A Response to Falsani’s “Awakening.”

There has been an article floating around on Facebook by Cathleen Falsani, A Gay Awakening for the Church? The article isn’t anything new but a collection and restatement of things said before by others, concisely written in a short blog post. In my circle it got a lot of positive feedback including a lot from professing evangelical believers.  I am not going to sugar coat what I think about it: the content of the blog post is a beast that Christians should run, not walk, away from. This is why.

Mrs. Falsani starts out with some of her personal background. Short version: She knows people that are gay and she knows people that are Christian. And she has some dear friends who are both gay and Christian. (Note: I don’t know how she uses the terms, but unless I am quoting someone, I’ll use the word homosexual to refer to someone with same-sex desires, and use gay to refer to someone that embraces—proudly—those desires as part of their identity… I suppose this is what Falsani means when she uses openly gay.) Regarding having friends that were both gay and Christian, Falsani says,

For most of my life, I’ve been taught that it’s impossible to be both openly gay and authentically Christian.

The challenge: is this right? Can one be gay and Christian or are the two necessarily in conflict? To answer this we need to know something first: Is homosexuality a sin? Before we can look at that, there is a distinction that needs to be made. As Christians we recognize a difference between a sin and the person that does it. While a sin is something wicked, a person even while acting wickedly is still a creature of immeasurable worth; though being sulied there are still a being created in the image of God. If we set aside the concept of sin, we still know a difference between a person and their actions. And this is a distinction we must keep in mind—rejection of homosexuality is not the same thing as rejecting homosexuals. The often overused and under-thought phrase, “hate the sin, love the sinner” is actually quite appropriate here. The issue is not, “How should we treat homosexuals?” but, “How should we view homosexuality?” I have never heard someone proclaim that we should be anything but generous and kind to anyone, gay or straight, when speaking on or about Christianity. Anyone that advocates compassion for all sinners except Group X isn’t speaking on behalf of Christ. His desire is that all (not all except those) come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). However, we don’t use compassion as an excuse for abandoning the clear teachings of Scripture. We don’t use compassion for Muslims as an excuse to abandon the need for a Savior. How we should treat people and how we should view actions are distinct.

Ravi Zacharias does (as always) an amazing job of highlighting this distinction in the following video (though he discussed more than that): Watch Here

So we must know—Is it sin? Falsani admits a long-time confusion, saying, “I wasn’t sure whether homosexuality actually was a sin.” As part of the discovery process, Falsani confesses,

What would Jesus do? I asked myself (and God). According to biblical accounts, Jesus said very little, if anything, about homosexuality.

Falsani’s statement that Jesus said little (or nothing) about homosexuality is similar to the Facebook comments I read defending her—that’s the claim… Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality. So that’s where we start. This comment is a gigantic theological train-wreck. To say that Jesus did not comment on homosexuality betrays a low view of Christ, a low view of Scripture, and commits a serious logical error.

First, the Old Testament speaks about homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20, and (I believe) in Genesis 19. This alone demonstrates that Jesus did condemn homosexuality. Jesus Christ is God, the same God that spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament and the same God that gave the commands in Leviticus 18 and 20. I was actually called out on this on Facebook as using a “trinity” argument as if acknowledging Jesus as God is some sort of chicanery. It isn’t This is not even a point of debate among orthodox Christianity. It is a settled point of doctrine and challengers are not inside the church. Period.

Second, the claim is that Jesus didn’t speak on homosexuality (a claim we already saw was false above). But here we’re looking for red letters commenting on the topic—which we don’t need. Paul via Romans and elsewhere also lists homosexuality among serious sins. To ignore Paul (which Falsani’s post does) is to lower all Scripture not colored red and put priority only on the quoted words of Christ. This does not take seriously the inspiration of all Scripture; that it is all authoritative (2 Tim 3:16).

Third, Falsani has taken Jesus’s silence and made that into an argument—an argument from silence. Jesus didn’t comment on homosexuality so it must not be an issue. That’s not an argument; it’s a projection. This is a way of making Jesus argue for anything not mentioned.

The whole claim is a vicious attack on the nature of Jesus and the authority of Scripture. Such an attack is not that of friends to the faith but one that identifies one as in rebellion against Christ.

Falsani describes a period of (seemingly purposeful) confusion on what the nature of homosexuality is. She wants to be loving like Christ but doesn’t know how to deal with the Scriptures. And then enter the new generation of “evangelical leaders” that pave the way for a new answer to the question. Falsani cites Tony Jones, Peggy Campolo (wife of Tony Campolo), loosely Brian McClaren, and almost pleads for Rob Bell to support her view. However she mostly relies on content from Jay Bakker. How does Bakker view the issue?

“Simply put, homosexuality is not a sin, says Bakker, 35, pastor of Revolution NYC, a Brooklyn evangelical congregation that meets in a bar.”

Bakker’s argument? Well Bakker cedes the point that in Leviticus does put homosexuality under the category of sin. Contradiction? No so fast!

“The simple fact is that Old Testament references in Leviticus do treat homosexuality as a sin … a capital offense even,” Bakker writes. “But before you say, ‘I told you so,’ consider this: Eating shellfish, cutting your sideburns and getting tattoos were equally prohibited by ancient religious law… The truth is that the Bible endorses all sorts of attitudes and behaviors that we find unacceptable (and illegal) today and decries others that we recognize as no big deal… Leviticus prohibits interracial marriage, endorses slavery and forbids women to wear trousers. Deuteronomy calls for brides who are found not to be virgins to be stoned to death, and for adulterers to be summarily executed.”

Now, this reasoning is not well spelled out, so I am left to infer a bit. If I try to condense the argument above, it would look like this:

1. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin.
2. Leviticus calls some things sin that we accept today as no big deal.
3. Therefore homosexuality should be okay, too.
4. As a bonus, Leviticus commands all sorts of things we know are bad.

Now, because it seems we agree on #1, let’s move to #2. I don’t know Bakker’s full case, I only know the argument as relayed by Falsani. Bakker, through Falsani, doesn’t seem to take Leviticus with any degree of consequence or care. The argument is basically this, “The levitical law forbid homosexuality. So what? It also said you can’t cut your sideburns.” Well, that settles it!

Actually, you’ll find that theologians recognize many of the levitical laws as either ceremonial or that of image—God’s people were called to stand out among the rest of the world. While once obligatory, their purpose was for a time only. But does the prohibition against homosexuality fall into this category? We might consider the context of how the prohibitions are given—something Bakker and Falsani do not do. For example, the rules detailing the “hair styling guide” are given in Lev. 21. It’s worth noting this was a law given to govern priests. Those that served in this position has onerous duties, rituals and requirements. We don’t equate priests with modern pastors. And here Bakker has a point. Where he falls short is in examining the context of the prohibition of homosexuality. We’re not given a ruleset for a class of people or for a time. We’re given a moral command.

Let’s look at the context, beginning in Leviticus 18. These commands were given to all of Israel. Verse 3 says, “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.” At a glance, we might think that these are some of the laws that merely keep God’s people distinct, but let’s look at the laws.

Verses 6-14: Do not commit all kinds of incest. 15: Do not sleep with your daughter-in-law. 16: Do not sleep with your brother’s wife. 17: Do not  sleep with a woman and her daughter. 18: Do not sleep with multiple sisters. 19: Do not sleep with a woman during her period. 20: Don’t commit adultery with your neighbor’s wife.

For a point of confession, verse 19 doesn’t strike me as something deserving of the same condemnation, but on that note I see as a fault in my own. Christians are not entitled to make up their own rules. We obey. Other than the commands, we’re not given any commentary—just commands to stay away. But as the list goes in there is an escalation and we are given commentary.

21: “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.” (Simply: Child sacrifice profanes the name of God.) 22. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

We see verse 22, the command not to have sex with men as one does with women sandwiched not between rules for garments or pony-tails, but between the prohibition of child sacrifice (which dishonors God… by killing those made in God’s image), and with bestiality, a perversion. Homosexuality itself is called an abomination—a word not used lightly in Scripture.

Where is Falsani on fighting judgementalism directed toward these other sins? Because if we follow Bakkers interpretation,  we should—if we’re to accept the removal of homosexuality from a list of sins—accept child sacrifice and bestiality. These three acts are listen one after the other, not cherry-picked from different passages removed entirely from context.

This is parallelled in chapter 20. God gives these commands to Moses for all of the sons of Israel: He commands them to not commit adultery (vs. 10), or to have sex with their father’s wife/mother (11), or have sex with their daughter-in-law (12), “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (13), or marry a mother and her daughter which is detestable (14), commit bestiality—men (15), or women (16), commit incest (17), and on and on. This is clearly not a set of social norms. But it gets worse.

Falsani, using Bakker, tries to make this a moral issue in the opposite direction. Not only are they willing to disregard Scripture for themselves, they try to condemn those that would hang on to Scripture. Bakker says,

“The church has always been late… We were late on slavery. We were late on civil rights. And now we’re late on this.”

Here they try to make a direct comparison to race and sex. But that wholly fails. Race is not the same thing as sex so that can’t carry across (even if it were factually accurate). It’s dead right out of the gate. It is a trick, a way of playing the race-card in a non-racial discussion. Get it? Those that hold that homosexuality is wrong are just like racists!

The often insightful Dennis Prager nails this point,

“[T]here is no comparison between sex and race. There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.”

The whole article by Prager is worth reading, but goes beyond the scope of this already wordy blog post. Plain and simple—this is no argument at all, it is namecalling.

Falsani then moves to challenge the translation of the word homosexuality:

Examining the original Greek words translated as “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in three New Testament passages, Bakker (and others) conclude that the original words have been translated inaccurately in modern English.What we read as “homosexuals” and “homosexuality” actually refers to male prostitutes and the men who hire them. The passages address prostitution — sex as a commodity — and not same-sex, consensual relationships, he says.(The word “homosexual” first appeared in an English-language Bible in 1958. Bakker is part of a group petitioning Bible publishers to remove the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” from new translations and replace it with terms that more precisely reflect the original Greek.)

None of the verses that use homosexuality are addressed in Falsani’s article, and with good reason, most of the case against homoexuality given in the text is descriptive, i.e. “lie with a male as with a woman” or “lies with a male as those who lie with a woman.” This isn’t simply a translation error.

Falsani closes with this.

“We must weigh all the evidence. The clobber scriptures don’t hold a candle to the raging inferno of grace and love that burns through Paul’s writing and Christ’s teaching. And it’s a love that should be our guiding light.”

This is a flat out lie. First—all the evidence is not being weighed. Second—Paul is not her ally here. He very clearly echoes the Levitical views of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 (and other verses) saying, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Paul’s message here is not against homosexuality per se. It is included among a list of many sins God gave the people over to. It’s as Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, God gave the people over to “enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved.” This sin, and others, are listed as consequences for the ungodly, that turn away from God and to themselves for pleasure and forsake their God. Want to know if someone is in rebellion against God? See if they are proud of their sins. Regarding the so-called “clobber scritures,” Paul is a leading contributor.

Now, there is most certainly a place for homosexuals in the church, because there is a place for all sinners to come, repent and fellowship with God through the body of Christ. But there is not a place for the fist raised against God, not by the unrepentant or proud practitioners of any sin. We must repent and turn from our sins. By all means we should love our brothers and sisters still in bondage, especially including homosexuals and gays. We should share with them, we should pray for them, and we should pray for God’s grace in their lives—especially through our actions. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our neighbors are everyone! But to love our neighbors as ourselves means something specific. I love myself, I forgive myself, and I don’t hold a grudge. But it is not loving to myself (or anyone else) to say, “What I am doing is okay, it’s no big deal” if it is. And homosexuality is a big deal. And so is what Falsani has done to Christ and the word of God.

Christians: We should pray seriously for Mrs. Falsani and those over whom she has influence. She is here not promoting tolerance or compassion, but unbelief. She is in effect, encouraging people away from Christ and the salvation of the Gospel. We should pray for her repentance.

---

You might also like:

• His Life Was The Tragedy
• 180
• Irony Alert: False Teachers Mocking False Teachers
• Futuristic Idolatry
• When Reality and Confusion Collide, Children Get Hurt