The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1 Timothy 1:5-7, ESV)

Is This Simply My Own Condescending Opinion?

Last time in Rick Brentlinger Of Gay Christian 101 Takes Ken Silva Public I told you why I published on Apprising Ministries my email exchanges with Rick Brentlinger of Gay Christian 101. You may recall Brentlinger is an unrepentant homosexual, also professing to be Christian, who holds this lifestyle is not always sinful. 

Please keep in mind, the only reason that you’re now able to read this particular email exchange is because Brentlinger first made the choice to bring this public by publishing my last email to him. As I said before, I’m not at all complaining; he’s not violated any laws, so I’m simply stating a fact.

And as I also pointed out, Rick Brentlinger was kind enough to write and make me aware of the post Did Jesus define marriage as only between a man and a woman?, which is built around my latest email response to him mentioned above. This is what I wrote [1]:

Hi Rick,
 
Just so you know, I don’t use rape passages and/or cult passages to come to a conclusion biblically that same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant. I use the Words of our Creator, Jesus Christ, Himself e.g. here:
 
And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)
 
Rick, Jesus has just defined marriage as a male [man] to a female [woman], and that’s how the men to whom He was speaking understood it. That’s always been the orthodox Jewish position as well as that of the historic orthodox Christian Church. Even John Shelby Spong admitted homosexuality cannot be defended from Scripture.
 
You are welcome to your views, but as gently as I can say it, they really don’t stand in the light of Scripture.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ken

Now we come to Brentlinger’s post where he tells me he’ll address my “factually inaccurate statements point by point.” Due to the seriousness of the charge I’m being inaccurate, as a pastor-teacher, it’s now incumbent on me to respond to set the record straight; which I will do here, and in a subsequent post. Brentlinger begins:

1. “to come to a conclusion biblically that same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant.”

That is your opinion based on your presuppositions about male-female Complementarity in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Your opinion differs from what the texts actually say.

The Pharisees did not ask Jesus if “same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant.”

Your interpretation substitutes your opinion – something Jesus didn’t say – for what Jesus actually said. You are teaching your opinion – something Jesus did not say – as absolute truth. Obviously that is a false way of interpreting scripture. (Online source, bold his)

He correctly states my position: Same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant. Next he links to his article Complementarity Theory – Is That Ever Taught In The Bible The Way Many Evangelicals Believe It?, which I’m not going to interact with because 1) it doesn’t represent my positions, and 2) it has exactly zero to do with what “the texts actually say.” Brentlinger, however, has specifically said that my view “differs from what the texts actually say.” But let’s see if this is actually the case; following are the texts in question from the English Standard Version:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

Now let’s look at what I actually said my opinion was; notice within my email I cited Matthew 19:4-5, where Jesus quotes both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and then I said: “Rick, Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that’s how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.” As you can see, my opinion is precisely based upon what those texts, in fact, say: A man and a wife in marriage, as in the very case of Adam and Eve, equals a male and a  female. Apparently ignoring all of this, Brentlinger says:

The Pharisees did not ask Jesus if “same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant.”

Your interpretation substitutes your opinion – something Jesus didn’t say – for what Jesus actually said. You are teaching your opinion – something Jesus did not say – as absolute truth. Obviously that is a false way of interpreting scripture. (Online source)

Brentlinger has now introduced a category error into the discussion: The Pharisees did not ask Jesus if “same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant.” I didn’t say they did ask Jesus this question, it’s a red herring; Brentlinger’s charge is that my “interpretation substitutes [my] opinion – something Jesus didn’t say – for what Jesus actually said.” Yet I’ve just shown you, in no uncertain terms, what Jesus did actually say; and so, if anyone’s offering subjective interpretations and opinions in this regard, “something Jesus didn’t say – for what Jesus actually said,” it’s Rick Brentlinger himself.

You Need To Remember That To Be Wrong, Even Sincerly, Is Still Wrong

In closing this for now, since Brentlinger’s second point is rather lengthy, I’ll begin to address it here and finish it—and the rest of his post—next time. Brentlinger begins with a bit of reiteration:

2. “Jesus has just defined marriage as a male man to a female woman, and that’s how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.”

Your conclusion is not at all what Jesus actually said. The Jewish men to whom Jesus spoke did not define marriage as one man with one woman for life. When Jesus cites Genesis 2:24, by no means did Jesus or Jewish men understand Genesis 2:24 as prohibiting polygamy. (Online source, bold his)

I’ve already shown you above that my conclusion is simply the logical result of the words Jesus, Who is also God, chose to use in Holy Scripture. Brentlinger is introducing another red herring by adding “for life” into our discussion that marriage is between a male (man) and female (woman); it’s an incontrovertible fact this was the Jewish custom, even in polygamy. Whether they were complementarian, as defined by Brentlinger, is irrelevant to the charge I misrepresented what Jesus said. By bringing up the subject of polygamy Brentlinger is now confusing categories, which even so, still won’t help his case.

There’s no need to go into a long apologetic right now concerning the topic of polygamy; suffice to say while I don’t condone it, the fact is, the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. With homosexuality however, we have the opposite; for example — You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22, ESV). You may wish to note the male and female motif for marriage emerging there once again. It’s also important to remember that the first instance of polygamy in Holy Scripture was with Lamech; who was a murderer, as well as a decendant of another murderer in Cain.

As far as “by no means did Jesus or Jewish men understand Genesis 2:24 as prohibiting polygamy”; it’s pretty clear from Genesis 2:24 God says the the man and woman shall become one flesh, not multiple fleshes. This can be confirmed e.g. when God the Holy Spirit gives us His instructions pertaining to elders within the Lord’s Church, who are not to be polygamists — an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife. [2] And finally, for now, Brentlinger continues:

We know Complementarity (one man with one woman for life) is not God’s ironclad rule for all marriages because scripture makes exceptions for other situations like polygamy. The fact that there is a clear Biblical exception to Complementarity proves your absolutist view is wrong.

It also leaves open the strong probability that God intended the 5% of humans who are same sex attracted to be same sex partnered. This belief is based on 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 where the principle of partnership is stated. “To avoid fornication, everyone (except those gifted with celibacy) should have an orientation compatible partner.” (Online source)

But polygamy has nothing to do with the words in the text which, as a minster of the Gospel, I am to preach and uphold; this is what my so-called “absolutist view” is based upon, and complementarianism plays no role whatsoever concerning these passages being discussed above. However, I must say it appears Brentlinger’s trying to pull a fast one with his statement that somehow anything we’ve been talking about “also leaves open the strong probability that God intended the 5% of humans who are same sex attracted to be same sex partnered.” I must tell you that my first reaction is: What did he just say?

Unfortunately these red herrings only take Brentlinger down rabbit trails which actually end up doing his arguments more harm than good. The “principle of partnership” linked above takes us to Does 1 Cor 7:2 exclude gays and lesbians from marriage?, which gives us a bit of understanding concerning his untenable “strong probability” position. Brentlinger, whom I’ve told you before is not in line with the Emerging Church nor does he have a low view of Scripture, quotes 1 Corinthians 7: 2 from the King James Verision:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Then he says:

The anti-gay crowd argues that the language God used excludes two men getting married or two women getting married. If God had wanted us to believe that its okay for two men or two women to marry, He would have said so. (Online source)

I would personally take exception if I was placed among some “anti-gay crowd”; that said yes, I’ve shown conclusively that the very language concerning a man having his own wife, and a woman having her own husband, presupposes the male and female model of the Genesis verses cited above. Therefore, since the Lord made us propositional beings able to converse using words that have actual meaning, the logical conclusion of what our Creator has told us e.g. in 1 Corinthians 7:2 would then have to be: If God had wanted us to believe that its okay for two men or two women to marry, He would have said so.

Which now leaves us with Brentlinger’s unusual statement, “To avoid fornication, everyone (except those gifted with celibacy) should have an orientation compatible partner.” He seems to shed a little light upon what he means in the below section from his book:

same sex couples as we know them, were not a common part of Biblical culture. Therefore we would not expect same sex couples to be prominently mentioned in scriputure. We believe scripture gives up principles to guide all our relationships. These principles include honesty, integrity, fidelity, charity. Many scriptures warn us against idolatry, adultery and fornication. In 1 Cor 7:1-9, we discover two practical verses dealing with marriage is recommended to “avoid fornication.”

The second verse tells us “it is better to marry than to burn” [with lust]. These principles demonstrate God’s viewpoint and are the practical outworking of God’s statement in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Living in committed relationship with a compatible partner provides a legitimate outlet for the expression of sexual love, which avoids the spiritual chaos caused by fornication. [3]

As I close this out, I’ll just say that as noble on a human level as this all sounds, it is in direct contradiction with what God has said concerning same sex sexual relations i.e. the practice of homosexuality. After examining the Scriptures in this article it’s little wonder that “same sex couples” would not be “a common part” any culture. Nowhere in Scripture do we find any mandate that a “committed relationship” outside of the marriage covenant “with a compatible partner,” be it homo or heterosexual, “provides a legitimate outlet for the expression of sexual love.” Rather, all sexual relations outside of marriage are to be considered sexual immorality.

I also know, there’s every reason for us to believe that Rick Brentlinger is sincere; it’s just the Word of God reveals him to be, sincerely wrong.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

1. http://tinyurl.com/267er5j.
2. 1 Timothy 3:2, ESV.
3. Rick Brentlinger, Gay Christian 101 [http://www.gaychristian101.com/, 2007], 8, 9.

See also:

THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT 

COUNTRY SINGER AND DEVOUT CHRISTIAN CHELY WRIGHT COMING OUT AS A LESBIAN

WHAT JAY BAKKER WISHES THE BIBLE SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY 

GAY CHRISTIAN SINGER JENNIFER KNAPP OUT ON LARRY KING LIVE

BUT DO EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY AND BRIAN MCLAREN REALLY LOVE GAY PEOPLE? 

HOMOPRESSION IS AT LEAST AS BAD AS HOMOPHOBIA 

ENCOURAGEMENT CONCERNING THE EMERGING CHURCH AND JAY BAKKER