On Oct. 31, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas accused people who disagree with his opinion on homosexuality of worshiping “personal interest” and having “compromised the integrity of the scriptures to condone homosexuality.”
Unfortunately the eternal souls of those dealing with homosexuality are placed on the back burner to affirm or condemn their temporal sexuality. Most homosexuals understandably look at the church “battles” and think, “I want ‘none’ of that.”
But what some people find offensive is Thomas’ insistence on putting the souls of other people on the front burner — or any burner at all.
Earthly arguments convince them to walk way from the very house of Christ….
Not quite. Self-righteous and self-serving arguments by the political religious right cause some gay people to reject a Christian faith identification as patently immoral. What Thomas describes as “earthly arguments” are, in fact, discussions of faith, identity, relationships, history, and science.
Faith in Christ is a personal relationship not a social war. The “dialog” over homosexuality has essentially turned into the “art of one-ups-manship” and people will perish for the lack of saving knowledge in Christ. This is wrong and it must stop.
Thomas seems to lump together truce-oriented dialogue with a culture war that Exodus has escalated since 2001. This perception that dialogue turns into culture war may be a projection of Thomas’ own journey. Thomas abandoned dialogue-oriented efforts in the late 1990s, while still an ex-gay advocate in Texas, and then joined the Exodus staff.
Cycling through series of futile discussions, dialog and policy is not true fellowship and only provides stumbling blocks for seeking souls.
Thomas steadfastly declines to recognize that those who disagree with his political and moral opinions on homosexuality are just as sincere and well-founded, if not more so, in their commitment to morality and religious faith. Endeavoring to understand people who are different from oneself is not, by any means, a “futile” effort.
Instead of discussing faith-related differences of opinion with his foes within the Christian community, Thomas dismisses the discussion as untrue fellowship and a stumbling block to his evangelical intentions. But in nonpartisan evangelism, all parties recognize a need to understand God better; in Thomas’ style of evangelism, it would appear that he has the answers, regardless of his imagined foes’ questions.
If a group of people cannot agree on the character of God, His revelation through scripture and the issues of redemption from sin…why are we arguing theology with unbelievers?
In this message, and in his responses to some XGW readers in recent months, Thomas has declined to discuss his misstatements about the religious, moral and political beliefs of those whom he criticizes — and whom he implicitly threatens with damnation.
I regretfully observe that Thomas’ Oct. 31 message suggests a judgmental unbelief in grace, an insecure unbelief in fellowship with a Christian who disagrees with him, and a conformist unbelief in the essential disagreements (diversity) of any healthy faith community.
I respectfully direct the Exodus spokesman to the following writings of Christian blogger Allen Brill:
The Art of Interpretation, Brill’s history of biblical inerrancy
A bible passage about being in the dark when hating a sister or brother
A response to Albert Mohler’s bashing of progressive Christians
I also recommend “The Different Drum,” by M. Scott Peck. The book reflects on the disagreements that are implicit (and essential) in religious community-building.
(There are probably more recent books on the subject; suggestions welcome.)
I love Randy, but wow, I am offended by his portrayal of those who, like me, disagree with his beliefs. Indeed, I put the saving of souls on the front burner. But I believe that homosexuality is not a sin or anything that would put a person’s soul in jeopardy in any way. Has nothing to do with self interest and everything to do with what I believe is the truth. Frankly, I worry more for some religious-right souls than for those of loving, faithful GLBT people who, whether they are believers or not, seek to love and serve (those I consider) God’s children and foster kindness, peace, and respect for all people and the Earth.
Thomas should consider counselling.
What I find most interesting about the situation is the belief that “people will perish for the lack of saving knowledge in Christ.”. Is it me but why should I worship an omnipotent God who is willing to perish people for lack of saving knowledge in Christ. Does this seem just? Is it even moral to worship a god willing to perish people for lack of knowledge? Now I can see why religious wars get started.
What I wish is that Christianity would for once embrace new knowledge (in this case in the sexual realm) that causes the world and the way people view it to change. Instead there is a rush to scripture to justify the outgoing view of the world. In this case homosexuality is merely a sinful behavior and as such can be changed. In another era there were people quoting scripture mentioning the four corners of the earth to justify the view that the earth is flat and we all know the justification of slavery in the decedents of Ham. Christians don’t agree as to which books should be in the bible much less how the scriptures within them should be interrupted. Why should those who take a pro-gay stance be viewed as unbelievers
Amen, Jason.
There are a number of historical errors in Brill’s blog entry. He states that analogia fidei — Scripture interpretting Scripture — was a result of the rejection of modernity. The Westminster Confession of Faith, a 17th Century document, clearly has this in Chapter 1. He also lumps together creationism and inerrancy. The father of modern inerrancy, the early-20th Century Princeton Professor B.B. Warfield, believed that theistic evolution was compatible with Scripture. He believed, following Augustine, that all truth met at the top. Just because you believe that Scripture is inerrant does not mean you believe that it is exhaustive. Thus, truth may be found by other means. See my FAQ entry on inerrancy for soc.religion.christian here. A word to the wise: I wrote this in 1989. Be careful. Your words may last a LONG time on the Internet.
Since I referenced the Westminster Standards there is an interesting interpretation of the Ninth Commandment (Protestant ordering) that bears on this discussion. They noted based on Neh. 6 — I believe correctly — that the imputation of motives violates the prohibition of bearing false witness. So, if you are really are an inerrantist you will not act like Mr. Thomas is doing. The only way one can truly understand another’s motives — and even here it is imperfect — is to dialog with them.
I have culled out the soc.religion.christian moderator’s comments on my FAQ. Note particularly his concept of “direct applicability”.
[Thank you for the clarification. I’d like to add to your comment on “literal interpretation.” One of the reasons it tends to be misleading is that it has been used in so many different ways.
Here are some of them:
– to characterize an approach based on the meaning of the original author, as opposed to figurative or allegorical methods of interpretation. The latter methods are not very common now, but at various times in the history of the Church they were. In this sense, almost all modern interpretations are literal.
– to characterize interpretations of specific passages, as not based on metaphor, etc. E.g. when Jesus says “this is my body” the literal interpretation leads to the traditional Roman Catholic view of the Mass. I don’t know of anyone who takes the whole Scripture literally in this sense, or we’d have a very interesting time with John 10:7 “I am the door.”
– to characterize an acceptance of what Sripture is saying as being directly applicable to us, without making allowances for its alleged “mythological” character or for the alleged intermixing of revealed truth with ideas that the Biblical authors took from their culture. This is the primary issue in discussings Paul’s comments about homosexuality and the role of women. While it’s very closely related to inerrancy as discussed above, it isn’t precisely the same. “literal interpretation” is almost certainly the wrong term to use here, since the actual meaning of the text is not at issue. However in many cases inerrancy isn’t really the right term either, since the issue isn’t exactly errors. Rather the issue is the extent to which things said to people in Biblical times can be applied directly to us, or whether we need to adjust them due to cultural differences or other differences in perspective. I have sometimes referred to this as “direct applicability”.
–clh]
Actually, the meaning of the text is at issue for many noted theologians — and for others as well. This, in part, is why the conflict exists.
Natalie, I think you and Charles Hedrick are saying the same thing. Namely, are the practices forbidden by Paul analogous to modern monogamous homosexuality? If so, is there still a prohibition? You are talking about the first part and Charles the second. Furthermore, if the first part is shown then the second part follows. In the end, both argue that the prohibitions don’t apply while still affirming the text. The only difference is why.