Monday, April 27, 2015

Gay Apocalypse?

Awhile back, a friend of mine were discussing the issue of homosexuality as it relates to the Bible. He asked me my thoughts on a passage in the Gospel of Luke, specifically, Luke 17:34-35. I admitted that it was not a passage I was familiar with, at least in terms of the gay issue, and I promised I would research it and give him my thoughts. After a few weeks of study, that response is below.

I encourage you, first, to read this article. It was an article my friend sent me regarding the issue. It's interesting, to say the least. Later, in my response, there is a link to another article, one of many I found refuting the claims of the first article. Specifically, it breaks down the terms in the passage regarding the original Greek texts. I encourage you to read that article too.

Anyway, here is my response....

I didn’t want you to think that I forgot about your request that I check into the passage of Luke where you assert homosexuality is mentioned. I’ve researched it, and here’s what I’ve found. This is lengthy, but I hope you’ll take the time to read through it.

First, I wondered why I’d never heard of this passage before. I’ve read through the gospels many times, and one would think that with my study of homosexuality as it pertains to Scripture, I would surely have noticed this passage. But I hadn’t.

The reason, it turns out, is simple… I’ve never read through the Gospels using the King James Version. I’ve always used, primarily, either the NIV or the NASB versions. It is only the KJV, as translated in English, that gives the idea of homosexuality in this verse. Here are the three different versions.

KJV: 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

NIV: 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” (Verse 36 is omitted in some versions.)

NASB: 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. 36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”

As you can see, there are subtle, yet distinct differences in the versions. So to get a clearer understanding, you have to dig a little deeper. Before I get to the original greek writings, let’s look at a couple other things.

The idea of context, as noted in the link you gave me, is important, but I think you have to look at it in a broader sense (which has been one of my arguments against those who claim I just “cherry pick” the verses I want to follow.) It is not only vital to understand the context of the entire chapter or passage containing a particular verse, it is also vital to understand the entire context of the Bible as a whole.

The Bible isn’t just a book of laws, or a good book of principles to live by. It is also a comprehensive history book. The Bible is an account of God’s creation, from start to finish. It shows the history of every way he’s interacted His people since the beginning of time, and how He moved within each culture, and everything He did preparing us for the saving grace of Jesus and beyond. It’s filled with many great twists and turns over time but has a central theme throughout. When one reads the book from start to finish, and views it as a whole piece, one will begin to understand that it is not contradictory of itself. But it is also definitely true that by showing the history of mankind, we see that over time, cultures change, values change, and certain rules and regulations change. But it is important to remember that those changes always came from God and/or Jesus. The basic rules and precepts we live by were never just changed by some random guy. It was always Jesus who said something like, “I know our forefathers told you this… but now I tell you this…” Or something of that nature.

Laws enacted by various governments throughout time have changed, but the basic rules and precepts given by God usually did not.

Which is important to understand and remember when we look at things like, say, the stoning of an adulteress in Deuteronomy. That was a law that was handed down for a particular purpose, with particular reasons, for a particular culture at a particular place in time. When Jesus later pardons an adulteress centuries later, it’s not a contradictory action, but rather Jesus fulfilling centuries of prophecy that showed ancient rules and regulations were no longer needed in light of Jesus’ own saving grace. His pardon can by no means be misconstrued as an endorsement of adultery, (He didn’t all of the sudden make adultery legal, as it were) but rather shows that such drastic punishment is no longer needed as we can find forgiveness and grace and salvation in Jesus. (As an aside, it is also important to note that even as Jesus pardoned the young adulteress and shamed her accusers, He tells her to go and, “Sin no more.” — an admonition He would make of almost everyone he pardoned or healed.)

This is why the argument that claims that if I still believe homosexuality is a sin, then I must still believe that we should stone adulterers, or own slaves, or wear purple, or any other such nonsense is just that: nonsense. Those precepts were put in place for a particular time and place and purpose. Moreover, it presumes, in some way that doesn’t exist, that God or Jesus came along somewhere and somehow began condoning homosexuality, and that simple is not the case.

From start to finish, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned. NEVER is it spoken of in a good light. Not once. Not ever. Moreover, when it IS mentioned, it is almost always mentioned in the context of a myriad of other sins, among them murder and thievery. That’s an awful slippery slope when trying to justify it as something with which God is OK.

Which brings us back to the passage you sent. Contextually speaking, we must remember that the Gospels are, more or less, the same account of events as seen through the eyes of four different men. Which means that often, an event that is listed in one Gospel can also be found in another Gospel. That is true of this account.

The same conversation is mentioned in Matthew 24:40-42. For our purposes, I’ll just list the NIV version:

40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

Again, here, the subtle, yet distinct differences. To read this, no one can see any hint of homosexuality. The “context” here, as it were, as well as in the Luke passage is not one of homosexuality, but rather the idea of the suddenness of Jesus’ return at the rapture. Moreover, the idea that none of us will know the actual time and date of His return.

Both passages mention the story of Noah, and the sudden destruction of the flood, and the idea that most people were totally unprepared for it. Only Luke mentions the destruction of Sodom, but the context, again, is not homosexuality, rather the suddenness of the destruction of the city. One can even picture the imagery of Lot’s wife being instantly turned into a pillar of salt for her disobedience.

So we’re left to look at things logically. What makes more sense? That Luke is relating a passage about homosexuality that is totally and 100% contradictory to every other passage about homosexuality in the Bible, a book that nowhere else contradicts itself? Or rather, that Luke and Matthew are both relating a story about the impending suddenness of Jesus’ return, a concept that is in no way contradictory to solid Biblical doctrine? You’re a logical man: Which is easier to believe?

Finally, to break down the actual Greek translation of the Luke passage, I’ll in turn give you a link to an article (one of many, I might add) I found that totally refutes the assertions made in the article you gave me. I’ll let you read it yourself. There’s no need for me to try to rehash it when this article breaks it down pretty well.

In the end, it’s important to remember that lots of good people aren’t going to Heaven. That’s not my judgment, that’s simple, Biblical fact. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) is proof of that. I know you know a lot of good gay people. I do to. But the truth is that I know tons of “good people,” gay AND straight, who are not Biblical believers. In my interpretation of the Bible, there is ONE way to Heaven, and that’s through Jesus. And if we are followers of Jesus, I believe we have to follow the Bible, and all it contains.

I’m not perfect, and I’m a sinner. But I have saving grace through Jesus. I ask forgiveness, and I repent of my sin, and it is that repentance that is distinctive. To say I’m a sinner just the same as any homosexual is true. But because of my repentance, and my desire to TURN AWAY from those sins the best I can, and try to “sin no more,” and that it is in my heart to live right and not continue in sin is what separates me from someone who is not willing to turn away from their sin.


I know this can lead to a whole other discussion about homosexuality as a choice, or it’s biological origins, or whether a gay man can be “delivered” or “cured,” etc. But we’ll leave that to another day.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Would I DJ the Wedding?

So, somewhere through the whole passing, and then virtual rescinding, of Indiana's Religious Freedom bill, someone asked me if I would actually DJ a wedding for a gay couple if asked.

The answer, just to get to the point, is yes, I would.

You see, the problem isn't whether or not I agree with a Christian business owner's decision to deny service to someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, but rather, whether or not I believe the Christian business owner has the RIGHT to deny said services.

And on that note, I absolutely think the Christian business owner -- or any other business owner, for that matter -- has that right.

I do not believe in discrimination, but I do believe business owners reserve the right to give or deny services to others based on their religious beliefs. I ESPECIALLY don't believe the government should have the right to force a business owner to serve individuals against their beliefs.

The bigger picture is that I believe a business owner has the right to operate his or her business however he or she so chooses. It's their money on the line. It's their reputation on the line. It's their business. They should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if it's wrong. I don't support discrimination, but should a business owner choose to do so, as a famous comedian once said, "They have the right to be stupid and wrong!"

As for me, there's several reasons I would serve a gay wedding reception.

First, at the end of the day, it's just a job. It's work. Jesus was a carpenter, and the Apostle Paul was a tent maker. There's no indication in the Bible that either of them ever denied service to anyone who wasn't a Christian. We can't say for sure, but I don't think, given what we know of their personalities, that they would turn away any opportunity to make a living.

Second, my performing a gay wedding reception is akin to Jesus sitting with the tax collectors. Jesus, while steadfastly holding to Biblical principles, did not shy away from fraternizing with those who didn't share his same beliefs. There are many examples in the Bible of Jesus meeting with and fellowshipping with others who weren't following God. Most often, He did so in an effort to minister to them, and at other times, He did it as an example to others around Him. In either case, He didn't hide himself away in a box so as to never mingle with those who didn't believe in Him.

Third, as His first miracle, Jesus himself changed water into wine at wedding just to keep the party going. He was actually somewhat annoyed at the request, if you read the account in John, Chapter 2. But He did it anyway. Why? Well, according to the account, it wasn't so people could just get more drunk. Rather, it was to show His power, and, again, if you read the account, there seems to be some motivation in it to make the groom look good. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone at the wedding were believers (although I can't say that with all certainty.) But it's clear there was some big drinking going on at the wedding, and even in those days, over-drinking was somewhat frowned upon, so we can reasonably assume that not all the guests were strict Jesus-followers. At the very least, it was Jesus just doing whatever He could to help out. At the most, it was a miraculous show of Jesus's power.

Fourth -- and this is, in my opinion, the most important point -- if I were to deny DJing for a gay wedding, then I would need to deny the same to any non-Christian couple that comes my way. This is where the idea of "picking and choosing" Scriptures comes into play. As I've tried to explain on many occasions, I do not see homosexuality as some sort of "super-sin," or some unforgivable sin that is different from all other sin.

No, homosexuality, in my opinion and interpretation of the Bible, is a sin like all others: Repentable and forgivable. It's not different from any other sin, no worse and no better. If I were to deny service to a gay couple because I believe their lifestyle to be sinful, then I have to deny service to anyone who doesn't follow Jesus, no matter what sin I think they harbor. If I'm going to build a wall, I have to build it with bricks.

Otherwise, I'm a hypocrite.

Now, please don't allow this to devolve into a discussion about judging. I've already covered that in a previous post, and besides, that's not the issue here. In this case, I've already made up my mind as to whether I believe their lifestyle conflicts with my beliefs. The question, then, becomes whether or not I should go ahead and perform the service.

I do not believe we, as Christians, are called to shun anyone, even if they aren't believers. We are indeed called to love our neighbors, and I believe there's great value in showing love, compassion and acceptance to others.

However, I do believe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. The Bible clearly states that we, as Christians, have to be "in" the world, but that we shouldn't be "of" the world.

I have left parties early, and refused to play others altogether, where underage drinking was allowed and/or prevalent. Underage drinking is not only dangerous, but against the law, and being a party to it is potentially damaging to me and my business, my being equally liable for the delinquency were the party to be raided by the police. So I've walked out on them, and it is now my policy to refuse any party where I know underage drinking will take place. For that matter -- though I don't have another concrete example of this happening -- I would refuse to play for any gathering where I was aware beforehand of any illegal activity taking place.

Believe me when I tell you I've played for lots of parties that didn't necessarily jive with my religious beliefs. While not illegal, I've witnessed some pretty sketchy activity at shows I've performed. Be thankful I spare you the details.

I have no problem with a church, or a minister, denying to perform the wedding of a gay couple. I've seen ministers refuse to perform a wedding for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which was the couple was gay. And I have no problem with it. And yes, without boring you with the details here (maybe another blog?) I do think there's a difference between a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple, and my refusing to perform at their reception.

And still I believe it would be my RIGHT to refuse the service, just as it would be the right of others to boycott my business if they don't agree with my stance.

In the absence of that right, what's to stop non-Christians from forcing Chick-Fil-A from opening on Sundays, since their reason for being closed is their religious belief of not working on Sundays?

What's to stop churches from being forced to allow non-believers into their membership? What's to stop a Jewish deli from being forced to serve a bacon sandwich? What's to stop Christian book stores from being forced to sell pornography? You may think that's extreme, but if you can provide an adequate difference between those scenarios and a bakery being forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, I'm all ears.

At the end of the day, I would DJ the reception. Heck, I might even sing at the wedding, if asked, which probably would never happen. I would do so because I would think it would be the right thing to do, and a good way to show God' love.

I can tell you this though, if I felt differently, I wouldn't simply refuse the service and tell the news about it. But you can bet your booties I'd already be booked that day!