home > articles > ethics > Did Jesus Preach A ‘Gay Gospel’?

DID JESUS PREACH ‘A GAY GOSPEL’?

I was recently asked for my opinion on an article appearing on a website promoting the compatibility of homosexuality with Christianity. The article is apparently an extract from a book by (Rev.) Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley called, “The Children Are Free”.

It’s very sad that some are seeking to twist Scripture to force it to say something that not only did not intend to say, but is actually making the exact opposite point. The Apostle Paul refers to this in Romans 1 where he says that some in wilful sin “became futile in their thinking” and in Galatians 1:7 that some of these people have deliberately “distorted” the Gospel. The linked article is a gross example of this. Before giving a direct response, two important points need to be made. The first is about the nature of God and how we reflect that nature. The second is how we read Scripture and how we convey that Scripture.

GOD’S NATURE

God is a kind, gracious, forgiving God. He is merciful and kind. And He is holy and just. He asserts His rights over us as our Creator who has not only made us, but has optimally designed us. We know however, that although we have been optimally designed, we have been partakers in the rebellion of Adam which has left us corrupted, marred, and depraved by sin. The Apostle wrote in Romans 1:21 that because of our fallen nature, our minds have been “darkened” and made “futile” (‘foolish’). For those of us whom God has saved, we have been granted a new heart, a new mind, and a new nature. There is nothing that we have done to earn this – therefore, none of us can boast that we are any better than those who have not yet received Christ (Eph. 2:8-9). Knowing this, and appreciating God’s nature, we are obliged to present God to our world in a way that best reflects this with a demeanour of humility. Sadly, Christians have not always been the best at presenting Christianity, especially to those in obvious sin. This particularly applies to how we interact with those people who identify themselves as homosexual.

The authors of the article has a grossly distorted view of God. While describing God as ‘tolerant’ sounds very nice and appealing, it is extremely misleading. It is precisely because God cannot tolerate sin that He sent His Son to die the cruelest death as the payment for sin. The fact that God has given “laws” reveals what He can and can not tolerate. There are obvious, plain and direct laws against homosexuality. As with any Old Covenant law, it is only when they are directly re-applied within the New Covenant that they are binding for today. This means that food laws, temple ceremonial laws, and Israel’s civil laws are not binding on anyone today. But the laws regarding sexual immorality as detailed in Leviticus 18 are indeed reapplied in the New Covenant (Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; Rom. 13:13; 1Cor. 6:9,18; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3, 5; 1Thess. 4:3; 1Tim. 1:10; Rev. 2:14).

¶ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (10) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
First Corinthians 6:9-10 (NET Version)

Those attempting to justify homosexual activity based on Scripture have a difficult task. This is why they must redefine words. One of those words is “nature”. Scripture never refers to individualised natures (“Your ‘nature’ is different to my ‘nature’ …”), rather it only refers to our common nature. That is, we all share the same nature – corrupted human nature. Thus, when Scriptures refer to people going against nature (what is natural) to commit such sins as homosexuality (Romans 1:27), homosexual activists want to redefine “nature” or “natural” to refer to an individual’s homosexual nature being denied and “exchanged” for “unnatural” heterosexual activity. This is a gross and blatant abuse of the Sacred Text since it attempts to make exactly the opposite point to the actual text.

It is also worth noting that Paul grounds these insights in a theology of God’s nature. The God who created is also the God who designed. He designed His image to be borne by Man (male and female). It is in the union of marriage that a man and a woman (who are biologically designed to integrate with each other sexually) also complement each other psychologically, emotionally, spiritually. The sexualising of a male with another male does not complement their gender, rather it exaggerates their gender and distorts the divinely decreed respective image of God invested in male and female. The act of sex has profoundly deep symbolic, theological, and spiritual implications that demands other rich symbols which are no less profound. This includes: a Covenant (relationship with God is only possible via a Covenant). In today’s parlance we refer to this as ‘marriage’; Exchange of names; Exchange of rings; Consummation of the Covenant (within marriage, this is sexual intimacy) to unite those who have formed the Covenant. Thus, sexual identity (and it’s distortion) is grounded profoundly in God’s nature.

Some dismiss Paul’s clear comments about homosexuality in Romans 1 by claiming that he is not addressing homosexuality, but is rather addressing pagan temple worship with male prostitutes. The problems with this interpretative speculation are many and immediately obvious. Paul has a wonderful gift of articulation. That is, he can say what he means very clearly. If he was suggesting that homosexuality was Biblically acceptable, he would say it – but he doesn’t (he says the opposite). If he was condemning pagan temple male-prostitution, rather than suggesting that human sinful rebellion leads to people violating their Divine design, then he would say that. But he doesn’t. And he consistently doesn’t. Neither do any of the other New Testament writers – despite what Miner and Connoley claim.

HOW WE READ THE BIBLE

The authors of the article assert that the Roman Centurion’s servant was actually his “boy lover”. He bases this almost entirely on a claim that the original Greek has been mistranslated for nearly 2,000 years. The plain reading of the text leaves the reader where all readers for the past two thousand years have been- that the Centurion is asking for Christ to heal his servant. But the activist commits a basic Hermeneutical error. Words in the Bible are not unequivocal (one meaning, despite the context), they are equivocal (subject to the context in which they are used). He could even be possibly forgiven if this was the error he was committing. But his error is actually far more devious than this. He has used the rhetorical trick of “if”. If we accept that blue actually means yellow, the sky must be yellow. This is what the article does. The particular Greek word which he applies this “if” to, is pais. Here is Dr James Strong’s definition of this word-

3816.  pais, paheece; perhaps from 3817; a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or (by analogy), a girl, and (genitive case) a child; specially, a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God): — child, maid(-en), (man) servant, son, young man.

There is no mention of the definition (“boy lover”) which the article asserts. This is because there is no biblical usage of this word which supports the article’s preposterous assertion. This does not mean that we dispute that pædophilia was practiced by the Romans. It was. But to claim that Jesus endorsed this is not only outrageous, it is blasphemous!

Jesus has stated in the Gospels that sexual immorality would be defiled from entering into eternal life (Matthew 15:9; Mk. 7:21) and Paul the Apostle, the main interpreter of Christ’s teachings in the New Testament, plainly states this in First Corinthians 6:9-10.

The article claims that the Centurion did not want Christ to come to his house because he was afraid his pædophilia would be exposed. But this is blatantly false. The Centurion understood authority and ascribed to Christ the highest authority. This is the point of the text – not what the article asserts.

Having built their entire premise on an “if”, the writers of the article then claim that Christ was endorsing this supposed paedophilic relationship – otherwise He wouldn’t have healed the servant. This is phenomenally bad exegesis as well as bad theology. In every case of Christ healing anybody, it was always an act of grace – not because they deserved it! And definitely not because He was endorsing their behaviour!

Christianity is about surrender to Christ. Utter surrender. We surrender our ‘desires’, our ‘inclinations’, and our bodies. For some people who sincerely want to follow Christ yet struggle with their sexual identity, this typically means a life of celibacy. For them, the cost-benefit-ratio is weighted toward honouring Christ rather than satisfying their desires because they understand that sexual expression is not merely physical, but is intrinsically spiritual and has a direct bearing on how they represent God’s image in them. For those battling with a same-gender sexual attraction who can not bring themselves to accept the distortions of the clear Biblical on sexual purity, such as those offered by “wouldjesusdiscriminate.com” and the book by Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley, there is no simplistic relief to their battle. And for these folk, it will be a battle. But it’s a battle worth having for the sake of conscience and integrity.

Dr. Andrew Corbett.
23rd May 2012