Radical Inclusiveness and the Bible

We have a futon couch. With just a minor adjustment, it becomes a bed. With just a little “adjustment,” we can do the same thing with Biblical interpretation and derive almost anything we want.

We visited a Presbyterian church in downtown Manhattan this Sunday. The pastor taught about eunuchs, citing Deuteronomy 23:

·        No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, even down to the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord…(Deut. 23:1-3)   

He then cited Isaiah – writing 700 years later – to show the egalitarian “evolution” of the Israelite religion:

·        Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, "The Lord will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." For this is what the Lord says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial…” (Isaiah 56:3-5)

For this pastor, Isaiah’s understanding had evolved far beyond Moses’. I guess Moses must have misheard the Lord at Sinai, and the Lord, in disgust, allowed Moses to promote his errant message.

The pastor then brought his portrait of Biblical evolution into the modern times of the Gospel, where we find Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch into the body of Christ. The pastor concluded that the religion of the Hebrews had finally achieved inclusiveness.

Predictably, he applied this lesson of inclusiveness to those living out the homosexual life, gaily proclaiming that he and those of his understanding had achieved the radical inclusiveness envisioned by Jesus. However, he warned that there are still “Pharisees” – the Evangelicals - within the church. So much for inclusiveness! I guess he didn’t see his inconsistency.

Hadn’t he converted a bed into something it wasn’t – a reclining chair? Was Moses really so adverse to inclusivism? It seems not! Although the Passover could not be celebrated by non-Israelites, God explained upon His great deliverance from Egypt that this could be remedied:

·        The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: ‘No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker [who remain uncircumcised] may not eat of it.’” (Exodus 12:43-45)

Circumcision was the entry ticket, as it had been for all Israelites! This represented radical inclusiveness – even for the despised slave. There were no literacy, income or racial requirements. However, the included had to abide by the same standards as the native-born Israelites. God affirmed that there wouldn’t be any distinctions:

·        “The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." (Exodus 12:49).

How then would we reconcile this with the restrictions of Deuteronomy 23? Clearly, the eunuch and the various foreigners hadn’t become circumcised! Had they, the doors would have swung open.

In light of this understanding, Isaiah would gladly shake hands with Moses. In fact, he and all the prophets never suggested that they had any differences with the Mosaic Law. However, with just a twist here and an adjustment there, the Bible can be made to say almost anything.

However, I was glad to hear the pastor’s preamble to the Lord’s Supper. He explained that it was open to any “who sincerely turned their back on their sins.” Clearly, being a eunuch wasn’t a matter of sin. It isn’t an action but a physical condition. However, the homosexual lifestyle does represent both choice and action. Many have proved this by actually turning their back on this self-destructive lifestyle.

I was wondering how the pastor had convinced himself that homosexual behavior wasn’t a sin that required repentance. I had supposed that he regarded pedophilia, adultery and extra-marital sexual behavior as sin. Why then not homosexual behavior?

I went to the coffee hour hoping to pigeon-hole the pastor. However, neither he nor his associate pastors came – not exactly the ideal modeling of inclusiveness. However, I did corner a defenseless woman who was overseeing a sign-up table. I shared with her my perplexity, and asked her how the pastor could be sure that homosexuality wasn’t a sin in view of the many verses forbidding it. She couldn’t answer, but expressed her hope that the pastor would soon come for his coffee. Evidently, he had found coffee elsewhere.

   

Sex-Change Therapy vs. Sex-Reorientation Therapy

What would you think about legislation that would prevent you from seeking psychotherapeutic counseling for gambling or porn addiction? Wouldn’t you think it absurd to legislate against this kind of help in light of the fact that psychotherapy is supposed to be a helping profession? You would therefore ask, “How can you turn me away when I come to you for help?” However, this is just what a new bill before the California Senate is proposing:

• A California Senate committee today advanced SB 1172, a bill that would help protect citizens from harmful, ineffective ex-gay therapy. The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts

“Ineffective?” I know many people who claim to have profited from sexual-reorientation counseling. Some have even gone on to marry. The gay community and its promoters can only claim that it doesn’t work by denying the many findings that contradict their claim. And this is the very thing that they have done. They have silenced the voices of groups like Parents and Friends of ex-Gays (PFOX) and have successfully prevented them from even running ads by charging that they are disseminating “hate-speech.” Ironically, it is the gay lifestyle promoters who are the bullies and the haters.

Instead, there is a wealth of data in favor of ex-gay therapy. Just check out NARTH.com. However, even if there wasn’t, who should blame or withhold help from those who want to flee or at least resist a lifestyle associated with so many well-established personal costs – severely heightened rates of suicide, depression, mental illness, substance abuse, and greatly diminished life-spans, even within those nations most favorably disposed to homosexuality!

This bill would be more acceptable if it addressed moral wrongs. If instead, it prohibited supportive counseling for those seeking supportive counseling to enable them to have an adulterous affair, this would be understandable. In such a case psychotherapy would serve to promote societal ills.

Likewise, if this bill prohibited supportive counseling for an adolescent who wanted a sex change, it could more easily be justified. Sex change is radical, almost-irreversible, long-term effects are questionable, social consequences are considerable, and it violates the natural - our DNA. However, California is willing – even clamoring – to promote physical sex-change. Ironically, the California legislature is entirely in favor of “choice” in this regard, but not when a child wants to exercise choice to deal with same-sex attraction (SSA)!

Although this proposed bill doesn’t prohibit adults from receiving counseling to deal with SSA, it coerces the potential client to endure waves of propaganda:

• It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer: Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

However, this disclaimer should also specify the same risks for those who remain in the gay lifestyle: “The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.” By refusing to see that these same risks are endemic to the gay lifestyle, whenever the gay person experiences negative consequences, the fault is attributed to ex-gay therapy without any consideration that the consequences might have stemmed directly from the lifestyle.

Nevertheless, I think that we need to be sensitive and compassionate with gay people. They sincerely believe that their problems are the result of an ever-shrinking band of religious fundamentalists who do not approve of their lifestyle, instead of their own God-given conscience not approving. As such, their battle is not against the “Fundies” but essentially against themselves.