A couple of days ago one of my Facebook friends linked to an article by Adam Walker Cleaveland called, The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already. I would like to respond to this article, both it’s heart and it’s content. Obviously the title is rather shocking to the more conservative folks out there. The author starts by saying, “Unfortunately, if you came to this post hoping to see a detailed exegesis of texts like Leviticus 20.13 and Romans 1.26-27, then you will be disappointed.” These text both speak about homosexuality in a negative sense.

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. – Leviticus 20:13

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. – Romans 1:26-27

I think it would be erroneous to state that these texts support homosexual acts. The author links to two books, one who believes the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as sin, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality and one who does, The Bible and Homosexual Practice. But neither seem to be the point of this article, what is this authors real point is if you dismiss one author because of their view of scripture, then “enough with the Bible already.”

Cleaveland goes on to support his position of “enough with the Bible already.” I believe his concern is that as Christians we are using the Bible to discriminate against a whole class of people. This has been and continues to be a concern of mine. It wasn’t too long ago in American history where conservative Christians used their Bibles to condemn and discriminate against black people and  all women (even to this day). However, I think Cleaveland goes a little too far. He admits that he will be acused of going down a slippery slope, but that is merely a logical fallacy anyway. Rather, I believe he is committing his own logical fallacy, the “fallacy of slanting” or deliberately omitting, deemphasizing, or overemphasizing certain points to the exclusion of others in order to hide evidence that is important and relevant to the conclusion of the argument and that should be taken into account of in an argument. The reason I say this is because of a few key statements that Cleaveland makes, such as,

There are certainly plenty of books written that go into great detail concerning the very few texts in Scripture that deal with same-sex relations…. (his emphasis, not mine)

…these beliefs come from a very selective reading of a very small amount of texts from the Bible….

…Christians need to get over their infatuation with a very select few verses…

It seems to me that Cleaveland is demphasising these verses in favor of homosexuality. I think this is where he crosses the perverbial line. He’s right in many cases, if the Bible is causing you to believe that homosexual people are sub-human, or do not deserve the same rights as non-homosexual people, then perhaps your misreading the message of Christ. However, to claim that we should put aside our bibles if we believe homosexuality is wrong, is completely ignoring the evidence. I truly believe Cleaveland is swinging the pendelum to far… he has noticed an ongoing trend towards people (Christians) who hate Homosexuals and use the Bible to bash and condem them. His answer is to throw away the Bible, instead, I believe our answer should be to pray, seek the Lord’s wisdom, and consider these verses.

Do I think it should be illegal for homosexuals to marry? No, that is up to the state and its government. However, I do believe that homosexuality is sin. To be perfectly honest, the bible doesn’t really talk about the same topics very often. If we were to take Cleavelands view, there are tons of topics we could ignore because they are barely mentioned. For instance, Leviticus 18:23 reads, “Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” But there are so few verses in the Bible about having sex with animals, why can’t we safely ignore this one? Perhaps this is a better example, Exodus 22:22 reads, “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan.” Since this isn’t talked about very often, then we can do whatever we want to widows and orphans.

Do you understand my point? I would say the bible rarely speak about the same sins over and over again, their frequency shouldn’t determine how we interpret scripture. Gossip, slander, lying, etc. are all sins but how often do you see them mentioned in scripture? Probably as much as homosexuality is mentioned. The pure weight given to each of these, clearly mark them as “sinful” even homosexuality. Cleaveland ends by saying,

If it is the Bible that is causing us to delay accepting and celebrating LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender/transsexual] persons as being fully human and fully created in the image of God, just as they are, then perhaps we need to say, “Enough with the Bible already…”

What are you thoughts on this subject?

A long time ago I had a conversation with a close friend and pastor. We were discussing discipleship. Since then, I have encounter a number of people of who have been frustrated with their discipleship. One in particular, a pastor, has expressed deep frustration that his flock does not desire to follow. Thinking about all these issues and looking back at what Jesus did has really made me question what we call discipleship. Traditionally it seems like we spend much of our time, energy, and resources trying to make disciples out of people who do not really want to be disciples.

Consider these points:

• As far as we know, Jesus never tried to convince the Pharisees that he was their savior. He merely told them the truth and let them decide. When they rejected Jesus, he pointed out their hypocrisy.
• When people came to Jesus asking to follow him, he told them how hard it would be. Some of them left and he didn’t try to get them back. In fact, he expected them to leave and used it as a lesson.
• Nicodemus followed Jesus. He recognized Jesus by the life that Jesus lived, not because Jesus asked Nicodemus to join him or any sort of “cause”.
• Jesus never had any official discipleship programs, he spent a lot of time talking to potential disciples, walking with potential disciples, eating with potential disciples, and teaching potential disciples. Some of them continued to do these things with Jesus.
  

So what are we producing, if not disciples? Judging from many things I have seen and read over the past couple years, it seems like we a producing angry people. Angry because they feel like they’ve been deceived. Some of them have been promised a changed life, but instead were taught Christian doctrines and precepts. We’ve produced Apathetic people. Apathetic to the gospel, to the Church, and even to Jesus. We’ve produced people with false-security. These people went to all the classes, they attended all the services, and followed all the rules, little do they know that these actions won’t save them. There are probably other types of people that we have produced but I think Jesus had a phrase that best sums up these false-disciples, “White Washed Tombs”. On the outside, they look brilliant, pure, and white… but on the inside, they are filled with death.

Who are our disciples? Our disciples are the people who truly follow us… and hopefully watch us truly follow Jesus. Jesus did not force people to follow him, he did not even try to prevent people from leaving him, his disciples were those who recognized him as savior and could do nothing but follow. Basically, Jesus shared his life with everyone, those who shared it back were his disciples.

After moving to North Carolina I began working for a Christian institution, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Truth be told, I enjoyed this job a lot! Why? I wish I could say that there was a lack of politics (like you see in the nonChristian world), but that would not be true. I wish I could say because they paid us what we were “worth” in the real world, but that would not be true. What made me enjoy this job so much was because of the men who I directly (and indirectly) worked with. I sat in a room with men who not only challenged me but loved to discuss, debate, and learn about new and important things. At least, they were new and important to us :).

When I made the decision to not pursue my Masters of Divinity, I had to find alternate employment. As many of my readers know, I went secular (employment wise). I worked for IBM for about a year before moving to Dublin where I started working for a small Network Consulting company called Alterra Networks. When my wife and I decided to pursue our dream of her finishing her degree we had to look at schools in the area. I then landed a job at Athens, which I started working at in the beginning of August. So far I have really enjoyed this job, I have my own office, a nice desk, two big monitors, etc., etc. I also really like the people – they are all very nice and accommodating.

But there is a problem. In fact, there has been a problem ever since I started working in the secular world. The problem is: they all know that I am a Christian, one who went to a conservative school. What does this mean? I means that they often censor themselves and when their internal censoring fails they often apologize. I hate this. I know they are being nice, because they don’t want to offend me. But I don’t understand where this comes from. I haven’t asked them not to say “Fuck”, “Jesus”, “Hell” or any other words. I don’t expect them to change who they are because I have entered the room. I don’t think it is even appropriate for people to change because of me… they should only change because of Jesus.

So this is my plan, whenever someone “apologizes” or I sense they are censoring themselves, I will take them aside and tell them, “I don’t mind if you do whatever it is that you do in front of me. I don’t expect you to censor yourself just because I entered the room. In fact, I’d prefer it if you didn’t. I want to get to know you – not the censored version of you.”

As I think about this, I wonder, how often do we (Christians) censor ourselves in front of our brothers and sisters? Is it appropriate to do so? How does this affect the community of believers?

Gosh, I want to write about the crappy words we use every frickin’ day. But I’m not really sure if you darn people will appreciate the friggin point. I mean, gee whiz, there are so many Christians who are so loose with the words they use. Shucks, some of y’all even use words straight from h-e-double-hockey-sticks. Before I was saved I cursed like a dang sailor. But after being saved I felt like curse-words didn’t glorify God, so I stopped using them. Heck, it was an outright witnessing tool – all of my friends knew that I stopped swearing, and thus Jesus had obviously changed my heart.

Golly, I hope I don’t step on any of y’alls toes, but it’s just been on my blasted heart lately.

I recently had my 28th birthday. I received some money and decided to spend it at Amazon.com. I bought The Ultimate Hitchiker’s Guide (Leather Bound Edition). It looks remarkably like a Bible.

I was sitting around with some friends and family and told them of my new purchase. Joking, I said I was going to bring it to “church” with me and read it during the sermon, so I won’t be bored. Then something happened, a number of people said, “that’s what I do.”

What they meant was, they *usually* open their Bibles during the Sunday sermon and start reading. Some of them said they will read a completely different book/chapter/verse, some said they read the same book/chapter/verse but still ignore/half-listening to what the speaker is saying. To be honest, I do this regularly. Most of the time, though, I read the same book/chapter/verse, but read it in context and then wonder how in the world Joe Blow got his point from that text. Anyways, the impression I got was, that these people generally don’t get anything from the teaching part of the Sunday service, so my question is, why go?

If y’all remember, the last time I taught, during a Sunday service, I was told that I went above the heads of most people in the audience. Apparently it was frowned upon to teach the “meat”. What was funniest is that I had a number of people come up to me and tell me what a great job I did and how much they learned. One lady even showed me a full sheet of notes that she took. By the way, the majority of these people were in the same demographic that I was told wouldn’t understand what I said. I wonder, at what point did we all become stupid? Was it when we walked into the building? Or is it the fact that the teacher is just smarter than everyone else?

In a more recent conversation, a close friend of mine was explaining why she doesn’t go on Sunday mornings. Her complaint, “I just sit there and don’t learn anything new”. I agree. How many times can you be told what the Bible says? I know what the Bible says. For the most part, even when I don’t know what the Bible says, I still know what God would say about a certain topic. This same girl decided that she has better things to do with her time than sit around listening to some guy feed her milk. So she asked herself, “Why Go?” and stopped going.

As far as I can tell, the best answer to “Why Go?” is that these buildings are full of other believers on Sunday mornings. So it is the best possible place to meet other believers. The problem is, most of these meetings are sit-n-go’s. We all sit, listen, and go – fellowship only exists in hand-shakes and smiles.

Why do you go?