When Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party leader Tim Farron resigned his post recently he explained the decision by acknowledging,
“To be a political leader – especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 – and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible.”
It was an intensely honest admission: the principles of Christianity and the positions of liberal democrat orthodoxy (specifically the promotion and embrace of sexual immorality and abortion on demand) are simply incompatible. But that doesn’t stop some sad souls from trying to pretend it can work.
Take alleged comedian John Fugelsang who got into a Twitter tussle over the topic with Chris Loesch, the husband of 2nd Amendment expert and accomplished talk radio host Dana Loesch. Chris took notice of the, shall we say “peculiar” tweet Fugelsang had made in which he gave his opinion on the book of Romans:
“Romans is in no way about gay people. It’s technically about straight men having gay sex.”
While it’s kind of humorous to simply take the comment at face value, Fugelsang is parroting the instruction of men like John Boswell who teach that homosexuality is an orientation that defines an entire person. In other words, God didn’t just make us male and female as Genesis says, he also made us an eclectic array of orientations and genders, meaning a gay person is inherently different than a straight person. Therefore, while it is wrong for a straight person to engage in homosexual sex, the argument goes, it isn’t wrong for a gay person to do so because obviously, that is what God made them to do.
There is quite simply nothing in the context of Romans 1:24-27 to even begin to suggest this interpretation is the meaning of the passage. Paul quite bluntly refers to lesbianism and gay sexual encounters and condemns them as a judgment laid down by God for those who abandon His truth. Paul is literally saying the “natural human sex act” of heterosexuality is abandoned under this judgment for an “unnatural human sex act” of homosexuality.
Perhaps fearing that his line of argument was indefensible (it was), Fugelsang quickly added,
“The original Greek texts of Paul used the words for male prostitutes, not consensual gay people. ‘Homosexual’ was added in the 20th cent.”
It was at this point that it became very obvious John was in over his head as he made two critical errors that those advocating for Biblical acceptance of homosexuality simply cannot make:
- He references the Greek text, or the Septuagint, that Paul often quoted. In both his 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy letters, Paul coins a brand new term, “arsenokoitai” to refer to those engaging in immoral homosexual relations. Fugelsang incorrectly assumes that term references male prostitutes. It does not. Scholars note that Paul actually made up this term using two old words from the Septuagint that would have been very familiar to its hearers. The words come from the Levitical law found in Leviticus 20:13 – arseno (man) koitai (in bed together). The term Paul used plainly means “men in bed together” as a man would be in bed with a woman.
- Fugelsang also made the stunning admission here that the term “homosexual” wasn’t invented until the 1900s. That’s a very significant point. Homosexual relations (or gay sex) has been around since the dawn of recorded history. But not until modern day have we concocted a term that marks it as an identity, a type of person, as something other than behavior. This reality only weakens the case Fugelsang is attempting to make. If God created heterosexual and homosexual people, that would appear in the text. It doesn’t because He didn’t. He made people who then act upon heterosexual or homosexual impulses.
“Comparing relations between consenting adults to pedophilia bestiality and rape is ugly, ignorant, un-Christian and beneath you.”
Of course that was not what Loesch (or anyone else) was doing. And while I think John knew that, it was nice to see Chris call him on it:
“Comparing sin to sin is all it is. Jesus doesn’t ever say ‘it’s not a sin if the adulterers are consenting adults.’”
Precisely. He didn’t, but Chris could have pointed to consensual incest, consensual orgies, and other forms of consensual sexual conduct that would be sinning regardless of whether the participants were into it or not. Loesch finished off by delivering the knock-out blow of reality to Fugelsang’s pretenses:
“You are Biblically incorrect and willfully so. You deny the Divine inspiration for the whole Word of God.” “In order to have a real discussion you have to either accept that All the words are of Jesus or that the Bible is not infallible. Pick.”
Game, set, match. To be fair to Fugelsang, it wasn’t a fair fight. The Biblical text is not ambiguous about human sexuality or the consequences for human immorality and disobedience to God’s will.
Loesch is exactly right by telling John that he needs to pick. You can choose either obedience to God’s Word or obedience to the fads and trends of man. Britain’s Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron chose the first. I hope John will stop seeking the applause of men and do the same.