Mennonite World Review

Comments

• Ron, thank you for the thoughts of truth in your letter to MWR on this subject. Your Bible references are right on. It is sad that clear Bible teaching on this is so easily ignored by the highly educated religious leaders.

  It is better to be divided by truth than be united in error.

  - Dale Welty (dec 9 at 11:09 p.m.)

• Ron, please be honest with us and yourself and admit that equating sexual immorality with homosexual behavior is your interpretation of the text. The passages you cite do not explicitly refer to homosexuality.

  Further, you seriously misquote Jesus in your reference to Matthew 22:36-40. That passage does not say that the greatest commandment is to love Jesus. It says that the greatest commandment is to love God. To replace God with Jesus in this context is a distortion of the verse's clear and plain meaning.

  I find it curious that those who claim to be ardent defenders of the bible's authority are often the most guilty of reading meaning into the text that just isn't there.

  - Charlie Kraybill, Bronx, NYC (dec 10 at 1:04 a.m.)

• Charlie, you are correct that the word homosexual in not in the KJV. Neither are the words pregnant, pacifist, anabaptist, healthcare and abortion. What does that prove?

  As I recall, you stated in the past that Jesus is 100% human and 0% divine. Based on that comment, I do not see you as qualified to question Ron on his Matt 22:36-40 comment. Jesus said I and the Father are one. Jesus was God in the flesh. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15. It's in The Book, but you may have omitted these verses in your condensed version.

  - Dale Welty (dec 12 at 12:57 p.m.)

• Dale, I hear you saying that it's OK to refer to Jesus and God interchangeably throughout the bible. Please correct me if I'm not understanding you on that point.

  If you think it's accurate to read Matthew 22:36-40 as saying that the greatest commandment is to love Jesus with all your heart (even though the text clearly says love God with all your heart), then I would encourage you to test that method of interpretation on other passages where Jesus refers to God. For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, you would have Jesus praying to himself. And on the cross you would have Jesus saying something along the lines of: "Self, Self, why have you forsaken me?"

  - Charlie Kraybill, Bronx, NYC (dec 12 at 1:11 p.m.)

• When Mary became pregnant, that which was in her womb was conceived of the Holy Ghost of God. Because of God’s love for us, Jesus came to earth in the flesh to die on the cross.
  

  From the time of conception in the womb of Mary, he was God in the flesh. He was 100% human and 100% divine. While Jesus had a human body, He could not sin because he had a divine nature. Jesus is eternal whereas we humans are created beings. Therefore, we have the ability to choose between good and evil. Because of his divine nature, He could not be deceived as a created being.
  

  While He was God in the flesh, He accepted the physical limitations of being in a human body. He became tired and hungry. He had to walk from place to place. He fell asleep in a boat going across the Sea of Galilee. During His time in a human body, Jesus displayed His divinity by performing many miracles, walking on water, raising dead people to life.

  Jesus voluntarily separated Himself from the Heavenly benefits to limit Himself to an earthly human body, a body with blood that was to hang on the cross and die for our sins. Philippians 2:6 says it plainly.

  Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane and His words on the cross are understandable from a spiritual perspective. Jesus, the sinless one, became sin for us. He would be burdened with the past, present and future sins of the whole world. Jesus died so that we may have eternal life. Jesus came to earth in the dark, so that we may live in light. Jesus became poor so that we may become rich. Jesus came to earth so that we may go to Heaven

  Lastly, are you still concerned that the word homosexual is not found in the KJV? I found the word in five other more current translations. Now you know.

  - Dale Welty (dec 12 at 3:16 p.m.)

• Dale, could you share which five translations use the word "homsexual"

  - Justin (dec 12 at 3:30 p.m.)

• My statement should have read five verses with the word "homosexual". The two translations are New Living translation and GODS WORD translation.
  

  - Dale Welty (dec 12 at 7:27 p.m.)

• Dale, I find it interesting that you're willing to spiritualize passages that you cannot explain according to the literal, plain meaning of their words. Yet when liberals suggest that portions of the bible should be understood spiritually, or allegorically, you take it as evidence of their backslidden condition.

  In response to your assertion that Jesus could not sin because he was divine, I offer a couple instances that I believe argue to the contrary.

  Mark 10:18: "Jesus said: Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Does this verse lend itself to an interpretation allowing that Jesus was God in the flesh?

  Dale, according to your rule of interpretation (references to Jesus and God are interchangeable), this verse could be rendered: "Jesus said: Why do you call me good? No one is good but me alone."

  Does that make any sense?

  I also offer the following for your consideration:

  Matthew 5:22: Jesus said: "If you say, 'You Fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire." Contrast this with Matthew 23:17: Jesus said: "You blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that made the gold sacred?"

  Did Jesus sin by calling someone a fool, or not?

  Finally, Dale, I didn't say the word homosexual is not found in any bible, as you assert at the end of your comment. All I pointed out was that the verses Ron Stucky cited (Mark 7:21 and Matthew 15:19) talk about "sexual immorality." They do not explicitly refer to homosexuality. Turning those verses into condemnations of homosexuality is Stucky's interpretation, based on Stucky's prejudices.

  - Charlie Kraybill, Bronx, NYC (dec 12 at 7:47 p.m.)

• Justin, here are the five verses.

  Leviticus 18:22“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

  Leviticus 20:13“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

  1 Corinthians 6:9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

  1Timothy 1:10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching

  Jude 1:7What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.

  - Dale Welty (dec 12 at 7:51 p.m.)

• There's a really nifty tool on the web (www.biblegateway.com) where you can choose your version and search for words or phrases. Here's what I found when I searched for the dreaded "H" word:

  American Standard Version – 0 Common English Bible – 0 Contemporary English Version – 0 Darby Translation – 0 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition – 0 Easy to Read Version – 0 God’s Word Translation – 0 Good News Translation – 0 Holman Christian Version – 0 JB Phillips New Testament – 0 King James Version – 0 Lexham English Bible – 0 The Message - 0 New American Standard Bible – 0 New Century Version – 0 New International Reader’s Version - 0 New International Version 1984 – 0 New International Version UK – 0 New King James Version – 0 New Life Version - 0 21st Century King James Version – 0 Worldwide English – 0 Wycliffe Bible – 0 Young’s Literal Translation - 0

  Amplified Bible – 1 (1 Cor 6:9) English Standard Version – 2 (1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) English Standard Version Anglicized – 2 (1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) New International Version – 1 (1 Tim 1:10) New Living Translation – 4 (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) Today’s New International Version – 1 (1 Tim 1:10)

  So, out of 30 versions, a grand total of six mention "homosexuality," and they're not consistent in which verses they mention. Riddle me that.

  - Debra Bender (dec 12 at 10:02 p.m.)

• Charlie, you accuse Stucky of being prejudiced. Stucky is Biblical. You look high and low for loop holes in scripture that support your culturally adjusted flawed theology. Sexual immorality includes homosexually, adultery and fornication in action and thought as Jesus teaches.

  You have a long record of attacking the truth of the scriptures. In your opinion, there are many myths in the scriptures plus the writings of Paul should be avoided in seminaries. You enjoy slicing and dicing the scriptures that do nothing but promote doubt. You are not what Paul had in mind as written in 2Tim 2:15. In that verse, Paul speaks about serious study that produces a person skilled in the use of scriptures in ministry for the glory of God.

  Jesus did not sin one time as a child, youngster, teenager or young adult in action or thought. Nothing perfect can ever become imperfect. Jesus was the perfect sinless sacrificial Lamb of God. Jesus came to earth on his assignment to die and he left his calling card in his three year ministry in word and in many miracles. He was successful in his assignment.

  Coming back to the word homosexual, while that word in not in the KJV, the meaning is clearly stated in many OT and NT scriptures for those who are looking for truth. Your arguments are with the God of the Bible and not me.

  - Dale Welty (dec 12 at 10:06 p.m.)

• Debra, What is your point? Be specific. I am not skilled in reading women's minds. I am a frequent user of BibleGateWay.

  - Dale Welty (dec 12 at 10:36 p.m.)

• Okay. I looked up the word "gossip" in 30 different English versions of the Bible. This sin is mentioned in 22 out of 30 versions, and a couple of versions list as many as 14 different verses. It's pretty simple. On the list of bad things, "gossip" must be a much worse sin since it's mentioned a lot more often than "homosexuality." Or, remember the story about the blind men and the elephant? You can "make" the Bible say whatever you want. That's all. Not so hard to understand, now is it?

  - Debra Bender (dec 13 at 1:28 a.m.)

• Debra,

  Gossip is indeed a sin as the Bible states, but our subject is homosexuality.

  God destroyed two cities because of homosexual wickedness but God never destroyed two cities because of gossip?
  

  In Genesis 19, we read the men of Sodom wanted to rape the two visitors from Heaven who appeared as men. Their evil intents were rewarded with blindness. Even after they were blinded, they continued to try and locate the door of Lot's house. They were not blind long, because, the next day, God destroyed the city with fire and brimstone after the two visitors from Heaven led Lot, his wife, two daughters out of the city.

  Let me know what your various Bible versions on this related homosexual subject.

  Lastly, please give me your definition of the word 'homosexual'.

  Charlie,

  In the last paragraph of your dec 12 7:47p.m. post to me, you use the term 'sexual immorality'. Please list all sins you include in that term?

  Debra and Charlie,

  In Mat 7:13-14, the words of Jesus in the NIV read as follows; “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Please give me your opinion of what Jesus meant to convey to us in these two verses.

  - Dale Welty (dec 13 at 11:19 a.m.)

• Dale, Tell me about the difference between the term "homosexuality" and malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi means “effeminate,” “weak,” or “soft” and is the word used of “call-boys” whom older men (arsenokoitai) took to bed. "Homosexuality" is a term from the so-called "soft sciences" I heard about in a previous thread. The other two words are from the Greek translation of 1 Corn. 6:9. In this case, at least, Paul is condemning Coach Sandusky from Penn State, not those in a covenanted relationship of equal consent and love. At least that's what reading the Bible literally brings to the table.

  - Keith H. (dec 14 at 12:05 a.m.)

• Keith, why is defining homosexuality so difficult for you and others?
  

  Are you suggesting that the citizens of Sodom were not in any covenanted relationship of equal consent and love?

  What does your Bible say about sexual relations with an individual of the same sex?

  If, as you say, Paul comdemns Coach Sandusky, do you also say Paul would condemn the various Roman Catholic priests of the same sexual abuse on altar boys?

  - Dale Welty (dec 14 at 1:30 p.m.)

• Dale, the Sodom story is obviously mythical. God (who is always Merciful and Compassionate) has never been in the business of destroying cities because of some perception that its inhabitants are more ill-behaved than those of any other city. Think of all the innocent women, men and children who would have died were the Sodom story true. God does not indiscriminately kill innocent people.

  Further, the Sodom story cannot be used as a critique of homosexuality. As modern people, we have higher moral senses and more advanced knowledge than did the biblical writers.

  No civilized person today would make a case that human slavery is morally acceptable, yet the biblical writers did it continuously over the centuries. No civilized person today would make a case that mental illness is caused by demonic possession, yet the biblical writers did it all the time.

  Similarly, we know today, as modern and enlightened persons, that being gay is not a choice, nor is it sinful, nor is it something to be ashamed of. We know that God created us gay, straight and/or bisexual. And God loves all of us the same.

  Thus, any biblical text which would seem to say anything to the contrary is simply unreliable and lacking in authority. It's fine to consider such texts for their historical interest, but not as guidelines for living in today's world.

  When the institutional church (including the Mennonite church) condemns and/or excludes gay persons, they are sinning against God. And the church will one day repent of it. Just as the church has had to repent for supporting slavery and mistreating the mentally ill. ("The bible made me do it" is not an adequate defense.)

  This perspective is reached by applying our God-given brains and common sense to the issue. It's why God gave us rational faculties and intellectual capabilities -- to figure stuff out.

  Further, this perspective does not represent a low view of scripture. It expresses an accurate view of scripture. And an accurate view of scripture is the highest view of scripture possible.

  - Charlie Kraybill, Bronx, NYC (dec 14 at 2:35 p.m.)

• Dale, Answers to your questions:

  Finding distinct definitions of specific words is important because it is the basis of all language. There is an important difference between "homosexual" and "sexual predator". Though I would hope you know this, from your examples, this is not clear.

  This is most definitely the case of Sodom. They wanted to rape Lott's daughters, did they not? Hardly a relationship of equal consent and love.

  The Bible is not so clear cut about sexual relationships, mainly putting love, trust, and respect above all else.
  

  Paul's warnings most definitely implicate Coach Sandusky, those Roman Catholic priests, and others (men or women) who have abused boys and/or girls. Sexual abuse is not gender limited. These are all the same thing. However, none of these are coveted, loving, or consensual relationships.

  - JPR (dec 14 at 2:58 p.m.)

• Last sentence: committed, not coveted.
  

  - JPR (dec 14 at 5:22 p.m.)

• JPR, the men of Sodom wanted to rape the two visitors from Heaven. Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the men of Sodom, hoping they would accept them and leave the Heavenly guests alone. In the end, they got neither, only blindness and ultimately death.

  I agree with everything else you say except the last paragraph. The Bible teaches sexual love must stay within the gender and in a marriage relationship, otherwise it is fornication or adultery. Sexual intimacy between genders is pseudo love that originates with Satan.
  

  Jesus confirmed marriage as between a man and a woman. From God's perspective, they are one flesh until death. From the words of Jesus, we can readily determine what marriage is and what marriage is not, without going into great detail of other people’s flawed opinions. One flesh does not and cannot occur in a same sex relationship.

  Charlie, I have decided I will not waste my time responding to individuals like you who frequently say the Bible contains many myths, therefore is unreliable. I have repeatedly confronted you on the related dangers of your careless theology and have sounded warnings. I gave you the words of Jesus in my dec 13 11:19 a.m. post regarding the narrow and broad way. Do you also consider these words of Jesus mythical? I ask for your opinion. You ignored it and instead went on another of your bunny trail rants.

  Another word of warning from Jesus is in Mat 7:21-23. There he compares the wise man who built his house on the rock and the foolish man who built his house on the sand.
  

  In your case, I am reminded of the following words of Paul to Titus 3:9-11 as stated in the NIV, “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.”
  I believe repeated rejection of truth and warnings in the Bible will result in a heart that is increasingly hardened that can no longer respond to the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit of God.

  Charlie, I have deep spiritual concern for your soul. I strongly disagree with what you say, but I have no personal illwill against you.

  - Dale Welty (dec 14 at 6:10 p.m.)

• Dale,

  Sorry for the slight confusion about Sodom, but the point is the same. These men would have been no better had they raped Lot's daughters than the two angels, would they? Rape is rape, and what one does to the least of these...

  On that note, surely you are not really in disagreement with the final paragraph of my previous posting, are you? I make no claim there other than that no form of sexual victimization is appropriate, regardless of the genders of perpetrator or victim. I am convinced your disagreement lies elsewhere, but I do not want anyone who might be reading this to draw wrong conclusions.

  Now, you mention Jesus' stance on marriage. I assume you are referencing Matthew 19? The passage is certainly no clear cut condemnation of homosexuality. It affirms that marriage is to be about love, trust, and forgiveness. But particularly as one reads verse 11, the waters become a quite muddy indeed. I see nothing to condemn loving, committed, consensual relationships of any kind.

  I am also uncertain of Satan's role in all of this. Satan is focused on raising fires of hatred, of discord, no? If this is the case, then it seems that creating love and harmony would be against Satan's nature. I mean, is humankind so adept at perpetuating malice, hatred, and suffering that Satan had to reinvent himself to keep employment in this economy? What is the scriptural basis for this, that Satan would create love?

  Look, Dale. I am very much in love with my wife, very happy and blessed. I know I decided at some point that she was the right woman for me, but I can remember decision that I would be attracted to women. That just came naturally. Viewing gay and lesbian colleagues and friends of mine, it is impossible to believe that they are homosexual by choice--most made plenty of effort to hide it and be "normal". I just cannot in good conscience deny them the happiness, love, and blessing that I feel with my wife.

  - JPR (dec 14 at 10:50 p.m.)

• Final Paragraph: Should be "...but I cannot remember any decision that I would be attracted to women."

  Typos galore.
  

  - JPR (dec 15 at 12:05 a.m.)

• Dale, thanks for your concern. I'm concerned about you too. Sorry you've decided to not communicate with me anymore. But that's OK. I think we'll both manage. I'll be praying for you. Praying that God will give you an amazing, over-the-top experience, an experience that neither you nor I can possibly imagine at this moment, an experience that will allow you to see the Truth of God's plan to save every single human being who has ever trod this earth.

  You quote the passage about the broad and narrow ways, implying from it that God intends to save only a few and damn the majority. Really, Dale? You really believe that the God of Unconditional Love created us only to send most of us away for eternity? That makes no sense. I don't think you really believe it in your heart of hearts either. Yet you can't admit it because you're bound by the beliefs and traditions of your childhood, and you're afraid to let go of them. God give you the courage to break free of those bonds. See you on the other side of the Jordan, if not before.

  - Charlie Kraybill, Bronx, NYC (dec 15 at 9:40 a.m.)

• JPR, In your comments dated Dec 14 at 10:50 p.m. you took exception to my stating that Jesus defined marriage as between a man and woman, therefore since he said what marriage was, it was not necessary to then follow with additional commentary of what marriage was not. I illustrate that as follows: If a children’s book pictures an airplane on page one, the following pages will not show an auto, a truck, a tractor, a motorcycle, a snowmobile, a boat, a horse and a camel with captions to show what is not an airplane even though they all carry humans and cargo as does an airplane.

  Satan has the deceptive ability to have people believe true Biblical love exists in sinful situations. Look at Sampson and Delilah. It also occurs in adulterous affairs that result in divorces, remarriages and same sex marriages. In our society today, these sinful life styles all pass as loving, consensual relationships that violate scripture. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Sin by any other name is still sin.

  - Dale Welty (dec 19 at 10:31 p.m.)

• Dale, Taking exception is perhaps too strong a word. It implies a hostile reaction and/or anger that is not there. I can accept that you come to your conclusions reasonably and honestly, even if I can reasonably and honestly be in disagreement with them.
  

  In light of the entire story of Jesus and marriage, I merely suggest that it is not as cut and dry as you seem to assert, particularly in the light of the context surrounding the story, which was a man asking Jesus about the lawfulness of divorce. Jesus was not even answering the question you claim he was.

  Now, let us briefly discuss the story of Sampson and Delilah. Was the error that Sampson loved Delilah, or was it Delilah's deceitful use of Sampson. Yes, Sampson suffered from it, but the sin was not love, rather it was the complete lack of love from Delilah, who was coldly using Sampson's affections to get at his secrets and his hair. This was not a crime of love, but rather a crime of betrayal.

  Adulterous affairs are betrayal, and the reason for the hurt and pain that hardens hearts and lead to divorce, as Jesus demonstrates in the very verses you discuss.
  

  Again, this has little to do with loving same sex relationships. Maybe if people can be free, open, and honest about who they are, some of the unhealthy relationships the lead to pain, divorce, and suffering can be avoided.
  

  - JPR (dec 19 at 11:43 p.m.)

• JPR, same sex covenant relationships are simply strong evidence that they are not based on Godly love as He communicates to us in the Bible, but rather a pseudo love that is made to look Godly but, in truth, originates from Satan who transforms himself into an angle of light. Sampson thought Delilah loved him too much to do what she did, but she gave evidence her loyalties lay elsewhere and not with him and the people of God. Sampson’s first problem was he distanced himself from God and got snookered by pagan woman whom Satan used to accomplish his wishes. She used pseudo love that he thought was true but it eventually led to his downfall. In this same sex covenant issue we see Satan using the same love issues he had Delilah use on Sampson. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap. Sampson eventually saw the error of his ways and brought the house down on people gathered to see him.
  

  Of the many men who married Elizabeth Taylor, I believe she convinced each of them they had found true, covenant love in her.

  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  - Dale Welty (dec 20 at 2:46 p.m.)

• Dale,

  In both Delilah and Liz Taylor, we find something other than love at work. I can think of a bunch of examples I know of from folks I have known whose unhappy marriages or relationships would suggest the same, but this is all quite beside the point. We have established that these are precisely the sort of injurious relationships Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19 (and in many other places).

  Again, these examples have nothing to do with the viability of loving same sex relationships. Maybe if people can be free, open, and honest about who they are, some of the unhealthy relationships the lead to pain, divorce, and suffering can be avoided.

  (One might note that this final paragraph is, with exception of the first five words, is cut and pasted from my previous comment. It seemed appropriate, however.)

  - JPR (dec 20 at 6:23 p.m.)

Comment on the article Issue of obedience

Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.