"Ten Things I Wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality" | A Response

Paul wrote the following words to the young preacher Timothy:

“(3) As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, (4) nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. (5) The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (6) Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, (7) desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1 Timothy 1:3–7, ESV)

Could Paul be referencing someone like Jim Rigby? I think so.

A few days ago I stumbled across a blog post by the aforementioned author titled, "Ten Things I Wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality." As I read through Mr. Rigby's list, I was not shocked nor surprised at his list. I expected it. It's nothing new; The arguments themselves are as old as the sin of homosexuality.

In the next few words, I'd like to address the ten points on Mr. Rigby's list. But first I want to start with the title of the article. He references "the Church." Let me make it clear that "the Church" he's talking about is not the same church of which I'm a part. Mr. Rigby refers to the church in the "universal sense," encompassing all denominations and (false) doctrines. Because of this, he makes some presumptuous statements and paper-thin arguments which anyone who is a member of the true church of the New Testament, i.e., the church of Christ (cf. Rom. 16:16) can easily see see through and disassemble.

Let me also mention that I'm not trying to demonize Mr. Rigby. But he's wrong, and error must be exposed and corrected (Ephesians 5:11; 2 Timothy 2:24-26). With that being said, the following is his itemized list, and the words which follow each item are my response.

1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.

Let me introduce you to a phrase - "Red Letter Hermeneutics." This is the idea that only the "red letters" of the Bible (i.e., Jesus' words) actually count. Everything else was "written by men." This viewpoint fails to realize that even the gospel accounts (which contain those red letters) were not written by Jesus himself. Likewise, anyone who has taken the time to study into this realizes that even though Jesus didn't write Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or any of the other books of the New Testament, they are still His words. Examine John 16:12-15 (especially vs. 14-15), 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:19-21 to understand this. All of the words of the New Testament are the words of Jesus, even if they aren't red.

With that being said, Jesus certainly did address the topic of homosexuality, directly and indirectly. Jesus taught on several occasion about marriage, both literally and figuratively (between Him and the church). Look at Matthew 19 as an example. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus points back to the beginning of time, to Genesis 2:24, and there he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. He defines what marriage is, and by doing so, indirectly teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

Second, if we follow the line of reasoning that Jesus is responsible for the rest of the words of the New Testament, too, then we must conclude that Jesus taught directly (through the Holy Spirit inspired writers, cf. Eph. 3:1-7) what we read in Romans 1:18, 24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (Note: the word translated as "sodomites" in the NKJV is the word "arsenokoites," which refers to men practicing homosexuality). In these verses, we learn from Jesus what marriage is not. If homosexuality is a sin (i.e., those who practice it will "not inherit the kingdom of God," i.e., Heaven) then surely a homosexual marriage is out of the question in God's eyes and in Jesus' teachings.

2. You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.

Here, Rigby tries to paint Christians as feeling "persecuted" by those who would pass laws enabling homosexual marraige.

This issue isn't about me feeling persecuted. It's about immorality, and allowing it to be legal. Morality can be legislated, despite what popular opinion says. Our country didn't suddenly discover that stealing and murder were wrong (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Revelation 21:8). We simply codified what was already morally understood.

3. Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you are with.

This might appear clever on the surface, but it is utterly ridiculous. Consider my response to point two.

Here, Rigby makes an argument for "situation ethics," which simply means that a person decides what's right and what's wrong as the situation arises. He exposes here that he does not hold to the idea of "absolute truth," that some things are always true. He's suggesting that you "find truth" in each specific situation, thus, what's wrong today could be right tomorrow.

Oh, think about the morally despicable and reprehensible things that could be (and are) justified if it really is the case that there is no absolute truth. Really, think about it. Only in a universe devoid of the existence of God could it really be the case. Which raises an interesting question: Does Mr. Rigby actually believe in God? Do you? If you do, then it's only logical that you obey his commands, which are true and right.

You see, God's word is truth (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). The truth found in God's Word, the Bible, endures always.

4. You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.

This confuses the issue again. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. Even heterosexual people can lose the privilege to remarry in God's eyes (cf. Matthew 19:9; Romans 7:2-3) when they abuse marriage.

5. It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.

So what about "personal religious views" when it comes to Christianity? Well, in order to be saved, we must willingly confess our belief in Christ before men (cf. Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10). Likewise, Jesus commanded us to "Go make disciples of all the nations" (cf. Matthew 28:19-20). God never intended for people to only have "personal religious view" when it comes to Christ.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it is the case that "personal religious views" are perfectly acceptable to God. Let me share one of my "personal religious views" with you. I know that someday Christ will judge all mankind according to His word (cf. Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 12:48; Romans 14:10-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10). It's because of this day of judgment that I seek to persuade you to obey the truth (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:11).

I would be an unloving hypocrite if I kept this information to myself.

6. Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.

Question #1 - Where did the civil government come from? God (cf. Romans 13:1-7).

Question #2 - Where did marriage come from? God (cf. Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 2:24).

Conclusion: God created marriage and intended for it to be between a man and a woman. God also created the civil government, therefore civil ceremony only reflects this spiritual and moral reality which God originally intended for marriage. Or at least in a godly nation, this should be the case.

7. If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.

First of all, it's not the only needle on my "moral compass." Second, it's crude. Third, see point ten (below). I feel judged.

By the way, the most intolerant and judgmental doctrine of all is the doctrine of intolerance itself. Think about it.

8. To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.

On this count he may be right when it comes to the "universal church." He's at least half right when it comes to the church of Christ, in that we don't use the Old Testament (a large portion of the Bible) as our law any more. That's because the church was established under the New Covenant (cf. Matthew 16:18), i.e., the New Testament.

You see, many people will go back to the commands of Leviticus 18:22, or describe Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19) to condemn homosexuality. These are good, but not the best arguments.

If you'll go back and read what I wrote under point one, you'll realize that the only Old Testament reference I used was one that Jesus quoted from Genesis 2:24, and that was only to define marriage. Homosexuality is sufficiently condemned in the New Testament alone, as demonstrated in the aforementioned passages (See again Romans 1:18, 24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

By the way, What Rigby is referring to as "the parts of the Bible you don't yourself obey" is likely many of the more difficult to understand parts of the Law of Moses, like sacrifices, slavery, ceremonial purifications, and other hard topics. But those things aren't for us today. The Old Testament Law of Moses for the Jews was for them, not me. It was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and is no longer to be followed by God's people today (Jew or Gentile) for salvation (cf. Galatians 3:10-29; Hebrews 9:11ff).

Since this is the case, I don't need to go back to Leviticus, or other Old Testament passages to condemn homosexuality. The New Testament (which I do follow) is sufficient.

9. If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.

Racism is morally reprehensible and sinful (cf. Acts 10:34-35; Ephesians 2:14-16). So is homosexuality. So actually, it would make more sense to say that if we don't stand against homosexuality, our grandchildren will look at us with the same embarrassment some have in looking at racist grandparents. Obviously, Rigby (again) twists the truth and spins a lie.

By the way, if we don't stand against this sin, we may not have grandchildren. After all, it's biologically impossible for two members of the same sex to conceive a child (naturally). Just saying...

10. When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.

This is a smokescreen argument. Even most "religious" people don't understand the true nature of judging or not judging.

Let's examine this briefly. In Matthew 7:1-5, probably the most "famous" passage about not judging, Jesus affirms that we are to "judge not that we be not judged." Most people would like that to mean that you can't ever tell anyone that what they are doing is wrong. This is a supreme fallacy. I can't send you to Heaven or Hell, but I have every right, yea even responsibility (cf. Galatians 6:1; Jude 23) to tell you what is right and what is wrong.

By the way did you ever pay attention to verse 6? In Matthew 7:6, Jesus says not to give what is holy to the "dogs," nor cast your pearls before "swine." Well, who are the "dogs" and the "swine." Obviously a little judging is involved. Likewise, in Matthew 7:15-20 we're told to beware of false prophets. How do I know whether a prophet is false or not? His fruits, i.e., his words and actions. Guess what: We have to make that judgment for the sake of our souls.

Jesus explains to (and commands) his disciples to "not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24). If you look at the context, it can be boiled down to judging between right and wrong. How are we to judge? Righteously, using the same standard that someday Jesus will use (John 12:48) - the Bible.

My Prayer...

I hope that you will consider all of these things, and that you will seek truth. Homosexuality is a sin. Sin separates a person from God (cf. Isaiah 59:1-2). I don't write this because I'm "homophobic," or because I'm angry at homosexuals. I write this because I care, and because I want you to understand what the Bible really teaches about these things.

I pray that you see and understand it.

-Daniel