Literal interpretation makes little sense in the modern world.
By Jared Stuart
Contributing Writer
Pandora’s box was opened Wednesday night when Pepperdine’s Convocation dealt with the issue of gays within the church.
Dr. Larry Keene, the pastor of Church of the Valley, a Christian Church in the San Fernando Valley, and a proponent of gays within modern church life, undertook the daunting task of conveying his point of view to a packed crowd of students.
Keene brought three gay congregants with him.
All were raised within the church and had found themselves slowly drifting away from organized religion until they found Church of the Valley. Their stories were very appreciated by all in attendance, regardless of the theological position those present beheld.
The night turned heated when Keene opened the evening up to the students for discussion and question. Many were theologically unconvinced through Dr. Keene’s presentation that homosexuality is a practice or way of life condoned by God. Their interpretation of certain passages in the Bible maintained their affirmation that homosexuality was indeed a sin, and thus an orientation or practice condemned by God.
One young woman rose up with the Bible in her hand and began defending her theological position. It became apparent that the Bible was the theological source of authority for most in attendance. It became even more apparent that many in the audience viewed the Bible as a literal, evangelical and fundamental source of authority.
Their point of view disabled them from seeing a contrasting perspective. They were there to defend the truth. But does the truth really need defending? Does not the truth eventually stand the test of time, and will it not eventually become self-evident within human consciousness regardless of whatever authority stands against it?
This is the struggle Pepperdine found itself in Wednesday night. I could not help but rise up after the young woman’s theological speech. I told her my story of how I was raised also in a theologically conservative family that condemned homosexuality. But when my cousin revealed that he was gay, something we really always knew, my family was forced to reconcile what reality was with what we wished it to be.
We went to the Scriptures and found a new way to approach them. The Scriptures ceased to be a law or rule book of right and wrong. To borrow an idea from Richard Hughes’ book “How Christian Faith Can Sustain the Life of the Mind,” they began to be a paradox of creation, and in them we found the Gospel, Christ himself.
Throughout the Bible there are equal and opposite points of views for any one subject. This dual perspective allows us to grapple with the very nature of God, and thus respond like he would in our daily lives.
I do not think it was his intention for us to handle the modern issues we are facing by using canonized letters, written among sister churches 2000 years ago, as a source of legal code for today’s events.
If it was his intention, modern Christians would still be embracing ideologies like slavery and the inequality between men and women as self-evident concepts within reality.
The truth is that we do not accept such ideologies because common sense prohibits our collective conscious from any longer doing so.
It is for this exact reason, conversely, that we must not use time-encapsulated passages within the Bible to condemn the practice of homosexuality, an orientation which has existed within nature and society for as long as humans can remember.
Common sense leads a human being to the conclusion that monogamous homosexuality is just as moral as monogamous heterosexuality. Perhaps not as common, but certainly as moral.
When one ceases to view the Bible from a literal, evangelical and fundamental perspective, one does not cease to see Christ as his or her complete Lord and Savior. I would wager to say that one sees him as Savior even more. This is the church’s responsibility and duty — to convey to believers the noble right and awesome task to use the Scriptures wisely.
To behold the Bible with one’s own eyes, and to hold it with one’s own hands is a right and responsibility humankind has fought for vehemently for centuries.
Let us be equally responsible to interpret the Scriptures with our lips as we once wanted our church leaders to do so for us when we did not possess that right.
If Wednesday night taught us anything, it showed us all that publicly interpreting the Holy Scriptures is a noble task that takes wisdom and compassion.
To interpret from a literal, non-paradoxical perspective is like a second grader submitting a Ph.D. dissertation — it just cannot be accepted.
The Scriptures forbid all sexual relations outside of marriage.
By Marilyn Misch
Contributing Writer
On Feb. 13, Dr. Larry Keene and a panel of gay men from the Church of the Valley spoke at an evening Convocation and expressed the viewpoint that homosexual conduct is not prohibited by God and can be consistent with Scripture. On Feb. 14, articles throughout The Graphic implied that sexual activity is essential to our nature and that it is normal to be sexually active, even when one is unmarried.
I speak from a different position — one that recognizes the Biblical prohibition of all sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant, and dismisses the proposition that we must be sexually active regardless of our circumstances.
The viewpoints expressed on campus last week highlight the fact that the true issue to be addressed by the church is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality, but rather sexual purity. We are created sexual beings, but we also are created with the ability to choose our actions. We are created sexual beings, but we are called to express that sexuality intimately only within the context of covenant marriage.
I do not dispute that some people are “born gay” and are tempted to engage in homosexual conduct, any more than I dispute that some people are “born straight,” and are tempted to engage in heterosexual conduct outside of marriage. One’s orientation is irrelevant. The issue is not how one is tempted; the issue is whether one gives in to temptation.
The alternative to homosexual conduct is not heterosexual conduct — it is celibacy. The alternative to marriage is not casual sex — it is chastity. Few people within the church would argue that heterosexual conduct outside of marriage is permissible, so it seems odd for people to argue that homosexual conduct, which by definition must be outside of marriage, is permissible.
Chastity outside of marriage is not necessarily easy, but it is clearly necessary.
Scripture is clear with God’s expectations for our lives. I Corinthians 6: 13-15 tells us that our bodies are “members of Christ himself” and are not meant for “sexual immorality.” Galatians 5: 19-24 states that “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery” are “acts of the sinful nature,” but that people belonging “to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.”
Romans 1:25 declares that engaging in sexually impure acts is evidence of having “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Therefore, telling people that having any sort of sexual relations outside of marriage is normal and acceptable is destructive. Doing so proclaims that sin is not sin, and in the process, moves people away from the lives that we are called to lead.
It certainly is not up to us as Christians to judge people’s hearts, but it just as certainly is up to us as Christians not to be ashamed of the Gospel. We cannot pretend that the Bible is indifferent about sexual impurity. Out of love for people whom God loves, we must call ourselves and others to be obedient to God — to exchange the lie that sexual conduct outside of marriage is permissible for the truth that sexual purity is commanded by God.
As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to take a stand against all forms of sexual immorality, and to help people to overcome sexual temptations.
Taking a stand for Christ does not mean, however, that we should deny the struggles that the children of God face, or that we should tell our fellows that having to struggle is sinful. Struggling to resist temptation is an inextricable part of Christian existence. We err when we condemn people for being tempted, just as we err when we tell people that the struggle against temptation is futile.
The role of the Church is not to pretend that temptation does not exist, but to reach out to those who are struggling with temptation, to acknowledge the struggle, and then to call people, and to help people, to live obedient lives.
I recognize that a call to chastity is troublesome for many people. The notion that anyone could or should live a celibate life is foreign to modern thinking, but celibacy is the only alternative to marriage that clearly is consistent with Biblical principles. In a culture that believes that people are driven by sexual desires and incapable of exercising self-control, I take my stand for the position that celibacy is both possible and powerful.
I am a 39 year-old single woman who has never had sexual relations. To use a term that is much less able to be spoken openly on campus than “gay,” I am a virgin. I hope that God will provide a husband for me at some point in my future, but, unless and until that day comes, I will remain celibate out of obedience to God.
As a Christian who is trying to live a faithful life, I welcome discussions on campus of sexual morality. I pray that, in the end, the result of those discussions will be the establishment not of an organization that promotes the position that sexual relations outside of marriage are acceptable, but rather of an organization that helps people in their quest to live faithful lives, to be obedient to God, to resist temptation.
It is time to take a stand. I gladly will be the adviser for an organization on campus to promote celibacy, and I welcome anyone who wishes to join. Being tempted, whatever the manner, is not a sin — engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage is.
February 21, 2002
