No homos in my church (pt 4)

  The law sends us to the gospel that we may be justified; and the gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified....The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.
Samuel Boltin (1606 – 1654), The True Bounds of Christian Freedom

__

(Please note:  For this discussion the words civil and ritual can be used interchangeably with the words judicial and ceremonial.)

Before I delve into this morass any further, there is a small issue that needs some clarifying: what do I mean by the word "Law."  I wish there was an easy way to explain it, one or two sentences that would summarize the issue, but this issue has deep roots back to the Reformers and early church fathers.  It is for this reason I rely on the work of Samuel Boltin, a 1600's era English clergyman and scholar.

If I could sum up Boltin's view in a few sentences, it would be this:  "The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ. The sacrifices no longer need to be made as Christ has offered himself on the cross in our place. The civil [judicial] laws of Israel [the laws that set the Israelites apart from their Pagan/Gentile neighbors] are not necessarily binding on people and nations today. But the moral law has not been done away with. It is still in force and binding on everyone whether a believer or unbeliever." (p. 6)  [Brackets mine]  But it is not quite that simple.

As Boltin point's out, ",,,for the purpose of answering the query, lest we should beat the air and spend ourselves to no purpose, it will be necessary to make two inquiries: (1) what is meant by the word 'law'? (2) in what sense is the word used in Scripture? When this has been done there will be a way opened for the clearing of the truth and for the answering of the queries."  These two "queries" are still being asked and answered in a very similar way.

There are several questions we can ask to help distinguish between the laws, such as, “Does this law symbolize the separation of Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament?” or “Does it point forward to Christ’s atonement on the Cross?” If so, then God reveals in the New Testament that it is not binding on us (Galatians 3:24–25, 4:9–11, Colossians 2:16–17).  However, if the law is moral in nature and is nowhere rescinded in Scripture, then to disobey it would be sin (1 John 3:4, Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 5:18–19).

In other words, Lisle is asking, is this a civil/judicial law? Or is it a moral law?

For our purposes, I want to focus on how Boltin defines "law."  Or more aptly how Boltin details the Bible's use of the word "law."

• It is sometimes taken for the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets 
• The term 'law' is sometimes used as meaning the whole Word of God, its promises and precepts
• 'Law' is sometimes taken for the five books of Moses
• 'Law' is used for the pedagogy of Moses
• Sometimes 'law' is used for the moral law alone, the Decalogue
• Sometimes 'law' refers to the ceremonial law, as in Luke 16.16.
• Sometimes 'law' refers to all the laws, moral, ceremonial, and judicial

Just as today, "the controversy lies in the last-mentioned, where the word 'law' signifies the moral, civil/judicial, and ritual/ceremonial law."

According to Boltin, the ritual/ceremonial law "was an ordinance containing precepts of worship for the Jews when they were in their infancy, and was intended to keep them under hope, to preserve them from will-worship, and to be a wall of separation between them and the Gentiles. This law, all agree, is abrogated both in truth and in fact."

As for the civil/judicial law, "it was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil, and it served three purposes: it gave the people a rule of common and public equity, it distinguished them from other peoples, and it gave them a type of the government of Christ. That part of the judicial law which was typical of Christ's government has ceased, but that part which is of common and general equity remains still in force. It is a common maxim: those judgments which are common and natural are moral and perpetual." [Notice in Boltin's view there is a bit of cross-over in regards to the separation of the Israelites.]

"And so we come to speak of the moral law which is scattered throughout the whole Bible, and summed up in the Decalogue. For substance, it contains such things as are good and holy, and agreeable to the will of God, being the image of the divine will, a beam of His holiness, the sum of which is love to God and love to man."

Boltin then continues on to talk of whether "believers [are] freed from obedience to the moral law, that is, from the moral law as a rule of obedience?"  Although it is important to keep in mind his discussion concerning the moral law, it is not imperative to our current concern of which laws are what.

What is important to note, Lev 20:13 is not a part of moral law.  As hard as modern day, anti-gay apologists try and force it into that pigeon hole, the passage deals with ritual uncleanness, to'-ebah (I will be expounding on this point in a later posting) and the separation of Jews and Gentiles in the Old Testament.  A point made abundantly clear further along in chapter 20:22-26.

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

This aside concerning "which laws are what" may seem trivial. But, for a preacher-man like Anderson (Westboro Baptist Church, Kevin Swanson, Gordon Klingenschmitt also come to mind) who feeds off instilling fear of God's wrath, it is a window into his vile hatred.  That he ignores this delineation explains his reliance on the OT; he can't condemn it, if Christ fulfilled it.

No homos in my church (pt 3)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Matt 5:17

__

In my first post I briefly outlined the hermeneutical principles I was taught and still follow to this day.  The second post discussed one view in resolving the apparent OT God vs NT God discrepancy, briefly highlighting what Anderson ignores, context and the concept that one verse does not make a theology.  While I like the first view, I feel it doesn't go far enough in completely resolving the issue or addressing Anderson's poor hermeneutics of "God said, I believe it that settles it."  It is not that simple as you will see.

Taking into consideration the examples in my previous post, let's take this one step further and throw another wrinkle not considered by Anderson's "one verse theology."  Jesus is God too! (John 1:1, 14; 8:57-59 [cf. Exodus 3:14]; 10:30; 20:28)

[Bare in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical concept.  It was first put forth by Tertullian, in the early 3rd century.  It wasn't until the Council of Nicea (325 CE) set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius.]

You see by Anderson focusing on just one passage, he misses the opportunity of bringing the message of the Levitical passage full circle; the synthesis of the OT and NT through Christ.  "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.." (John 1:14 )  No matter how much we would like to simply dismiss the OT, we can't. Without the OT there is no NT, there is no Christ. Everything in the NT is built on the foundation of the Old Testament. 

Anderson is a fire and brimstone type preacher who feeds off instilling fear of God's wrath in manipulating his congregation.  He teaches his listeners (just as he was taught) about the horrors of hell, the dangers of sin and the terrors of being lost.  Very rare, if at all (I have listened to 5 or 6 of his "sermons"), do you hear him preach of redemption through Christ; of "life everlasting."   Because of this loathing, this self-hatred, he misses this, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."  Matt 5:17

Like any Christian, I struggled with this conundrum - how to be Christ-like but yet follow the OT.  From an apologetic standpoint there is a way to rectify this situation but in the end, I always seem(ed) to be banging a silent drum.  Many within the Church who rely on this passage (Lev 20:13) can't (or couldn't) see through the lenses of their rose-colored glasses.  Eventually after years of trying I gave up even though I had the likes of Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr, Rev. Dr. Mel White and (now) Bishop Gene Robinson forging the way.  As I wrote recently in regards to the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So,

The devastating effects of religion are very evident.  So I struggle.  I struggle with my hatred of religion and any individual or group that use it as a weapon.  I struggle with my hatred of the Bible, used as a sword to lop off the heads of undesirables.  I struggle with compassion,,,

What I no longer struggle with is my homosexuality!

But I digress,,,

No homos in my church (pt 2)

 A single verse usually doesn't make a theology.

__

I lay this basic foundation for two reasons.  First I am not some hack atheist "just" bashing the Bible for shits and giggles.  I spent 26 years in the church struggling with this very issue - how to be gay and Christian.  When I left the church for good, it was not because of this issue.  I had come to the conclusion that being gay was not scripturally condemned and I knew that I could support that view.  Although my over-all conclusion has not changed in 20+ years, my defense has become more nuanced.

Second, the education I received as a college student has been invaluable.  I was taught by some of the best in the business, whether it was from direct classroom instruction, visiting lecturers, conferences or conventions.  I can't unlearn that which was learned, although I use it for different purposes. 

Returning to the God of the OT/God of NT dilemma and why it is important in the deconstruction of Anderson's OT based message, we will have to touch on the unchanging or immutability of God. It is an issue that many both inside and outside the confines of the Church have questioned with numerous authors, going back to Marcion, attempting to answer said question.  For our purposes, there are 2 related views that help us "debunk"  Anderson's simplistic screed, "It was right there in the Bible all along,,,"

The first view tends toward a progressive revelation about the nature of God through the events recorded in the OT and NT; God is not different from one testament to another .  Some examples often used to support this view:

• In the OT God is declared to be  - compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness  (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Compare to John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
• Within the OT, we have expectations for individual behavior; the Ten Commandments being the most obvious (Exodus 20:1-17). In the NT,  Matthew 5 - the Sermon on the Mount -  also gives several expectations for individuals.
• There where consequences to those who disobeyed in both the OT and NT:  Joshua 7 - Achan killed; 2 Samuel 12:15-23 - took David's son in response to David's adultery ;  Numbers 20:24; Deuteronomy 34:4 - kept Moses and Aaron from entering the Holy Land after their disobedience.  In the NT:  Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were struck down after lying about their offering; Mark 8:31-33 - Jesus rebuked Peter when Peter denied Jesus' purpose.

What is important to take away from these examples is this.  Even though the Bible is 66 books, by more than 40 authors, it remains one (some say, unified) book from beginning to end.  In other words, this is the context that Anderson ignores. 

“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:10) In the OT, atonement for "sin" was made via sacrifice; a precursor to the idea of vicarious redemption through Christ.  The Savior who was promised in the OT is revealed in the NT   Both the OT and the NT were given “to make thee wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). This is the theology Anderson ignores.  To take a verse from one book without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic or relate to the topic.

I like this view, BUT it doesn't go quite far enough. 

__

And this apologetic mumbo-jumbo I just spent the past few hours typing up, THIS is why I left the church.  Let that sink in a bit as you contemplate the wise words of Christopher Hitchens in regards to vicarious redemption:

“I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There's no moral value in the vicarious gesture anyway. As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a another man's debt, or even to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you did not commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility. So the whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out the ethical principles for ourselves.” ― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

No homos in my church (pt 1)

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matt 15:11

Please note::All scriptural references are from the KJV unless otherwise noted.  (Anderson is of the 1611KJV Only camp although I will be using the 1789 edition.)   All commentary references are taken from e-Sword, version 10.4.0.  I will provide URLs when possible.

Although I am well aware that many, much learned, individuals have presented the same information as I will, they are still within the fold of the church.  They are arguing for inclusion of LGBTI persons as well as ending the hatred being preached from the pulpit.  While I applaud their efforts,  I do not agree with their ultimate, end-game.  While we reach the same conclusions, my purpose is to show that Anderson, et al are preaching a political agenda and very bad religion to the detriment of many.

MUST SEE! Trans Woman Shatters Anti-Gay Bigot’s Bill, Dares Him to Stone Her to Death (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

There is nothing I could possibly add to this story,,,

“Leviticus 20:13 states, ‘If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they shall surely put him to death,’” Raintree said. “I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case that your Bible talk isn’t just a smoke screen for personal prejudices.”

KUDOS Pamela Raintree and thank you as it is stories like yours that make this blog worth doing!!!

MUST SEE! Trans Woman Shatters Anti-Gay Bigot’s Bill, Dares Him to Stone Her to Death (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

Pastor Kevin Swanson: Tell gay couples to die on their wedding day – LGBTQ Nation

First Klingenschmitt now this douche-bag, what is it with Christian extremists wanting to kill people they don't "like." Time to play with more temple prostitutes, the holiness code and visit Molech and Baal.

Taking a page from Gordon Klingenschmitt, who said that photographers should print “worthy of death” on photos of the wedding of a same-sex couple, Swanson said that guests can “attend the wedding and hold up the sign Leviticus 20:13 word for word:

‘If a man sleeps with a man as he sleeps with a woman the two of them have committed an abomination and they shall both be put to death.’ You could attend a wedding and hold up that sign.” Christian Right radio host Kevin Swanson

As with Romans 1, it is vital to understand the cultural, historical and religious context surrounding this passage. The human authors of the Bible testify to the ongoing presence of cult prostitution, shrine prostitution or temple prostitution in ancient Israel. Various authors identify it by those names, yet the Bible never links those pagan activities to being gay or lesbian. But before we delve into that morass, I think it important to understand Leviticus as a whole and one way to do that is to determine to whom the book of Leviticus is addressed.

In general terms, the third book in the Pentateuch ascribed to Moses is called Leviticus because it relates primarily to the Levites and priests and their services. Also known as the "Law of the Priests" as it contains the system of laws administered by the Levitical priesthood under which the HEBREW nation lived. More specifically:

• “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 1:2; Lev 4:2; Lev 11:2; Lev 12:2; Lev 15:2; Lev 18:2; Lev 23:2; Lev 25:2; Lev 27:2. 
• “Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 17:2 
• “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 19:2 
• "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...” Lev 20:2 
• “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron...” Lev 21:1 
• “Command the children of Israel...” Lev 24:2 

I'm not sure how obvious this needs to be, Leviticus is written for "the children of Israel." It contains the laws and rules for Israel as they prepared to occupy the land of Canaan. So anyone prior to this time period (ie. Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) were not under the law of Moses.

The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us [the children of Israel], even us, who are all of us here alive this day.  (Deuteronomy 5:3)

In essence, the Holiness Code (another name for Leviticus, specifically chapters 18-27) was a specific covenant with a specific people at a specific time for specific purposes related to the specific situation in what is now Palestine.

• Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:5)
• And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:14)
• But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it. (Deuteronomy 5:31)
• Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it. (Deuteronomy 6:1)

The laws are earnest exhortations to obedience, and dissuasives from idolatry as Moses is speaking to the children of Israel, not setting down rules for Christians in the 21st century. The Holiness Code was intended to outlaw the pagan practices of fertility goddess cults in ancient Canaan.

One point to bare in mind in regards to the Leviticus and the Old Testament (or Old Covenant) as a whole, it is important to distinguish between Jews and Christians when it comes to context. The Bible itself is very clear on this. The Old Testament (Covenant) ended and the New Testament (Covenant) began when Jesus died on the Cross. It wasn't until some 1500 years after the Holiness Code was given that Christians appeared on the scene:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)  

In other words, some of the Bible is written only to the Jews. Christians are never instructed to observe Jewish rituals practiced in the Old Testament. Which bring us to another point, when did this Old Testament Covenant end? Again the Bible is clear on this point and tells us,

• For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. (Matthew 11:13)
• The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Luke 16:16)
• But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. (Romans 3:21)

This signifies the end of all previous dispensations, the Old Testament prophesied of things to come, which are now present, and clearly and plainly seen. According to Jesus, the Law was only in force until John the Baptist. It had an ending point, the day Christ died for the sins of the world.

Taking all this into account then, what is Leviticus 18:22 (which is oft cited as well so I am including it here) and 20:13 referring to? What is the context of this exhortation from Moses? Leviticus 18:3 and 18:21 set the context for 18:22, which reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. (See also: Psalms 106:35; Ezekiel 20:7, 8; 23:8 Ephesians 5:7-11; 1 Peter 4:2-4 and Leviticus 20:23 Exodus 23:24; Deuteronomy 12:4, 30, 31; Jeremiah 10:2, 3; Romans 12:2)

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. (See also: 20:2 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 23:10; Psalms 106:37, 38; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 20:31; 23:37; 1 Kings 11:7, 33; Amos 5:26; Acts 7:43)

God, through Moses, is warning Israel against the pagan gods and pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, specifically mentioned is Molech which includes his fertility goddess Ashtoreth. Leviticus 20:2-5 & 23 set the context for Leviticus 20:13. God makes the same warning against the pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, again mentioning Molech:

Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people,,,[a]nd ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Again, a specific covenant with a specific people at a specific time for specific purposes related to the specific situation in what is now Palestine. These rules specifically target the children of Israel. They are God's rules for Israel.

So Mr. Swanson me thinks you may need to follow 2 Timothy 2:15 more closely: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Christians are not under Levitical Law, they never have been.

• Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (Acts 15:24)
• Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (Acts 21:24-25)

Like many others of your ilk, the Bible has become not only an idol but a weapon as well. You wield your sword hacking to bits a historical book to suit your purposes ignoring its true message. You place the Bible above Jesus’ compassion and love, holding steadfast onto what you believe to be the correct interpretation of a small amount of verses that (don't) speak about same-sex relations. For those of you who repeatedly quote Leviticus and Romans maybe leaving your Bible on the dusty shelf for awhile would be a good thing. Take the time to contemplate what you are saying and not what you think the Bible is saying.

Pastor Kevin Swanson: Tell gay couples to die on their wedding day – LGBTQ Nation