Several years ago, I was seated next to a man in an Irish pub in Chicago. Somehow we got to talking about the Bible and he shared that he believed what Jesus had to say, but he didn’t count the Apostle Paul as an inspired writer. I thought about this encounter because a friend recently suggested to me that we should view the writings of Paul through the lens of the Gospels. In both instances, the subject that elicited the pronouncements about Paul was homosexuality. My friend stated categorically that he did not believe homosexual practice was sin. His view is not unique in some circles.
I promised to consider the idea of looking at Paul through the
lens of the Gospels, and this is what I have decided. That process is exactly
backwards. I have several reasons for coming to that conclusion. First, Jesus
was an Old Testament prophet, albeit the premier OT prophet, and as such, He
spoke within the paradigm of the Old Covenant to people who were still under
that covenant. As my friend made clear to me regarding my New Testament application
of an Old Testament act by God, one must take great care in applying OT
concepts to NT times. Different times; different paradigm.
Second, Jesus said on more than one occasion that His
disciples did not understand His message, but they would catch on after He sent
the Holy Spirit. In
John 16, Jesus said that He had more to say, but the disciples couldn’t
bear it at that time. When the Holy Spirit came, Jesus asserted, He would guide
them into all truth. The idea that we should use the Gospels, a partial revelation
to interpret the fuller revelation given after Pentecost is not sound.
Third, and most revealing is Paul’s assertion that his “gospel”
came directly from Jesus. He
said, “ For I make known to you, brothers, the
gospel that has been proclaimed by me, that it is not of human origin. For
neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I
received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Most scholars
believe that Paul’s
personal revelation was what he referred to as, “a man in Christ… caught up
to the third heaven… and heard words not to be spoken.” Paul continues, “because
of the extraordinary degree of the revelations…. so that I would not exalt
myself, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, in order
that it would torment me so that I would not exalt myself.”
Finally, the fact that Jesus never specifically prohibited
homosexual practice does not mean that He condoned it. Arguing from a negative
always puts the debate on shaky ground. Jesus never said a woman didn’t have
the right to abort a fetus she didn’t want to carry either; that doesn’t make
abortion acceptable. Jesus never said you shouldn’t take mind-altering drugs
either; that doesn’t make drug use acceptable. On the other hand, Paul
did say specifically that, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness.” A few verses later he identifies a particular form of
unrighteousness saying, “their females exchanged the natural relations for
those contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural
relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another,
males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the
penalty that was necessary for their error.”
As I said in Red
Letters; Red Faces, I have been accused of insensitivity and arrogance with
regard to some of my pronouncements. In the case of elevating the Gospels above
the writings of Paul, I believe a foundational principle of interpretation is
being ignored. To read the Bible correctly, we must always use the more clear
passages to clarify the less clear. In other words, Paul’s Holy Spirit inspired,
Jesus-taught “gospel” takes precedence over the four Gospels if there is any question.
The only reason for discounting Paul seems to be a desire to
justify or condone behavior that Paul condemns as sin. Perhaps in an effort to
show the love of Jesus to sinners, some Christians have felt it necessary to
rewrite the Scripture so as to erase the sin. Whatever the motivation, the
outcome is wrong. The old saw about hating the sin but loving the sinner is
biblical truth. I pointed out in “The
Uncomfortable Subject” that to a great degree, the church has failed to
practice that principle with regard to homosexuals. For reasons that seem to be
integral to our humanity, sexual sin, especially homosexual sin, is
particularly heinous. This creates a false dichotomy condemning one sin as
worse than another. We must not excuse one sin or ignore another because it
makes us feel better. All sin separates the sinner from God; thankfully, the
penalty for all sin was paid on the Cross of Calvary.
God feels the same way about all sin and we need to figure
out how to get into God’s way of thinking. While we were still bound by sin, Paul
says, God loved us so that He sent His son to die for us. My assertion that
homosexual behavior is sin does not excuse me from loving the homosexual.
However, I am reminded of what someone has said: “God loves us just as we are,
but He loves us too much to leave us just as we are.” As I have written
repeatedly, biblical love means caring more for the other than for ourselves.
If I am going to speak
the truth in love to the homosexual, I feel compelled to warn him that unconfessed,
habitual sin separates the sinner from God. Only God knows the extent of that
separation. I must speak; God will judge.
Related posts: Who is Discriminating?; Here Comes the Judge; Christophobia Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment