“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” -Matthew 18:5-6
It would be safe to say that since the Human Rights Campaign is one of the largest and best-funded homosexual lobby groups in the US, that they would have the resources to comprise the best case for “Biblical” homosexual advocacy. As such, we can assume that this training course for their Biblical homosexuality seminar “For the Bible Tells Me So” is the best that their community has to offer.
Unfortunately, what we find within this “educational” package is a statement of acceptance for a non-literal understanding of the Bible (p.19), which totally negates the value of the Bible whatsoever. After all, if there isn’t any truthful basis for God’s word, then why believe it? In this light, it would seem the “scholars” at the HRC have decided that the Bible means nothing, as they confuse learning the nature of God line upon line with an incapability to see past our own biases.
Regardless, as the HRC decided to argue the case for homosexuality by the authority of the Bible despite their acceptance of a relativistic message, the Bible will be used as the sole authority in refuting their case for Biblical homosexual advocacy. Let’s take a look at some specific statements:
Jesus doesn’t love you (25)?
On this page, the HRC tells an emotional story about how someone was driven away from the church because of the church’s strong stance against homosexuality, as if a person cannot be convicted of sin before joining the church. This completely opposes all of Jesus’ teachings in which He calls sinners to repentance, and accepts the humble tax collectors instead of the self-righteous Pharisees. When I became a Christian, I had to acknowledge that having sex with my girlfriend was wrong, and there are still many other sins on which I’ve got to work. But 1 John says those who say they have no sin are liars, and cannot be forgiven. As such, the idea that refusing to accept sin and refusing to accept the sinner are the same is absolutely false. It is precisely the sinner who needs Christ, and recognizing sin must absolutely precede salvation.
Is human sexual bonding for procreation or enjoyment (27)?
The HRC claims that there are two “marriage stories” in the book of Genesis, one being about procreation and the other about enjoyment and having a helper-partner. The HRC argues that although homosexual relationships do not fit the first description of the marriage relationship, they most certainly do fit the second. But while homosexual relationships may be similar to the “enjoyment” portion of a marriage, they do not fit both descriptions and thus cannot be a marriage. To put this another way, the HRC would say that because a car has both wheels and brakes, anything that has brakes must be a car.
Jesus said that the Eunuch was exempt from the laws of adultery (27)
To further prove their Biblical “legitimacy,” the HRC asks whether Jesus ever mentioned anything about the necessity of procreation in marriage, as if to negate the first marriage story by proving it is unnecessary in Jesus’ view, thus leaving the only reason for marriage to be enjoyment. They argue that Jesus praised a eunuch in a conversation about marriage, but they conveniently forget to mention the context. Jesus’ apostles were so astonished about his statement that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery,” that the apostles replied, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus then stated that it is better to be a eunuch than to be in danger of committing adultery, similar to how He stated that it is better to pluck your own eye out than to be thrown into hell fire. To twist his statement from an intolerance of adultery to a tolerance of fornication is reckless, to say the least. He was by no means implying that eunuchs could have sexual relations outside of marriage, within which is the only proper outlet for sexual interaction stated in the Bible.
Jesus said that his family are those who do the will of God, thus making homosexual families legitimate (28)
In this section, the HRC suggests that Jesus had a liberal view regarding what constitutes family because He said that those who do the will of God are His family. While He did absolutely say that, He also said He didn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, which came from God. Doing the will of God thus (at least partially) means interacting within the law, otherwise the law has no purpose whatsoever, as it would not have any moral value. Homosexual interactions were thus in clear violation of Deuteronomic law, which was given as a contract to the Israelites for the occupation of Canaan (more on Deuteronomy later).
Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because of inhospitality (28)
In one early Biblical story, the patriarch Abraham’s cousin Lot had male guests stay with him in Sodom, and they were almost raped by a rabid homosexual crowd, thus making it fair to say that homosexuality wasn’t the only sin that resulted in the destruction of the city. But the HRC claims that because rape is an act of dominance, consensual homosexuality cannot be the reason Sodom was destroyed, but rather because the citizens were inhospitable to their guests (hospitality toward foreigners was strictly enforced in Deuteronomic law). And the HRC is half right. The HRC would have been completely correct if they’d said homosexuality wasn’t entirely the reason for Sodom’s destruction, especially since the apostle Paul considers homosexuality to be a punishment for already existent sins.
Unfortunately for the HRC, other groups of people were destroyed in the Old Testament because of their sexual immoralities, their land being given to the Israelites. So while it’s safe to say that this near-raping was an egregious offense, and that the prophet Ezekiel suggests that the citizens of Sodom were also greedy and inhospitable, the fact that sin is compounded by homosexuality makes the offense worse, not more excusable.
Making things even more confusing is the HRC’s statement that the citizens of the US are responsible for committing the same kind of inhospitality towards illegal immigrants and gay ministers. But if foreigners in the Old Testament were required to follow Israeli laws–even strict obedience of the Sabbath–under threat of punishment, it’s safe to say that breaking laws to enter a country is worthy of justice as well. Nowhere does the Bible say that a foreigner is exempt from following the law, so although the HRC would love to have fire and brimstone rain on the border patrol, Divine reinforcement of “hospitality” probably won’t happen in this particular case.
Some “less obvious examples” of modern Sodom’s inhospitality (page 30)
Just for fun, here are some specific examples of what the HRC considers to be worthy of destruction by fire and brimstone.
-Ministers using terms like “family values” and “Christian America”
-James Dobson’s teaching how to prevent and treat homosexuality
-Not supporting Gene Robinson’s promotion within the Episcopal church
Better grab your umbrellas, Christians.
The word “abomination” actually means “not customary” (31)
The HRC, having not actually read the book of Leviticus, makes the argument that homosexuality was simply not customary to Jews instead of being viewed as reprehensible. But when looking different translations of the Bible, we find that the newer translations use two different words instead of “abomination,” and those are either “impure” or “detestable.” Eating shrimp and other such things translate “impure”, while behaviors such as lying with a man translate “detestable.”
But supposing these more accurate translations weren’t considered legitimate (I assure the reader that they are), if one were to read the whole chapter in the King James translation and replace every instance of “abomination” with “impure,” assuming that all these abominations are now obsolete, that reader would be forced to accept not only incest and bestiality as ritually acceptable, but also sacrificing your live baby on the fiery altars of Molech. So which is it, HRC?
Lying with a man “as a woman” isn’t necessarily homosexuality (31)
The HRC hosts a nice quote from someone, saying that neither homosexual partner “takes on the female role . . . we are attracted to men—if we were attracted to women, we would be with women.” What they’re suggesting the Bible says here is that you can have sex with a man if you’re a man, but please–do it in a manly way. But if lying with a man as a woman isn’t homosexuality, then what is it?
Jesus never said anything negative about homosexuality (34)
This is where the booklet crosses the line from misrepresentation to outright blasphemy, suggesting that Jesus took a stance of advocacy on homosexuality because:
-He cared for the marginalized, which the HRC misrepresents as condoning sin. Jesus demanded repentance of all who followed Him, at the threat of eternal perishing.
-He defended a woman caught in adultery, but they “forget” to mention that He told her to sin no more.
-Jesus was intimate with the “beloved disciple.” The HRC maintains that this beloved disciple was engaging in some sort of homosexual behavior with Jesus at the Last Supper. In light of this bizarrely perverted explanation, one has to wonder whether they would also consider Jesus washing the disciples’ feet as some sort of foot fetishism.
-Jesus defended the sexual rights of eunuchs, as disproved above.
-Jesus told us not to judge. Unfortunately, the HRC forgot to mention that in the following verses, He commands his followers not to cast their pearls before swine. It is impossible to not cast pearls before swine without first being able to recognize and label swine, which means that Jesus meant something quite different than “don’t recognize or confront sin,” or what the HRC claims is homosexual advocacy.
-Jesus fought spiritual showmanship, such as condemning homosexual acts as sin. Here the HRC confuses “doing the right thing for the wrong reasons” with “doing the right thing.” I suppose they would consider all good acts to thus be results of showful pride, which would make sinning the only way to follow Jesus’ teachings on humility. Ha ha!
-Jesus fought against exclusion of people like gays. In this passage, Jesus was referring to Pharisees’ pride in themselves, thinking they could achieve the kingdom of heaven by following the extra rules they created, while looking down on others (it must also be clearly stated that keeping the law cannot get you into heaven, but rather total dependence upon Jesus Christ). This has nothing to do with confronting homosexuality, as Jesus says that a sinning brother who refuses repentance before the church should be considered a tax collector and a heathen. Jesus statement has to do with sinful and unwarranted pride before God, and refusing to recognize His purity as supremely pure.
So as one can see, it is virtually impossible to imagine a world in which Biblical Christianity and homosexual advocacy can dwell within the same church. As such, the HRC may win some battles in some churches, but those Christians maintaining the divine validity of the Holy Scriptures should be willing to call those churches what they are: apostate. Of course, if you’re not willing to, you could always grab a millstone to be safe.