Ascension Sunday has come and gone. Yet I still have some lingering thoughts. Yesterday I came across a homily by a priest pseudo “friend” who claimed that the church’s reliance on scripture and tradition should be tempered by our understanding of science.
There was a time in the past where science and the Church were at odds. And you know what? The Church actually embraced the scientific position. This, of course, is in reference to the theories of the astronomers Copernicus and Galileo. Does the question then become what if any church teachings are a odds with modern science?
This self-proclaimed liberal priest went on to suggest that our reliance on traditional moral teachings have been disproven by science and are being used by the Church to intentionally hurt people. This priest was basically saying that science now supports the “born that way” modern polemic, or teaching, and in his opinion, the Church must change.
To be clear, his particular liberal Catholic denomination has already changed. This homily was specifically directed towards Roman Catholics and other conservative jurisdictions.
Modernists such as this priest also claim that Jesus silence regarding homosexuality actually speaks volumes. Does Jesus’ silence regarding the sin of homosexuality lend support to that lifestyle? Of Course not, no more than his silence on bestiality and pedophilia support those acts.
Does Jesus’ healing of the Centurion’s slave” indicate support of homosexuality as some claim, or support buying slaves for sexual gratification? We must avoid the temptation to read as facts things that are not presented into evidence.
It is virtually impossible to prove a point from silence, yet that is not stopping liberal Christians from using that argument in support of their emotion-based belief.
As I mentioned in another article yesterday (Christians and Pride), the revisionists on the left will not be satisfied until “every vestigial aspect of traditional moral values are expunged from society.”
No, Jesus did not affirm homosexual behavior as homosexual activists would like you to believe.
Just last year former President Jimmy Carter said: “I believe that Jesus would approve of gay marriage.” How should we, the Church of Christ respond to statements such as these? Carter’s proclamation was not presented in a vacuum, or as an isolated utterance. No, this thought process is rapidly becoming the new Mainstream face of “Christianity.”
As above, a primary tactic of the LGBTQwxyz activists and homo-heretics within the Church are using is to force the Church to abandon its teachings on homosexuality in light of science. The implication is that the “born that way” argument is somehow scientifically proven. It is not.
A scientist from the University of San Diego, back in the 90s attempted to prove the theory that there was a “gay gene.” He, in fact, announced that he had successfully isolated that gene.
The problem was that he was proven to be a fraud, but not before the lie had been spread and repeated so often that it became the truth — at least in the minds of homosexual activists.
Many such attempts have men made to prove that homosexuality may be linked to genetics. How should the church respond if sometime in the future such a claim is backed up by science?
Lusts of a sexual nature are not unique to homosexuality. Psychologists will tell you that we are all hardwired in our genetic code with sexual desires. It is how we respond to these desires that determine whether or not we entertain sin, or not.
God expects every human person to “flee from sin,” to avoid the “lusts of the flesh and the pride of life.” The problem comes when people insist that God created different sets of moral rules for people based upon some arbitrary sense of self.
It has been shown that some have a genetic predisposition to addiction. Should that make alcohol abuse or other addictive behaviors morally acceptable in our society?
Some people in our public debate are suggesting that sexual abuse of minors is intrinsically part of who some people are and should, therefore, be overlooked. Such an argument was made recently by Barbara Streisand in support of Michael Jackson’s sexual escapades with minor boys. Besides, those boys “grew up and live normal lives,” Streisand said. Her implication being; “no harm, no foul.”
Our culture cannot have it two ways. Either sex with children is wrong or it is not. We cannot claim that clergy abusing adolescent and other post-pubescent males are wrong while at the same time claiming some sort of “made that way” ideology in defense of homosexual pederasty. Wrong is wrong and sin is still sin.
Where do people get these ideas? They certainly are not to be found in either scripture or church tradition.
Once again, back in 2012, former president Jimmy Carter utilized the argument from silence when he said: “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things—he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.”
Contrary to what the former president has to say, Jesus did say that without him, the world is condemned already. The consistent teaching of scripture is the admonition to flee sin.
Not only is the argument from silence effectively employed, but many are also claiming that some of Jesus’ actions actually affirmed homosexual behavior. For example, they claim that Jesus, himself may have been a homosexual. Proponents of this theory use the example of the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” John.
The implication above is that Jesus and John were “romantically involved. Another claim is that the centurion who sought Jesus’ help to heal his servant in Matthew chapter eight was actually in a sexual relationship with that servant. Their primary evidence for this comes from the centurion’s use of the Greek word “pais” to describe the servant, which they say refers to a male lover. From this they conclude, “Jesus restores a gay relationship by a miracle of healing and then holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to follow.”
These arguments are feckless at best, and disingenuous to the core. Modern Biblical scholarship denies the inspiration of scripture, relegating our sacred texts to the genre of myth and legend, with no moral authority whatsoever.
When you deny the inspiration of biblical texts and deny holy tradition you can come up with any sort of error. Using similar logic some suggest that Jesus was actually married to Mary Magdalene.
Roman Catholic Apologist Trent Horn suggests that modern homosexual activists are presenting a “Counterfeit Christ” who would “never condemn homosexual behavior today. Trent Continued, they present that “He would instead affirm such behavior as part of healthy relationships that are morally equivalent to marital love between men and women.”
No, just as Jesus never condemned homosexual behavior, he never affirmed it either. The argument from silence fails using both scenarios.
By the time Jesus came onto the scene in the flesh, there was already a prohibition against homosexual acts in the Jewish Scriptures. As such being the case, there would not have been a need for an overt polemic against a subject for which there was no dissent or disagreement.
Throughout Jesus’ ministry, he showed love and compassion to everyone in spite of their sins. After all, without Christ, we are already judged.
Throughout Jesus’ ministry, he performed miraculous healings and wondrous deeds. In these healings, people found an invitation to further spiritual healing and even reconciliation with God. For example, when Jesus came to the aid of the woman caught in adultery, it was not so that she could return to her sinful ways, but so that she could repent of them. That’s why he said to her, “go and sin no more.” Similarly, Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan “woman at the well” was not a tacit endorsement of multiple marriages, but a call to recognize that her current situation was not “kosher.”
Many attempts are made with politically correct intentions to force out of context teachings from Scripture, in both Old, and New Testaments. Any and all so-called hidden pro-homosexual observations are similarly problematic.
We are all “wonderfully made” in the “image and likeness of God.” Unfortunately, in our fallen world, we often lose sight of our created order. Our fallenness often takes our mind away from the right focus on the divine. In the midst of the cacophony of mixed messages, it is increasingly difficult for Christians to attain an “Authentic Faith.”
How often do we mistake feelings for fact? Facts are without emotion; they could care less about how you feel or what you believe. This is a huge problem in our day. Many are relying on moral relativism to determine their theological understanding of morality.
Considering the modern reliance on moral relativism, pseudoscience, and faulty, new-age theology, I am rarely surprised by the arguments for a “gay-affirming” Jesus — these are usually arguments from silence — arguments based on what Jesus did not say. They claim, in so many words, (as the example by President Carter) that since Jesus never condemned homosexuality he must not have seen anything wrong with it.
But do we actually know everything that Jesus ever said? Jesus said many things that are not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25).
For example, when Paul was in Ephesus he spoke to the elders of the churches there, exhorting them to provide for the needs of the Church in Jerusalem. He then said to them, “In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
Even though Paul relates this saying of Jesus in a way that suggests it’s well known, nowhere is it recorded in the Gospels. This is one indication of how some of Jesus’ teachings were not written in the accounts of his life but were passed down through oral means (what Catholics call Sacred Tradition).
Since there is an unbroken tradition of Church Father’s and Apologists condemning same-sex behavior from the beginning of the Church’s history, we can safely conclude this tradition comes from Jesus and the apostles. Wouldn’t you consider it quite bizarre if Jesus approved of homosexual behavior only to have all his followers teach the opposite—including Paul, whom Jesus chose as an apostle and inspired to teach the church, but who clearly condemns homosexual behavior in his own writings?
Once again the argument from silence falls short.
Our moral teachings are not based upon some sort of homophobia in the early church but are consistent with the unified deposit of faith found in the ancient church and our Jewish roots.
No, this writing has not been presented as a condemnation of anyone, but to assist Christians of every flavor to understand a difficult subject. Mixed messages abound in our day and age. Often these contradictory teachings are coming from those within the Church itself — under the cover of authority.
In our day there are many wolves in shepherd’s clothing who are leading the flock to destruction. No, not everything that your pastor, priest, or bishop will tell you is from above — like my priest “friend” mentioned above. Scripture makes a clear distinction between love and approval. Yes, God is loving, but He also hates sin — all sin, not just sexual immorality.
Embracing modern politically correct theology is dangerous in that it denies great swaths of moral teachings regarding the subject of sin. In this approach, we are left without any source of moral authority. Using this process, each individual becomes the final arbiter of truth and moral certitude.
If you are basing your happiness, self-esteem or pride in your sexuality, you are in need of a change of focus. In Christ alone do we find the words of eternal life. His command is simple; “do the will of the Father.” Much of this can be summed up quite simply — love God and neighbor, as well as avoiding sin.
My brothers and sisters, it is important that we become wise, but not with the wisdom of this world. Yes, we must coexist within the world, but never to the extent that we embrace modern cultural norms.