What does the Wesleyan Quadrilateral mean to the rank-and-file Methodist Christian? I’ve run across two different pastors in the last couple of months who are using this emphasis to help explain grace, but there is also one highly questionable argument being made to somehow apply the principles of this Quadrilateral to justify the practice of homosexuality. I freely admit that the argument is lost on me.
Some time back I vowed not to waste my time writing anymore about the “issue” of homosexuality within the Church, but a recent comment by a layman forced me to reconsider offering another thought about the alleged “silence” of Jesus in the Gospels on this particular issue after the layman's comment simply was that Jesus never brought it up.
There are a couple of things wrong with this presumption. First of all, it is hard to imagine that what is contained within the synoptic Gospels is every single word ever uttered by Jesus and that if it is not recorded, Jesus never said it. This presumes an awful lot by suggesting that these relatively short books captured and recorded every single incident and moment in Jesus’ three years of public ministry. Such an argument would also suggest that Jesus had His own scribe who wrote down every single word He spoke. Not very realistic.
Secondly, what can we as Christians and as a Church say that we believe about the doctrine of the Trinity in general and Jesus in particular if we honestly believe that He never addressed the issue of homosexuality? If we make the argument that Jesus never said it, are we then denying God in three Persons? One and Same? Alpha and Omega? The Father and I are One?
If Jesus is the Word and was “in the beginning”, it would then stand to reason that Scripture speaks plainly about the abomination in the Hebrew texts, words attributed to the Lord God Himself when He makes His thoughts about men lying with men as with women abundantly clear. If Jesus was God in the flesh and God spoke these words to Moses in the Law and God manifested Himself in the person of the Son, then Jesus did speak directly to the issue of homosexuality in Leviticus.
Our tradition speaks of the eternal nature of the Lord who “does not change”, for me meaning that while we may attempt to justify our selfish and carnal nature by creating a “new” tradition pleasing only to ourselves, the Word of the Lord remains steadfastly unchanged. In a world that is constantly changing, this should be a source of great comfort for us that there is at least something we can count on to remain solid for all time, the foundation that never shifts with generations. Granting ourselves the authority to separate from such solidity speaks only of the reality of “free will” and not much more.
Experience and reason also speak to certain physical realities, namely that certain body parts were not designed for “input” (forgive my being so graphic). We speak of this grand “gift” of sex while failing to realize or acknowledge that the reality of sex is primarily for procreation, not recreation; we were meant to procreate. This is not to say that a husband and wife should feel guilty about enjoying the intimacy that comes from this very natural act or that a woman should be made to feel like less of a woman if she is unable to conceive, but speaking in the context of a “gift” can imply something to be less than holy. Careless rendering of such gifts has the potential of granting to us – by our own design – something entirely pleasing only to ourselves and very appealing to our selfish nature especially when we enable ourselves to remove the Divine will from it.
The Lord God will not be mocked. If we are kidding anyone, it is only ourselves.
2 comments:
Let me also suggest that Jewish practice of Jesus' time had a pretty clear position on homosexuality (they were against it). Jesus was not reluctant to call out what was wrong in the practice of His time. His apparent silence on this subject can and probably should be considered approval - He had no need to speak about what His contemporaries were already getting right.
I disagree. Silence on the subject is not apparent nor implied. The relatively few chapters contained in the canonical gospels cannot possibly cover three years of any man's life, let alone Christ's. If there is implication in "silence", it is that the Hebrew texts were abundantly clear and the matter considered settled.
If there is a creation design, and the Genesis text seems to suggest such, reason would dictate that homosexual practice has no possible useful benefit beyond self-gratification because there is nothing else to come from such an ilicit union.
Even beyond this, considering your "time" argument, why would homosexuality have been wrong then but is now somehow ok?
Post a Comment