FIC Blog

While it’s certainly true that each person can believe what they will, according to the dictates of their conscience, it’s always interesting to observe people who attempt to misappropriate the label of Christianity when their system of belief actually contradicts the teachings of Christ and His apostles. This is often the case with liberals who seek to advance the cause of secular humanism under a false banner, by trying to portray themselves as merely part of a dissenting and more liberal branch of Christianity. Really this is a form of “false advertising”. Either you are on board with the teachings of Christ as described in Holy Scripture, or you’re not. As it says in the good book, “For those of you who are lukewarm, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

 

I wrote about this at some length, roughly 2 years ago, in my blog article, “Beware the False Prophets”. But what prompts me to write again today is a letter to the editor in the Connecticut Post, by The Rev. William Duchon. This major newspaper in southeastern CT has apparently been running a series of letters seeking to rehash the same-sex marriage debate, and to ridicule the biblical teaching that homosexual behaviors are sinful. Together with the preceding letter by Lynne Porter, the argument is raised that biblical teachings of the Old Testament ought to be set aside altogether since some would seem not to apply anymore. This is essentially equivalent to the same tired old argument that if you eat shellfish (prohibited in Leviticus 11) then you would be hypocritical to condemn homosexuality (prohibited in Leviticus 18 and 20, and yet also reaffirmed as sinful at numerous other points in the Bible including most notably Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Jude). Following this thinking through to its logical conclusion, those who advance this argument would seek to set aside the entirety of Old Testament law and empower man to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. In essence, this argument is used as a key to unlock and justify the philosophy of secular humanism.

 

Yet it is clear among reasonable people that we ought still to follow the 10 Commandments as a society, even if an individual person should happen to profess his disagreement with these principles. Does anyone honestly believe that the “eating shellfish” escape clause could justify negating God’s commands “thou shall not steal” and “thou shall not kill”? One’s liberty to believe according to the dictates of conscience does not give broad license to redefine good and evil. Even those people who consider themselves outside the Abrahamic covenant tradition must nevertheless face the reality that society will expect them to abide this commonly understood definition of right and wrong.

 

So the question really becomes this – what part of Old Testament teachings are still applicable to us in the present day? That is a question biblical scholars have typically addressed by identifying that there are 3 distinct elements of such teachings:

 

1. Moral-Ethical law
2. Ceremonial law
3. Judicial-Civil law

 

The moral law encompasses the unchanging sense of right and wrong that applies to all persons throughout history, including today. As described in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), “The moral law doth forever bind all”. While the 10 Commandments would be the most obvious example of this moral law, other teachings given in the Old Testament also fall into this category.

 

The ceremonial law pertains to the ordinances of worshipping God in the times predating Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. In the Christian tradition, these laws were abrogated by the New Testament since we now have direct access to the Father. So we no longer need to bring animal sacrifices to high priests at a temple, for example. You can read more about this in Hebrews 9 & 10.

 

Finally the civil law pertains to the governing regulations of the ancient Jewish state as it once existed, prescribing a list of infractions and penalties. This would include many items related to the moral code, but tied more specifically to a concrete punishment. By way of example, adultery is a violation of both the civil and moral code. It is a sin that separates us from God, in the sense of the moral code. And it is a crime worthy of the death penalty, in the sense of the ancient Hebrew civil code (e.g. Deuteronomy 22). Today it nevertheless remains a moral wrong, even though we are no longer bound under the civil law expressed here. In addition to items that span both moral and civil law, there are items that exclusively fall into the civil law category like the ancient Jewish regulations pertaining to the treatment of servants.

 

An excellent review of this subject – the 3 categories of law found within the Mosaic Code – is the article “Should We Obey The Law?” by David Philips. Another is the article “Jesus and the Mosaic Law” by Casey Carmical.

 

I think it is very important to consider the context of the Old Testament verses that speak about homosexual behavior as sinful. If you look at the rest of Leviticus 18, you will find prohibitions against many other things we would still agree are immoral: adultery, incest, bestiality, and human sacrifice. It is in this context that we find homosexuality listed as an offense. Given this context, it’s clear that it is not a ceremonial law, but a combination of civil and moral law. To the extent that it is civil law, we have the opportunity as a nation to be merciful in our treatment of offenders (compared with the strict penalties that would have been imposed under the ancient Hebrew system of government). But to the extent that it is also moral law, it remains as much an offense now as it has always been. We should therefore realize that fundamental principles of right and wrong do not change, and are not subject to the whims of mortal man.

 

Some folks have said that Jesus Himself never spoke about homosexuality. But if you study Matthew 15:10-20 it is clear that only portions of the Mosaic law are to be set aside. Indeed, to be specific, while Jesus overturned the ceremonial laws (OK, you can eat lobster now) he concomitantly reaffirmed that the ethical laws remain intact. Moreover, among the examples that Jesus chose to underscore in reaffirming these portions of the law are: murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. The reference to “sexual immorality” in this verse was originally expressed as “ervar davar” (Hebrew) and translated as “porneia” (Greek). In both cases, this is a term that encompasses a wide range of illicit sexual activity including: adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc. – in other words, by implication, the sexual taboo code of Mosaic law as it would have been commonly understood to contemporary Jews in the days when Jesus walked among them.

 

Having said all of this, let’s return to what originally prompted my comments today – the letters from Ms. Porter and Rev. Duchon, in which they incorrectly reason that all 3 categories of law in the Mosaic Code are of equivalent standing. By their flawed reasoning, if they can pick apart any elements of that code as being archaic and no longer applicable in modern society, then it ought all to be set aside as meaningless drivel. How wrong they are, as shown by literally hundreds of years of biblical study!

 

At least Ms. Porter admits that she’s not a biblical scholar, so we might be tempted to give her a pass based on sheer ignorance. Nevertheless she reveals her true colors at the very end in her exhortation to “use the Bible to embrace our shared humanity”. This comes straight out of the secular progressive handbook, and waters down the true purpose of the Bible’s epic story. I always thought the Bible was meant as God’s story of His relationship with His chosen people, and how – despite our fall into sin – He formulated a plan for our redemption and salvation, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. Yet strangely absent in Ms. Porter’s letter is any reference to God whatsoever. Not even one! Oh well. In her world, the Bible must need to be understood from a humanistic perspective alone.

 

In the subsequent letter from Rev. Duchon, I noticed how the signature line did not include any mention of a church affiliation. I wondered, who is his congregation? Particularly since his comments showed an odd dissonance with the Christian faith, by failing to recognize one true God and by deviating from Jesus’ words “No one comes to the Father except through me”. You see, Duchon wrote instead about the value in one’s spiritual journey not only of the Bible but also “the Quran, the Upanishads, poetry and music”. And yet that title “Reverend” lent the impression that one was reading the musings of a Christian pastor. Not an Imam from the Muslim faith. Not a Brahman from the Hindu faith. But in this case it was being used as a generic title of no faith in particular, under the auspices of a seminary diploma and nothing more. How sad indeed, for in seeking to embrace every faith, he remains true to none of them. And in the end he falls into the same secular progressive trap, claiming that “the overwhelming message of the Scriptures is simply to love, respect and serve one another and the world”. Once again, this is a wholly humanistic point of view – focused upon “one another and the world”, and entirely missing the point about God’s relationship with us. Ultimately the problem with sinful behaviors is not merely how they affect other people in this world. More than anything it is how they damage our relationship with God. The same God whose eyes it is said are “too pure to look on evil” and who “cannot tolerate wrong” (Habukuk 1). The same God who is love and yet is also uncompromisingly holy, righteous and just. The same God one ought to have learned about had one attended a seminary that honored the true and ancient faith, passed down through the apostles, rather than a man-made humanistic faith in which we choose for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Oh well. Duchon must have missed reading Paul’s admonition in Galatians that if anybody preaches a different gospel other than what was passed down originally via the apostles, let him be eternally condemned. Duchon can certainly choose to conform his faith to the world’s expectations, rather than God’s. But those of you who are wiser can discern the truth, and steer clear from his false teachings.

 

This is very much about discernment and the caution given in the New Testament to beware of false prophets. Christians must remain vigilant, and keep these wolves at bay through the Light of the Word.