Misinformation
by Jeff Smelser
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 4, December 1995
No informed individual can rationally claim the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. There are people who try to make such a claim, but these fall into two categories: the uninformed and the biased representatives of the homosexual community. The latter are engaged in a disinformation campaign, hoping to confuse the issue with a lot of double talk and outright lies in order to neutralize their opposition. The uninformed become their unwitting allies.
The Providence Journal (Providence, Rhode Island) carried a three-part series on "Gays and Religion" (May 17-19, 1992) in which an attempt was made to leave the impression that the Bible’s stance regarding homosexuality is a matter of some controversy. Well, certainly there are those who will claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. There are also those who will claim that smoking is not unhealthy, namely, the uninformed and the representatives of the tobacco industry. But we don’t expect a responsible newspaper to treat the two sides of that debate as having equally strong arguments. We expect a responsible newspaper to consider the source. A responsible newspaper would not run the headline, "Is smoking unhealthy?" above two columns, one labeled "Yes" and the other labeled "No." And yet, the Journal carried such a column asking, "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" with accompanying "yes" and "no" columns. In small print, there was a subtitle reading, "A summary of interpretations of key passages and doctrines," but the most prominent headline was one that announced, "The Bible on homosexuality." A Journal editor attempted to explain that this was just a representation of different interpretations and not an attempt to report what the Bible actually says. Well then, should the most visible headline have read, "The Bible on Homosexuality"? Furthermore, journalists are supposed to be well-informed so that they can distinguish between informed opinion and ludicrous misinformation. For that matter, a journalist who is doing a major series on gays and religion ought to go to the trouble to pick up a Bible and see for himself what it says.
The series on "Gays and Religion" was written by David Crumm of the Detroit Free Press, along with Frank Bruni. As one would expect, the "No" column contained factual errors, irrelevancies, and logical nonsequiturs. The "Yes" and "No" columns, as they appeared in the Providence Journal, were slightly abridged from the original version that ran in the Detroit Free Press. We will note the claims in the "No" column as they originally appeared in the Detroit Free Press.
The Claim
"The Bible is a divinely inspired guide to God's plan for the world. But its many laws, histories, letters, and poetry are complex and are to be interpreted in light of modern religious experience, human history, and God's continuing revelations to church leaders."
The Fallacy of the Claim
Well, that’s a bunch of double talk. It first pays lip service to the notion of divine inspiration, but then makes the "divinely inspired guide" subject to human evaluation and reinterpretation based on human experience. If one really thought he had a divine revelation from his Creator, would it make sense for him to modify its contents based on his own thinking? Isn’t that a little like a car owner who knows nothing about mechanics, but decides to modify the instructions in the owner’s manual and substitute hand lotion for motor oil because, in his experience, hand lotion is a wonderful lubricant? To be sure, the parallel would be closer if it were the car itself that decided to reinterpret the manufacturer’s instructions.
In reality, the people who engage in this sort of double talk do not really believe in inspiration. They believe Scripture is subject to human revision because they believe it was flawed from the beginning by all the shortcomings of its human authors. Thus, we see that once one cuts through all the double talk, this point really is the crux of the controversy. Obviously, what the Bible says about homosexuality is not controversial. The only issue is, what do we think about the Bible? Ironically, this is the one claim in the original piece that the Providence Journal entirely omitted.
The Claim
"There are less than a dozen verses that mention sexual acts between men among the 31,173 verses in the Bible. It's not a big concern of the Bible's authors."
The Fallacy of the Claim
That’s like arguing that there are fewer than a half-dozen verses that mention sexual acts between men and animals (all of which clearly condemn such), surmising that "it’s not a big concern of the Bible’s authors," and therefore, concluding that the Bible does not condemn bestiality!
But the claim is not only logically ludicrous but also factually misleading. Passages which clearly refer to sexual acts between men include the following: Genesis 19:5, 7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Judges 19:22-24; Romans 1:27; I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:10; and Jude 7. That’s a total of eleven verses. But, in addition to these, there are another 6 verses that refer to such acts in veiled terms. Furthermore, why do we limit the list to sexual acts between men? Why not include Romans 1:26, which condemns sexual acts between women? (You will find out why momentarily!) Then again, the impression is left that the remainder of the Bible is neutral with reference to homosexuality. What about Genesis 19:6, right between verses 5 and 7? This verse is part of the description of Lot’s refusal to accommodate his neighbors' homosexual intentions. In fact, Genesis 19:1-29 tells of the circumstances of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah on account of their sin. Is it fair to count 27 of these verses as being neutral toward homosexuality, just because sex between men is not specifically mentioned in each and every one of these verses?
Do you see why we say only the uninformed or the biased advocates of homosexuality will make any claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality? Into which category the writers of the newspaper article fall, God knows. But it’s one or the other, or both!
The Claim
"The Bible's authors had no sense of homosexuality as a basic sexual orientation and the Bible never clearly refers to lesbians. A proper understanding of God's gift of human sexuality is something the church is learning about in modern times ..."
The Fallacy of the Claim
There are actually a couple of claims involved here. One boils down to the same old presupposition discussed earlier: namely, that the Bible is nothing more than the opinions and understandings of its human authors.
The other claim is simply patently false. Romans 1:26 clearly refers to what is today called lesbianism. The passage says, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural." Lest there be any doubt that sexual relations between women are meant, let it be noted that the next verse, which condemns male homosexuality, continues as follows: "...and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts... "
Now, why did the reporter claim the Bible never clearly refers to lesbians? In a telephone conversation with David Crumm, this factual error was called to his attention, and Romans 1:26 was cited. Mr. Crumm’s response was, "What does it say?" He didn’t even know the passage existed! Before you deem that excusable, remember that he was working on a major story that was to run as a series over several days. Mr. Crumm interviewed a dozen or more theologians and the like. In all of that research, it would have been a very easy matter to pick up one of the many Bible encyclopedias or Bible dictionaries and readily discover the reference to female homosexuality. Nothing more than the research skills of an eighth grader would have been required. Again, only uninformed people or biased advocates of homosexuality claim the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
Whether by accident or intent, the Providence Journal managed to avoid this blunder when it carried Mr. Crumm’s material. The claim that there is no biblical reference to lesbians in the Bible was omitted in the Journal’s rendition of Crumm’s material.
The Claim
"The Code of law in Leviticus was intended for the ancient Hebrews and doesn't apply today. Leviticus forbids the sin of sex between men but it also condemns as evil many things that are commonly accepted today..."
The Fallacy of the Claim
It is true that the law of Moses in general was intended for the ancient Hebrews and is not binding today. But does it follow that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality when there are four passages in the New Testament that explicitly condemn the practice?
Furthermore, one of the two contexts in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality happens to be a passage stating things that God finds abominable among all men, not just the ancient Hebrews. Leviticus 17 and 18 contain descriptions of practices which God abhorred even among the Canaanites, and because of which God punished them (see Leviticus 18:24-30). Included among these was homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). The letter described in Acts 15:22-29 and written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit apparently makes reference to Leviticus 17 and 18 in Acts 15:29, recognizing that while Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses, there were certain prohibitions mentioned in the Law of Moses, specifically those of Leviticus 17 and 18, which pertain to all men.
The Claim
"The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is a story of God's punishment, but the crime was not homosexuality, God was angry because the men of Sodom had tried to rape two angelic messengers he had sent to Lot's house. This was partly a violation of the code of hospitality, a very important set of social customs in ancient society that ensured the protection of visitors. It also was evil because men were trying to abuse angels sent by God. Almost nothing is said about Gomorrah in this story, except that it was situated in the same valley as Sodom. There is no record of God destroying anyone because of homosexuality."
The Fallacy of the Claim
Well, Jude 7 tells us that not only Sodom but also Gomorrah and the cities about them were destroyed because they had "given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh״ (ASV). One can only attempt to sustain his claim that the real sin was in hospitality if he is willing to refute Jude’s analysis of the situation, which again is to deny inspiration. Certainly, there are some who are willing to do this. But let it be clear that the line of demarcation between those who view homosexuality as acceptable and those who do not is the line between those who believe the Bible is God’s word and those who don’t.
The Claim
"It is incorrect to translate the Greek words of I Corinthians or I Timothy 1:10 to condemn all "homosexuals.” Paul probably was referring to the Greco-Roman practices of sex between men and boys or of male prostitution, both of which concerned Paul because they were casual or abusive. In Romans 1:24-27, Paul also is complaining about people who satisfy their sexual desires with casual sex."
The Fallacy of the Claim
To claim that Paul was only concerned with "casual or abusive" relations is utterly fanciful. Nothing in any of the passages cited would suggest such. In fact, in I Corinthians 6:9-10, the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God is an expanded version of the list in I Corinthians 5:11, with fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and homosexuals in I Corinthians 6:9 all corresponding to the general term for fornication in I Corintians 5:11. Therefore a better inference than the one claimed in the newspaper article would be that any unauthorized sexual relationship, i.e., any sexual relationship other than between a husband and his wife, concerned Paul.
The Claim
"Jesus never talked about homosexuality. His main concerns were preaching about compassion caring for neighbors, and God’s love for all people. In Luke 6:37, Jesus says: 'Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others, and God will not condemn you.'"
The Fallacy of the Claim
Jesus condemned fornication. Fornication is any illicit intercourse, including homosexuality. Remember, Jude explained that the sin which brought God’s wrath upon Sodom and Gomorrah was fornication, and specified that the fornication being committed in these cities involved going “after strange flesh," that is, pursuing unnatural sexual relations. He condemned homosexuality every time he condemned fornication.
