Next, Li'l Wes insinuates that Paul condemns homosexuals because "Paul didn't approve of anyone having sex." The implied argument is that because Paul was "biased" against sex his teachings are somewhat less valid. One thing should be clear--the Bible is the Bible; there are no more valid and less valid parts to it. As to Paul not approving of sex, that is not what his teaching reveals. He heartily condones sexual activity within the bounds of marriage. He does believe that the joy one experiences in being free to devote oneself solely to God is diminished by being married, but he takes great pains to say there is nothing wrong with marriage. He even encourages those who are hesitant to enter marriage (because it might be wrong) to do so. There is nothing wrong with marriage and sexual union between a husband and wife in God's eyes so Paul has no problem with it either. (I Corinthians 7:140; 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and 5:14; and Hebrews 13:4) Paul elevates this union to great honor by using to describe the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church. (Ephesians 5:21-33) Not only is Paul not opposed to sex in general, he is NOT the only New Testament author who comments on same-sex acts.
Jude 7
Li'l Wes tells readers that Sodom and Gomorrah are never connected to homosexuality anywhere else in Scripture and that in the New Testament no one but Paul comments on homosexuality. Wes is wrong on both counts. Though one of the smallest books in the Bible, Jude is still part of the Bible. Jude 7 reads: "In a similar way. Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Clearly, this passage does not specifically state homosexuality. (In the paraphrase of the Living Bible however, the text is rendered,... . all full of lust of every kind including lust of men for other men.") It only refers to sexual immorality and perversion. But what sexual conduct is mentioned and condemned in Genesis 19? Homosexual conduct. Moreover, the operative Greek words ehpome (meaning utterly unchaste) and moion (meaning similar or like) suggest this is a correct interpretation of the passage. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that this conduct is at least included in Jude's reproach. Consequently, the New Testament one more time condemns homosexual conduct.Hopefully, this lays to rest the issue of whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual conduct. The Bible also provides guidance as to where to go from here. I believe there are at least three areas of consideration: the lawless Christian; relations with unbelievers; and the innocence of children.
As you recall, Paul in his first epistle to the Church in Corinth condemns a number of sins, including sexual sin (adultery, homosexuality, etc.). What prompted him to go on such a tirade? The answer is found in the first five verses of chapter five. Paul says there were reports--which comments in Second Corinthians seem to confirm (II Corinthians 2:5-11) - that a Believer was openly sleeping with his father's wife. Paul condemned not only the action of the sinful Believer but the response of the Church as well. They had continued to accept the Believer into their fellowship because they were so loving and accepting. Paul vigorously condemns this. He in fact orders them to remove the offender from their midst. (v.2, see also vv. %1 3) If the Uncle's Party is a union of Believers, it would be Biblically appropriate to exclude not only Tom but Wes also--and any others known to be practicing sexual sin, theft, drunkenness, or idolatry. Having once committed such offenses (some of which find themselves into Wes' July 12 letter) is not the point--God can forgive all. (Colossions 3:5-10; I John 1:5-9) Abiding in darkness is separation from God and His Body the Church. (Remember, God is a God of perfect love and perfect justice.) I am inclined to believe Wes' claim that he is a Christian based on the directive of Romans 14:10. But there clearly is Scriptural support for recognizing sin in a fellow believer. (I Corinthians 5:3 and 6:12; Galatians 6:1) Such is to be done gently and lovingly, yet uncompromisingly.
Though I am inclined to believe Wes that he is a Christian, I know there are probably some who don't. To them I recommend the following the passages: I Corinthians 6:9-10 and 10:27. These passages encourage us to fellowship with unbelievers though not in ways that compromise our morality (10:28) How else shall we share with the them the Good News of Jesus. He did not remove us from the world but left us here to be salt and light. (Matthew 5:13-16) So those who are skeptical of Wes' rebirth are Scripturally obliged to welcome him at family gatherings.
Is it necessary to let Tom come too then? Seemingly yes, but for one consideration--the children. As noted earlier, a number of persons apparently base their objections to Tom's coming on the need to protect the children. This restraint has Scriptural support. Jesus warns against causing little ones to stumble.. (Luke 17:1-2) Permitting an openly homosexual relationship at a family gathering does suggest tacit approval to a child. Thus there is reason for the conviction that having Tom come would unnecessarily expose children to a confusing situation. Moreover, parents are charged with raising their children in the fear of Lord. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9) Therefore, deference should be granted to those who seek to protect their children from such an experience.
While on the matter of children, 1 have a non-Bible based concern regarding Uncles' Parties. Because I have married into the family since the last one, I have not attended one. But I have seen videos of them and heard a lot about them, too. Based on these sources of information, it seems to me that these gatherings really are for the kids. Therefore, I cannot fathom why it was necessary to push such a politically and religiously sensitive issue for this event. I am at a loss as to why Wes cared more about getting his way (even though it threatened the very event he sought to attend) than he did about preserving the event for the children at the risk of some of his rights. I suspect that he and Tom don't have children. 1 have been told that Dan and Susan don't either. Is this why they couldn't relate to those who were concerned about their children? I don't know.
At any rate this appears to have been and may continue to be a very divisive issue. I noted at the outset that to an outsider like myself this formal airing dirty laundry Is a new experience. I was also very hesitant to compose this response. I hope It has set the Biblical record straight and provided a challenge to forgive and move forward. Analytically, the facts tend to indicate that fault lies with Li'I Was. (At the very least, he is the one who started writing to an ever broadening circle of family members.) But we should not dwell on this. God wants us to be forgiving and live in unity. My prayer is that we may all find a way to practice Christian unity.
May God richly bless you all
Previous part of letter |
Next letter 