Why We Know That the Story of Sodom Indicts Homosexual Practice Per Se
Summer 2010 [put online 1/18/13]
This discussion was originally part of a larger essay later published: “The Scriptural Case for a Male-Female Prerequisite for Sexual Relations: A Critique of the Arguments of Two Adventist Scholars,” pp. 53-161 in Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues, eds. Roy E. Gane, Nicholas P. Miller, and H. Peter Swanson (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2012). It was removed from the essay because of overlap with another article in the same book and to reduce the length of an already long discussion. The articles in the book came out of a Seventh-day Adventist conference held at Andrews University in 2009.
Divorce and Remarriage-After-Divorce in Jesus and Paul:
A Response to David Instone-Brewer
June 2009 [put online 9/26/12]
Cheap Grace Masquerading as Pure Grace: The Unfortunate Gospel of Rev. Clark Whitten —Alan Chambers’ Mentor, Pastor, and Chair of His Board
|In process as time and interest permits.|
|Rev. Gross’s Op-Ed, “My Take: Will there be gays in heaven? Will there be fat people?” can be found here .|
Time for a Change of Leadership at Exodus?
Alan Chambers Assures “Gay Christians” That Unrepentant Homosexual Practice Is No Barrier to Salvation … among Other Gospel Distortions and Bad Moves
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Radio Interview on the Bible and Gay Marriage
The Bible and the “Gay Marriage” Question
A Response to Prof. Lee Jefferson’s op-ed piece for the Huffington Post
A 3-part op-ed piece for the Christian Post (July 8, 2011)
Link to the Chrisitan Post site here (Part 1), here (2), and here (3)
Or for the 3 parts in one piece on Dr. Gagnon’s site click here for html and here for pdf
What does the Bible actually say about “gay marriage”? That question is the title of a a recent op-ed piece in the Huffington Post (June 29, 2011) written by Lee Jefferson , a visiting assistant professor of religion at Centre College. According to Jefferson the answer is: “Nothing,” or at least “Nothing negative.” Jefferson used the recent passage of “gay marriage” by the New York legislature as a springboard from which to denigrate appeals to the Bible against homosexual practice. I will use Jefferson’s article as a springboard from which to answer the question that he and many others have raised.
Jennifer Wright Knust
Asst. Prof. of New Testament, Boston University
The Bible’s Surprisingly Consistent Message on a Male-Female Requirement for Marriage
A Response to Jennifer Wright Knust
(combining my earlier CNN article and on-site addendum)
Written 2008; posted online 7/13/10
Horizons in Biblical Theology 20 (1998): 1-11
| A scanned copy of an article of mine published in 1998, put on the web in July 2010.
Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex
Click here for article
Published on the Republicans for Family Values website.
Regardless of how one votes on election day, it is important to be aware of how this presidential candidate interprets Scripture to fit his political views and what kind of impact this will have on his policies regarding government endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual practice should he become president. For Obama’s policy objectives on these issues see the article just above this one.
A Book Not To Be Embraced:
A Critical Review Essay on Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace
completed Mar. 2008; posted online Sept. 30, 2008
This essay will appear in a very slightly revised form in Scottish Journal of Theology (Cambridge University Press), likely in vol. 62:1 in Feb. 2009; © 2008 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd.
More Reasons Why Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace Should Not Be Embraced: Part II: Sodom, Leviticus, and More on Jesus and Paul
completed Mar. 2008; posted online Sept. 30, 2008
The material in this essay could not be included in the Scottish Journal of Theology article, owing to word count limitations; but it shows how poorly conceived Johnson’s arguments are in a range of other biblical texts not covered in the SJT article.
More Reasons . . . : Part III: Science, Nature, History, and Logic
completed Mar. 2008; posted online Sept. 30, 2008
The mean-spirited homosexualist website, boxturtlebulletin.com , is aptly named, for the box turtle is easily confused and frightened by reality (though I don’t attribute meanness to the poor box turtle). A main writer for the site, Timothy Kincaid, underscores his own difficulties with logic, truth, and civil discourse in his multiple caustic postings regarding me. The more that I show, through rational argument, that his claims are baseless, the more he lashes out with bitter ad hominem attacks, referring falsely to my alleged “anti-gay” bigotry, “frothing indignation,” “homophobia” and “rants,” “laughable proclamations,” “pomposity,” “tortured logic,” “wacky way of thinking,” “wild presumptions,” and “blatherings on.” In puerile fashion he asks where I went “to grammar school,” and what “junior high writing class” I had. Then he whines that he is a victim of “personal insults and hostility” simply because I patiently show why every one of his claims is without merit. Remarkable stuff.
Is Box Turtle Kincaid Logic-Challenged?
A Response to His Claim That I Used “Tortured Logic” in Evaluating the Effect of 2008 PCUSA General Assembly Actions on Ordaining Homosexually Active Candidates
Why Box Turtle Kincaid Continues to Be Logic-Challenged and Now Also Principle-Challenged
On the High Court’s Role in Interpreting the Actions of the 2008 PCUSA General Assembly regarding Homosexually Active Candidates
Box Turtle Kincaid Peddles Distorted Orthodoxy Test While Promoting Immorality
Part 1: The Problem with the Call for Retranslating the Heidelberg Catechism
Part 2: Jesus’ Distance Healing of an Official’s “Boy”
Box Turtle Kincaid’s Failure to Address Arguments on the Heidelberg Catechism and the Centurion Story
Note: Compare Kincaid’s regular vitriol with his website’s “principles”: 1. “We are compassionate.” 2. “We are tolerant.” 3. “We are civil.” 4. “We are honest.” 5. “We are hopeful” (honest, I’m not making this up). Based on the kind of remarks noted in the left column and their regular insults of others (to name just a few, “nutbaggery,” “frothing lunacy,” “lunatic ranting,” “despicable coward,” “bigot,” “incoherent,” and “paranoid”), apparently the only things that they left out of their “principles” are: 6. “We are modest”; and 7. “We are self-deceived.” Kincaid and other similarly abusive proponents of homosexual practice should be loved while not tolerating their abusive ways and deliberate distortions.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Scriptural Perspectives on Homosexuality and Sexual Identity” in Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24:4 (Winter 2005): 293-303.
“The purpose of this article is to address specific themes from Scripture and theology that might be helpful for Christian psychologists who work with men and women who experience same-sex attractions. I shall begin by first discussing the relationship of Christian identity to biologically based orientations: does the latter necessarily determine the shape of the former? Then I shall look at the implications of this exploration for whether there is justification, or indeed necessity, for Christians who experience same-sex attractions to construct an identity distinct from such attractions. Finally, I shall suggest three additional scriptural principles for Christian psychologists.”
The Faulty Orientation Argument of the Anglican Primate of Ireland
Posted on the British-Anglican “Open Evangelical” Website Fulcrum (www.Fulcrum-Anglican.org) here
The London Times has given major coverage to Harper’s work, posting his full paper and giving first-article coverage online to it in an article by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent for the Times, entitled “ Archbishop of Armagh invokes scripture in defence of homosexuality” (July 4, 2008 here ). Here is an excerpt from Gledhill’s article: “The Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Rev Alan Harper, who is one of 38 primates in the worldw >here ) for July 4, 2008, Gledhill exuberantly states: ” Archbishop Alan Harper . has perhaps not received the attention he has deserved since taking over from the high-profile Robin Eames, lead author of the Windsor Report. My mission today is to change that. He has this morning delivered a powerful and, I have to say, rather convincing address making the intellectual case for a new look at St Paul’s texts on homosexuality.”
And Why Homosexualist Forces in the PCUSA Seek It
Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties in the Workplace
Why the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” should be strongly opposed.
(If this does not work go to http://www.cultureshocks.com/archives.html and scroll down to Sept. 28.)
Go here for a follow-up letter to Barry Lynn
|On Sept. 28, 2007 I was invited to speak on the issue of the Bible, Politics, and Homosexuality by Barry Lynn (executive director of “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State”) on his radio show, “Culture Shocks” with Jimmy Creech, executive director of the misnamed homosexualist group “Faith in America.” Lynn and Creech pushed the homosexualist line. Listen to the talk and read my follow-up letter to Lynn (neither Lynn nor Creech, who was cc’ed, has responded).
Also: A letter to members of Congress: here
Also: An exchange will a homosexual man upset with this article: here
Also: Questions and Answers about the Federal Hate Crime Bill here
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED: CONTACT CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT
“Jesus and the Centurion” by Veron és (1528-88 ).
Did Jesus Approve of a Homosexual Couple in the Story of the Centurion at Capernaum?
Click here for PDF version, here for HTML
An abridged version is now available in the May 4, 2007 edition of The Church of England Newspaper, pp. 22-23 under the title “Is Rowan Williams Wrong on the Meaning of Romans?” Go here to the “The Record” section and select the 04/05/07 edition for download. It’s free.
A response to the Archbishop’s claim that Paul’s primary point in Romans 1-2 was to critique the self-righteous who judge others, a point that challenges the position of persons today who judge those engaging in homosexual relations. With due respect to the Archbishop, Paul never argued that believers should not judge sexual immorality committed by those inside the church. To the contrary . . . . He also truncates and misapplies the context of John 14:6 (“I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me”) to suggest that we can go into interfaith dialogue with the view that salvation does not depend on explicit confession of Christ.
Dale Martin’s Poststructuralist Persona and His Historical-Critical Real Self
An Exchange Between Robert Gagnon and Dale Martin over Martin’s Critique of Gagnon in Sex and the Single Savior
Oct. 2006 (posted 3/6/07)
Click here for some responses
Click here for the beginnings of a more detailed response to Martin’s book: Dale Martin and the Myth of Total Textual Indeterminacy
Dale Martin, professor of New Testament at Yale University and a self-identified “gay man,” devotes six full pages of his recent book Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Westminster John Knox, 2006; released Sept./Oct. 2006) to criticizing me as a poster boy of “foundationalism,” which for him is a dirty word. What is my crime? My crime is thinking that some things written in Scripture are relatively clear and that, on the whole, a Christian is probably better off submitting to the core values of Scripture than deviating from them.
Produced here is the e-mail exchange that I had with Martin in Oct. 2006. A fuller critique is already in process (click here ). Although (1) Martin claims that no certain meaning can be extrapolated from texts and indeed criticizes me strongly for thinking otherwise, and although (2) Martin knows me only through “text” (my books and this email correspondence), he (3) shows remarkable textual certitude about what he thinks I know and don’t know and even what my motives are behind what I write. How is it possible that Martin can put on a persona of textual indeterminacy when he criticizes me but then, in that very critique, operate out of a conviction of complete textual certitude? Indeed, how can he even critique the “textual Gagnon” apart from some confidence that he can determine meaning from texts? Why even write books and articles as he does if texts are as ambiguous as he claims them to be? Read on.
How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture and Does Scripture’s View Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?
A response to R. Milton Winter’s Perspectives article:
“Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals”
|A response to an attack article on evangelicals that appeared in the Jan. 2007 online magazine of the Office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) called, ironically, Perspectives (plural). The editor, Sharon Youngs, refused to publish my response to Winter.
The Haggard Episode and the Case for “Gay Marriage”:
Why the Two Have No Connection
For responses to the article and my comments go here .
Can One Be a “Gay Evangelical”?
Also: A letter from a homosexual man angry that the Times quoted me–and my response HTML
Jack Rogers’s Flawed Use of Analogical Reasoning in Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality
“What Happened at the 217th General Assembly? The Import of the New ‘Authoritative Interpretation’ of G-6.0108”
Presentation given at the New Wineskins Initiative Convocation
“I Am of the Middle”: The Subgroup of the “Middle” and Its Accommodation to Sexual Immorality
A Response to Mark Achtemeier
Dr. Mark Achtemeier, professor of theology at Dubuque Seminary, contends that identification with renewal groups in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. may be a case of conducting church by “subgroups” comparable to the situation at Corinth that Paul rebukes in 1 Corinthians 1-4 (“I am of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ”). Unfortunately, Dr. Achtemeier does not consider that his stance on accommodating homosexual practice on the part of officers of the PCUSA may be comparable to the Corinthians’ toleration of consensual adult incest in their midst–in which case the repudiation of factionalism in 1 Cor 1-4 does not apply. Nor does he consider that he himself has become a member of a de facto subgroup within the PCUSA: the subgroup of the so-called middle that does not represent the majority of Presbyterians. Nor does he acknowledge that the PCUSA is already a subgroup whose status in relation to Scripture, the historic church faith, and world Christianity he has helped marginalize by his own work in the PUP Task Force and accommodation to sexual immorality among officers of the church.