Clobber the Argument

I have been enjoying some stimulating conversations recently with a friend who disagrees radically with me about certain aspects of Christian behavior. At first, I thought it was a matter of interpretation of a few specific verses of Scripture. As the conversation went on over a few days, I realized that our differences stemmed from something much deeper than interpretation. Our disagreement arises from an entirely different view of the inspiration of the Bible. As I wrote in “Disagree Agreeably,” when the disagreement is over two things that are mutually exclusive, one or both of the parties must have the facts wrong: there is only one true truth.

The place I am compelled to go to determine ultimate truth is to the Scripture. The problem that often arises, as it has in my current situation, is that the parties to the disagreement hold different views of the inspiration of the Bible. I agree with most traditional biblical scholars that the Bible is true in everything that it asserts as truth. This view stems from a belief in verbal inspiration – that every word of Scripture is God-breathed. This position is sometimes labeled as “literal interpretation,” but I dislike that word. There are many passages, even whole books in the Bible that are not meant to be literal. The poetry found in the wisdom literature and the apocalyptic writings of the prophets are two good examples of inspired Scripture that are not strictly literal.

The person taking a “non-literal” view will say that much of the Old Testament is allegorical – that some of the people and events recorded in Scripture are not historical reality. This is an ancient misunderstanding which the early church branded as heretical. Another result of taking a “non-literal” view of Scripture is that much of the New Testament is considered irrelevant because it was written to a particular cultural context that no longer applies. This demeaning of the Bible’s reliability as a source of truth typically leads to developing an understanding of “truth” that relies on the interpreter’s feelings about who God is and what He desires from His people. Rob Bell famously took this tack when denying the existence of hell in Love Wins. (See my series “Answering Rob Bell”.)

In an effort to understand my friend’s position, I have read an author he recommended who holds a position similar to his. Dr. Mel White began to argue for the Christian acceptance of same-sex relationships over twenty years ago. In an early pamphlet, he suggested that we need to be open to “new revelation” from God concerning our modern situation. He believes that the Bible proscriptions of homosexual behavior were relevant only to the culture that existed at the time the words were written. He makes much of the fact that, in his estimation, there are only a few verses in the entire Bible that prohibit same-sex relationships, so the prohibition cannot be important to God.

In White’s most recent book on the subject, Clobber the Passages, he simply dismisses the Scripture because he is tired of arguing about it. The entire book is anecdotal reporting meant to elicit feelings of guilt and dismay over the sad results of homosexuals being treated badly by well-meaning Christians who believe the Bible calls homosexual activity a sin. I cannot argue with White that the church has treated homosexuals badly. Unfortunately, neither can I argue the main point because it depends on Scripture which White has dismissed out of hand. Most distressing to me is the fact that White uses sentiment to determine right and wrong. Like Rob Bell’s assertion that consigning people to hell doesn’t make for a good story, White believes that condemning homosexual behavior is out of character for a loving God. Both men forget there is a balance between God’s love and His justice. (See “The Goodness of Wrath”)

In “The Importance of Being Right,” I made the following statement: “It may sound arrogant to say, but when I express an opinion, at that moment, in my state of knowledge at that moment, I believe I am right. I welcome all challenges to my positions as long as they are based on the same foundation as that on which I stand: revealed truth. If I am wrong, I want to be proved wrong so that I can correct my position. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, it is of utmost importance that I be right. If there is something wrong with that, prove it.” I cannot argue for truth with someone who denies the truth as I see it.

This leaves me in an uncomfortable position with my friend. He is a man who loves God and loves his neighbor as the Savior commands. I commend him for that. What I cannot commend is that his love for practicing homosexuals compels him to excuse what the Bible calls sin in my understanding. He believes God blesses committed same-sex unions (now allowed as marriage) in the same way He blesses traditional marriage. He drew my attention to the many inappropriate (perverted) cases of sexual behavior reported in the Old Testament. Polygamy, adultery, incest, and promiscuity all appear in the pages of ancient biblical records. However, just because the Bible reports something, it is not necessarily approved by God.

The most striking example my friend led me to was the “man after God’s own heart,” King David – adulterous, murderous, polygamous David. The thought gave me a moment’s pause until I remembered that while David was all those things, he also repented of them with tears as recorded in Psalm 51. He knew he had sinned, and he begged God to forgive and cleanse him. My friend might point out that David did not stop living with Bathsheba; in fact, he fathered his successor, King Solomon with her. (Solomon’s sexual imperfections make me wonder about generational sin, but that’s another story.) The only direct parallel I can see with the same-sex blessing argument would be if the parties involved confessed and repented of their sin as David did. Of course, they won’t; they are assured by folks like Mel White that they are not sinning.

The man I am calling my friend is a dear saint who has served the church in several capacities for decades. I want to like him; I want to be his friend. However, it is difficult for me to convince him that I love homosexuals with the love of Christ as much as he does. I agree that the church has a long way to go to demonstrate that love (See “The Uncomfortable Subject”), but I don’t agree that whitewashing clearly defined sin is a loving thing to do. I am often reminded that Jesus didn’t say our doctrine would show people we are His; it’s our love for one another that marks us as disciples. What I think everyone needs to remember is that Jesus also said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” He followed that with: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name—that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything that I said to you.”

Here is the dilemma: is Mel White hearing from the Holy Spirit the new “all things” Jesus was referring to? Or was the canon of Scripture closed in the first century bringing an end to inspired revelation as all the early church fathers and the ensuing councils asserted? Dr. White and my friend want to point out that Jesus never condemned same-sex unions. They are right. But as I have said before, non-mention is not tacit approval. This whole love-like-Jesus-loved is hard. I think it was Swindoll who said that the Christian life is not hard; it’s impossible – impossible without the Holy Spirit’s help. God help me in this; as I said before: I want to be right.