3

Points that need to be answered

Having made these assertions, let us go on to consider some points that need to be answered. Many issues have arisen in the discussions that have taken place since the Assembly – some from liberal critics and some from fellow-evangelicals.

1. The first is the point, made constantly by liberals, that the homosexual issue is not a big deal. This is not really the place to go in detail into the biblical material, but it is only special pleading that can avoid the plain and straightforward teaching in this matter of homosexual practice. So much is this so that the Chairman of Forward Together can quote a Professor from Murdoch University in Australia, who advocates the induction of homosexuals, as writing, “In the current discussions about homosexuality, some issues should be clear from the start. One is that the Bible roundly condemns homosexuality and homosexual activity. Of this there is not a shadow of a doubt. Its writers deplored homosexual acts as a deliberate perversion of human nature, a flouting of God’s intention in creation”.

   • In responding to liberal arguments, some have innocently asked, “What part of ‘do not lie with a man as with a woman’ do they not understand?” Leviticus (as is now well-known) prohibits homosexual practice. Much has been made of other prohibitions in Leviticus which we do not today apply and it would take us well off track if we were to enter into consideration of the distinction between cultic and judicial laws which were relevant to the situation of the Children of Israel then and moral principles which are not time-bound or temporary.

     But, of course, in any case, the biblical case against homosexual practice does not rest only on a few verses in Leviticus.

   • Liberals tell us that Jesus did not refer to homosexuality at all. Actually there are many things Jesus did not say (according to John 20,30, we only have a selection of things he said and did); he did not, for example, forbid wife-beating! At the same time, Jesus did uphold marriage, and he also endorsed the Old Testament.

   • We obviously also have the relevant verses in the first chapter of Romans, which teach that homosexual practice is neither natural nor right. Times may have changed, as liberals point out in their support for anti-biblical practices, but God’s word has not changed, and we might well remember the old adage that he who marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next. [Further notes on the biblical material can be found in Appendix 2 by Aonghas Ian Macdonald.]

   Liberals also try to argue that it is only a few (extremist) evangelicals who oppose the induction of a practising homosexual -- forgetting that opposition to homosexual practice has been the teaching of almost all religions and even of non-religious people throughout the centuries. A GP wrote, “The success of the homosexual lobby, representing less than 2% of the population, outstrips the moon landings as one of the wonders of (this 20th) century. They have, without any evidence to speak of, persuaded most of the civilised world (and many in the church) that a self-evidently unnatural practice has actually been the victim of unnatural prejudice. This flies in the face of the evidence of reproductive biology, sexual physiology, epidemiology and sociology” (Dr Jon Garvey in article in Prophecy Today; October 1998, p.27). (One may wonder why more members of the medical profession have not spoken on this subject in view of the manifest health issues and shortened life-span attached to homosexual practice. )

2. Another point that needs to be answered is the view that evangelicals ought not to be taking a stand on this issue when they, or many of them, have ‘swallowed’ the ordination of women to the eldership and the ministry. It is true that this is a huge issue for many who regard it as plain that Scripture prohibits women’s ministry. However, this present issue is of a different order. The question of women’s ministry is at least arguable (in light, for example, of 1 Corinthians 11,5 and Acts 21,9), whereas there really is no debate on the question of homosexual practice.

3. Allied to the last point is the assertion that some ministers have in the past denied fundamental doctrines – the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ and even the deity of Christ – and, liberals may say, why all the fuss about this issue? The answer is that,

   • in the first place, such rejections of orthodox biblical truth are indeed very serious and the church ought to have taken action on such matters,

   • but in the second place this new situation is much worse in that the church itself has decided to approve what Scripture condemns. It is bad enough when individual ministers step out of line – it is infinitely worse when the church, as a body and in deliberate choice, acts against its own foundations in the Word of God.

4. Moving on now to a point made by some evangelicals – there is the view that the right thing to do is to continue with the policy of quietly working for change within the denomination. Three things may be said about this.

   • One is that such a policy has been attempted for several decades now. Many evangelicals have served within the structures of the Church of Scotland and have exerted a noble and godly influence. However this has not affected the general drift into liberalism that has been characterising our denomination for some time. It may be true that there are more evangelical ministries now than there used to be, but in terms of influence and even ‘infiltration’, the effect has been sadly minimal.

   • In the second place, there is the challenge to those who go along this line – is there anything that the Church might decide which would seem to you to be a cause for decisive action? Is your commitment to the Church of Scotland such that you would never consider leaving it? What if, for example, instead of it being only individuals who deny the deity and uniqueness of Christ, the denomination as a whole did so – what then? It may be that in some sense the Church of Scotland is a broad church – though it can surely only be with reluctance that we might accept such a description – but how broad is broad? Has not the elastic band of the broad church made a distinct ‘twang’ – heard in Aberdeen and reverberating throughout the country.

   • And this is the other point about the policy of quiet work from within: why should there be any need to work for such a witnessing influence within the church? Isn’t it in the unbelieving world that witness is called for? It is perhaps a mark of where we are that so many have accepted the notion of quiet infiltration and trying to change things from within.

Continue