work here it makes me think it is more likely that Paul is referring to homosexual behavior as that is a reasonable translation of that word as well.  You might be thinking wait a minute, there is some questions here and I don’t want to condemn anyone based on something that may or may not be condemning homosexuality…I agree so let’s move forward.

The next word that is used here is ἀρσενοκοίτης.  The author of the Soulforce article and many other claim that no one really knows what this word means.  It’s a great mystery and some guy a long time ago guessed at its meaning and decided that “homosexual” would be a good guess because of the last word we talked about.  Well that is simply not what happened.  In fact something much more scholarly happened.  What we actually have here is a combination of two words:  ἄρσην which means “male” and “κοίτης” which refers to “another man”.  You might be thinking that doesn’t exactly slam the door shut.  No I suppose it doesn’t, but when you consider the fact that Paul is a Greek speaking Jew writing to Greek speaking people and you consider that he was probably using the LXX (Septuagint) which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament and finally you consider the fact that these two words are the very same two words that literally lay next to each other on the scroll in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where God’s law speaks clearly against homosexual practice that door pretty much slams shut.  Paul was simply combining these two terms not to cause ambiguity, but to bring clarity.  Baseball, football, database, and software are just a few words we do this with in english.

When you consider that these two words were used together in the 1 Corinthians it seems that Paul is clearly condemning the practice of homosexuality.  These words are really not ambiguous.

The Soulforce author points out that Paul’s writing has been used to support slavery and other deplorable practices.  Let me join her in saying I along with her condemn such horrific practices and does the writings of Paul when correctly understood.  Just because other people have taken the writings of Paul and twisted them to mean something they do not mean does not mean I or others who believe homosexuality to be a sin are doing the same thing.  This is a logical fallacy and simply saying others have done something horrible does not mean that is what the rest of us are doing.

In the next post I will summarize the Biblical evidence that practicing homosexuality is a sin.  I would like to point out here that I have not spent much time talking about what this would mean for Christians and what we should and shouldn’t do regarding this issue.  Though I have certainly developed some thoughts along these lines I would rather leave that to people who spend more time helping those who are struggling with this issue than I am.  I will include some links to those organizations in my last post on this topic.

Pastor John Byrne debates Imam Karim Abuzaid on the questions: “Who is Jesus?” Christianity and Islam both believe in Jesus, they both believe in the virgin birth, and they both believe he was a prophet. They have very different views on whether Jesus was divine, whether he died on the cross, and what the gospel is.

In my recent debate with Imam Karim abu Zaid he was asked during the Q&A what evidence Muslims had for the reliability of the Quran.  I did not get a chance to comment on what he said.  I thought I would take some time here to do exactly that.

The Quran

Quit a while ago my friend Brian and I visited the Mosque where Imam Karim teaches.  After the service we sat with one of the Muslims from the mosque for some time and asked questions.  To be honest at that time I had a very basic understanding of Islam and I didn’t want to get in an argument at that time…it would have been rude on my part.  So Brian and I simply asked questions and tried to learn as much as we could about Islam.  Brian has been preparing to go overseas as a missionary where he will primarily minister to Muslims, so he knew a lot more than I did.  One of the questions we asked was about the reliability of the Quran.  The answer surprised me a great deal.  I was told in no uncertain terms that the original manuscript had been perfectly preserved.  As a matter of fact this seemed to be a source of great pride both on the day Brian and I visited the mosque and at the debate when Imam Karim basically said the same thing.

I was amazed, at first, and quit frankly I was also jealous.  Wouldn’t it be great if Christians could boast such a great thing as to have the original documents of the New Testaments?  Well as it turns out we were not exactly told the truth.  Whether it is simply a mistake or we were lied to I don’t want to venture a guess, but in either case the truth is something entirely different.

Here is what I found out:

• The Quran was not written as much as it was memorized.  Memorizing the Quran is something of great importance even today.  As a matter of fact Imam Karim has the entire thing memorized, that’s pretty impressive.  The concept of memorizing the Quran is great except for the fact that this opens it up to erros that once made can not be detected and if they cannot be detected they cannot be corrected.
• It obviously got written down, but we do not have any copies prior to one man named Uthman.  Some time after Muhammad’s death Uthman commissioned a guy named Zaid to do the research necessary to come up with one complete copy of the Quran that would become the original Quran.  Part of this commission included gathering other Qurans by other Muslims.  Wouldn’t it be great if they all agreed on what was in the quran?
• Prior to Zaid’s copy of the Quran there were Qurans that had a different number of Surahs (chapters) in them.  WAIT, if we have the original than how could there have been other Qurans with more Surahs in them?  Good question, I don’t know.  Sounds a little fishy.
• Once Zaid had come up with his version and gave it to Uthman, Uthman sent copies of the original to all the provinces with a command to burn all other copies of the Quran.  WAIT, there were other Quran’s that were all burned prior to the one the Muslims have today?  Yes, there were.
• We have evidence of missing verses and Surahs.  One example of this would be
  • Muslim Anas ibn malik
  • Then we read a verse in al-Quran for a long time which was either removed or forgotten.  (it was): convey to our people from us that we met our Lord Who was pleased with us and we were pleased with Him.”  (source:  Ibn Sad, Kirab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. II, 64.)
  • Muslim Anas ibn malik isn’t just some rogue muslim spoting off when he shouldn’t, he was a companion of Muhammad.
  • The second caliph, Umar, worried about an omission of a passage talking about the stoning to death of those who commit adultery.  (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, book 82, no. 816.) 

Conclusion

Not only do we not have the original, but there are at least some questions as to what was in the Quran.  What’s the point?  The point is not that there might be errors, I am perfectly fine acception that what we have is close to original or even the exact same thing.  It has enough problems as it is.  The point is the deception.  I don’t like feeling like I was lied to and I certainly don’t like it when someone is trying to convince me their faith is the right one.  There are questions about some passages (very few) in the New Testament, but Christians are honest about the possibility of errors.  As a matter of fact we point them out.

It is one thing for a member of the Mosque to say they have the original and simply be misinformed, but when an Imam who is a doctoral candidate and has the entire Quran memorized gets up and says the same thing in front of 300+ people that is something entirely different.  Consider this a call to all Muslims, just be honest about what you do and don’t have as far as the Quran is concerned, we won’t be mad…I don’t even care that much.

For a fun video on the topic check this out:  The Original Burn the Quran Day

For those who were anxiously awaiting my third post in this series, I’m sorry.  Life has been a little crazy.  Even now I am currently transitioning to a new position at my church and preparing to go back to school at Denver Seminary this coming August.  I also recently participated in a debate with a Muslim Imam.  I will be posting some video and doing a few blogs about Islam and the debate.

In case you missed the first three posts, you can find them here:  Post 1 – Post 2 - Post 3.  Alright, let’s dig in:

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

The author of the Soulforce article found here basically suggests that since this is Old Testament and the Holiness code, it doesn’t matter.  To some degree the author is correct.  The law in the Old Testament (mostly found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) need sto be split up into three groups.  Those groups are:

• Ceremonial Law

Romans 1:26-27

 Conclusion

What we are beginning to see is a consistant message throughout scripture.  The next post will continue by looking at 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

Etiquette:  conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion. (according to www.dictionary.com)

Recently I received a comment on one of my blogs that none of you will see.  To be honest I was sad to reject the comment because there were some valuable things said in the comment.  It was not nasty or disrespectful.  It did break some unwritten rules regarding what I consider to be blog comment etiquette.  So in order to avoid comments that break these unwritten rules I thought I would make them written.

Follow these guidelines and your comment will be posted and add value to the conversation:

• Have a take

No one wants to read comments that don’t offer additional value to the post.  If you want to give props to the author then just say “nice job” and leave it at that.  It is better if you have something to say that adds to the opinion given by the author or takes issue with that opinion.  Feel free to disagree, it makes a good conversation.

• Support your take

There are few things more annoying than someone who offers an argument and doesn’t support it.  Support whatever take you have proposed.  This can be done with a short argument or suggesting people read an article or post on another site.

• Make it short

This is where the comment on my blog made their mistake.  Under no circumstances should the comment be longer than the post.  This particular comment was over 900 words which is almost the length of a short article in some magazines or a long blog post.  My blog post (in this case) was less than 600 words.  I think a good general rule of thumb is to keep the comment at less than 200 words.    The reason is simple as an author I won’t read long posts and neither will most readers.  If you want people to read your comment, keep it short.

• Never call names or participate in rude behavior

I have been called names many times when I have commented on blog posts or youtube videos.  Because of that I don’t often comment on posts where I think that might happen.  As the primary author here at YM Theology I will not publish comments if I feel they are rude whether I agree with them or not.

• Don’t take it personally

Sometimes people disagree, that’s what makes the conversation fun.  Have thick skin if someone disagrees with you.  Don’t let it stop you from making your case in a respectful manner.

• Have fun

Your participation will make the conversation better for everyone.  Go for it…have fun…

For those who were anxiously awaiting my third post in this series, I’m sorry I didn’t have it done on time.  In case you missed the first two posts, you can find them here:  Post 1 – Post 2.

Finally we get to dig deeper into the passages in scripture that deal with this issue.  I will admit in this form of media we can’t give a scholarly treatment of these passages, but I don’t know that one is needed in order to deal effectively with this issue.

Let’s take a look:

GENESIS 2:21-25
THE CREATION STORY

In the article offered by Soulforce they suggest that the creation story is all about God.  In many ways it is absolutely about God, but that is not all it is about.  This becomes evident when we consider other scriptures that talk about the created order.  Often the created order is referred to in other Scriptures like 1 Cor. 11, 1 Timothy 2, and others.  The creation narrative doesn’t directly mention gender roles, but Paul refers to it in that context.  I’m not trying to make a statement about gender roles, I’m just pointing out that just because a passage doesn’t directly deal with a specific issue doesn’t mean it has no value when discussing issues that are not the primary target of the given passage.

We can go a step further here.  Though the creation narrative doesn’t directly deal with same sex relationships, it does deal with marriage and procreation.  This passage does give as at least a partial purpose for marriage and sex and that is procreation.  This of course does not necessarily mean that sex is only for those purposes.  In other words in the creation narrative sex and family is defined in a certain way and we should pay attention to that.

The authors list of heterosexual relationships that don’t produce children is an attempt to point out that children are not what is in mind when God created and gave us the institution of marriage and sexual relations.  It is important to point out that exceptions prove only that there are exceptions to what is an otherwise good rule.  For example:

• Couples who are unable to have children is only about 15% depending on what stats you look at.  So the general rule would be that 85% of heterosexual couples are capable of having children.
• Couples who are too old to have children likely could have had children when they were in their child bearing years.
• Couples who choose not to have children are making a conscious choice and taking action to prevent what wold otherwise be the natural outcome.
• People who are single is the lack of a relationship.

The creation story does not condemn same sex relationships, but it does give us and idea as to what God’s intentions were.

GENESIS 19:1-14
THE STORY OF SODOM

Though one could  make an argument that this story does deal with homosexuality, it is not as clear as many of have made it appear.  For this reason I would rather focus on other passages.

Next week we will look at a few more passages including Leviticus & Romans 1