Ruel Z. Chavez Reaction Paper on Homosexuality and the Bible The paper on Homosexuality and the Bible by Dr.

Albert Mohler is divided into three parts tellin! the truth" t#istin! the truth and trustin! the truth. $nder tellin! the truth" the #riter dis%ussed about homosexuality as the most %ontroversial issue in Ameri%an %ulture" the &i!ht &or the le!itima%y and le!ality o& homosexual marria!e" the a%tive promotion o& homosexuality into the lar!er %ulture" the di&&i%ulty o& opposin! homosexuality in publi%" &amiliarity o& the %hur%h #ith the issue" the %hallen!e to the %hur%h to ma'e a de&inite stand" the si!ni&i%an%e o& a&&irmin! bibli%al authority in %ombatin! homosexuality" and the division about the issue amon! bibli%al s%holars. $nder t#istin! the truth" to my mind Mohler divided the sub(e%t under t#o subse%tions series o& atta%'s a!ainst bibli%al Christianity and the need &or %hur%h response to the rede&inition o& homosexuality. The &irst subse%tion &o%uses on the series o& atta%'s a!ainst bibli%al Christianity. These atta%'s %on%entrate on the authority o& the Bible. The &irst o&&ensive is a transition &rom a dire%t re(e%tion o& bibli%al authority to a dire%t opposition o& bibli%al tea%hin! %on%ernin! the issue. The se%ond o&&ensive %laims that the reason #hy bibli%al #riters had su%h a narro# perspe%tive on homosexuality #as due to s%ienti&i% i!noran%e. The last atta%' #as to rede&ine the %onventional bibli%al text re&errin! to homosexuality. This atta%' %laims that the passa!es o& the Bible tea%hin! about homosexuality are a%tually %ondemnin! sin&ul) homosexuality and not responsible) homosexuality. The se%ond subse%tion presents the %lear bibli%al tea%hin! on homosexuality as a response to the revisionist. Mohler ar!ues that the Bible %learly

tea%hes that homosexuality #ithout any +uali&i%ation is an abomination be&ore ,od" and an a%t o& rebellion and unbelie&. $nder trustin! the truth" Mohler ar!ues &or the need o& de%laration o& %lear bibli%al tea%hin! on marria!e" the &ailure o& the %hur%h to e+uip its people #ith su%h bibli%al &oundation on marria!e" the existen%e o& rationalized lust) both #ithin the %hur%h and the lar!er so%iety" the %onne%tion bet#een homosexuality and idolatry" and the explanation o& the 'ind o& Christian response to the issue o& homosexuality. The position o& the #riter is %lear as &ar as the tea%hin! o& the Bible is %on%ern about homosexuality. Mohler believes that homosexuality is a distortion o& the ori!inal purpose o& ,od in %reatin! human" and there&ore sin&ul. Mohler is %allin! the %hur%h to respond to homosexuality #ith !enuine %ompassion by tellin! the truth. ,enerally" - a!ree #ith the %entral ar!ument o& the #riter. - re%o!nize the timeliness o& his messa!e. There is a need &or similar voi%es in our time to be heard in publi% dis%ourse. .u%h publi% testimonies are %ru%ial to reverse the moral brea'do#n in %ontemporary so%iety. Homosexuality as the #riter a&&irms is no# the most %ontroversial issue o& debate in Ameri%an %ulture.) .in%e our %ountry is (ust &ollo#in! the Ameri%an so%iety in many #ays" i& the evan!eli%al %ommunity #ill not de%lare a uni&ied voi%e based on bibli%al prin%iples about this issue" sooner or later su%h moral epidemi% #ill also permeate not only the /hilippine so%iety but also the Christian %ommunity. Ho#ever" admitted that su%h moral perversion is #idespread in our so%iety" - thin' premarital sex is a more %ru%ial moral issue" #hi%h is already pervasive #ithin the Christian %ommunity.

1hile readin! the paper" several +uestions %ame to my mind. 1hy promoters o& sin are more %on&ident than promoters o& truth2 1hy moral perversity is easily a%%epted in publi% than moral virtue2 1hy the %hur%h is unable to de%lare a %lear uni&ied publi% voi%e %on%ernin! moral issues2 - remember our previous readin!" #hi%h spea's about truth %risis" #hi%h a%tually boils do#n to %hara%ter %risis. -sn3t this the reason #hy the %hur%h has lost its %on&iden%e in %on&rontin! di&&i%ult issues li'e homosexuality2 1hy the %hur%h &inds it hard to oppose homosexuality2 -sn3t be%ause the %hur%h hersel& is %ompromisin! morally2 1hy is it di&&i%ult to ma'e a de&inite stand on this issue2 -sn3t be%ause the %hur%h hersel& has lost her %onvi%tion about the authority o& the Bible in this matter2 Mohler himsel& identi&ies that there is division amon! bibli%al s%holars re!ardin! homosexuality. 4or me" the issue o& homosexuality %annot be deta%hed &rom one3s vie# about the authority o& the Bible. -t is as simple as that. Re(e%t bibli%al authority and anyone %ould %ome up #ith diverse interpretations on homosexuality. The subtle thin! is that a%%eptin! a responsible) 'ind o& homosexuality is done in the name o& broadmindedness" sophisti%ated s%holarship" and so%ietal %onsensus. -t is as i&" those #ho deny responsible homosexuality are narro# minded" embra%in! outmoded s%holarship" and %onsidered enemies o& so%iety and detrimental to its pro!ress. Man is too #ise to (usti&y sin. Borro#in! 5one3s #ords" modern man is so %ra&ty to rationalize lust.) The authority o& the Bible on homosexuality does not depend on the %onsensual opinion o& s%holars. The Bible testi&ies to its o#n authority. The evan!eli%al %ommunity a&&irms that the Bible is the absolute authoritative sour%e o& truth &or interpretin! all o& li&e in%ludin! homosexuality. 1e re%eive the testimony o& the Bible in its o#n terms.

And its testimony about homosexuality is %lear. 1e do not need the sophisti%ated) reasonin! o& bibli%al s%holars to determine #hat the Bible tea%hes in this matter. The tea%hin! o& the .%ripture on homosexuality is ade+uate to in&orm us #hether it is a%%eptable or abominable be&ore ,od. -t is not the %ommunity o& s%holars or human reasonin! that #ill (ud!e the tea%hin! o& the .%ripture on homosexuality. -t is the Bible" #hi%h is our (ud!e and li!ht on this %ontroversial issue. The duty there&ore o& the Christian %ommunity and Christian s%holars is to submit themselves and their s%holarship to the authority o& .%ripture. To the extent that they do this" #ill also determine their a%'no#led!ement o& ,od as the %enter o& their lives and the 7ord o& their minds. 1ith hesitation" - say this" that perhaps the 'ind o& s%holarship" #hi%h re(e%ts bibli%al authority in order to support the le!itima%y o& homosexuality" is a%tually a s%holarship" #hi%h de%lares autonomy &rom ,od. - identi&y above the three primary %onvi%tions durin! Re&ormation about the Bible. These are the authority" the %larity" and the su&&i%ien%y o& the Bible in matters o& &aith and pra%ti%e in%ludin! the issue on homosexuality. .in%e the Bible is authoritative" %lear" and su&&i%ient" - a!ree #ith Mohler that in %on&rontin! homosexuality" the role o& Christian edu%ation is %ru%ial. This #ould mean that every Christian must be e+uipped #ith bibli%al tea%hin! on marria!e and sexuality. 8nly on this basis" that a Christian %ould minister to a homosexual #ith !enuine %ompassion) by tellin! him the truth.