[ Contents | Part I | Part II ]
|
Homosexuality and Death |
|
(JOHN RANKIN) Welcome to this edition of the Rankin File. This is your host, John Rankin, president of the Theological Education Institute in Hartford, Connecticut, otherwise known as the TEI. The TEI has two mottos: First the Gospel, Then Politics; and In the face of the increasingly bitter culture war between the religious and the political right, and between the religious and the political left, we who are Christians, or who claim to be Christians, are in a dangerous season. Are we making the situation worse by being caustic and self-righteous? Or are we living and articulating Christ-like answers? I believe it is time for a theological revolution, and there are five major components we need to know, live, and demonstrate. 1. The power to give The purpose of the Rankin File is to advance this theological revolution by taking these five components and addressing the issues that surround the culture war. With me is my associate, Steve Halquist, and together we thank you for joining us today. Steve, welcome, and could you please introduce our subject for this issue of the Rankin File. (STEVE HALQUIST) Thank you, John. Today's question is definitely part of a very volatile issue that we have heard in the culture wars. And it has been posed often, but it was posed to you directly by Dr. Mel White. The question is: If Leviticus says that homosexuality is wrong, shouldn't homosexuals also be put to death? What do you feel about that, John? (JOHN) Well, as you indicated Steve, Dr. White posed this question to me in May of 1994 in a radio interview. It was hosted in Buffalo on WDCX. I was in Hartford, and Dr. White was in Dallas. A little background. Dr. Mel White is a former ghost writer for the likes of Billy Graham, particularly Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. A former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, and in that role he was regarded in high esteem within the evangelical church. However, some years ago he left a marriage of twenty-four years, declared himself a homosexual man, moved in with a "lover", and now has written a book about being "gay and Christian" in the United States. And in the process, he is challenging evangelical and biblical Christians on the nature of homosexuality. And he is trying to say that homosexuality, according to his definition of terms, is an acceptable norm. And he tries to make that argument biblically as well. Currently, he is dean of a 12,000-member homosexual church in Dallas, Texas. This, we are told, is the largest such church in the country, and I'm sure in the world. So at any event, Dr. White and I were doing a radio show. And he posed this question, which he had posed before. He was saying, OK John, the Bible is the word of God. That we agree on. But we then have to ask ourselves this question: how do we interpret the word of God? If Leviticus 18:22 says that homosexuality is wrong, and Leviticus 20:13 says that homosexuals should be put to death, he said, John, do you take both of these passages, do you take one and not the other, the other and not the one? How do you discern this issue? Dr. White asked this question, he told me during that radio show, of a pastor in Seattle. And the pastor responded by saying, well, you know, it's not our duty as Christians to put homosexuals to death. Rather, it is the duty of the civil magistrates. So Dr. White said, oh, wonderful! In other words, what you're telling me is that you still want to see us put to death. This pastor could not answer, and Dr. White had the upper hand at that point. And clearly we can understand why. Because here he had taken the Bible, which we believe is the word of God, those of us who are believers, and he therefore accused this man of wanting to put him and people like him to death. So this is clearly one of the toughest questions that we will run into. And we have to ask ourselves, do we know how the Bible addresses this, do we have an answer that steers away from what appears to be an awful answer, the way this one pastor responded to Dr. White. And here I have two articles in front of me that show how deep this issue is. One article is of a really gutsy minister on the west coast, one whom I have crossed paths with, and one whom I respect very much. He was speaking about proclaiming God's agenda to protest that of homosexual activists. And he would go to gay pride parades, city hall, school board meetings, and so forth. And here's his quote: "In doing so I tell them like it is. Sodomy deserves capital punishment, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-32..." Now I'm miffed by this, because in Romans 1 it says nothing about capital punishment for homosexuals, and we'll address this as we continue. "...in precisely the same way murder does. Early American colonies like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, etc., rightly upheld this law of God, not simply against homosexuality, but against other very serious crimes as well, like kidnapping." Well, Puritan America did try to have an imposed theocracy. We'll look at this issue. And it's a point of interpretation I disagree with. But they never did uphold any capital punishment against homosexuality. So that's a misnomer there. "The issue is clear. The sodomite, the whore, are not 'gay'. They are dogs in the sight of God." He alludes to Deuteronomy 23:17. And what he's alluding to here is that in the Hebrew and the Greek, the word for male prostitute comes from the word "dog". Now this is interesting because the Hebrew was a biblical language by believers in the God of the Bible. The Greek word came from the pagan Greek background that didn't believe in the God of the Bible, yet they both chose the same word, "dog". The idea was a dog in heat without control, was the idea that was applied to male prostitutes. But what happens is, that's a metaphor. Here this minister says they are dogs in the sight of God. "They are neither happy nor healthy, but sick and miserable and abominable. They will be excluded from the kingdom of God. Nonetheless, God's mercy does extend to them as he wills, as with other sinners." Now, what is difficult for me here is that he is taking a view that the Bible clearly says that we are to put homosexuals to death. I am going to say this is clearly not what the Bible says. We've got to understand what Leviticus 20 is all about, the nature of a theocracy, and the nature of a democratic society we live in right now. And we will look at that very shortly. But the reason I read this is to show how there are wonderful, loving, godly people in the church of Jesus Christ, who are advocating this. Another article here is a story about some politically correct politics in the human rights commission in the city of San Francisco, dealing with AIDS policy. And let me quote this paragraph in the context of this article: "At this point you may be wondering just who serves on the board of the Human Rights Commission. Devout Christians need not apply. Last year, the Reverend Eugene Lumpkin, pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was kicked off the commission after being dogged by a three-month controversy. Lumpkin supported civil rights for homosexuals, his commission votes toed the PC [politically correct] line, and he ministered to people with AIDS." So here's a man who, like me, has no objections to civil rights of people who may also live as homosexuals. We will protect their civil rights as citizens, but as human beings, not as homosexuals. And we will delineate that as well. And he ministered to people with AIDS, which of course Catholic charities does and many evangelical churches. In fact, there was one story some years ago I read in a homosexual activist paper, that was complaining about all the evangelical churches ministering to AIDS victims, and taking away the power of homosexuals to minister to homosexuals. I thought, wasn't that interesting. They want us to minister, but not if we minister the life-changing power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So he toed the line, this Reverend Eugene Lumpkin, in San Francisco. Continuing: "His crime was believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Asked whether he believed in Biblical passages that decreed death by stoning for homosexuals [John interjects: there's only one passage], Lumpkin replied, 'That's what the book said.'" I don't know this gentleman. I can tell you that someone who's engaged in ministry like that, in the inner city, serving on that board, is someone who is seeking to apply the love of Jesus Christ to hurting, broken humanity. And therefore just by that testimony is clearly a man I would respect. But here's the difficulty with these two pastors. Namely, both of them think that that's what the book said, that we must put them to death. And so anyhow, Dr. White posed me this question. Let me sum up very briefly my answer, and then we can examine his response which is really quite remarkable. What I said was the following. I said, Mel, the most important thing we have to understand, is what is the nature of the theocracy in Leviticus chapter 20, or indeed the entire five books of Moses, well, between the giving of the ten commandments and the time when Joshua took them into Canaan. (STEVE) OK, what exactly is a theocracy? (JOHN) A theocracy is a word from the Latin. It means the rule of God. Or we could simply call it the kingdom of God. It's a place where God rules. In Israel, the nation Israel that was commissioned when Joshua took the tribes into Canaan, after the death of Moses, God was saying I will be your ruler. You will not be like the pagan nations. I'm your creator, and I have shown my love to you. I have taken you out of forced slavery in Egypt. I have shown you the power of God in miracles for your deliverance, the crossing of the Red Sea, the bread from heaven, the water from the rock, deliverance from the enemies, your sandals and your clothes did not wear out forty years in the wilderness. And now I bring you to the edge of Canaan. And what happened was, Moses gave them all the laws God gave them, the ten commandments, the other laws. And he said to them, choose life. Choose whether you want blessings or cursings. Joshua was more radical yet (this is the end of Joshua chapter 24, verses 14 and following ). He says, if it seems more desirable to you to serve the gods of the Egyptians or the Amorites, then choose for this day whom you shall serve. But as for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh. So what Joshua was saying at this point, as the conclusion of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. He was saying, look, God has shown you his love, has shown you what is good for you and what is bad for you. If you accept it then come into his theocracy, but obey his laws. Why? His laws are for life. Therefore, people were free to come into the theocracy and they were free to leave. In fact, a lot of people from Egypt followed the Israelites out and joined their nation. So he was saying, if you believe that what God has done for you is good, then you will know that among other things, homosexuality is something that leads to death. Now in the Old Testament we have a shadow of the substance that is fulfilled in Christ. So God is saying, look, here is the first theocracy. To be in this theocracy it's your choice. You're not forced into it. You can enter when you want, you can leave when you want. But if you stay here and you want to live as a homosexual, you are actually engaged in treasonous activity. And we understand that if you're in a democratic society today, you know the laws, you agree to citizenship, and then you act against the government, you are engaged in treason, which is what, a capital offense. So really, homosexuality among some other things was a treasonous offense. And what's interesting is, if the person disagreed with the law in Israel, could leave any time they want to, scot free. Now what's interesting, is if you look at the other nations surrounding them, the Caananite nations and so forth, they did not give this freedom of dissent to people within their midst. If you didn't agree to child sacrifice, your life could be on the line, if you tried to protest it, or even if you tried to leave. But whereas in Israel, all foreigners were welcome to come and given the same legal protection as the native born. The same laws applied to them. What I pointed out to Dr. White, is that the theocracy, God's rule in Israel, is the first of only two theocracies in human history. When the nation Israel went into Babylonian captivity, around 586 B.C., the theocracy died at that point. Because they had forfeited God's rule, they had disobeyed him many, many times, and so they went into Babylonian captivity, reaping the fruit of their choices. After that, there's been no theocracy. And the whole goal of God all the way through scripture, and this is rooted in Genesis, is to empower us to choose whether or not to believe in God. Unique in comparison to every other world view, is the fact that biblical faith does not impose itself upon us. And this is what I mean by the ethics of choice. Namely, in Genesis 2, God says Adam, you are free to explore an infinite variety of choices, but you must not disobey. If you disobey, then death will come. But see, what God was in the business of, was giving to Adam and Eve informed choice. This is life, this is death. Choose life. But since God's love is good, the nature of goodness does not force itself. The nature of goodness offers itself as a gift. And we are free to say yes or no. This is the radical nature of the ethics of choice. God loves us enough to let us say no. If you look at Satan through opposing world views, what Satan is doing, is he is forcing us to say yes to the deceit that Satan would have us believe in. So, this is the ethics of choice, the true positive definition of freedom in Genesis 2. No other world religion back to its origin text has a positive definition of freedom, they are all negative. Freedom from being violated, whereas Genesis has a freedom for creativity. So what happens is, sin comes in the world. God brings the ten commandments, the other laws of Israel, to be a hedge against the poison of sin. And then he gives to us, or those in the nation of Israel, the choice whether or not to follow his laws. They are free to say yes or no. Once you say yes, then you agree to the laws. Even after that, you can leave anytime you want to. So if you live as a homosexual there, you are acting treasonously. You are acting deliberately. You are acting purposely and in a patterned way. It's not just falling into sin and repenting. It's a purposed, patterned treason against the law of God. OK, after Israel went into apostasy, we now have a time when Jesus Christ comes, almost 600 years later. He fulfills all the promises of the Old Testament. And instead of having the law written on the outside of our character, it is now written on the inside of our heart. Which involves again human choice and response to God's love. Now, the whole trajectory, the angle, the goal of Christian faith from the time of Christ until the present, is to equip people with information to make the right choice. It is not to force or to impose. The only proper use of force in a biblical world view, is through government of those who consent to those who govern them. In other words, only Genesis in its ethics of choice has the basis for a democratic republic. When Jesus said let the weeds and the wheat grow up together, he is giving the ethical basis upon which the first amendment to the U.S. constitution is based. Namely, that we are free to believe what we want to believe without it being imposed upon us. But, the only world view there is that allows that freedom is biblical. You can not find it in Islam, you can not find it in Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, Animism, Mayan culture, Greek, Roman mythology, you name it. All those other world views are coercive in nature. Only Genesis, fulfilled uniquely in the person and work of Jesus Christ, gives that freedom. So, what the power of the biblical ethics that underscore our constitution are not a creedalistic faith, but the biblical ethics is, that if you abide by the laws of the land, you are free to believe in the religion of your choice. There will be no imposition upon you. So the only laws we have are laws we agree to, in civil assembly and redress of grievances, and so forth, such as laws against murder, laws against drunk driving, things that we agree with. But we don't have laws against belief unless the beliefs themselves are treasonous. So for example, if you want to say your religion is to kill all congressmen, well, that would not be an acceptable religion, because there are certain minimums that are required for law-abiding citizenry. Well here's the point that I'm aiming at. In the United States today we are not a theocracy. We have no calling to be a theocracy. There is no such thing as reconstructionism, where we would reconstruct a theocracy for this culture, because a theocracy is chosen. And the only other theocracy after Israel is the second coming of Jesus Christ. And in between now and the second coming of Jesus Christ, our duty as Christians is by love, by example, and by teaching, to persuade openly, honestly, and fairly people to choose faith in Jesus Christ. But the choice is there, it belongs to them. It is a gift God has given to them. And if we ever exercise any coerciveness against their choices, then we actually are hindering them from choosing God. Because if you make a bad choice and you do not know the fruits of it, you'll continue to make bad choices. And you won't reconcile yourself with God. So we need to love people enough to let them make right and wrong choices. So I laid this whole thing out with Mel White. And I said accordingly, I do not accept any Puritanical legal schemes that would actually write laws against homosexuality. And this may come as a surprise to many Christians. The reason being, is that on the biblical basis I have argued, I then come to a conclusion. That the best arrangement there is for human relationships, and the basis for family and community is faithful, heterosexual, monogamous marriage, chaste before marriage and faithful within. What we need is a legal structure that undergirds and strengthens that. Those then who choose to live outside of that, live outside of it on their own recognizance. So I would argue that no, we won't pay for lifestyle ills that come from sodomy, for example. And sodomy and drug abuse are the cornerstones of the AIDS crisis. And so what I would say at this point is if you want to live outside of marriage, we won't be punitive in a legal structure, but you won't have government support for it. We will say, deeper than creedalistic faith, we will say something at the basis of all human knowledge, that the way you structure a healthy society, is chastity before marriage and fidelity within heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Right now the tax structure is actually discriminating against marriage. So I laid this whole thing out to Dr. White. And his response to me.... Well, Steve, you've listened to the response, maybe you could tell us how he responded. (STEVE) Well, I think he was very generous in pointing out that that was definitely the approach we need to be taking, as being honest, open, and mostly, respectful. Of course the issue of all of us being possessors of the image of God is a critical point. And also it endears us to love each another in spite of the facts that we do have problems and sins that we carry. One question I have to ask, and this is in light of listening to Dr. White's responses.... He made a point that Jesus and none of the apostles made any kind of restriction against homosexuality as far as a monogamous, homosexual relationship. What do you have to say about that? (JOHN) Well, what Dr. White was trying to do, as others have said, is to argue from silence. They say that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Well, he also said nothing about child sacrifice, he said nothing about many things. He said, I have come to fulfill the law, not to get rid of it. So at this point there is a quality of being disingenuous. What happens is, if you say Jesus said nothing about it, the people go, oh wow, then it must be OK. So what he's ignored at this point is the fact that Jesus ratified, it's male and female from the beginning. And anything that breaks up marriage itself is opposing God. And Mel White himself divorced his wife of twenty-four years in order to move in with a homosexual lover, after he himself had some other homosexual relationships. What it is is an argument from silence, which is always dishonest unless it is put in full context, and really there is silence. But there is not silence on this issue. Rather, Jesus was addressing a certain positive structure. And everything he assumed was the basis of the Old Testament law, and that he was fulfilling it. It's interesting because what Dr. White also said, he said, John, if we could address this culture war issue on those terms, then he and homosexuals like him could sleep in peace at night without worrying about being killed. Now I think he's overplaying that considerably. Actually there is far more violence against Christians than there are against homosexuals in this, an under reported reality. But, there has been violence against homosexuals. We as Christians have to say a categorical "no" to that. These are people for whom Christ has come to save, and therefore we must show them love. So he agreed that we disagreed passionately. But, what he found in my statement was an offer of communication and something that would ratify his dignity as an image bearer of God, even though living a sinful lifestyle, and his political freedoms not to be harassed. I affirm all those because of the love of Christ. But, what was so interesting was he said on the air in this radio tape, which we have available for listeners if they are interested.... But I said to him on this tape that he, um, um.... I just lost my train of thought there, Steve. Oh, I know what it was. ....is that we would continue the conversation. He was very eager to do that. So I faxed him a letter, invited him to a public forum and have written him twice in the meantime. And in the next segment of the Rankin File we will talk about some of the subject matter of our debate. But I offered him several opportunities to continue the conversation. At the time of this taping he's been completely silent in response following. And I think the reason being was that he could not use an argument of silence from scripture to bring me to a point of silence in my opposition to homosexuality. [UPDATE: Mel White finally responded to me one year after our radio dialogue. He has called for a blue ribbon panel, in confidential assembly, to examine all the issues surrounding the homosexual debate. If this came to pass, we could dispel so many myths with a gracious and intelligent approach to the subject, and do the nation a great service. I hope Mel really means it. -- from John Rankin's letter to supporters, dated July 1995] I oppose homosexuality not because I oppose the people, but because homosexuality leads to death. In fact, that was our parting shot, the fact that 1 Corinthians 6 says that those who live as homosexuals are those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. And this is a very tough reality that Mel is going to have to deal with. So our challenge is to speak the truth in love. And here you have Dr. Mel White on a crusade, at the time of taping this show, across the country, you know, challenging Christians, challenging Falwell, Robertson, James Dobson and other people like that. And yet he could not challenge the biblical truth that I shared with him. So the key is that we must show that we love and respect them. The highest ethic in all of scripture is the love of one's enemies. While we were yet enemies, the book of Romans says that God sent his son to die for us. Therefore, we must show that self-giving love, that power to give love to these people's lives. They will either accept or reject it. But we must make sure we're involved in the power to give, not the power to take. Well, let me thank you for joining us for this segment of the Rankin File. In our next segment we will continue on this topic, of responding to the question Dr. Mel White gave us about putting homosexuals to death. We thank you for joining us, and Steve and I look forward to you on our next segment. And may God's richest blessings be yours. |