homosexuality still hot

A fellow blogger, Rick Ianniello, offered a response to my post yesterday homosexuality hot. His main points of contention with me are that I have a low view of scripture and that I was irresponsible to connect the Osteen/Morgan interview with the murder of gay activist David Kato in Uganda. I don't believe I have a low view of scripture. In fact, I would suggest that mine is higher than his because I respect the layers the text as well as the reader possess. Whether I agree with NT Wright who says that the scriptures say no to homosexuality, especially homosexual behavior, is immaterial. Biblical scholars with serious credentials, integrity and motives have come down on both sides of the issue. This can no longer be  point solo. It can only provide one line in the conversation. Mohler said,
To his credit, Osteen did answer his question, and by staking his position on the Bible's teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, he took the only road available to anyone with any substantial commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible.
I respond to that remark:
In Mohler's words, I believe I possess a “substantial commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible“, but Mohler and I differ on what that means.
Iannello and other biblical literalists don't appreciate this finer but significant point. As to me being irresponsible. One of my commentators called the juxtaposition of Osteen with Kato's murder "completely irresponsible". I revealed a bit of the process of my writing the post in response to the commentator:
Originally when I wrote the post I meant, when I said, “in keeping with this blog post”, that it had to do with the issue of homosexuality generally. I think we can agree that Osteen is not likely to beat a homosexual to death nor condone it. However, we must ask such questions as, “What is the connection between insisting on a ‘strictly biblical' position on homosexuality and the present treatment of homosexuals?”
Let's go back in time. Slavery is alive and well in our country, with ecclesiastical support. Some reports of abuse circulate. We hear of worse atrocities in other lands. It is not irresponsible to argue against the biblical validation for slavery and cite abuse and atrocities in the same article because the link between the two is inescapable. The withholding of civil liberties of any kind anywhere has always been biblically sustained. Be assured: when any kind of people group is discriminated against with biblical support, murder will be the result. This is why the two stories, either by accident or intention, are in the same post.

Leave a comment