Letter Fourteen, August 1995
A Cousin Gives a Biblical Critique (#1/2)
August 08, 1995
Dear family member:
This is a response to the ongoing debate about the now canceled Uncles' Party. As somewhat of an outsider--my spouse is a stepchild of one of the family members--I am somewhat intrigued by this formal airing of dirty laundry; the exchange has even acquired a name, Point-Counterpoint. This letter is intended to be neither a point nor a counterpoint. Rather I offer some analytical observations about the ongoing debate. I will try to stick to a reverse chronological order; (in other words I will comment on the most recent letter first and work backwards.)
In his July 12 letter, Li'I Wes states that Aunt Priscilla's real concern is homosexuality not transmission of AIDS. This conclusion is based on Wes being welcomed at the party while Tom is not. Since every concern about AIDS transmission stated in Priscilla's June 29 letter applies equally to Li'l Wes who is welcome to come and Tom who is not, it is self-evident that transmission is not the concern. Quite obviously the concern is over the homosexual relationship. I would like to emphasize that analytically the concern is with the relationship not with anyone being gay. If homosexuality were the prevailing problem, neither Tom nor Li'l Wes would be welcome as was the case in the AIDS transmission issue. But Li'l Wes is welcome and Tom is not, therefore it can be reasonably inferred that their mutual presence, i.e. their relationship, is the problem. What makes this a problem?
I believe the answer lies in Aunt Priscilla's letter of June29. In this letter a number of references are made to protecting the children and "not exposing the children." Not exposing them to what? To a person who is gay? Of course not! Li'l Wes is welcome to be there in the presence of the children. Rather, Priscilla and others probably don't want children exposed to an openly gay person in a setting which suggests such a lifestyle is acceptable. (Moreover, it may be suggested that those opposed to Tom coming feel it is their God given duty to not expose their children to such a situation.) At any rate, I suspect that Li'I Wes shows the maturity and discrimination to not wear clothing that proclaim "lam gay and you should be too!", "10% is not enough; recruit, recruit, recruit!", etc. Thus, his presence should not be expected to raise the sexual orientation issue--at least not among the children. However, if Tom is there with Li'l Wes, curious children will naturally ask questions about the relationship that Tom and Wes share. I am assuming that Tom and Wes would show the good taste described in Wes' letters and refer all such questions to the parents. The parents would then be left to explain how it is that we accept the person and condemn the behavior. (Commonly known in religiousese as "Love the sinner. Hate the sin.") And I think there is no question that those opposed to Tom coming do condemn homosexual behavior.
The source of this condemnation is the Bible. While it may argued by some quarters that the Bible is not authoritative (because one's values are personal and not subject to imposition by others), there are two reasons to believe in this specific matter Its statements are final. First there is the attempt by Li'l Wes to distance himself and Tom from the nefarious North American Man Love Boy Association (NAMBLA). Wes suggests that NAMBLA is a bizarre fringe minority of the gay community. His comment infers that he agrees with Aunt Priscilla that these are "bad" people which is why he and Tom do not wish to be associated with them. However, if the rightness of his behavior is based on his autonomous right to determine what is right and wrong for himself, then it would be inconsistent and hypocritical for him to judge the pedophiles as bad; (after all they're just acting on their equally valid set of autonomous principles too.) One could then reason that based on such a claim to an autonomous right to determine right and wrong, he grants the same right to others and equally respects their determination. Given this, it would be fair to say that Tom and Li'l Wes condone pedophilia. Since this is not the case, one cannot conclude that they base their premise that homosexuality is good on moral relativism. Consequently, a transcendent source of guidance must be sought. Since all parties seem to draw authority from the Bible, we should be able to confidently employ this as the transcendent word and final authority. Moreover, Wes claims to be a Christian and therefore I think it is safe to say that he views the Scriptures as Truth applicable to all peoples at all times. This leaves us to examine what the Scriptures say.
My starting point in this quest for moral truth will be the references cited by Li'l Wes in his December 18, 1994 letter. I agree that these passages must be read in context as Wes states in his introduction to his interpretation. (All cites in this letter are from the New American Standard translation unless otherwise noted.)
Genesis 19:1-25
This passage is the rescue of Lot and his family from the well known destruction of the ancient cities, Sodom and Gomorrah. Li'l Wes refutes this as a basis for condemning homosexuality on three points. First, those who demanded Lot's guests did not seek to have sexual relations with them. Secondly, those who demanded Lot's guests were heterosexual not homosexual. And third, homosexuality was not the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
The claim that sexual relations is the wrong interpretation of the Hebrew word yadha is insupportable. Wes suggests the word could mean "have thorough knowledge of' or "examine the visitors' credentials". Neither of these interpretations fit the context. First, Lots response to them is "do not act wickedly." (v. 7). I have difficulty fathoming a scenario where either of the interpretations suggested by Wes would prompt such a plea. Lot further offers his daughters to them. (v. 8) The household of Lot (including his daughters) was sufficiently well known in the community for messengers to be sent to Lot's uncle for rescue when the city is overthrown by foreign kings. (Genesis 14:8-10). Lot and his family had lived in Sodom for at least thirteen years prior to Lot receiving the visitors. (see Genesis 16:1516 and 17:23-25) Moreover his daughters were already engaged to men of the city. (Genesis 19:14) Why then would the men of the city need to check out their credentials? They obviously wouldn't. The daughters were offered as substitutes for sexual fodder. Lot makes sure to remind the attackers that his daughters are virgins. (v. 8) This would only be relevant if the attackers were seeking sex. Thus the only contextually true interpretation is the one which recognizes that the men of the city sought to have homosexual relations with the visitors.
Li'l Wes implicitly argues that homosexuals weren't condemned, heterosexuals were. Therefore this passage must not be one which condemns homosexuality. This is terribly faulty analysis because it confuses a status with conduct. Wes is right in asserting that the men of the city had heterosexual interests. Why else would Lot think his virgin daughters would be more appealing to the neighbors? (Moreover, this reinforces the point made in verse 4 that the "people" surrounding Lot's home were men not women as Wes implies. Sadly, the cultures of the ancient Near East were terribly patriarchal and the women were not viewed as equals. Besides, Lot would not have offered his daughters to the neighborhood women unless he thought they were lesbians, right?) But the men of the city did seek same-gender sexual relations, i.e. homosexual relations. This is wicked according to Lot. So even if their status is heterosexual, their conduct is homosexual and wrong. (As part of this section, Wes suggests that Lot later got away with incest. Wes needs to re-read the passage found in Genesis 19:30-38. Lot's daughters committed incest with him after getting him drunk. While judgment was not immediate, commentators believe that the enmity the nations which descended from this sin would experience with Israel was perhaps God's way of punishing the sin.)
Finally, Li'l Wes points out that the cities were not destroyed because of the incident involving Lot nor homosexuality generally. Judgment had been rendered by God in chapter 18, and in chapter 13 we are told that the men of Sodom were wicked. Ezekiel also renders commentary on the matter which fails to specify homosexuality as the reason for the cities' destruction. (lEzekieIl6:455O) (Contrary to U'I Wes' claim however there are passages which implicitly connect Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction with homosexuality; this I will address later.) So Christians who condemn homosexuality on the basis of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are indeed badly mistaken. However, commentators who condemn homosexuality as sin on the basis of Lot's description that such an act is Wicked are correct.
In summation, the men of the city did seek homosexual relations with Lot's guests. This conduct is condemned in Scripture but was not the cause of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Li'l Wes claims these passages do not condemn homosexuality, they simply declare the practitioner ceremonially unclean. He further limits its application to male prostitution at pagan temples. Finally, he denies its usefulness to those who selectively choose this one rule from Holiness Code as being applicable today.
I assume that Li'l Wes did not intentionally leave out the rest of verse 13 of chapter 20 to mislead readers of his letter. For it is the second half of Leviticus 20:13 which provides the context for interpreting the word "detestable." The verse continues, "they shall surely be put to death." The matters which made one ceremonially unclean do not require the death penalty; primarily sexual sin and desecration of the sacred are the sins requiring capital punishment. (The latter category of offenders were often dealt with swiftly and surely by God himself. See Leviticus 10:1-3 and 2 Samuel 6:1-7.) I would be negligent if I did not point out that God views ALL sexual sin as detestable, not just homosexuality. Therefore those who wish to use these passages to condemn homosexuality must be prepared to accept the surrounding verses and condemn adultery, incest and bestiality. (w. 10-16) Moreover, cursing one's parents is a capital offense. (v.9)
As to male prostitution at pagan temples being the problem, Wes' own letter contradicts this assertion. He notes that this abominable act also was practiced at the temple (which was constructed several hundred years after the law was given) and also condemned by God. Therefore idolatry and pagan worship must not be the concern. Rather the same gender relationship was the issue. Wes claims that heart and attitude are what matter. (There is no love in sexual relations with prostitutes therefore those relations are bad but loving same gender sexual relations are good.) This flies in the face of the surrounding context. Adulterers can and often do love each other deeply--God condemns them to death. Persons who commit incest (defined here as occurring in the immediate family, cousins don't count) may love and care for each other; they are perhaps even committed to each other for life, after all they are united by blood as well as love--God condemns them to death.
Finally, Li'l Wes uses an "If you can sin, I can sin" argument. Simply put he suggests that the rampant violation of "hundreds" of rules (of which he cites eleven) by others justifies the breaking of the precept against homosexual relations. This is not logical. Just because some people cheat on taxes, others break the speed limit and some shoplift, doesn't make it all right for Ted Bundy to do the things he did. Each of us is accountable for our actions whatever they may be. Rather than saying others do wrong therefore it is permissible for me to wrong, it is more accurate to realize we all do wrong due to our fallen natures-that is why Christ had to come to save all of us, but I am getting ahead of myself. (Remember too that the penalty for violating those other rules was not death.) Also, there is some question as to the applicability of these regulations to us today.
I am not going to answer every rule but will offer these comments. First, the matter of shaving. In those days haircuts were a sign of allegiance to a particular god. Jehovah did not want Israel to worship any god but Himself, hence the rule. (One could probably safely apply this rule to gang haircuts today-we shouldn't use our hair to identify with gangs.) There may also be a pattern suggested by the "blending" rules. Deuteronomy adds that one should not yoke a ox and donkey together. (Deuteronomy 22:10) This coupled with the Paul's admonition to not be unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14) may suggest these passages foreshadow God's desire for His people to be separated from unbelievers. (This would be similar to the lay out of the tabernacle foreshadowing the means of Messiah's death.) A final possibility is that God means what He says and says what He means. In regard to this passage Henry's Concise Commentary states: "God's providence extends itself to the smallest affairs, and his precepts do so, that even in them we may be in the fear of the Lord, as we are under his eye and care. Yet the tendency of these laws, which seem little, is such, that being found among the things of God's law, they are to be accounted great things. If we would prove ourselves to be God's people, we must have respect to his will and to His glory, and not to the vain fashions of the world. Even in putting on our garments, as in eating or in drinking, all must be done with a serious regard to preserve our own and others' purity in heart and actions." (italics mine) Thus the points Wes raises in this regard should not be treated lightly. Nor however, may they be used to excuse homosexual relations.
The Law of God found in the Old Testament emphatically condemns homosexual relations as it does all sexual sins. Some may wish to argue that homosexuals are "born that way." Even if this were true--and such a belief is not conclusively supported by the research or God's nature--someone who engages in same gender sex is not immune from the Law of God. An analogous situation is that of alcoholics. There is much research which suggests that people are born with a predisposition to alcoholism. But this does not mean that drunkenness for them is all right. Nor does society to permit them to kill others with cars while they are intoxicated. More to the point, there is even research to suggest a genetic predisposition to adultery--this doesn't mean God excuses it, either. I must note that "being gay" is not condemned in the Old Testament, rather homosexual relations are--just as being drunk is condemned but thinking about a cold beer is not. (Also, lusting after another is not condemned in the Old Testament, but Christ says that even this is adulterous in Matthew 5:27-28.) Li'I Wes cites Christ and Paul as setting aside the Old Testament with the new Law of Love. But there was nothing new about the "Law of Love".
In the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of Mark (w. 28-33; see also Matthew 22:34-40) experts in Mosaic law (the law of the Old Testament previously discussed) asked Christ 'which was the greatest commandment. He answered: "The foremost is, 'Hear, 0 Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" The religious experts lauded him for answering correctly. They knew that the Law of Love is found in the Old Testament. First of all the answer Christ gave is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18 (which incidentally immediately precedes the passage about blending things). These passages are in the Old Testament. Moreover the Ten Commandments which are found in Exodus 20:1-17 are the practical embodiment of these two greatest commands. The first four of the Ten Commandments call for whole hearted devotion and love of God. (w. 1-11) The last six provide guidance for loving our fellow man. Each of the Ten are also affirmed by Christ in the Gospels. Wes even quotes Galatians 5:14 which states "the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Which Law is Paul writing about? The Law of the Old Testament of course because the New Testament did not yet exist. Consequently, a suggestion that Christ came and introduced a new Law of Love is poppycock.
But what about the tedious details of the Mosaic Law? Christ has this to say about the continued validity of the whole Old Testament: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;" (Matthew 5:17-19) Paul says that The Law was given to Israel to show God's standard--a standard that man in his flesh can never attain (see the second chapter of Romans, especially w. 17-29). Paul tells us we all fall short of this Law which is why Christ died-4o pay the penalty of sin required by a God who is all just as well as all loving. (Romans 3:23-26) And it is through the power of Christ's resurrection from the dead that we have the power through Him to lead a holy life, pleasing and acceptable to God. (Philippians 4:13) Because we are under Grace, salvation based on our sinful works is not the issue. Thus Christ says the Law stands but those who transgress may still attain eternal life-they will just be "least in the kingdom." Salvation under Grace is found only in faith in Christ. (John 3:16; John 14:6; and Ephesians 2:8-9) We are free from the curse of the Law. (Galatians 3:10-14) Does this give us license to do as we please? Paul says no! (Romans 6:1-22). Saving faith is that which submits our will as well as our eternal destiny to God-intellectual faith is insufficient. (James 2:19) And what is God's will? His moral Law as found in Scripture. Obeying this Law then does not save us; it does not have the power to do that. (Romans 8:3) Obeying God's moral law does however manifest the saving faith within us. (James 2:2~26)
Li'l claims that not only is the whole of the Old Testament Law dead, but whatever passages which may condemn homosexual relations are supplanted by new teaching by Paul.
Romans 1:24-27
Li'I Wes denies the applicability of this passage because the verses relate only to pagan homosexual prostitution and not to loving relationships of any orientation. Again Wes doesn't examine the full context. Verses 18-23 do condemn Gentiles for rejecting God who had revealed Himself to them through His creation. Part of this rejection does include idolatry (which by the way isn't limited to carved and sculpted figures in wood and metals). Verses 24-32 describe the results of the Gentiles guilt--sinful, destructive depravity. This depravity includes not only unnatural sexual relations but greed, murder, slander, gossip, and evil inventions. Certainly Wes would not suggest such sins were only practiced and condemned as a part of idol worship. Nor should he suggest homosexual relations were limited to those of male prostitutes. It would be grossly inconsistent. Rather, Paul described the litany of atrocities--including homosexual relations--that occur in a society when God allows man in the exercise of his freewill to reject God. It is only fair to note that Paul does describe the perpetrators of these vices as unloving. (v. 31) Is there something to the claim that loving homosexual relations are all right? I believe the answer is found in the other New Testament passage Wes cites.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Wes tries to debunk the notion that this passage condemns homosexuality. He tries two approaches. One is by trying different interpretations of the Greek words malakos and aresenoloitai. The first term is commonly translated in Bibles as effeminate. Wes suggests a number of alternate meanings, one of which is homosexual. This would be a redundant interpretation. Malakos cannot be rendered homosexual in this context because then the passage would read .... . homosexuals, nor homosexuals. shall inherit the kingdom of God." Besides the reference to effeminate is not crucial to this analysis. Remember, the focus is on the homosexual relationship. This is addressed by the second term, aresenoioitai. Li'l Wes concedes that the building blocks of this word are "bed" and "males". This certainly suggests that Paul was describing homosexual conduct. Li'l Wes returns to his male prostitution interpretation without giving any linguistic or contextual basis for doing this. The context again proves that the correct translation is homosexual. This is because among the other acts of unrighteousness Wes cites are fornication and adultery. This more likely suggests that Paul is reiterating the Old Testament teaching against sexual sin. The presence of these other sexual offenses also invalidates the suggestion that loving same gender sexual relations are approved by the New Testament. As mentioned previously, loving committed relationships may be a part of fornication and adultery but God in His Word nevertheless condemns the practitioners of them in very harsh language.
1 am not sure if Li'l Wes is suggesting that because those who condemn homosexual conduct practice the other vices listed in this passage, it is okay for him to practice homosexuality. In case such a suggestion is being made, I will reiterate what I said earlier. Scripture does not justify one person's wrong on the basis that someone else does wrong too. Each is individually answerable to God for his or her sins. Most people know two wrongs don't make a right.
Galatians 5:14
I am not sure what the purpose of Li'l Wes quoting this verse is since it is not accompanied by any analysis. if he is suggesting "love" in this context means sex, he is mistranslating the Greek term. The Greek word for love suggesting sex is ems; the term used here is agape which refers to the kind of love described in I Corinthians 13:1-13.)
Previous
letter | Next part of letter 
Letter index | Cast of
characters | Family tree
Wes & Tom's Cool Site
Guestbook!