« "Lock'em up and throw away the key..." | Main | An update... »

Un-Christian attitudes towards gays, cont...

Speaking of un-Christian attitudes toward gays...

Jimmy Swaggert (yes, he's still around...) had this to say recently:

I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.

(See analysis at Volokh here and here)

Well, I'm not sure Rev. Swaggert has any credibility anywhere among mainstream Christians, but the problem is his opinions are shared by many... Do his remarks even need a rebuttal? (I mean, any Christian who shares Swaggert's view isn't going to listen to what I or anyone else has to say anyway...)

I do have a pet peeve with people (in this situation and many others) who arbitrarily pick and choose random scriptures from the Bible for the purpose of either justifying their manmade doctrines and philosophies, or attempting to attack and discredit the Church instead.

Anyone who actually reads the Bible knows that there's a big difference between the laws of God in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. The majority of OT times is covered under the Law of Moses, the lower law which came about because the early Israelites were too hard-hearted and wicked to accept the higher law. The ultra-strict (and often violent) Law of Moses was purposely brutal and unforgiving, since the people had rejected the higher, more merciful law. You frequently read about the Israelites being commanded to kill the 'heathen' nations and people who didn't follow the Lord, but those who did follow the Lord but broke certain commandments received the same treatment as well. Sure, gays were put to death (see Lev. 20:13) but so were adulterers, those who mocked living prophets, even one poor guy whose sin was touching the Ark of the Covenant with his hand... Strict and unmerciful? Sure, but it was the only law the people of God could handle at the time.

Things changed, though--and this is what many critics and followers of Christ's church seem to forget. Jesus Christ in His mortal dispensation fulfilled the Law of Moses, and from that time forward (including the present day) we're under the new law--described by Christ himself. It's not 'eye for an eye' anymore, but instead 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies'. There is no scripture in the New Testament that advocates violence toward any 'sinner'--in fact, Christ's encounter with the woman taken in adultery is a direct repudiation of the Law of Moses' method of punishment...to anyone who's actually paying attention to the text.

Thus, people who use Old Testament scriptures to describe what present policies or doctrines should be are flat-out wrong: the Law of Moses doesn't apply anymore (do you see anyone creating altars and sacrificing sheep?), the "Law of Christ" does. And while this doesn't mean sins are no longer sins, it means that the way we treat fellow sinners should only be based on Christ's NT teachings, and any other interpretation is way off base...

September 22, 2004 in Current Affairs, Religion | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1156290

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Un-Christian attitudes towards gays, cont...:

Comments

Baron,
Great point. I fully agree with you. What I hesitate about, though, is that same reasoning could possibly squeeze out the importance we as Latter-day Saints put on any teaching in the Old Testament. How do we reconcile that? I mean, couldn't we say that most of the "doctrine" of the Old Testament doesn't apply anymore because Christ came?

Posted by: Rusty Clifton | Sep 23, 2004 10:41:30 PM

But that's exactly the point of modern revelation--the idea that some things DO change over time and new commandments and covenants can supercede old ones. We can't avoid it... Not all the Old Testament doctrine is out of date, of course, but much of it is, and we're supposed to study the scriptures prayerfully and say 'Is this still relevant today or has it been replaced by new doctrine from the New Testament or from modern-day prophets... It makes our job of reading scripture that much more difficult, but that's the way it is. People 'cherry-pick' scriptures out of context all the time, which is why no one really agrees on anything...

Posted by: The Baron | Sep 24, 2004 11:24:23 AM

I think you are correct that these fringe elements of Christianity speak for a much larger group of Christians when they focus on these hot button issues like homosexuality and adultery. That's why they are drawn to them. They would not get very far ranting about their more arcane and peculiar political and religious ideas.

Posted by: Rod Snyder | Sep 25, 2004 2:48:20 PM

These fringe element Christians are drawn to the hot button issues like homosexuality and abortion because they know they can draw a lot of the mainstream with them on these matters. Probably if you listed kindness, tolerance, gentleness, and forgiveness and asked any Christian if these are major tenets of the faith, he or she would reply in the affirmative.

I had a conversation recently with my Sunday School teacher who is teaching us about secular humanism and contrasting it with true Christian life. Afterward we talked about his new house in one of the most expensive sections of our city. I don't think the irony ever struck him.

Posted by: Rod Snyder | Sep 25, 2004 2:52:12 PM

Hmmm. Not completely sure the Rev. Swaggart's comments merit all this attention. Or any attention at all, for that matter. What a self-parody he has become!

Posted by: Lowell Brown | Sep 26, 2004 9:00:33 PM

I don't think Swaggert merits any attention at all either...if I didn't believe there are lots and lots of people out there who share his opinion. That's the scary part...

Posted by: The Baron | Sep 27, 2004 8:07:12 AM

Has anyone checked out the new film "Latter Days" that is now out on VHS/DVD? It's actually pretty good. I wrote a review for it that is posted at www.rottentomatoes.com. I felt that it was fair and realistic. Since the director is former LDS, it does come across as anti-Mormon to a degree but not overtly, at least to me.

Posted by: Andrew W. Griffin | Oct 1, 2004 10:44:23 AM

Post a comment