The "Gaying" of the Evangelical Church: A Response to Kirsten Powers (Part 4 of 6)

Author: Andy Woods
Date Written: August 1, 2014
From the archive of thewordonpolitics.com

Recently, TV political commentator, columnist, and professing evangelical Christian Kirsten Powers offered a troubling and controversial perspective related to the issue of homosexuality and Christianity. Because her point of view seems to be representative of some within the evangelical movement and also seems to be gaining ground. See evidence of that in this article here, (accessed 22 July 2014). I decided to respond to it through a series of blog posts. In a recent USA Today column, while claiming to “hold a ‘high view’ of Scripture, meaning it is the final authority on all matters of faith and life,” Powers simultaneously endorses the homosexual relationships as long as they are committed and monogamous. Powers invites the church to reverse two thousand years of moral thinking on this issue when she writes, “The church has done this before on issues ranging from slavery to the solar system.” in her article here, (accessed 6 June 2014).

However, does the Bible really promote slavery and a geocentric solar system with the same clarity that it condemns homosexuality? As explained in a prior post, the bottom line is that, contrary to Powers' insinuation, the Bible nowhere clearly advocates either slavery or geocentricity. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Biblical prohibitions against homosexual relationships, even of the monogamous sort that Powers endorses, are crystal clear. The Bible condemns homosexuality from beginning to end. In our last post, we briefly surveyed what the Old Testament reveals concerning homosexuality. The New Testament is equally clear in its affirmation of heterosexual monogamy as the divine standard and in its condemnation of homosexuality. In this week's post, we will briefly note how heterosexual monogamy is clearly affirmed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Interestingly, in Matthew 19:3-6, Christ Himself appealed to the first two chapters of Genesis when He was questioned about marriage and divorce.

"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

In verse 4, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and in verse 5 He quoted Genesis 2:24. In so doing, Christ obviously affirmed the heterosexual standard announced by God at the very beginning. The support of Christ for heterosexual monogamous marriage is also evident in how He selected a wedding ceremony at Cana of Galilee to be the venue for His first public miracle of turning water into wine (John 2:1-11).   It is common to hear homosexual apologists claim that Christ nowhere condemned homosexuality. Although this is true, as argued above, He clearly affirmed heterosexuality and never homosexuality. Furthermore, this type of argument represents a logical fallacy known as an "argument from silence." Such fallacious reasoning occurs when it is falsely assumed that Christ's failure to speak against an issue represents His tacit approval of it. By way of analogy, just because Christ did not directly condemn spousal abuse, are we therefore to incorrectly assume that His failure to condemn spousal abuse represents His tacit approval of it? Such argumentation is nonsensical.  

Furthermore, Christ never claimed that His teaching was exhaustive or complete. In fact, in the Upper Room, He specifically explained to His disciples, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth..." (John 16:12-13). In other words, by His own admission, His incomplete teaching would have to be supplemented with what was revealed later through the Spirit-inspired epistles of His disciples. This reality explains why the Apostle Paul when giving commands sometimes states, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord..." (1 Cor. 7:12). Thus, Paul, while writing as an apostle, sometimes supplemented vacancies or omissions in Christ's teachings. In doing so, Paul spoke with the same divine authority that Christ spoke with (2 Thess. 3:14; 2 Tim. 3:16). Both the teachings of Christ and the writings of Paul need to be considered in harmony with one another in order to gain the comprehensive divine perspective. While Christ did not directly condemn homosexuality in His incomplete teachings, Paul, as will be shown in our next post, certainly did do so in the supplemental teachings that the Spirit gave him.  

In general, when it comes to Christ's condemnation of sin, liberals, like Kirsten Powers, love to point out Christ's love. They quickly note how Jesus failed to condemn the woman caught in adultery. However, while we all are grateful for God's grace, let's not forget the end of the paragraph or pericope (A pericope comprises a biblical paragraph or a literary unit) where Christ said, "Go. From now on sin no more" (John 8:11b). After healing the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus similarly said, "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you” (John 5:14). While God is love (1 John 4:8), He is also holy (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). Christ epitomizes both "grace and truth" (John 1:14). Therefore, Christ would be just as quick and clear in His condemnation of the sin of homosexuality as He would be in affirming His love for the homosexual. While liberals focus exclusively on the latter, an accurate portrait of Christ involves comprehending both the former and the latter.  

In addition to Jesus, as will be explained in next week's post, the Apostle Paul also held up heterosexual monogamy as the norm. Also, as we shall see, beyond merely promoting heterosexuality, divine condemnation of homosexuality is also evident in Paul's letters.

(To Be Continued)