About a week ago, Brock Sund, an acquaintance, posted that Leviticus 20:13 taught that homosexuality was a sin. I took him to task for this, using context, language, and logic to demonstrate that:
– the verse in question never uses the word sin
– the term the verse does use, “abomination,” refers to ritual uncleanness
– the verse itself, in context, is part of a bizarre Levitical holiness code levying strange restrictions on diet (ixnay on the impshray … and no pork, either), personal appearance (no clothing made of two fabrics, and no tatoos), and labor (no travel, work, or baking on Saturday).
As a code, it must be embraced or rejected completely; if we are to be consistent, honest, and responsible students of the Scriptures, we cannot base conclusions on one or two verses, yanked out of context.
Confronted with the truth about Leviticus 20:13, Brock continued to insist homosexuality was sinful — but failed to produce any Scriptures to support and prove his claim. Instead, he concluded:
I do agree with you that people read into scripture differently.
I’d take this a step further, Brock. To be more precise:
– Some people actually read the Scriptures … in context, with a goal of discovering as much as possible about what the Scripture actually says.
– Others, as Brock so aptly phrased it, “read into [the] Scripture” what they want to see there. This is either out of ignorance (they wouldn’t know what context was if it walked up and bit them on the bottom) or by design (they’ve drawn their conclusions, they’ve got an agenda, and they’re only looking for Scriptures that will confirm their conclusions).
To Brock’s credit, I think (based on conversations with his friends and our private email messages) that his heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, Brock and, in all likelihood, his church and the seminary he hopes to attend are very much in the second camp.
Brock’s parting shot was a particularly disappointing one, as it shows an ignorance of the rules of logic and debate, as well:
I would ask [you, Mark,] … to find one [place] in the Bible [where Scripture says] homosexuality is [okay] … When you show me where it is okay … or even tolerated once, then, Mark, I will refute my beliefs of it being a sin.
The best way to answer this challenge is to tell a quick story:
Imagine one Sunday I burst into your church and shout, “Everyone in here with a tattoo is going to Hell! Everyone with a tattoo is a sinner, and is in transgression against the clear teaching of Leviticus 19:28!”
“But Mark,” you say. “Leviticus 19:28 is part of the old Levitical holiness code.”
“Spare me your little intellectual tricks!” I scream. “The Bible says what the Bible says! Now, strip for inspection! We’re gonna root out all the tattooed sinners and put ’em to death by stoning!”
“But Mark,” you say, “The Christ came to free us from the overbearing restrictions of the Old Law. With his blood, he establish a new covenant with us, abolishing the tyranny of the Levitical code forever.”
“I tell you what,” I rave, waving my Bible in the air. “Show me one place, just one place in all of Scripture, where the Bible says tattoos are okay … and I’ll abandon my belief that tattoos are sinful!”
Ah — did you spot my little trick?
First, I made a claim and cited a Scrapture to back it up.
You, then, knocked my legs out from under me by pointing out (as you will, no doubt, be doing to fundamentalists everywhere, now that you’ve read this) that Christians are no longer obligated to live under the strict controls of the Levitical code.
So what did I do? I very conveniently ignored a little principle called “the burden of proof.”
The burden of proof states that, when someone makes a claim, the responsibility for proving and supporting that claim falls to the person who made it. If I say I can fly, it’s not your obligation to “disprove” that … it’s my obligation to buzz around the room.
Which brings us back to Brock and his remarkable claim (“Homosexuality is sinful”). When
Add comment