Gays and Bible Authority
Image via WikipediaThere is yet another defection from the authority of Scripture in the evangelical communion in the form of invoking Scripture to defend homosexuality. The Archbishop of Armagh asserted not too long ago that “reason” may be applied to Scripture texts that seem to condemn homosexuality so that a different interpretation may be gleaned. Such a notion is flawed on a number of counts.
First, while reason must be applied in bible interpretation, what is meant by the Archbishop’s assertion is that human reason apart from God’s presuppositions trumps God’s word. Such is a logical impossibility if God’s word is God’s word in that it would necessarily be grounded in God’s presuppositions.
Second, the reason to be applied comes from contemporary notions of whether or not homosexuality is deemed natural or unnatural. Human reason apart from God’s revelation is fatally flawed in that it is affected by sin. Man apart from God has been given over to a darkened understanding. That does not mean that man cannot understand anything. It does mean that he cannot understand spiritual truth apart from a new nature.
Third, to say that homosexuality is natural and therefore cannot be viewed as sinful is a rejection of the moral character God Himself has ascribed to homosexuality. Human sophistry may be used to define homosexuality as natural but it cannot get around God’s moral pronouncements.
Fourth, as always, the problem lies in attempting to sit in judgment on God’s word. Attempting to find answers to moral questions apart from God is not only flawed and impossible, but essentially sinful.
Fifth, authority is the issue. What is our source of authority when it comes to the question of whether or not homosexuality is sinful? Is it God’s word or something else? Will we allow scientists who presuppose the naturalness of homosexuality to simply explain away God’s word with the imposition of their worldview upon the interpretation process?
Or, will we affirm the presupposition that God’s word is true and leave it there in terms of whether or not homosexuality is sinful? Even if homosexuality were due in part to certain genetic factors, understanding that a so-called “homosexual gene” is a scientific impossibility, does that negate its sinfulness? Bheaviour may also alter genes. Are not all sins and the propensities of all men affected by genetics? And yet, God holds us accountable for sin.
Sixth, certainly, the Archbishop’s argument is that those who commit homosexual acts who are not naturally homosexual are in sin but those who are naturally homosexual and commit homosexual acts are not in sin because they are not going against nature. Again, this position cannot be sustained from the text but must be imposed upon the text.
Unfortunately, the Archbishop is in spiritual danger. Bible teachers are charged to rightly divide the word of truth and are admonished to be careful in the handling of Scripture for they will receive a stricter judgment.
