Interesting Read

Al Mohler was on Larry King again this past Thursday as a representative of the evangelical movement. The discussion centered on the ordination of homosexuals into the clergy. Here is the transcript of the discussion, it makes for an interesting discussion on epistemology within the church. There is a huge divergence of opinion between that of Mohler that of Andrew Sullivan and Gene Robinson--The openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian church.

It is a must read. The only persons in the entire interview who has his sight set upon the word of God as revealed in the Scriptures are Al Mohler and David Anderson. The rest used their sense of the "Spirit of God" to be the authority in matters of faith and practice.

You can see the supporters of gays in church leadership "crawfish" (a cajun term for wriggling) out of the clear condemnations of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. I am also surprised at the arrogance of picking and choosing of what God really said in the Bible.

Here are a few select quotes, and we'll start with Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay, Catholic, Time columnist:

I am a Catholic and people often ask me, how can you be openly gay and be a Catholic? And my response is always I'm openly gay, because I'm a Catholic, because God taught me not to bear false witness to who I am and my faith is something that I really have no choice over. I've tried. I've had a terrible struggle with my own faith, but God wouldn't let me go and he keeps bringing me back and he keeps saying to me, in the Eucharist and in the church I love you and you belong here. And I want you to have a loving relationship and I feel that my own relationship is a gift from God. I cannot alone in my conscience before God believe otherwise. So I can do no other. I'm here because I have no choice.

Interesting... He seems to think that as long as he admits he's gay, his homosexuality is perfectly fine in the sight of God. What about the other commandment not to commit adultery? What about the Genesis account defining marriage as between man a woman for the purpose of procreation?

Later, Sullivan interjects when Anderson presents the reason he is not in support of the ordination of gays.

Larry, may I say the scripture is clear and scripture says that I should be put to death. The very verse that says that shalt not lie with another man as one does with a woman, says that I should face the death penalty. That's clear. Is that the policy of Reverend Mohler and the other gentlemen? Why is that not taken seriously?

Yet he did the exact same when he said "God taught me not to bear false witness." Why choose that commandment over the sexual condemnations? This question also changes the subject to a matter that can't be discussed in a five-person panel interview in five minutes. These liberals don't directly deal with issues, the only dodge and redirect.

I'll give one more quote, from Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of the Episcopalian Church:

Yes, Larry, I think it's really important to understand that being certain about something does not necessarily -- even if you're certain about it for 2,000 years doesn't make it right. The church was pretty certain that scripture justified slavery and that only changed about 150 years ago. We were pretty certain for 2,000 years that women had no place in the leadership of the church. But we worship a God who is not locked up in scripture 2,000 years ago, but continues to reveal God's self to us. It's not God that's changing. It's our understanding. We're being led by the Holy Spirit to understand in a new way what God was intending. The question before us right now is, might God be intending something different in our welcome of gay and lesbian people that's not been true for the last 2,000 years? And would that not be God's will for us?

How do we know that the messages we are getting now are from God? How do we know that Paul and Moses messes up on the issue of homosexuality? Is God a schizophrenic?

Robinson is correct in saying that a 2000 year-old interpretation could be wrong, but he has no idea that his hermeneutical approach brings every moral statement of the Bible into question of its source--not just the laws concerning sexuality.