Shayla: What is your view of Dr. White’s arguments on homosexuality?

Meforshim:

Grace and peace to you. Thank you for taking some of your valuable time to read my work on the net. I appreciate it.

I read the article you sent me (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christianand) and without going through it point by point, I would like to make some general arguments.

First, after making a long introduction about biblical ignorance and claiming great knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, Dr. White casually took many passages completely out of context and never did actually get into the Greek or Hebrew on any scholarly basis. For instance, he fails to bring up the fact that the word the Bible uses for homosexual is ἀρσενοκοίτης (Strong’s #733; pronounced arsenokoitase) and is defined as, “a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex - a “pederast.” The fact that it literally means “an abuser of themselves with men” is telling.

As best as I could tell, his principle argument (which he often repeated) was that large sections of the Bible are outdated, outmoded holiness codes that either need to be ignored or simply considered for vague moral applications. In fact, his entire fourth premise is dedicated to this very point! He says, "I'm certain you don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And you shouldn't." This in spite of claiming to believe in the veracity of the Scriptures! Other examples of his casuistry include:

• Over the centuries the Holy Spirit has taught us that certain Bible verses should not be understood as God's law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, wise, or just.
• Often, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient words no longer apply to our modern times.
• Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more.

For someone who claims to possess a deep love for the Scriptures, Dr. White seems remarkably cavalier about discarding any passages that don't fit his view of "justice". In fact, there are times when Dr. White's lack of Scriptural support crosses the line into lashon hara (evil speech)!

• Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers.

Where did Jesus ever say that? In fact, the Master unequivocally stated:

• Matthew 5:17-19 HCSB "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (18) For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. (19) Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And the Apostle Paul who felt no compunction about stating that there was no need to circumcise or observe feasts and holidays for salvation, categorically upheld the Levitical view of homosexuality, referring to it as a perversion (Romans 1:26-27) and an unjust activity that could disqualify one from heaven if continued without repentance (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Further, Dr. White's hermeneutic is remarkably poor. Unfortunately, his exegesis is representative of the majority of "cultural Christianity's" hermeneutic and is common on both sides of this debate. If you look around my site much or if you visit www.adonaism.org (another site of mine), you will realize that I have a passion for the Hebrew culture and mindset. I have come to realize that there are several basic rules that one must keep in mind when trying to determine how to apply Old Covenant passages.

• Passages that deal with sacrifices for sin do not need to be directly applied since the Messiah has offered Himself as the one, true, perfect and final sacrifice.
• Passages that deal with ritualistic temple worship need not be directly applied since there IS no temple at this time.
• Passages that have been directly cancelled or fulfilled in the New Covenant (like the above example of sacrifices for sin) need not be directly applied (i.e circumcision for identification).
• Passages that treat separating the genetic Jews from the Goyim need not concern us since there is now "no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female" for we are all one in Christ Jesus.  

These and many other basic principles must be taken into consideration as we interpret the Old Covenant. This is not to say that these passages are to be ignored. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable…” (1 Timothy 3:16). They simply must be applied in a more subtle way than the standard hyper-fundamental, over-simplistic literalism that unfortunately often rules the “anti-gay” side of the debate.

In contrast, Dr. White presents not one hermeneutic principle to support his midrash. Instead, with a peremptory slash, he excises whole passages and principles in order to support his arguments. I believe the best way to describe the principle fallacy I see represented in his arguments is "Straw Man". It would be nice if I could simply ignore or redefine every argument my opponent makes the way Dr. White does with the Scriptures!

I would like to reiterate that I love homosexual, lesbian and transgendered people very much. I would have no problem inviting them to my house and eating with them. I would have no problem working with them. I don't view them as being "more sinful" than anyone else. I simply hold to what I believe is the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures - that homosexual feelings, if acted upon, become sin much in the same way that heterosexual lust, if acted upon, becomes adulterous sin or fornication. If my friend was an adulterer, it would not change my love for him. But if I am a true friend and I love him, I will oppose behavior that I feel is harmful to him for "Love must be without hypocrisy. Detest evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9)

Ch'azak u baruk

Strength and blessing (to you)