Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?
Dr. James White vs Rev. Barry Lynn
Host:
“I would like to introduce to you our debaters this evening. And first we’re going to announce that defending with the liberal position, defending homosexuality, the Reverend Barry Lynn. He’s an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, and a long-time liberal activist. Since 1992 he has served as the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. From 1984 to 1991 he was legislative council for the Washington, D.C. office of the ACLU. Lynn has appeared frequently on television and radio broadcasts such as “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” “The Today Show,” “Nightline,” “Crossfire,” “Sixty Minutes,” “The Phil Donahue Show,” “Good Morning America,” national nightly news from NBC, ABC, and CBS, “Equal Time,” and “Larry King Live.” He now does a weekly syndicated radio program, “Review of the News,” defending the left against conservative co-host, Colonel Oliver North. Reverend Lynn—his web site is www dot a-u dot org—here he is, ladies and gentlemen, the Reverend Barry Lynn.”
<Applause>
“The Reverend Lynn’s opponent, the evangelical who will be opposing homosexuality, is Dr. James R. White. He is the director of a conservative Christian apologetics ministry in Phoenix, Arizona called “Alpha and Omega Ministries.” He frequently travels across the United States engaging in public debates with religious liberals, Roman Catholics, Muslims, and other apologists who oppose historical evangelical Christianity. He is the author of seventeen books including one expected to be in print later this year, The Same Sex Controversy, which seeks to refute the attempts of liberal theologians to defend homosexuality biblically. Dr. White is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated Christian radio broadcasts including, “Janet Parshall’s America,” and “The Bible Answer Man with Hank Hanegraaff.” Dr. White’s web site is www dot a-o-m-i-n dot org, if you’d care to write that down. And here he is, Dr. James R. White.”
<Applause>
“Our moderator this evening is Warren G. Frisina. Warren earned a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1987. He taught at Rice University, the University of Houston, and Emory University before coming to Hofstra in 1997. He has research interests in both Religious Studies and Philosophy, and is published widely on American Philosophy and Chinese Neo-Confucian Thought. His book, The Unity of Knowledge and Action: Toward a Non-Representational Theory of Knowledge, is scheduled for release in SUNY press in December of 2001. Before coming to Hofstra, Dr. Frisina spent four hours in the highly-regarded University of… four years, so sorry! <Laughter> Well… spent four years in the highly-regarded University of Houston honors college, and six years in the executive offices of the American Academy of Religion, an eight-thousand member learned society for faculty with research interests in religion. He served the AAR as associate executive director and acting executive director. While at Hofstra he has taught in the university honors program and served as honors house mentor and acting director of the university honors program. Here he is, Dr. Warren G. Frisina.”
<Applause>
“Dr. Frisina will give you a break-down of how this debate is going to play out. And before this debate begins I’d like us all to bow in a silent word of prayer, if you choose to pray.”
<Silence>
“Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. I hope that you enjoy the debate this evening.”
Dr. Frisina:
“Well, first of all let me begin by saying how pleased I am to be with you today. I appreciate the invitation to join you in the opportunity to hear these two men present their positions. I spend my life in the universities where inquiry and debate are the life-blood of what we do, and I always appreciate an opportunity to hear a good argument. The structure for tonight is fairly clear and straightforward. Our two speakers will each be given 25 minutes to prepare… to present opening remarks. Then each will take 10 minutes for rebuttal. After that we will have a brief break for a collection. Then we will begin the cross-examination period. Each person will be given 15 minutes to cross-examine the other—we’ll do that from the table. Then a second cross-examination, again 15 minutes each. And then 10 minutes each for the final remarks. That’s the whole… that’s the whole program. The only other thing—I’m expecting a fairly easy job tonight—the only other thing to say is that we each have one of these little timers here, so we will all set them at 25 minutes so that we can keep track of one another. And my job, basically, is to keep the clock and keep us running on time. So, without any further ado, our first speaker tonight is Reverend Lynn. He will begin his opening remarks.”
Rev. Barry Lynn:
“Thank you very much for inviting me to be here tonight. You know, in Washington, where I live and work, we tend to live and, sometimes if we’re politicians, even die by polls, and I just wondered: Honestly, is there anybody here tonight who does not already have a formed opinion on the correct answer to the debate topic? <Pause> Okay, that’s good–that’s two or three <Laughter>. That either means we’re going to have a very long evening or a very short one.
“I was intrigued by this invitation for a couple of reasons, as much by the second part of the question, that is, authentic Christianity, as I was by the first topic, which was, homosexuality. And I am here tonight as a minister in the United Church of Christ who also happens to run Americans United for Separation of Church and State. That group, however, is not a religious organization; it does not have a theology on the topic of gays or any other subject. So the views this evening are my own; if you want to hear about the views of Americans United, you’ll have to watch every other night or so when I appear on the Fox News Channel yelling at Sean Hannity. Then you can get the official word on what we believe at Americans United.
“I will of course address the topic of homosexuality, of course, but I do find it somewhat astonishing that even if one believes that homosexuality is a distinct and clear sin that anyone could believe that ‘being gay’ makes you per se inauthentic as a Christian. Or put another way, it certainly leads to some other interesting questions: do other sins place you in the same category, per se, an inauthentic Christian? How about wearing clothes of mixed fabric? How about eating shellfish? How about theft, how about lust in the heart? Or is it only this, and perhaps a few others, that are so grievous in the eyes of God that they put you in a literally different category than anyone else? And indeed, I thought it was the very nature of Christianity to accept that we are all sinners, that Jesus Christ died not just for the sins of our forefathers but for our own, try as we… try as hard as we might not to commit them.
“I thought indeed it might even be a sin of pride for anyone to dare think that a homosexual Christian is less authentic than any heterosexual Christian in this building, or in this country, or in this world. I just thought I’d ask those questions.
“Those were my very first thoughts, in fact, when I agreed to do this debate tonight. Now, as both an ordained minister and an attorney, I want to comment on a few other matters of style here. How does one even go about defining what is to be an authentic Christian? Is it a person who devoutly studies the Scripture? Is it someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior? Is it a person who attends church regularly, tithes, and even teaches Saturday or Sunday in Sabbath school? Is it a person who rarely goes to church, but who spends his or her life doing daily that which, according to the book of Micah, is all that God requires, only to act justly, to love loyalty, and to walk wisely with your God?
“So I do look forward to what Dr. White may have to say in explaining what he believes constitutes the life and the essence of an authentic Christian. There’s one other intriguing issue that emerges clearly for me because of my dual vocations of a lawyer and a minister. Constitutional scholars for a long time have debated the question of Original Intent of the Constitution. How is it related to contemporary legal issues? If we really knew what the first Congress thought when they passed the Bill of Rights, would it be easier for us to resolve as a matter of law those questions like church-state separation, and abortion, gay rights. Would it be enough, though, if we only knew what the framers of our Constitution thought in that first Congress, or would we not have to also know the original intent of all of those state legislatures that ratified the Bill of Rights before it became a part of our Constitution? And in fact could we even do that, because isn’t it true that the original intent is next to impossible to determine for even a document like our Constitution, because in only one state verbatim records were kept of the debate over what these meant, what this meant to the people who sent this to become a part of our Constitution?
“Jefferson, for example, didn’t even believe that original intent made all that much difference. He referred to what he and others had helped to craft in and out of the Congress as majestic generalities, the specifics of which would have to be filled in in the future. He didn’t think he was writing something that would be interpreted by no one but the Framers themselves.
“And this is… all this confusion is only over a document that’s 211 years old. What we’re talking about tonight are Scriptural texts that go back 2,000 years, not 200 years. But some of the same issues come up. What versions of the Bible should we consider ‘authentic’? Which is authoritative? Is it the King James Version? Is it the Revised Standard Version, or the revised version of the Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible? We know that most Christians do not believe that the Bible was literally dictated by God, to an author with a pen in his hand; the books in the Bible clearly reflect different sources, not necessarily contradictory but which reflect a somewhat different perspective.
“Indeed, what constitutes ‘The Bible’? There are many works contemporaneous to what we Christians call the New and Old Testament that are not in the Bible, but could’ve been. It was the church Fathers, after all, who selected some books for inclusion so we do learn about the visions of Ezekiel, about the valley of the dry bones, but we don’t hear, unless we read the Apocrypha, the story of Bel and the dragon. Those were decisions, consciously made, by people who were attempting to understand what God’s Word was and exactly what works of literature were to be included as the works and the words and the ideas of God.
“So it turns out to be a very, very difficult question. And then, by the way, is Scripture the only way in which we develop our Christian faith? Is it… it seems to be central to the question of… that we’re posing tonight… to know whether Scripture is indeed the only authority. I’d say that it is not. I’d say that Jesus gave us a very direct answer to that question; He said that neither Hebrew law nor His own words were to be the last word on the topic… on any topic. Listen to this passage, of course well known to you I’m sure, from John’s gospel, the fourteenth chapter:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another, to be your Advocate, to be with you forever; the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name will teach you everything and will call to mind all that I have told you.
“And it then continues in verse 12 of chapter 16 with this extraordinary statement: ‘There is still much that I could say to you, but the burden would be too great for you now. However, when He comes who is the Spirit of Truth he will guide you into all the truth.’ Imagine that. Jesus, who said if you have two coats don’t just give one away, give them both away, said there were harder things to explain, too hard for people to bear. That would have to come through the workings of the Holy Spirit.
“And we know that the revelation of God to humanity did not stop with Jesus, not just because Jesus said that, but because the very inclusion in the traditional Bible of the theologies of Paul, and of Peter, and the revelation of John shows that there was a continuing revelation of God to man. Should there not… Should we assume that with John ended all individual, authentic revelation of God to man? I hope not.
“I still think we’re talking, and we need to consider carefully, what the Holy Spirit of John’s gospel has to do with our day-to-day decisions on questions like homosexuality. I think that there is still a God who communicates very personally with us in times of prayer, in times of study, in those moments of acquiring new wisdom even when we least expect it, when we have experiences which open our hearts, our minds, to truths which we may feel hard to bear, maybe as life-changing as Paul’s transformation on the road to Damascus.
“I know that Dr. White’s a scholar of Biblical languages, I don’t purport to be that; I respect that study, I just won’t concede that it has an advantage in this debate, necessarily, because a living God does not reside, in my view, just in the ancient texts of a work produced by men. I accept the possibility, of course, that I’m wrong, that I might change my mind even tonight. With all those caveats and digressions, though, because I think they are important so that you recognize from where I come and where I start, I’d like to talk to you about the very limited amount of Scripture that really deals, even possibly deals with the question of homosexuality.
“When I was a child, my Sunday school teachers with some discretion appropriate to the developmental stages of a child’s life told the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and made it clear that the basic sin of the people was clearly some sin involving the body, it was a sexual sin. Later, of course, people said very directly it was homosexuality. I believe it is now safe to say that most scholars believe that that is not a simple and correct
understanding of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah; it’s a simplistic view of what is in Genesis 19, verses 4 to 11.
“‘Bring them’—Lot’s visitors, of course, they’re talking about—‘bring them unto us that we may know them,’ to know, yada. This word occasionally means engage in sexual activity, but it usually means know in a more traditional sense, as in, getting familiar with, learning about. That word is used in the Old Testament 943 times. Only 10 of them does it refer to any sexual activity, and only twice in those passages about Sodom and Gomorrah is it even arguably about homosexual activity. Remember, Lot had just arranged for two unknown persons— that we know them to be angels now, but nobody quite knew who they were then—persons of foreign origin to come into his home. So, of course, the people of Sodom were quite reasonably worried about these strangers, because they could have been spies. We know that Lot was not born in Sodom, he was under some level of disdain and skepticism originally. Of course the townspeople would demand to know who these characters were that were being allowed in his house. They didn’t want to sleep with them; they wanted to make sure they didn’t pose a danger to the town. There’s no reason to believe that sex, rather than security, was on their minds.
“Of course, Lot didn’t want the angels to face this angry mob, so he tried to sexually seduce the men with his own daughters. That does not reflect well on Lot, but, the notion that he was trying to sublimate the homosexual desires of the male mob by presenting them with the female equivalent of Jennifer Lopez is, I think, quite absurd.
“But wait—if it’s not homosexuality, then what is the sin so egregious that it comes up so constantly, as a reference point, by the prophets and even by Jesus? Why would God rain destruction on the city, what was the sin? The city, Lot excepted, was inhospitable to strangers. The city did not offer shelter, as Abraham had, in the story that you find in Genesis book… chapter 18, verses 1-5, to the angels; it was the quality of love that God demanded of Abraham.
“Indeed, no writer in the Old Testament even suggests that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality; for Ezekiel, it was pride, it was excessive wealth, lack of care for the poor; others it was slavery. Indeed Jesus’ only reference to the matter is found in Luke, chapter 10, verses 10-13, and He tells His disciples that if they go to a town and are not welcomed, they should warn the inhabitants that such treatment means that when the kingdom of God arrives, quoting one version, ‘on that day, Sodom will fare better than that town.’ Jesus wasn’t talking about sexual ethics; he was talking about strangers, and what happened when one hated them and was inhospitable to them.
“Many churches these days are struggling, in the mainline denominations, with whether they should become open and affirming congregations, as welcoming gay men and lesbians into full communion. One could suggest I guess whether those churches ought to be spending less time dealing with the purported sin of being gay, and more with the actual sin of being so inhospitable as to fail to welcome people who are gay.
“When we read the New Testament we run into some other difficulties; most curiously, of course, Jesus is silent on the topic of homosexuality; whatever he thought about it, if anything, is lost to history. It’s safe to assume, though, if it had been a major moral question he would have mentioned it repeatedly, just as he regularly condemned hypocrisy, and the religious leadership of his time; he repeatedly talked about mistreatment of the poor. We then have primarily the words of Paul, or the Pauline tradition at least, in First Corinthians, in First Timothy, and in Romans. Paul of course was the first theologian of the church; he did have a spectacular conversion to belief in God; he was not a friend of Jesus. He was an interpreter of the Word of God, as theologians remain today. They may believe they’re in touch with the Divine, but ultimately they are authors of opinions on the Divine.
“The difficulty of discussing Paul’s meaning, and Paul’s words, is manifold, including the fact that he had one fundamental problem, and that was that Paul clearly felt that the end of human history had already occurred. He was writing in a time not when the Kingdom of God was imminent but as he puts it, the Kingdom of God was already inbreaking into this world; it would all be over soon. That explains those curious controversial passages about slavery and about the role of women. [Distorted] don’t rock the boat because a better vessel is in sight; indeed, it’s on the horizon, you can see it. You can see it already.
[Distorted] talking about Paul’s language—because there are those who use these Pauline epistles to condemn homosexuality—and suggest that many competent scholars find less there than might meet the eye of some, including Dr. White. First Corinthians 6:9 you read a list of those who will not enter the Kingdom of God, a list which includes adulterers, drunkards, idolaters, thieves, and then these words that are very difficult, even to pronounce, malakos, arsenoistes [sic]; they’re very difficult Greek words because they aren’t used too often to describe anything remotely like this topic. Malakos, soft, you see it references made to soft cloth using that word. When it comes to Arsenioistes [sic], it’s a word only Paul uses; it doesn’t exist in any other form of those contemporary with Paul, so we really have to struggle for what it means. It certainly could suggest something about sexual behavior; the New Jerusalem Bible I think gets close to its meaning by capturing its meaning as ‘self-indulgent,’ a kind of general condemnation of excesses of the flesh, of many forms.
“First Timothy, chapter 1, verse 10 also contains a list of offenses, including murder of one’s parents, being a liar, a fornicator, and again that strange Greek word only used by Paul, which was translated in at least fifteen different ways, in fifteen versions of the Bible, including practicing homosexual, Sodomite, all kinds of other ways. But the word literally, as I said earlier, has no context because it’s only used by Paul. It literally means, you go back to the Greek roots, ‘man-penetrator,’ ‘man-penetrator,’ it doesn’t say what man is penetrating; it’s hard for me to understand the word as only referring to gay sex, because it doesn’t say that. I think it is condemning all forms of male prostitution, probably a very common practice in Canaanite communities, and in other communities that Paul is very critical about. Sometimes this prostitution was for religious, allegedly religious cultic purposes, sometimes just for financial gain. But I think that the sin in both of those important passages of the Bible has not to do with sexual activity per se, but the exploitative sexual activity of engaging in it for pay, or for furtherance of the idolatrous views of certain other religions. Corinth was notoriously corrupt in many ways; Paul seems to be writing a list here of all the offenses that had been reported against it. It’s just very difficult to find any support for the idea that this, these lists are about homosexuality per se, or that it condemns all sex between men. Moreover, it doesn’t even mention sex between women; of course, many passages of the Bible act as if women do not exist, or are not very important, because they too were written at a time in history quite different from our own. Not just because of cultural changes, but because Paul was writing at a time when he thought the old order was literally to end.
“There were no things like ‘gay unions,’ ‘gay marriages,’ in Paul’s day; these were unknown, at least to Paul, as activities in which anyone engaged, so to talk about homosexuality then, precisely at it is discussed today, is really to do history a disservice.
“Of course there are other passages: what about Romans? What about Romans chapter 1, verses 18 to 32, particularly verses 26 and 27? Don’t they authoritatively say, that there’s something sinful about being gay? ‘For this reason, God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also, the men giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty of their error.’ ‘Unnatural’ is a reasonable translation of the Greek word, yet all things unnatural are not inherently evil; how do we know that? Because God Himself is referred to as performing ‘unnatural acts’ at least once. He is said to have grafted a wild olive branch onto a cultivated tree, an unnatural union that’s a metaphor for teaching wild Gentiles the cultivated truths of the Jews. So this is not an ethical condemnation of same-sex relationships, it’s just an observation that such actions are outside that which is expected.
“Paul often uses this very word to describe things that are not seen commonly; they are the outliers, they are the things that are not common. He talks about, he says ‘Jews are expected to be Jews,’ he says that people… men are ‘expected’ to have short hair. Some men, though, he acknowledges have long hair; he uses the same word. Not necessarily describing it as sin, or as evil, but to describe it as something that is different from the norm—different from the norm. Paul wants to make something clearly known as being sin, he says it. He says it unequivocally; he doesn’t use words that can be translated as meaning ‘different,’ he uses words that mean ‘it is wrong.’ Condemnatory language, he does that in Romans 1; he says liars, and people who know the truth but don’t tell it are wicked--wicked. Not unnatural, wicked; they’re committing unethical acts. Because the Gentiles, he says, are given to idolatry, two different kinds of things happen: they fall into practices that are wrong, that is outside the norm, including sexual activities, and also, they do something else that’s much worse, they fall into wickedness. That is idolatry; that is murder. Those are the sins. The other practices, which he doesn’t like, but are not in the same moral category.
“Paul is interested in building the church; he is concerned mainly with people who fall away from God. He is throughout his letters trying to tell people not to get bogged down in petty details, but to see the big picture before it is too late. The world, he says, is bolting into our world now, as he writes, quoting that famous passage in Second Corinthians, chapter 5, verses 16 through 17, ‘For now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view. If anyone is in Christ—if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Everything old has passed away. Everything has become new.’
“And that’s even true in the area of sexuality. Back in Deuteronomy chapter 23, verses 1… verse 1, eunuchs, of which there are several types, including people who could act sexually but choose not to, are said not to be a part of God’s community in Israel. But in Isaiah’s prophecy, he suggests they will have a new role some day. ‘Thus says the LORD God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, “I will gather yet others to him, besides those already gathered.”’ Did the prophecy come true, as they often do? Yes, it did. How do we know that? Because of Acts, chapter 8. Starting at verse 26, Philip’s following the Holy Spirit. He meets an Ethiopian eunuch at the court of Candace. The eunuch believes in Jesus. He is baptized. We are then told he goes on to lead a life full of joy. So here Christians are asked to accept those whose experiences of sexuality were outside the pale for inclusion within the world of the Israelites but in the new world, the new world of Paul, the new world of the post-Jesus world and experience, people who were outsiders are now in the fold.
“There are many other scholarly pieces of material that you can read that talk in far greater detail than I could tonight about these and other interpretations of these critical passages. I do hope, though, that you can accept that thoughtful people can realize and reach alternate conclusions about these very difficult passages, difficult words, difficult constructions, and that Biblical texts are not to be the sole basis for laws in our society. Please do not demand that legislatures, for example, enact laws for all Americans based on the Scriptural interpretations of some Americans. That’s wrong.
“Second, consider the very words of Paul, with whom we’ve just been wrestling, on some other matters. In Romans 14, he writes ‘let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself but is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean.’ I look forward to Dr. White’s explanation of why he believes that homosexuality is inconsistent with authentic Christianity. Thank you very much.”
<Applause>
<Silence. Alarm goes off. Mr. Lynn: “This proves I didn’t take too long…” Laughter.>
Dr. James R. White:
“Good evening, and welcome; thank you very much for being here this evening. In 1993, at the March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Equal Rights and Liberation, the people who gathered presented a list of desires that were theirs, for what they wanted to see happen in our nation. They pushed for implementation of homosexual, bisexual and trans-gendered curriculum at all levels of education. They desired the lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex. The legalization of homosexual marriages. Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and trans-gendered people; the redefinition of the family to include ‘the full diversity of all family structures,’ and the access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America; affirmative action for homosexuals, and the inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan. As we look back over the past eight years we can see that already some of those goals have been met, at least with partial success in certain areas and others are still under a tremendous amount of controversy.
“We gather here this evening to consider what our society is to do in light of the fact that, I would assume, many of us here this evening claim to be Christians, and we claim to be authentic Christians. And we have to struggle with the question… we have to answer the question, ‘Is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?’ Now, it is a life-and-death issue that we are facing here. Yes, it is an issue of God’s Truth. It is an issue that, I believe, the Scriptures are very, very clear on, but it is also a matter of life and death, and if we care for people, we will care about this issue.
“Why do I say that? In 1994, there was a study published by the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, and in that particular study they studied the obituaries printed in homosexual publications; in other words, these were materials that were provided by homosexual organizations, there is no ‘anti-gay bias,’ shall we say, in that kind of material, against a control group at the same time period of non-homosexual people. And by comparing that data they discovered that for married men, the median age of death was 75 years of age, and 80% of married men lived past the age of 65. For single or divorced men, the median age of death was 57 years of age, and only 32% of those men lived past the age of 65.
“For homosexual men without AIDS, the median age of death was 42 years of age, and 9% lived past the age of 65. For homosexual men without AIDS and with a long-term sexual partner, the median age of death was 41 years and 7% lived past the age of 65; homosexual men with AIDS, but without a long-term sexual partner, average age… median death… age of death 39 years of age, less than 2% lived past the age of 65; and for homosexual men with AIDS and with a long-term sexual partner, average median age 39 years and less than 2% lived past the age of 65. If you’re wondering, yes, they did examine lesbians as well, and the median age of death was 44 years.
“Later research has confirmed these numbers; in a 1994 study of the social origins of sexuality 3400 people were asked anonymously about their sexual orientation. The percentage of men and women claiming to be homosexual dropped by 840% between the 30 to 39 year old age group and the 50 to 59 year old age group. Why might that be, unless the Omega study actually did come across something that is very, very important to us this evening? It is a matter of life and death. It is not simply a matter that we gather, and we talk together about something and then votes take place <clears throat>… excuse me… and, you know, it’s just sort of like whether we buy a new facility for a city or do a tax plan or whatever else it might be; this has to do with human life itself.
“Now, authentic Christianity has been already brought up, and of course that is a very important part of our thesis this evening. Authentic Christianity, following the normative words of Scripture, allows God to define all areas of human life, including the intensely personal area of sexuality. This flows from the fact that God is our Creator, and as Creator has defined for us how we are to experience the fullness of His will in our lives. Authentic Christianity does not take from God the right of defining sexuality and entrust it to the creature. Instead, it says plainly that the true joy and fulfillment of human sexuality is to be found solely in following God’s decrees and not departing from His will for our lives. Authentic Christianity is defined by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It is the radical claim of authentic Christianity that Jesus Christ was the God-Man, the Incarnate Son, the very Creator who entered into His own creation. Authentic Christianity believes Jesus Christ came into the world to do something: to save sinners.
“Hence, it likewise says there is a clear and understandable revelation from God as to what sin is, and, that the penalty for sin is death—eternal separation from God. My friends, if this were not so, the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ as our perfect and substitutionary sacrifice is left, quite simply, without meaning. It becomes an empty symbol. The reality of sin and its punishment is central to the Christian message, for the gospel is spoken to those who seek peace: not a surface-level peace, not a peace with society, not a peace with themselves, but a peace with God, the Creator whose law they have rejected and whose way they have spurned.
“Authentic Christianity likewise affirms that this revelation is found for us in fullness and clarity in the Scriptures, the Bible. There is no authentic Christianity where the source of our knowledge of God’s truth is rejected. Those groups that abandon the highest view of the Bible will always, in time, abandon the gospel itself, replacing it with a man-made substitute. Authentic Christianity takes the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 through 6, as final and authoritative. There, Jesus answered, himself, ‘Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them “male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” So, there are no longer two but one flesh; what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’ Words we all know, of course.
“But in these words we have Christ’s own interpretation of the creation narrative itself. The original creative purpose of God is plainly stated for us by the Lord Jesus. From the beginning God has created us male and female; the family is defined as ‘father’ and ‘mother,’ and this union results in children. The male child, upon reaching maturity, leaves father and mother and is joined to a woman and the two become one flesh. This intimate union is between male and female, never male and male or female and female. Male with male cannot make one flesh. That is always two distinct persons. And the same is true of females as well. The union of male and female in marriage is a divine union, according to the Lord Jesus, for He says, ‘what God has joined together.’ Man does not have the power, and man does not have the authority, to affect such a union; hence, all same-sex marriages, all same-sex unions, are, by that, unnatural and lacking divine approbation and approval. We take the words of Jesus, in authentic Christianity, as defining God’s purpose in the creation of man as male and female.
“Now, I hope you will take the time to look at these passages; I know they’re going by fairly quickly. But when we look at Leviticus chapter 18, and Leviticus chapter 20, we enter here into the law of God in the Old Testament. And it is often said that these passages are no longer relevant to the Christian people. Yet, isn’t it interesting when we read in Leviticus 18 and 20 of the sinfulness of homosexuality, the fact that it is to‘evah, an abomination, that carries the death penalty, that this section comprises, in the Scriptures, a body of revelation that is cited as authoritative, and binding in its testimony, by Jesus, by Paul, by Peter, and by James. In fact, Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself comes from this very section in Leviticus 19:18.
“And most telling is the fact that, if this section of Scripture is irrelevant to the moral teachings of the Bible today, then we must likewise drop all condemnation of the following activities as well, because they are condemned in this section: adultery, incest, child sacrifice, and bestiality. Notice well that chapter 18 specifically identifies these sins, including homosexuality, as being the practice of the Canaanites who were being driven out of the land and punished for doing these very things. Those who attempt to limit these words solely to the Jews in Palestine miss this important fact, and the rest of the Old Testament likewise applies these same moral absolutes to the nations around Israel and calls their actions an abomination. Given the context itself, and the reaffirmation of the binding nature of these prohibitions in the New Testament, there is no reason whatsoever to classify the condemnation of homosexuality as being merely a Jewish law without relevance to Christians.
“Now, that testimony you read in Leviticus 18:20 says
you shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her; you shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God, I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination. Also, you shall not have intercourse with any animal, to be defiled with it; nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all of these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
“And then in Leviticus 20:13 the death penalty is brought about for this type of activity; just as well, the act of homosexual sex is identified as a detestable act, a to‘evah.
“Now there are other references to this sin of homosexuality in the Old Testament; this general identification of homosexuality as an abomination is found throughout the text, in many places that have not been discussed as yet. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite half a dozen incredibly inventive yet likewise futile attempts on the part of pro-homosexual revisionists to deflect the fact, were obviously trying to engage in homosexual relations with the men who came to visit Lot, fulfilling the earlier description in Genesis 13, ‘Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD.” The Greek Septuagint clearly understands the sin of Sodom to be homosexuality, and translates that Hebrew term chatta with terms that are only used in the Septuagint of sexual activity. And later Jewish writings, in the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, only strengthen this conclusion.
“Homosexuality again appears in the incident in Judges chapter 19 and 20, and is seen as sinful there as well; male homosexual acts and those who engage in them are condemned in First Kings 14:24 and other places, where temple prostitutes, identified as Sodomites in the KJV, perform abominations. Comparison with extra-biblical writings confirm that these particular qedeshim as they were called, were male temple prostitutes who engaged in homosexual acts.
“But with time fleeting, we must look to the New Testament, since we’re talking about authentic Christianity, which takes very seriously, of course, God’s Law, and if it does not it is not authentic Christianity. But the New Testament is very clear on this subject; we know that the Lord Jesus Himself taught plainly that the Law of God was normative—He did not come to destroy it, but to fulfill it: that doesn’t mean to put it on a shelf. He said that those who would teach anyone to break the least of the commandments was a person who had grave consequences that would come upon him for doing so.
“The apostle Paul, not as a theologian thinking about God, but as authentic Christians believe, in inspired Scripture--the words of Scripture are not merely men’s opinions about God; as Paul himself taught, they are theopneustos, they are God-breathed, they are God’s revelation to us, not men’s ruminations about God—and in a passage already read you, Romans chapter 1, we read these words. ‘Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen! For this reason’—please note the connection; these verses do not exist in an island unto themselves; this continues the thought of the impurity we just read—‘for this reason God gave them over to degrading passions. For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another. Men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error’—surely, anyone can see that Paul here is condemning these acts as impurity and as sin; he is very clear in his language.
“Note a few things about Romans chapter 1. Paul speaks of males with males committing indecent acts; he does not say men with boys, a common claim of the revisionists, that this is only about pederasty. This is a mutual, reciprocal relationship, for it speaks of their burning with desire toward one another. Hence, all ideas of mere pederasty, gang rape, or cultural ritual activity are refuted by Paul himself. The men of whom Paul speaks have sexual desires for other men. Thirdly the phrase ‘the natural use’ of the male or female likewise shows that Paul is not limiting his comments to pederasty, as assumed by revisionists; ‘natural use’ can only refer to normal, adult heterosexual behavior which is part of God’s creative purpose. Lesbianism is referred to as ‘unnatural,’ that is against nature, not just simply out of the ordinary. God in His revelation has made it known what His creation is to be and how it is to function; Paul certainly recognized that, and, by the way, Paul would have known about many of the things we talk about today, as we will see as we get later on into the debate; the documentation on that is quite clear.
“This is a chosen act, on the part of those who commit it, in Romans 1. They choose to leave the natural use and engage in indecent and unnatural acts. Paul says that those who engage in all the sinful acts of Romans 1: 20 through 31—we can’t cut it up, we need to see the whole thing in its context—know God’s ordinances, and those who do such things are worthy of death, that is in Romans 1:32. Now how can that be, if such things as Leviticus 20:13 do not remain vital to the discussion to this day?
“Now as pointed out, we will look a little later at some of the material that is available to demonstrate to us that Paul would have know, in writing to the Romans, many of the things we talk about today, including individuals who live together for their entire life, etc., etc., but I would like to at least get to the rest of the passages that we would like to look at this evening. For example, in First Corinthians chapter 6, the passage has already been read in your hearing, but I’d like to give the context and have some comments about the meanings of the words that are provided here.
“In First Corinthians chapter 6, verses 9 through 11, we read:
‘Or do you not know the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.’
“Now of course the key term used by Paul here is so clear that great effort has been put out by revisionist writers to attempt to blunt its testimony and cause people to be confused as to its meaning. Paul draws here two terms from the Greek Septuagint that are found in Leviticus 20:13 in the combination of ‘homosexual’: arsinos, meaning male, and koitos, the term from which we get the word coitus, sexual intercourse. It refers to men laying with men as a man lays with a woman, i.e. homosexuality. Given the Old Testament background of Leviticus 20:13, and the use of those terms, there can surely be no question about this meaning, and interestingly enough, in many of the books that have been written, many of which are right over there on the table, there is no even discussion of the Greek Septuagint background of Paul’s coining of this particular term.
“Revisionist attempts by Boswell, Scroggs, Scanzoni, Mollenkott all fail miserably to take into consideration all of the relevant factors and some of the most important writings, such as Boswell, have been shown to be so highly selective in their use of the data as to be simply dishonest. The meaning is clear; the term refers to what men do with men in bed. And here, the Christian Scriptures identify this activity as something some of the Corinthian believers had been involved with, past tense. Now, to win this debate this evening, Mr. Lynn must explain why Paul said, ‘such were some of you,’ and not ‘such are some of you.’ For one thing is obvious: for Paul, there were no practicing homosexuals in the Christian congregation.
“It would make no more sense to go back through that list of sins that he provides to us and say, ‘Well, actually what we need to realize is, in the Christian church today, you can have idolater Christians, and you can have fornicator Christians.’ And these are people, not people who slip into a sin, but these are people who say, ‘You know what? This is my lifestyle. My lifestyle is to engage in the practice of idolatry. I have been made by God to be an idolater. I was born this way; and therefore I do not… I believe in the ethic of love, we’re just to love everybody, everybody’s to be accepted in the congregation, and therefore I am going to continue in my idolatry, because I think that all of those Old Testament prohibitions are worthless, and in fact the words they use, I’m not really certain, there’s confusion about that, so I think we need to be broad-minded, we don’t need to worry really what the Scriptures say, we just simply need to accept everyone, and so we’re going to have idolater Christians as well.’
“If that kind of thinking is convincing to you, then I don’t have a chance in this debate this evening with you. But if you recognize with me that the apostle Paul, if he was who authentic Christians have always believed him to be, and that is an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ—Peter himself referred to Paul’s writings as Scripture—and if Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken, then if this is our standard, then this passage absolutely closes the door on the thesis of the debate this evening. For Paul says to the Corinthians, ‘such were some of you, but’—and here is the key message for this evening—‘but you were washed.’ If it’s not sinful, why need to be washed? ‘But you were sanctified.’ What’s the need for that if it’s not something that is unholy? ‘But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’ That is what the gospel does to those who hear the message of what God would have us… how God would have us to live and how God would have us come to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why we’re here this evening, and I thank you for doing the right thing in being here. I hope you will listen closely this evening. Thank you very much. God bless.”
<Applause>
Dr. Frisina:
“So, we are ready to move to the next stage. If I remind you, there are two ten-minute rebuttals. Reverend Lynn will be the first to rebut, and then Dr. White after him. Reverend Lynn…”
Rev. Barry Lynn:
“Well, we see something happening… whoops… got to start this… I’ll have to repeat it… <starts timer> We see something happening in this debate already, and that is, that all kinds of material and ideas in order to inflame the debate have come up, not from Scripture, although there have been plenty of those, but also from social science data, and the demands of people at a gay-rights march several years ago, as if to suggest, first of all, that all gay people demand the same thing. That’s clearly not the case, or there wouldn’t be gay Republicans as well as gay Democrats. That’s why there were gay Catholics and gay Episcopalians. Apparently, they are able to see a diversity of ideas about politics and about sexuality that may or may not embrace all of these ideas. Legalized marriage, affirmative action, sex change under a universal health care plan; well, I don’t even agree with some of those myself, and I’m on the board of the ACLU.
“So I think it really sets up what is the beginnings of a false dichotomy here. An idea that because some people have made some statements which shock all of us, therefore we should go on and condemn—and that’s what’s going on here—condemn an entire group of people who consider themselves, under many circumstances, to be every bit as authentic Christians as any one of us here who considers him or herself to be an authentic Christian.
“And we find not only this political agenda brought up but now medical data, which is controversial, but I just pose one question. In the social origin studies and other studies of obituaries Dr. White’s discussed, if it is, in fact, true that this act or this character—because we don’t even know, we’re talking here about people whose acts we don’t know anything about, we’re knowing only about their self-described orientations—why is it that 9% of these gay men who do not have AIDS do make it past 65? What is the nature of them that makes them different so that they’re able to survive? Perhaps they’re the only authentic Christians in the group. I don’t know. But certainly to use this kind of data to prove something about the theology of homosexuality is utterly inappropriate if the only thing that matters is the text itself.
“But we’re already starting to see that that doesn’t matter. Because we’ve heard that Dr. White’s going to discuss later in the evening what are extra-biblical texts, including statements in the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the books that didn’t make it into the canon of the Christian Bible, suggesting that in fact we don’t have only these sources to generate information about sexuality and its theological… and the proper theological point of view, which is of course not a bad idea. In fact, it’s what I said at the beginning. It’s because I do not believe, and I do not accept the idea, that the only way to define authentic Christianity is to determine what the original meaning of the text of the Bible was, written two thousand years ago.
“I know that many of you don’t agree with that, but to not accept that, to not accept any other source of information or revelation, is to deny that your prayer life is ever likely to gain you anything new, anything you haven’t thought about; you might as well just repeat it, put it onto a tape recorder and play it to God every day, because it’s not really a communication where you could receive new insight. To suggest that study of the texts of the Bible, study of the cultural experience of those who were participants in the creation of the Bible, that that doesn’t mean anything, that no new truths can come from that, is to reject the idea of continuing to study the very texts that we consider to be important, even if not the only source, an important source of how we gain knowledge about our relationship to God.
“To put so much weight onto the words of Paul I believe is an astonishing error, because Paul made the astonishing error that I’ve already mentioned. There’s no other way to describe it. He believed that the Kingdom of God was upon him, not decades, millennia in the future; he was already talking about dikesune dethou theou [sic], the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God into the world that he knew. He was wrong. There’s no polite way to say it. He was a theologian. He may have thought—many theologians believe they’re right all the time—when Jerry Falwell and I debate on television, he thinks he’s right, I think I’m right, one of us may be right, one of us may be wrong; maybe there’s even a little truth in both, I deny this idea that everybody is all right or all wrong; we think we’re saying that which is true, but obviously there is a difference of opinion on the matter, and I’d suggest that that’s what we’re talking about in these very critical passages.
“Why is it that Dr. White’s interpretation, of lists in First Corinthians—I think he talked about the list of wrongs, and he quoted them as including ‘effeminates’ and ‘homosexuals.’ I can find you literally fifteen other translations of the two words that he chooses to use ‘effeminate’ and ‘homosexual’ to describe. Is he the only person who got it right and the other fifteen are all wrong? It’s possible. It is possible, but I ask you to consider whether you want to make life-or-death decisions about yourself and your ability and willingness to condemn others based on one interpretation instead of one of the other 15 interpretations of that, because it is a serious matter. And it is to be taken seriously.
“Couple of other points. Much has been made of the passages that Dr. White has talked about suggesting what is the only way in which a person can be an authentic Christian, ‘two shall be made to one flesh.’ Family, he says, includes children. That literally cannot be true, because of the story of the eunuch from the Book of Acts. ‘Eunuch’ was a person who was not going to engage in sexual activity. We don’t know about that eunuch: whether he was castrated; whether he was not, but chose not to have sexual intercourse; but we know in Acts that he was a follower of Jesus, was baptized, and lived in joy the rest of his life. It cannot be true. It cannot be true that he cannot be described as an authentic Christian because he was unable or unwilling to have a family. That is a very dangerous proposition, because it suggests that anyone who chooses celibacy, for example, is inherently an inauthentic Christian. I don’t believe that is true.
“He… Dr. White has talked a great deal about the death penalty, and I will want to question him about this as we go through the evening, because one has to remember that under the description that he has, a culturally-derived description of what is right and wrong, there are plenty of other things that in the holiness codes in Leviticus and in other sections of what Christians call the Old Testament, there are many other offenses that do deserve the death penalty. There are many other forms of relationship including living with a second husband or wife after a divorce that are seen in the same way and in the same character as Dr. White believes all same-gender relationships need to be seen. And we need to consider whether we have agreed to a slavish—that’s what it would be, slavish—interpretation of Scripture such as to write out of the possibility of authentic Christian experience not just gay men and lesbians and trans-gendered people but even people who are divorced or who choose not to engage in sexual activity with the possibility of having any children.
“There’s a great deal of controversy about whether people choose to be gay or not, and there’s a great deal of debate even among more liberal constituencies about that issue, but again this analysis tonight from Dr. White does assume that all of these feelings, not just acts, but feelings are in fact chosen, and I personally don’t buy that. I don’t buy that at all.
“I was out at Rice University a few months ago with Tony Campolo and someone asked him in the middle of his discussion at the end of the debate just what he thought about this gay rights question and he, of course, has a fairly conservative Biblical view of it. But he did… and something that came to my mind when I thought about this evening… he said he does not believe that God creates abominations. And neither do I. And I’m glad, frankly, that I am here tonight rather than having a gay person here tonight because I think some of what we’ve already heard, with all due respect, borders on the hateful and certainly borders on it closely enough that it would be an embarrassment to many gay people to be here and hear their authenticity, their Christianity, questioned in the way that we have heard it questioned already, and we’re only part way through the evening. Thank you.”
Dr. James R. White:
“So many things, so little time in a debate such as this. It was just indicated that I was in some way, shape or form undercutting my own position regarding the sufficiency of Scripture by referring to the meaning of words as they were used in extra-Biblical documents; this is a part of simply studying the lexical backgrounds of words, and the meanings of words. It is not an undercutting of sola Scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith of the Church in any way, shape or form, and to say that that opens the way to new revelation of the Spirit and an open canon, as Mr. Lynn has presented it, is obviously an error of logic. We were told to put so much weight on the words of Paul is an ‘astonishing error.’ I would say the astonishing error is Mr. Lynn’s misinterpretation of Paul. Colossians 1 tells us that we have been transferred into the Kingdom of His Son. We do live in the last days; it has been the last days ever since then, the days of the ministry of the Spirit.
“I never, ever once said, as I think most of you understand, that a person who does not have a family could not be a Christian. I never said that. What I was talking about, of course… <applause> what I was talking about, of course… you’re taking my time… <laughs>… what I was talking about, of course, was the fact that Jesus, in talking about the Creation, said that male and female together come together, then the male or female leaves father and mother; this is the natural creative decree of God. I never made the insinuation that Mr. Lynn has said that I did.
“Now, Mr. Lynn has said that he feels it’s astonishing that you could believe that someone is an inauthentic Christian. The only logical way to understand that statement is: we can’t tell who a Christian is. If you cannot say that a person is an inauthentic Christian, then what you’re saying is, ‘we don’t know who a “Christian” is.’ And as long as you say you’re a Christian, you’re a Christian, it doesn’t matter what you believe. You can believe Jesus is a totem pole, and you’re a Christian. Just say the word ‘Jesus’ and you’re a Christian. Is that authentic Christianity? Is that what the Bible reveals to us? Certainly not. The apostles were greatly concerned about false Christs and false Messiahs. How would they even have a concern about such a thing, if in point of fact the revelation of God is not clear enough for us to know what Christ is… who Christ is, and what a Christian is? What His follower is?
“We have been told, for example, that if we eat shellfish or mix fabric or things like that or we have lust in the heart, and we are told there are all sorts of things in the holiness code—not in the section we’re looking at—and if anyone cannot tell the difference between those issues that were specifically about the Jewish people and their clothing and the fact that the New Testament writers take these prohibitions and apply them in the New Testament and what we’re talking about in Leviticus, this was not touched on, but in Leviticus it is said that the Canaanites are being driven out for committing these things. It obviously isn’t just a Jewish purity code; the Canaanites were not driven out for eating shellfish. That is a misinterpretation of the text and ignoring of the context of the passages that we are looking at.
“We are told that the original intent of Scripture is next to impossible to determine, using the Constitution as an example, and then saying we’re talking about texts that are two thousand years old. Folks, that is really the only way that revisionist interpreters can get around the historical testimony of the Christian people throughout the history of the Church and of the Jewish people before that; it is to simply say, ‘we just can’t know. We just don’t know. We don’t know what arsenokoites means. Yes, certainly there in the Septuagint and Leviticus 20 and Leviticus 18, those two terms appear and it talks about men lying with men, but we just don’t know what that means. Because I can point to fifteen translations.’ I would like to ask Reverend Lynn, if you can point to fifteen translations, can you substantiate the translations? I mean, there’s lots of folks running around translating Bibles; that’s no big deal. I don’t exactly think we’re referring to the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses means I should accept their renderings. Give us some substantiation on a grammatical level of why arsenokoites does not mean what it transparently means. Substantiate those things; I’m not claiming to be the only one. In point of fact, I would say that the vast majority of linguistic scholars do not agree that it’s unclear as to what it means but agree that the translation is in fact clear.
“We were told that Jesus Himself undercut the sufficiency of Scripture to function as the final court of arbitration in this matter, because He sent the Holy Spirit. And I wonder when we look at John 14 and 16, are we actually being told that what this means is that there is no Scripture to which we can refer? That while the Old Testament saints had a body of revelation to which they could refer—and in fact the Lord Jesus bound it upon his own hearers, assumed it was knowable to everybody, and used that—somehow, for His Church there is going to be an unknowable open canon, and in point of fact people are going to receive new revelation all the time. And this new revelation may or may not be consistent with the erroneous Paul or His other erroneous apostles. Is that what we’re to understand John 14 and 16 as saying, or is the historical interpretation that’s been offered by Christians down through the centuries of this passage, and that is that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, not through giving us new revelation but in understanding the revelation God has given to us with finality and clarity in Scripture is in point of fact the way we should understand the passage. <Applause>
“When we go back to looking at Sodom and Gomorrah, isn’t it interesting that we haven’t heard anything about Ezekiel chapter 18 verses 49 through 50. Ezekiel chapter 18 does list inhospitability as one of the sins of that particular city-state, but interestingly enough even in some of the books that I have right there such as Daniel Helminiak’s work, they only quote Ezekiel 18:49, they forget to quote Ezekiel 18:50 which specifically tells us that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved that which is to‘evah, the abomination, and it was well known in Ezekiel’s day exactly what that referred to. Sodom and Gomorrah were not laid waste because only the men of the city… I wonder why there weren’t any women outside that door that night, have you ever thought about that? Why is it only the men of the city who came to find out who these strangers were? ‘Bring them out, so that we ye‘dah them.’ Adam ye‘dahed Eve and she had a son.
“Finally, it was just stated, and I think this is where we need to focus: It was just stated, ‘oh, you’re hateful if you say what you’re saying.’ My friends, the most hateful thing that a person who has by God’s grace has been given His truth could ever, ever do to anyone is to withhold that truth from them when it means their very eternal soul. We live in a society of pure subjectivism. We live in a society that says ‘if you dare say that you know what is right or wrong, especially in the area of religion, you’re a backwards, hating person…’ We need to recognize the liberal position for what it is. It’s a denial of God’s ability to tell His own creatures how they are to live their lives in a way that will bring them into proper relationship with Him and bring them greatest joy and fulfillment. That’s what it is. ‘God can’t tell us! And you’re hateful if you say He does.’
“My friends, it is incumbent upon you, it is incumbent upon authentic Christians in this society in a way that few generations of Christians have been called upon in the past, to think with clarity. To think with a Christ mind, to think in accordance with a Christian world view, to recognize that when you are attacked, when you are said to be hateful for speaking God’s truth, you need to be able to see past the rhetoric and see what’s actually being said. To recognize the underlying assumptions that there is no clear revelation from God, no one can really know, and who are you to bring God’s word to people? The Lord Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, what? Go and what? ‘Sin no more.’ How unloving! No—how loving of Him to say that! My friends, the Word is clear. Focus upon what the Word says; focus upon the thesis of the debate. “Is homosexuality compatible with authentic Christianity?” If authentic Christianity is defined by what God has revealed in His Word—in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Scriptures cannot be broken—then the thesis of this debate has been established. Thank you very much.”
<Applause>
Dr. Frisina:
“I’ll tell you what, we’ve been going for an hour and ten minutes here, and I think that before we go to the next stage, which is where our debaters speak directly to one another, we stand up, give ourselves a moment to stretch and then we’ll turn directly to the interaction.”
Mr. Lynn (BL) examines Dr. White (JW):
BL: We’ll set our clocks…
JW: Yes..
BL: Alright. Dr White, let’s go back to this shellfish issue. Are you saying that… no one, by the way, was necessarily comparing them, I least of all would necessarily compare eating shellfish to murder, for example… but are you saying that Jesus said it was all right to eat shellfish, that He was silent on the question and therefore He might or might not be able to eat oysters, or how do you decide which parts of the holiness codes are relevant to authentic Christians today? How do you figure that out?
JW: Oh, actually, interestingly enough, in response to that specific question the Lord Jesus did in the gospel of Mark, specifically declare all meats to be clean—off the top of my head I can’t give you the reference but He did make that exact statement—so he did in regards to the dietary laws, and historically individuals have been… have presented the idea that that which is fulfilled in the person of Christ and in the sacrifice of Christ—the sacrificial laws, the laws in regards to those things accompanying the Tabernacle and Jewish worship—are fulfilled in Christ, and the moral laws are continued on because of their continued use by the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ.
BL: I wasn’t aware that oysters were meats, but maybe they are. What are the other acts that deserve the death penalty? Let me clarify your intent here: are sexual acts between men and men and women and women worthy of the death penalty, or the status of being attracted to a man if you’re a man or a woman if you’re a woman? Which is it that is that sin that deserves the criminal punishment of death?
JW: Are you referring only to Leviticus or do you want to go pan-canonical throughout?
BL: No, I just want to know today. I want to know if a person who is gay and celibate and/or a person who is gay and engaged in intercourse with the same-gender person worthy of the death penalty today?
JW: Okay, in response to that question, since you said you want to go for us today, and hence I’m going to utilize not just Leviticus, which specifically focused just on the sex act, but also the book of Romans, which specifically makes reference to the desires of individuals. It says they burned in their desires toward one another, etc., etc. In each one of those situations, the death penalty as you would use it is somewhat different between the two. In Leviticus, it is that which is undertaken by the state itself in the nation of Israel; in the book of Romans, it is spiritual separation from God and the penalty of death there is really, I would say, the more severe one because it has eternal consequences very clearly attached to it.
BL: Wait, no… would you or wouldn’t you believe it would be a wise thing for the State of New York to declare that intercourse between people of the same gender… it should be punishable by death?
JW: I don’t want the state of New York to be doing anything, actually; I’m a little scared by the state of New York these days… <Laughter> but… uh… in answer to your question, if you’re asking do I believe that we should set up a theocracy, and re-establish the Old Testament’s situation like that, I’m not looking for that type of theocracy. What I’m saying is that in the Book of Romans, which I believe to be the standard for us today, which was your original question, the issue of the death there is spiritual death, which then becomes the very foundation of what the gospel proclamation is of salvation and how we can have spiritual life.
BL: OK, but when did that change? When did it change? When did Paul say, “really, we are talking about spiritual death here, we are not talking about an actual death penalty, we are not talking about the stoning,” which, by the way, for adulterers was continued as a practice, although Jesus condemned it. But, where did this change come?
JW: I’m not sure… I need to ask a clarification of the question: Jesus condemned the Old Testament law of stoning…?
BL: No, he…well, actually, he did suggest that people who were without sin should be the first to cast the stone against the adulterer. My point is, when did this change, so that Paul said, “Listen, guys, we are not really talking about the death penalty now, we’re just talking about spiritual death.” When did that happen?
JW: Well, actually, it’s very clear in Romans chapter 13 that Paul does believe that the state carries the sword for the punishment of evil…
BL: Yes it does.
JW: …and therefore Paul would not have any problem with a state that would punish evildoers…
BL: Right.
JW: …and base that upon the Scriptures.
BL: Absolutely. But you do…
JW: But that’s not what he was talking… but that’s a different context, sir, than Romans chapter 1, and it’s a false dichotomy to say, sir, that he somehow had to say, “Well, something has changed…”
BL: No, it just seems to me that… well, let me put it this way: apparently something has changed between Paul’s understanding of the role of the state and yours, because you don’t want this State and presumably even your home State of Arizona to impose the death penalty on people who are gay.
JW: Is that a question or is that a statement?
BL: Yes…
JW: If the question is do I want the state to do that, the problem is in the Old Testament it was godly judges who were responsible to God, and who could legislate on the basis of Scripture, who were entrusted with doing that thing. I can guarantee you one thing: that’s not what’s going on in our government today.
BL: Even John Ashcroft? Could he impose the death penalty on someone? He’s a godly man. He told… he tells us.
JW: Well, you know, I wish… I wish people like John Ashcroft had more freedom to do what they could do, but there are people like yourself who oppose him…
BL: If John… you are not answering the question; you just are not answering the question. If people like John Ashcroft made the laws, would you support the death penalty for gay people? It’s a simple question.
JW: Sir, and I already answered that question in pointing out to you that the people of Israel were the ones to whom the charge was given to give the death penalty on that basis within that context, and I’ve pointed out to you, for Christians, which was your original question, that for Christians, the normative teaching is that it brings spiritual death, and that that can be counteracted by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
BL: OK. Well, alright. Well, lets’ think with a Christ-mind on this one. What do you make of Jesus’ failure to comment on the obvious homosexual relationship between the centurion and his slave in Matthew chapter 8 verses 5 to 13 and Luke chapter 1 verse 10? It’s clearly…
JW: Well, first of all, I reject… I reject the assertion that there is an obvious homosexual relationship there, and secondly, I don’t believe that Jesus quote-unquote failed to do anything because it assumes facts not in evidence, and secondly, Jesus’ statements are very clear in his affirmation of the entirety of the law, which I would say is an ipso facto affirmation of the entirety of that, including the ban on homosexuality.
BL: Well, well… what… the centurion did have a slave, am I right about that?
JW: Uh, huh.
BL: And he didn’t comment on the slavery issue, but I thought we’d leave that alone for the moment. But you do know that the general relationship between men and young—we know that this was a young boy-slave—was generally of a sexual nature.
JW: Not between godly men it was not, no.
BL: Was the centurion a godly man?
JW: Since he had faith, yes.
BL: But he still had slaves.
JW: Yes.
BL: And he still engaged… why do you think then he was so interested in bringing this slave to Jesus?
JW: Because he… because he had a deep concern about this person’s life…
BL: And continuing…
JW: …it does not have to be sexual.
BL: …to continue him in sexual slavery, I think, but maybe not.
JW: Is that a question?
BL: No, I just… it was a comment. Why do you accuse me and others of pure subjectivism when I tried to distinguish at the very beginning of this conversation about things that were obviously wicked, things including prostitution, lustful sexual activities—heterosexual and homosexual—cultic ritual sexual activity of any kind; those are clearly sin. Those are not in the list, as I understand and interpret the list in Corinthians, those are not… those are clearly wicked. They are sins. Other activities are unnatural in the sense that they are rare. But why would you say, since I have conceded a long list of sins, that I am totally subjective?
JW: Actually, what I said was there is total subjectivity either—I mentioned in two areas—either in the works of revisionists in their use of scholarly data, or I was referring to liberalism in general in its assertion of its worldview and its assertion of moral absolutes. I don’t know the… exactly what you’re referring to, because you first said First Corinthians, and then you used the term “unnatural” which is from Romans, so I’m not sure which of those two lists you’re talking about.
BL: Well, is… prostitution is wicked. We agree with that. That’s sinful. Do we agree with that?
JW: Are you asking me a question?
BL: Do you agree with that?
JW: We agree with that because God has revealed that it violates His creative purpose for male and female and that union that is there is becoming one flesh. That’s Paul’s entire discussion in First Corinthians, is that when you join yourself to the body of a prostitute you are making yourself one flesh.
BL: But then isn’t it unfair, when I have just criticized that, as do most of those scholars… I can’t… I’m not sure that all of them do, but I think almost all of them, also criticize this kind of inappropriate sexual misconduct, including acts like adultery and prostitution? I mean, those scholars are not subjectivists. They are simply trying to interpret the passages—these controversial passages that you and I have been talking about—and reach different conclusions.
JW: It seems to me that what you’re asking me is, is it unfair to point out when scholars are subjective in one area and then inconsistently objective in an area that is not of concern to them? I think it is fair to point out when scholars, of whatever field they’re studying, are… will say there’s objective sin in one area but then, going over to another area, will engage in subjective—either it’s choosing what data to look at or not to look at, like Boswell does with Church fathers or linguistic issues, whatever it might be—I think it’s very fair to point out when they’re in error in any area in which they’re writing and addressing, especially when it’s the subject of our debate.
BL: Yes, although again, let me ask it this way. You assume that something nefarious is going on here, with all of those scholars and with, with my interpretation of some of their work and my own sense of what it is to be an authentic Christian. But it is not subjectivism to say that some things are clearly sin, by the Bible’s own terms, and in our opinion the words relating to other activities do not constitute sin. As I said, Paul clearly is not in favor of homosexuality. But he doesn’t say it’s the same sin as murdering your parents. Different languages, different structures to the passages—I think it matters. You apparently don’t. But why is that subjectivism?
JW: There were… there were four or five actual assertions there. First of all, I did not identify any difference that we’ve had, over the meaning of arsenokoites, para phusin, the meanings of the terms in the Old Testament as subjectivism. I have indicated, but we have not even gotten into, certain areas where the foundational scholars that the others draw from have engaged in that in their research. Secondly, I have… I think it is an inconsistent thing to say that I have said to you that our differences of opinion on these subjects involve one side being merely objective and you being subjective. I did not say that; I have instead invited you to present to us a foundational scholarly defense of your assertions regarding the nature of these terms.
BL: Okay, you did use the phrase pure subjectivism to describe me and liberal theologians, so I think that it was a fair question to ask you.
JW: Is that a question that I could comment on?
BL: Yes.
JW: Well, my response to that is I did it in a particular context, especially the context of this idea of yours of an open canon, and this whole concept of your final closing statement and your rebuttal where you said this was an act of hatred; and I was pointing out that the only way that you can substantiate that kind of assertion is to engage in a subjective world view that would not allow for the idea that there is an objective truth and that to speak it is actually an act of love, even if it offends.
BL: Oh… well, okay, I’m not going to make a comment; you can ask, if you care, about that. Is Jesus unnatural because he chose not to do the very things which you would describe as the natural chain of events, and that is, leaving your parents, finding a woman, and I do think you said have children, but let’s forget the children for the moment; was he not engaged fundamentally in an unnatural relationship?
JW: The only context in which I can take your question is the use of the term “unnatural” in Romans chapter 1. Is that the context of your question?
BL: Yes, it’s… it is rare, and outside the norms of the culture. That’s how I defined it, not how you defined it…
JW: I understand that. And I reject that definition; I do not believe it is consistent either with Paul’s worldview or his teaching as a whole. Of course I think we disagree you can determine a consistent teaching on Paul; I believe that you can, I don’t believe that you do. But I do not believe para phusis means unnatural in the sense of unexpected. I believe that Paul understood that God, as creator, which is the context, defines what is natural and unnatural in his created world, which is the context, and therefore he is identifying these acts as unnatural, as being against God’s creative decree. Living celibately, in the way that Jesus did for ministry, is not against God’s creative decree. Male and male sex, female and female sex is.
BL: Alright, well, we’re almost out of time, so why don’t I stop for the moment. I’d like to pursue this in the next period of questioning too. Thank you.
Dr. Frisina: A moment to reset…
Dr. White (JW) examines Rev. Lynn (BL):
JW: Thank you. Reverend Lynn, I was going to start by asking you if you believe the Bible to be the sufficient rule of faith, but you indicated in your opening statements…did I interpret you correctly to say that you do not believe that the Bible can function as the sole infallible rule of faith in the Church?
BL: I clearly believe that there is continuing revelation of God to man, to women, to all of us and that, therefore, the canon as we know it cannot be either literally interpreted or sufficient to Christian life of this millennium.
JW: Do you believe that the revelations that… do you receive revelations from the Holy Spirit?
BL: Yes.
JW: Do you believe that your revelations are equal with what Paul says in Romans 1?
BL: I have no idea if they’re psychologically equal. I only know that they’ve changed my life, as they’ve changed the life of other people, and indeed on these very issues. Because if you were talking to me thirty years ago, I would be in total agreement with everything you’ve said. And everything that I know that you have said on other controversial topics within the Church, including abortion. But it is through prayer, through study, through personal experience of the other, of other people, that I believe my heart has been changed. And that I have to declare to be authentic. I have to declare it authentic. Whether it’s the same as Paul’s, I am unable to answer that question.
JW: Is there such a thing as an inauthentic spiritual experience?
BL: Well, it can be inauthentically Christian; that is to say that, I believe there are people who have spiritual experiences, who claim contact with the dead—they believe it to be spiritual. I don’t think it’s authentic Christian spiritual experience, but I think it is… it is fair for them to call it spiritual. It’s just not Christian.
JW: By what standard, sir, would you judge any spiritual experience?
BL: Well, I mean, one has… you see, I believe one has to be honest with not only the criticisms that you would levy against someone who says sin is not sin and go ahead and engage in it, but I think we have to give more credit to the individual practicing Christian than I believe you are willing to give them. That if someone says, through a prayerful communion with Jesus Christ, with God through Jesus Christ, I have changed my mind, I have changed my heart. It is very difficult for me to sit as an outsider, in Arizona, or Washington, D.C., or anywhere else, and dare to say their experience of God is inauthentic. Particularly when they describe it within the context of a fundamental respect for Scripture, even though they may say, as I do, Scripture is not sufficient for the task of full understanding because, among other things, because some of... some of what Jesus says, when He talks about the Holy Spirit, clearly implies that some of the teachings to come… He doesn’t say come at the time the canon is established, He doesn’t know this is coming. He says some things are too heavy for you to bear. And I think it is extraordinarily difficult to get through these texts… get past these texts, and still be able to look at a person who claims to be an authentic Christian and say, “I am willing to accept the authenticity of your experience.” That’s very difficult for many of us.
JW: Two things from the comments you just made. Was Paul being unloving and unkind when he wrote the letter to the churches in Galatia and anathematized those who had what would, in comparison between you and I, be a minor theological difference with him?
BL: Can you be more specific?
JW: He said that they were to be accursed by God, because they added one thing to the Gospel; that is, they said you needed to have faith in Jesus and be circumcised.
BL: I believe… I believe that that would clearly pass as an extravagant statement, a statement that in fact is not even in keeping with his own comments about the need not to create impediments between Christians but ways to find… ways to circumvent those issues like circumcision.
JW: So in reality, your personal experience of the Holy Spirit would be more authentic than Paul’s comments to them, because they were inconsistent?
BL: Well, now, I’m not suggesting I’ve always been consistent. Please… I mean, I would never claim that… that level of perfection. I’m just saying, I think it is a reasonable thing to suggest that Paul was making too much in that letter to the Galatians about things that in fact did not matter very much.
JW: So in that letter, when he says that he is defending the truth of the gospel, do you believe that there is a truth of the gospel that we can know with certainty?
BL: I believe there is a truth of the gospel that we can know with certainty. I just don’t think that the way we can know it is always the same. I don’t believe that we can simply read the Scripture, or one reading of the Hebrew, one reading of the Greek Scripture, and say, “of course we’re all going to come to the same conclusion.” I think it is just as authentic to reach different authentic conclusions even if we don’t agree on the meaning of every word in the Bible. This is the extraordinary thing about what… what… the difference that I have and it’s unexpected. I don’t know what I expected here tonight, but I didn’t expect this. And I think that it is quite possible to have… to read Scripture, to take that Scripture seriously, to understand it in different ways, and not be written out of the community of authentic Christians by other Christians…
JW: Doesn’t that…
BL: …that’s not right.
JW: …doesn’t that… doesn’t that follow, sir, that we then would be proclaiming different gospels?
BL: No, absolutely not, because the fundamental good news is that Jesus Christ came, the Son of God, died for our sins, and took upon the sins of the world onto Himself and brought us to salvation…
JW: But sir, how do you know that?
BL: …that’s the essential gospel.
JW: May I ask how you know that?
BL: I know that from Scripture and personal revelation.
JW: I see.
BL: I mean, there’s no… there’s no question about that.
JW: I see. Now, you said earlier that… you said Jesus did not know that a… the canon was going to be closed. Did you not make that statement?
BL: Of course He didn’t know. He didn’t even know there would be a canon.
JW: So was… was…
<Audience laughter>
BL: Did He?
JW: … was Jesus… well, you didn’t ask me that question during your period… was Jesus divine?
BL: Yes, Jesus was divine.
JW: But He didn’t know that there was going to be a canon of Scripture?
BL: Well, there’s certainly no evidence that He did. He didn’t know that there would be television either; that does not make Him less divine. It really doesn’t.
<Audience laughter>
JW: Was… well, when… when… sh! Please. When you say that Jesus is divine, are you saying that He was sent by God, or do you hold the historic position of, what I think most people would hold to as authentic Christianity, that He was the incarnation of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity?
BL: I believe He’s the Second Person of the Trinity.
JW: And He rose from the dead on the third day?
BL: Yes.
JW: Okay. And yet He didn’t know that there was going to be a…
BL: Well, I didn’t…
JW: …didn’t know future events?
BL: I… we… all I can say is He did not discuss it.
JW: Okay.
BL: He did not discuss much of it. There’s serious questions… what did He... I wonder… I wonder what He meant when he said, “Do not cast your pearls before swine.” He may not even have realized that there was time… time for Gentiles to hear the gospel message, because He was speaking to Jews.
JW: Okay… now, going to the specific issue of the debate this evening. Is it your position that there is no possibility that arsenokoites, or arsenokoitai, used in the plural form, means a person who engages in sexual intercourse, one male with another male?
BL: No, I don’t think it’s impossible that that is true, I think it is unlikely that that is true, because… to the extent that you go back to its roots, it does mean “male penetrator.” It does not have an object, it only has a subject. It is a male who is penetrating. We don’t know penetrating who or what. I just think it’s an impossible resolution because the word does not exist outside of Paul’s writings… contemporaneously outside of Paul’s own writing.
JW: And on what basis do you assert what you just said that it means a “male penetrating” with no object?
BL: Well, to the extent that the word means something, and the only way we know that is to take the roots… the best I can come up with is that it refers to male and to the act of penetration. It does not talk about the object.
JW: Do you… are you familiar with the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament?
BL: Yes, but not as familiar as you are.
JW: Okay. Are you familiar with the fact that in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, the Greek Septuagint utilizes both arsenos and the… koitao, the idea of “lying with,” male with male. Both those words that are put together into arsenokoitai, are used in the Greek Septuagint. Are you familiar with that?
BL: I can’t say I am, no.
JW: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that those terms are there. Would you agree with me that the apostle Paul, each time he quoted the Old Testament, he quoted the Greek Septuagint translation? Are you familiar with that, sir?
BL: Well, I mean… no, I don’t believe that we can know that for certain.
JW: When Paul is citing an Old Testament passage to people who lived in Ephesus who would not know Hebrew, would it not be logical for us to assume that he would translate it… he would cite a translation that they would be familiar with?
BL: Yes, absolutely.
JW: If, in point of fact, the apostle Paul was intimately familiar with the Greek Septuagint, does it not seem to you to be extremely significant that the two words that he puts together are found specifically in the same context in the two prohibitions of plain homosexual activity in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20?
BL: That assumes that the Greek translation of the Hebrew is accurate, and I do not believe that we know that. I know that you clearly believe it and I know that 98% of the audience believes it, but I don’t believe that all scholars believe it, and I certainly do not believe it.
JW: Well, I’m confused. I wasn’t asking about the accuracy of the translation. What I was asking about is if Paul utilized the Greek Septuagint as his… if the citations in his letters can all be found in the Greek Septuagint, then does it not follow that since both of those words appear in the Greek Septuagint, that this would be the source from which Paul is deriving the word and that therefore its meaning would be determined by Paul’s understanding of Leviticus 18 and 20?
BL: I think that there’s a certain logic to that and there’s a certain fallacy to that, because we… you assume… and you continue to go back to this issue of what he understood the Hebrew to be. And my argument is that we don’t know that that is the only way in which he could have constructed that word. You are making… pole vaulting to conclusions that I think are not illogical, they are not completely without merit, I’d never argue that, but I think that they are not the only interpretation to be given for the construction of that word and its use in the Christian New Testament.
JW: Can you suggest another understanding of this, since you just said Hebrew. I’m not sure that you meant that. Are you referring to arsenokoitai?
BL: No.
JW: Okay, so could you suggest another meaning for the phrases in Hebrew used in Leviticus, in 18 that say, “if a male lies with a male, it is an abomination.” Could you suggest another meaning other than one that indicates and implicates homosexuality?
BL: No, but I think the question of what it means… obviously, you know… in Israel, it was terribly important to procreate, I think we’d agree with that. Again, we’re talking about a culture here, a culture two millennia different from the one we’re in here, where it did make a difference. Many of the cleanliness codes made a great deal of sense in Israel. They do not make sense, necessarily, in 21st century America. That is not to say they were wrong for their time, but it is to suggest that they are not the last word for our time. I have never said… I think I’ve said three times at least, I’m not suggesting that Paul was attracted to the idea of men laying with men, or that he did not think that it was “unnatural.” It’s that it simply is in a different category, in my understanding of his construction of his lists of things to which he objected, that there is a difference between that which is wicked and sinful, and that which is purely “unnatural.” That is, odd, not in the mainstream. Wrong-headed.
JW: Since we’re about out of time, I’d like to pick up with Romans 1 when we get a chance.
Mr. Lynn (BL) examines Dr. White (JW):
Dr. Frisina: Reverend Lynn.
BL: Alright. How… What do you think of these relationships, which some people make a great deal of more than I would tonight, between, say, Jonathan and David, who Second Samuel, first… wait a minute... first chapter, verse 26, “your love to me was wonderful,” and then later, “better than the love of a woman?” I mean, there’s no necessary sexual connotation to any of that language, but do you not find it curious that this relationship is described in these highly-charged, nearly erotic tones?
JW: No, sir, I don’t, especially because of the fact that David in the 119th Psalm, since we’re talking about him, is a person who exalts God’s Word; he would have known the testimonies of the Law in regards to Leviticus 18 and 20, and therefore the one who is described as a man after God’s own heart would not have been one who would have engaged in such activity. When he did engage in sinful sexual activity, God brought that to his attention in the most forceful means, through the ministry of the prophet Nathan as you may recall the story.
BL: That’s right, but I just wondered because indeed, when that… precisely for that reason when there was error, there was clear punishment. When there was sin, there was clear punishment. I’m just suggesting that this rather commonplace activity, particularly among people who spent a great deal of time fighting together on the same side, it was not uncommon for there to be homosexual relationships, and I just wondered why this extraordinary language is used if was… if it could not connote a relationship of love between man and man, whether it’s consummated or not, I don’t know…
JW: Well, two things there; I believe that not only can love exist between man and man, but it must—we are to love the brethren; and I also believe that God gives us individuals in our lives that we love in a very special way, that are very close to us. But to assume that because there are individuals who are very close to us, and whom we love and for whom we would do anything, that that then means that the individual such as David, who was a man after God’s own heart, would then go against God’s law, and go beyond what is wholesome and right into what is not, I think is a very great unwarranted leap.
BL: Yeah, but see, the predicate is that it’s going against God’s… his understanding of God’s law. If he understood God’s law to be what I understand God’s law to be, then it wouldn’t be going against God’s law, so you jump again to the conclusion without any evidence of the connection. Where in the Bible, where in anything, any extra-Biblical literature that you consider important, is any male-to-male relationship described like this one, between David and Jonathan?
JW: Well, two things, facts not in evidence: you said there’s absolutely no evidence of the position that I’ve taken. And yet in the cross-examination we’ve just had I asked you for a linguistic reading of the text that was different from the one I just gave you and you said you couldn’t give me one. You gave me a different interpretation but you didn’t give me another thing, so it’s facts not in evidence a., and b., I don’t understand your question; are you asking where in the Bible is any higher wording used than of David and Jonathan of a relationship?
BL: Yeah, between people of the same gender. I mean, just where is it? I mean you would think if this were a commonplace experience, as you describe it, somebody else would have had that relationship. I just wonder where it was…
JW: Well, I think John obviously had a very close and intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. That obviously does not make that situation one where there is any type of a homoerotic situation.
BL: That’s not the same language as this…
JW: But I simply… I answer your question by saying there doesn’t need to be multiple examples of a close relationship between male and male that somehow has absolutely no reference whatsoever to homosexuality.
BL: Well, I mean, all I was suggesting was is was certainly unique language, and it’s not… it’s not found anywhere else. Why is it so important to you to come to a debate like this… you said that you’re coming here for the purpose of sending forth—obviously most of the people in this audience—to talk to gay people, to remind them of the danger of continuing to live as they live is literally one of worse than a death penalty in a physical sense; it is… it is death, it is the worst kind… is that why you’re so obsessed with this?
JW: I’m not obsessed with anything, sir. In reality the Scriptures say in Romans chapter 3 that the revelation that God has given of what sin is is so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become responsible, or accountable, before God. It is my firm belief, sir—and I do all of these debates, no matter what the subject is; as you may know, I’m debating Purgatory a week from tonight; you couldn’t hardly have a different subject, and more different subject than that…
BL: No, there seems to be less interest in Purgatory, also.
JW: But the reason that I will engage in that one, in reality, is the same reason in which I engage in this one, and that is, if there is not a clear revelation of what sin is, mouths can never be stopped, and if a person still clings to their self-righteousness, they will never hear the gospel of grace.
BL: Do you have debates on the subjects of, oh, hypocrisy, slavery, and not caring for the poor?
JW: I’ve never met anyone who would defend those things to being Christian.
BL: Well, you should call the White House. <Laughter and applause>. You’ve never debated someone who… you know there’s a very radical position about wealth in the Bible. It is not a good thing. It is not an impossible thing to acquire but it is certainly not viewed as a good thing. Have you ever discussed wealth, the extraordinary disparity between rich and poor in America or around the world in any one of these debates? Or do you only talk about issues like abortion, which isn’t even mentioned in the Bible, and gays, which are mentioned in four or five places at most in the Bible?
JW: A number of things, because there are a number of statements made there; a., no, I’ve never had a debate on the fact that it is the Scripture’s position that God is the one who gives us all things good to enjoy and it’s God who makes men to differ, and so if a person is wealthy or if a person is not wealthy they can look to God for that and they are to be content in that, and b., facts not in evidence and fact contradictory, the Bible does refer to abortion in Exodus chapter 21, and if you’d like to debate that subject I’d like to give you an open challenge to do so right now.
<Laughter>
BL: I probably won’t accept it, but the point of the matter is it just seems you have an interestingly myopic view of what is sin. That’s really my point. I mean…
JW: Okay, is that a question?
BL: Do not… please do not tell me that there is no… are you telling us that there is no one who would argue that a… a position that says, “it is easy for wealthy people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?” We know it’s difficult.
JW: I have no… I have… I have… a., if they were out there… let’s put it this way. I have been very clear in condemning the teaching within evangelicalism that says that God is a magic genie in Heaven and all we have to do is say a certain prayer found in First Chronicles someplace, or Name-it-and-Claim-it, and poofo, everything’s going to be given us; I have debated those people, not in a formal setting, that say walk around a Cadillac seven times and claim that it’s yours. So I have been consistent on that point.
<Laughter>
BL: Okay, and that’s important, but it’s just not as important as some of these broader questions.
JW: But you made a statement, sir. You said my “myopic definition of sin,” and if I can answer that assertion, I would say to you it is not a myopic definition of sin, it is a Biblical definition of sin. I eschew…
<Applause>
JW: … I eschew any self-authority to define sin.
BL: You estew [sic]…
JW: Eschew.
BL: You have claimed that you have an authoritative reading of Holy Scripture on this one sin. You’ve been talking about it for an hour and a half. Now you say, “Maybe I’m right.” You know you’re right, don’t you? Don’t you know you are right?
JW: You can tell… there is a huge… there is a huge category error and logic error that you’ve just made, sir. You’ve just transferred my assertion that God has revealed in His Word with sufficient clarity that we can know it with my saying I do not claim that I can define in and of myself the issue of sin. I eschew any personal ability to do so; I look only to the Word of God and I am to be correctable… corrected by what is in it.
<Applause>
BL: Well, it’s interesting… I mean, I think that that is not an adequate response, because you do claim authority over all the authorities, including those in those books, whom you’ve discussed as revisionists and subjective, or partially subjective; you claim a higher knowledge than any of the people who wrote any of those books.
JW: Sir, to answer your question, it seems you’re saying that no one can possibly contradict what they’re saying without claiming a higher knowledge. I’m simply saying that I don’t believe that, in a factual debate, in a scholarly debate going back and forth, that they would be able to maintain their position. That doesn’t give me a quote-unquote higher knowledge, what it means is, I identify, in their work, biases and errors that result in their conclusions being unworthy.
BL: And who… okay… all right. Who decides they’re unworthy?
JW: Well, I think the fact that what we’re doing right now allows these individuals to hear you and I going back and forth and allows them to make that decision.
BL: That’s wonderful. That’s great. And if there is perchance one person who believe you to be wrong, by what right and authority do you claim them to have an inauthentic understanding of Scripture? Or of God? God… I’m more interested in that.
JW: Sir, that assertion… again, what you’re asking me is, can you have a definition that says, “this is Christianity, and this is not”? And if your fundamental question of me, sir, is, “Do you believe that there is a authentic definition of Christianity that is not merely subjectively oriented,” I say to you, yes, sir, there is.
BL: Alright. Okay, fine. Have you ever met pastor Fred Phelps?
JW: No.
BL: Do you know who he is?
JW: Yes, I do.
BL: Yes? Okay. Pastor Fred Phelps goes to funerals of people who’ve died of AIDS who he knows, or thinks he knows, were gay, and carries signs around that say things like “God hates fags.” And I wondered if you’ve ever confronted him…
JW: I’ve had no contact with him at all.
BL: Well, I mean… is he right or is he wrong?
JW: <Laughs>
BL: Does God hate fags?
JW: Well sir, it’s an amazing question that you’d ask this of me because of the fact…
BL: Well, I just was curious, because you’ve never confronted him, and he’s in the newspapers, and radio, on television, and you are an authority, and I just wondered if you’d confronted him with what, I hope, is an obvious untruth you do not even believe.
JW: It would be very nice… it would be very, very nice if I had nearly the ability to confront people or to contact people that you just gave to me; those who know me, and know how small my ministry is, are undoubtedly very pleased that you think that I would have such a tremendous capacity to do so. But sir, if that man were to walk into this room, I would tell him exactly what I think of his approach. I would point out to him that you do not adorn the truth with an attitude of hatred.
<Applause and “amens” from the audience>
JW: Now I haven’t… now, I’m sorry, sir, but I haven’t had the opportunity of contacting that man or confronting that man or whatever it might be. I’m actually just an elder in a little church and I teach in a seminary and I’m not in Kansas and I don’t have that opportunity, but if I do, I’ll not only say that to him but I’ll give him your regards as well.
BL: No but… no he… okay… I appreciate that… no, please don’t; please don’t give him my regards. And of course, I realize you live in Arizona, but I also realize there is mail in Arizona. There is mail…
JW: <Laughs> Pony Express, but yes we do have it…
BL: …you could get his address. But there are… I think… the reason I bring this up is because I think that what you have said tonight is so dangerously close to running into the same mindset that leads Pastor Phelps to, with all truth…I mean, he believes him… I’ve talked to him; he believes that he is absolutely right. That when he quotes these same passages, and he then draws his signs and goes to those funerals… he’s using the same texts that you’re using tonight. And it’s such and extraordinarily thin line for people and I wonder if that troubles you at all.
JW: Is your question that people misuse God’s truth?
BL: Well, I just wondered if it troubled you. It troubles me… that he…
JW: That he would use the same passages that I would?
BL: Yes, that he uses… and he reaches this extraordinary conclusion, not only of… in terms of what he believes but of what he does about his beliefs.
JW: Well, sir, if you’re asking me if I agree with what he does, I’ve already said that I do not.
BL: I understand that…
JW: Secondly, if you’re asking that I should not honestly exegete the texts of Scripture or quote these texts just because someone like him may use hatred in quoting them, I see absolutely, positively no logical connection between the two unless you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t talk about these things because people might become inflamed by them.
BL: No, I just… I just would wish that you would be more sensitive to the fact that other people who have both the experience of a different interpretation of Scripture and/or a different personal revelation of the Word of God have reached a different conclusion. Pastor Phelps says he knows the truth and there is only one truth. You said there’s only one truth… I… now, I’m not linking you to him, but I’m suggesting that if you ignore the possibility that anyone else could reach a different conclusion you are dangerously close to where Pastor Phelps ends up.
JW: I think you are linking the two, and I would simply point out to you that the purpose of debate, sir, is to find out whether those interpretations are valid, not simply to find out whether people have different interpretations. That’s already a fact that is in evidence; we all know there are different interpretations. The fact is, are those interpretations valid? That’s the issue.
Dr. Frisina: On that note, we will switch back our clocks for the last… I’m sorry… for the last cross-examination…
Dr. White (JW) examines Rev. Lynn (BL):
JW: Thank you… thank you very much. Reverend Lynn, in Romans chapter 1, you had indicated in your interpretation, and I guess this is good to go directly into that, you said that unnatural is not necessarily evil, that these actions are simply unexpected. So is it your perspective that in Paul’s words in Romans chapter 1 that he is simply saying that the homosexual, both lesbian and male homosexual activities, verses 26 and 27, that these are simply unexpected actions?
BL: There are two lists, in Romans, there are two lists; one is, I believe, a list that is in the category of unnatural, that is to say, rare occurrences, and others are wicked sins which he puts in a different category. I read the context of that letter and that passage as containing two different kinds of lists of what he sees as wrong. One is wrong because it is unnaturally rare; the other is wrong because it is wicked and sinful.
JW: Okay, in verse 26, Paul says, “For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions.” Could you explain from the text what “For this reason” means? How is it connected with what came before?
L: Well, because he’s talking about them as… he’s talking about idolaters, and he said those who commit this sin, this wickedness of idolatry, are…do two things: number one, they… or they can do two things. They can one, do things that are outside of the norms of society, they are outside the culture, or, they can also by virtue of their idolatry, commit wickedness and sin. They can do either one; they can fall into either or both.
JW: Okay… so, in verse… so, when it says in verse 24, “Therefore, God gave them over.” And then in verse 26, “for this reason God gave them over,” using the exact same Greek verb, paradidōmi. You’re saying that it’s a different “them” in verse 24 as in verse 26?
BL: No, it’s the same… well, actually, it is a different “them,” because some are described as those who are performing that which is “uncommonplace,” and often, by the way, unclean… unclean, and then there are others that are wicked. There are two lists in that passage that we’re talking about.
JW: So even though he uses the exact same words, you are insisting that the text tells us…
BL: Yeah.
JW: …that there is a complete disjunction between the two. And…
BL: It was intended. If he wanted there to be a single list, then every act that was wrong was in the same list, there would be no need for two lists, there would be one list. “These are the things that have happened because of this idolatry.” He does not do that. He specifically has two lists. And I would suggest again that people go back, read the text, and see if you think there is a reason for that difference.
JW: What is a “degrading passion,” sir?
BL: What is a “degrading passion”?
JW: “For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions.”
BL: Well, I think any lustful sexual activity of any kind is included as a “degrading passion” in this case.
JW: Are those sinful? “Degrading passions”?
BL: Not necessarily, no.
JW: So you can have… you can degrade someone in your passion but that’s not necessarily sinful?
BL: You know… could I just see the text? [Reaches for White’s Bible.] Maybe we could add a few sentences here, because I do want to do this.
JW: Verse 26, sir. That’s the small print edition. The eyestrain edition…
BL: This is very, very, very strained.
JW: It says, “For God gave them over to degrading passions.”
BL: I think that is…
JW: That’s pathē atimias is the…
BL: Yes, I believe, I believe that is… very hard to read, I must admit.
JW: It says, “For even their women exchanged…”
BL: Yeah… no, I believe that is in the category, as I re-read it, in the category of those unnatural acts which are not the same as being filled with “wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil…”
JW: So “degrading passions” are not sins?
BL: They’re not in the same category, or he would have put them in the same list! I mean, again, I just ask you, look at the structure, you can decide that Dr. White is correct about it. I believe that there are two distinct events that can occur in the life of the adulter… of the idolater, and that is one, to engage in these passions, these unclean acts, and secondly, to engage in the sins, the list of which I just read.
JW: Are all possible sins listed in 28 through 32?
BL: Well, one would hope not, because then there would be acts that are occurring today, for example, that would not be considered sinful because they aren’t mentioned there. Using heroin, for example.
JW: So Paul did not say that these are the only sins…?
BL: No, he didn’t, but I think the structure makes it absolutely clear, I mean, I don’t know how many times to say this, that he has two distinct lists. One is a greater… one is wickedness and evil and sin, and one is falling away as an idolater into unclean practices. They are different… and of course he didn’t mention every sin, because, as we mentioned earlier, it is impossible to project into a future, particularly since Paul thought he was living in the end of time. He was not living 2,000 years into the end of time; he believed that the Kingdom of God was breaking in to human history during his time. There’s no question about that; he was simply wrong about it.
JW: Sir, well, do you believe that Paul wrote the book of Colossians?
BL: I believe he wrote a great deal of it; I think it’s possible to examine Colossians and others of his letters… and… but I’m not a Bible scholar. I don’t… I don’t…
JW: So when he said we are transferred into the Kingdom of His Son, are you saying he was in error at that point?
BL: I don’t even know what the question is.
JW: Okay, let’s go back to Romans chapter 1. You say that verses 26 through 27 are… this is not sinful, it’s a different list, but you’ve admitted that not all sins are listed in 28 to 31. So when it says at the end of 27, “men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Why would a penalty be… would fall upon these indecent acts if they’re just morally neutral?
BL: I didn’t say they were morally neutral. I never said that! I said they were clearly wrongs in his mind, and of course there’re plenty of things because he’s not just talking about male-to-male sex, he’s talking about other, what he would describe as perversions, including sex with animals, that could create highly unhealthy circumstances. Of course he would list them as having penalties and consequences. He does not use the same formulation of penalty in the second list, does he?
JW: Well, you can… that’s a question, I suppose. So it is your perspective that when he says, “receive in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” that wasn’t because they were sinning…
BL: Because they were engaged in what he considered under Jewish custom to be unclean acts and he agreed that they were unclean.
JW: Where does he bring in this concept of what you just said concerning the Jews?
BL: Because the text, the phrase parathusin talks… he frequently uses the same language to describe the nature of things. Some things Jews are of Jews… he talks about men with short hair; remember the passage, I can’t quote it precisely, where he talks about the unnatural nature of men to wear long hair? That’s the same characterization he’s using here.
JW: So when in verse 25, he specifically talks about the Creator and the creature, that wouldn’t provide the immediate context, instead a discussion of hair over in First Corinthians would?
BL: No, absolutely not. It’s the same word. It’s a differentiation with which he clearly does not approve. That’s all it is.
JW: Okay, so, when, in verses 26 through 27, he refers to “degrading passions, indecent acts, due penalty of their error,” this is just simply violations of Jewish purity law?
BL: Well, is it just… no, because he also I think he believes them to be wrong, that is, unsavory, but it’s certainly not the same as the list that includes envy and murder that follow.
JW: In First Corinthians chapter 6, Paul specifically said that, “such were some of you, but you were washed.” Is it your position that we just simply cannot have any idea what Paul meant by the list when he said, “Do not be deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God?” Do we know… is it just those two terms “effeminate” and “homosexual” we don’t know, or do we know what a “covetous person” is, or a “thief” is?
BL: We certainly know more about those words than we do about what it is to… what you translate as “effeminate” and “homosexual.”
JW: Okay, so…
BL: Because it’s such… there’s an enormous universe of dispute about those words. You throw them out there and then you say, “that’s what it means.” And you do believe that that’s what it means, I understand that fully. My whole argument from the beginning of this evening has been that other people do understand and translate those very words differently. They have different meanings. I am just asking you to consider the authenticity of people who do call themselves Christians and who do live a style of life whether it’s chosen or not chosen—a wonderful psychological debate we should… somebody should have sometime—but what you have done, once again, is use your scholarly interpretation of two words, and I am here to tell you again, there are at least fifteen other translations for those very words in fifteen other versions of the Bible. They can all be wrong, you can be right, I just don’t believe you are right.
JW: Sir, how long has this universe of confusion about the meaning of arsenokoites existed?
BL: Well, almost no one wrote about it until twenty-five years ago.
JW: So, for the last 25 years there have been pro-homosexual writers who say that the issue is under concern, but for 2,000 years Christians somehow managed to get along with the translation. Were they just… they didn’t care?
BL: No, a lot of gay Christians just gave up being Christians because they assumed that their pastors were right in telling them exactly what you’re telling them tonight; that they literally… they cannot be true to themselves and still be Christians. And they believed it, and they left the churches, and for that you may be happy. They are very sad, and now that a whole new generation of scholarship is coming forward that challenges us to rethink, to take the very hard words that may come to us through the Holy Spirit, and listen to the words, and listen to the authenticity of what these people are saying, and you repudiate, and many of you repudiate, you have to think about it. You have to think... you can laugh about it too, of course, you can laugh about it; but…
JW: So when… when, sir, when I challenge these writers, and demonstrate that John Boswell, for example, who is the foundation of all these others… Boswell and Bailey, their works…
BL: Well, no…he was the first… the first…
JW: When Christian scholars have demonstrated that he makes statements… “John Chrysostom never mentioned this word,” and yet we point out that he did; and “Origen only used it once,” we point out that he used it many times; and when he never discusses the substantive background of arsenokoites, what makes that kind of scholarship authentic and we somehow should grant it some equal status when it has been repudiated? Have you read any of the reputations of these, sir? Such as what, sir?
BL: Of course, and you’ve done an admirable job of it tonight. I’m giving you credit.
JW: So…what have you read… what have you read, sir? I’d just be interested in knowing.
BL: Of these? I can’t pick out the names of the articles and scholarly journals that criticize it; I’m aware that there is an enormous debate. Why do you presume that you are the person who has the correct answer?
JW: Well, somebody does… I’m sorry, that’s a violation…
BL: I don’t know… you were asking me a question… my… no I think you… I violated, and I asked you a question! I’m just trying to figure out why it is that you assume that you are correct!
JW: Alright… just go ahead and move on… I’m out of time.
Dr. Frisina: Okay. We’re going to move now to the final stage of our debate. Two ten minute concluding remarks. Reverend Lynn, you will take the first ten minutes, and Dr. White, will be… the last word, so to speak.
BL: Okay… do we go up there, or what do we have to do…?
Dr. Frisina: I have no instructions, I think you can do them from here, or you can go up to the top…
JW: I would like to go up there…
BL: Okay, then I will go up there too… just for the sake of parallelism…
Rev. Lynn:
“Well, I won’t take up the ten minutes, because I think it’s somewhat a fruitless enterprise. I believe that those of you who are here tonight, who believe that Dr. White has the only interpretation, will continue to live with that view, act accordingly, and you may well… you will find out, as we all will, a., if it matters, and b., how much it matters at some time in the future. And we’ll all learn that. And I mean that sincerely.
“I do wish, though that I didn’t get a sense that there was in so many of your hearts something beyond just a difference of Scriptural opinion about this matter.
“I wish that you didn’t… I wish that I thought that you merely believe that I was a person who did not… and I am not a Bible scholar; I did not go to graduate school in Bible Studies. I went on to other things. That doesn’t mean I’m not… I’m ignorant of these texts, but I wish that, I merely thought that you’d think I lost a debate tonight.
“But I don’t believe that. I think that you feel better about yourselves, and about your feelings, about condemning gay people, because you were here today. <Groans from the audience> Oh, my goodness. Because I see the reactions and the laughter and it’s all very clever and funny. But it’s not clever and funny to the people who are living an authentic Christian life who you have dared to call inauthentic by your actions tonight <Some applause>.
“And I believe, as I said at the beginning, that there are multiple sins, and pride is one of them. And I’ll admit that I have pride in my heart sometimes that makes me a sinner too. But of course, I’ve said from the beginning, that I do honestly believe that we are all sinners. But I think that what has happened tonight is an example of why we don’t turn to the people who are most in need, start where they are, listen to where they’re coming from, and accept the authenticity of their life and their religious commitment.
“And to dare to suggest to anyone that they are living an inauthentic life, or that their communication with God is inauthentic because it is inconsistent with one scholar’s Scriptural interpretation, is to commit an act of hubris which is so great that you must… I seriously would suggest that you join me in praying about what tonight meant. Because I have some anger in my heart, you probably can see it. It’s there and it’s real. But I am angry, also, at the notion that we would sit in judgment on one small area of Biblical interpretation, an issue not even discussed by Jesus Christ, not even discussed, and we would build a demonic representation of people who by choice or by creation… creation… are gay men, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people. If you write them out of your church, if you write them out of the Kingdom of God, you have greater authority and power certainly than I do. And one of us is right, and one of us is obviously wrong. Thank you.”
<Applause>
Dr. White:
“I would be a poor minister of the gospel if I did not point out that my opponent this evening has opened the canon of Scripture, corrected the apostle Paul and dismissed his letter to the Galatians as “going over the top,” and yet, as said that it is hubris, pride and arrogance to speak the truth concerning God’s revelation of what is sin so that the Gospel can be heard.
“We this evening have heard many things, and I hope that you have been challenged to think through the claim that, well, we’re dealing here with only a small area of Biblical interpretation. What man is, the relationship of man and woman, God’s decree as to how we are to live our lives, is a “small area of Biblical interpretation.” “Something Jesus never addressed.” Of course, most of those things in Leviticus 18 and 20 He didn’t address, which includes bestiality, incest; does that they’re unimportant, or does that just simply mean He didn’t need to because it was such an obvious given?
“There is a movement in our land today, no one can deny that it exists, to legalize pedophilia. The arguments, Biblically, that are put forward, and socially, are identical. ‘I’m born this way! This is a loving relationship, no-one’s being hurt, and the Bible doesn’t condemn it!’ Where do we draw the line? Are we really going to say that authentic Christianity is so incapable of defining itself that we cannot even address the nature of man and how he lives?
“We were just accused of condemning gay people. Did Jesus condemn adulterers when He said, ‘Go and sin no more’? Did Paul condemn thieves when he said ‘Such were some of you’? What does it mean to condemn? When we preach the Word of God that says there is such a thing as sin and that is why Jesus Christ died upon a cross, are we condemning?
“‘How dare you call someone’s Christianity inauthentic?’ I guess at least there’s a consistency in saying the apostle Paul was wrong to condemn the Judaizers as inauthentic, and there was something wrong, I guess, in John calling people who called themselves Christians ‘Anti-Christs’ in First John. I guess Peter was really wrong to call false teachers who claimed to be Christians ‘dogs.’ Jude was wrong too.
“But you see, for a lot of folks, the only way we can know authentic Christianity is because we have a revelation from God, called the Word of God, and it just happens to be that Paul and Jude and Peter and John were apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, used by Him to record His revelation; that’s the standard for authentic Christianity and therefore if you don’t follow in their footsteps you have absolutely no right to call yourself an authentic Christian anything.
“I would suggest to you that Mr. Lynn has no basis upon which to define authentic Christianity that is not merely subjective. He says, ‘Oh, I study the Scriptures, but I receive revelation. The canon’s open.’ What’s the standard upon which to judge Mr. Lynn’s revelation? Your revelations? Anyone’s revelations? There is no standard. Those revelations become the standard by which the Scriptures are then read. And there is no authentic Christianity. And hence seemingly the idea is to win the debate by making it impossible to define authentic Christianity. The opening statement included some very… not very subtle, actually, attempts to undermine any authority in regards to the Scriptures by talking about canon issues, Bible translation issues…
“Fundamentally, that’s what it does come down to. I don’t think it’s a matter of me versus all these scholars; it’s not. The meaning of arsenokoitai is clear, and I think we can all see that Paul didn’t all of a sudden take a massive detour between verses 25 and 28 of Romans chapter 1 to address Jewish purity issues. The condemnation of the New Testament is clear. The condemnation of the Old Testament is clear. Why should any of it matter to us? Because of what the gospel demands.
“A person who continues to cling to sin is not a person who is ready to hear about a Savior from sin. As long as excuses continue to be made for our sin, whatever it is… you may say, ‘Well, I’m born with these propensities.’ Well, some of us are born to propensities toward arrogance, pride, insolence, rebellion. We don’t glory in them and turn them into a lifestyle. We’re all born into this world; we’re all imperfect people, we all have propensities, but that doesn’t change the definition of sin. And a person who continues to make any argument before the bar of God saying, ‘Well, I think that what I do here is okay. And I’ll admit, well, I’m angry some times, and maybe I stole some stuff and I shouldn’t have, but you know, that one area, I’m not going to agree with you, God, that it’s wrong. I’m gonna hold on to that.’ The Scriptures are clear. The person who does not, as Paul describes it, becomes accountable before God in totality, stands before God—the Greek term that Paul uses in Romans chapter 3 is so expressive; it’s used of the convicted criminal who stands before the judge with head down, no more excuses, no more defenses, no more wagging of the tongue—that is the person who now understands the need of a perfect Savior.
“That’s why this is important. It’s not some “small area of Biblical interpretation”; what we’re hearing this evening is we can’t even know what the gospel is. We can’t know what sin is. If we love God’s truth—and that’s why Paul wrote Galatians, by the way; that’s why he went ‘over the top.’ Because he says twice in chapter 2… he talks about “the truth of the gospel.” And there is a truth of the Gospel. We can know it. And that’s why we do debates like this; that’s why Paul wrote that letter, because he loved God and he loved the gospel enough to recognize that the power of God unto salvations is what? The gospel of Jesus Christ.
“The most hateful thing that we can ever do, knowing what the gospel is, is to allow it to be compromised. It’s not hateful what we’ve done here this evening; it’s not hateful what has been said here this evening. I would like to suggest to you that in regards to loving God… I would ask the question: is it showing proper love and regard for God to say that He has not clearly revealed Himself in His Son Jesus Christ, and in His Word? The Scriptures are clear. The issues are plain. Not a one of us in here has the right to arrogantly speak to any person who is caught up in any sin because we have all experienced that power of sin in our lives <Amen from the audience>.
“And that means that as we go from this place it is the Spirit that says, with Paul, ‘I am the chief of sinners.’ If we have that attitude then we can take the truth, not compromise it, and stand as salt and light in this nation and may God bless us as we do it. Thank you very much.”
<Applause>
Host:
“I want to thank each and every one of you for coming tonight. I want to thank you… I’m sorry, the Elders of this church do not want us to have the questions tonight because they want the building to be empty by 10:30. It’s… a lot of rules of the Presbytery that I can’t get into, but we can’t have the questions from the audience tonight, and I apologize for that. But I want to thank you all for coming, and I also urge you to come next Thursday to hear the debate on Purgatory because the very atonement that Jesus Christ provided will be discussed. Let’s have one more round of applause for our debaters and our moderator.”
<Applause>