Wednesday

Something About Robert

When Rob Bell said God was accepting of homosexuals, it really rattled the Evangelical world if you knew the place Rob had with them. Evangelicals felt it was a deep betrayal and turned there backs on him with calling him everything from a reprobate to a 'Dark' Shepherd, it didn't help when others sided with Rob like Brian McLaren, but oy, like most on my side with the Bible and homosexuality, they're just really crummy with debating. Rob is new to this and it's too early for him to stand up to anti-gay prats like Wilson who's good at slipping things into the conversation as a given. This is unfortunate because If you have ever heard Rob preach, you know he's a brilliant speaker, just not now, just not with this.

Rob is debating Andrew Wilson and of course Rob looks like he doesn't know where his car is parked.



He should have answered the question directly. Yes Andrew, the Bible and Jesus don't say it's sinful. Now what?!

Notice how Wilson implies those who believe like Rob don't get their view from the Bible, but instead get it from wanting to move people forward in history with a worldview? Rob should have stopped him right there and made it clear that the only reason he now believes as he does comes from Scripture, only Scripture, to win this.

Paul wouldn't be saying; "That's just great guys!" If two men were in a relationship at Corinth because he wouldn't even be saying that to a straight couple in Corinth. Did Andrew forget Paul said it's better to be single and if you HAVE to marry, do it so you "don't burn?" Paul saw ANY relationship as taking away from the work that needed to be done with bringing people into the Kingdom with the short time we tarry on this Earth.

Rob should have turned the question back on Andrew with saying; "Are you saying Jesus was talking about homosexuality because He was talking about "sexual immorality?" Because the Greek word Paul is saying for sexual immorality, porneia, in the passages you just quoted me, Matthew (5:28), Romans 1 (1:29), Revelations (18:3), it never refers to homosexuality. Fornication, harlotry, but never homosexuality of two committed men or women.

Andrew prattles on about the creation account that in no way CONDEMNS gay unions in Christ and notice he brings up Moses? Not any other patriarchs who had multiple wives and concubines, just Moses with the one wife. Still not a very smart move on his part when the Bible narrative hints Moses had two wives in the book of Numbers.

Rob should have stopped him again when he said 'arsenokoitai' is the active and 'malakoi' is the passive in a gay relationship. See how he makes it sound like it's a given? James White does this same thing when discussing these two words.
(Rob by now looks like he wants to hide in the bushes outside of the studio)

When Andrew is giving the line that gays in his church have left homosexuality, I'm glad Rob at least brought up the examples of gay Christians he knew who are active in the Body of Christ. There are countless testimonies of men and women that Andrew is ignoring who serve God in their gay identity, AS new Creature who died to self IN a resurrected life in Christ. Slander and greed are offenses against another and against oneself, homosexuality isn't a breaking of "Shalom" Andrew.

I don't know what Andrew is trying to say starting at the 12:10 mark, even Rob had to ask. He's wrong though with saying all scholars believe as he does, a fact admitted by Gagnon and White with saying they are now in the minority, and that the early church had this view of homosexuality the church has now, it didn't. Andrew doesn't see church traditions with homosexuality being wrong, but he will be the first to say we should leave church tradition behind because these are dead traditions. Andrew can't go to Paul's words, he can't go to the Torah (when he says "Torah," he really only means Leviticus), he can't go to the prophets (When did Micah talk about homosexuality?) because they don't make these sweeping claims prohibiting homosexuality which he says they do.
(Rob is looking at the host like he just got caught shoplifting hairspray)

Andrew is right with hinting Rob didn't bring anything to the table to change his mind. I do give Rob credit for calling out the bias of the host.

I do want to add one more thing from my own personal feelings. I won't break bread or drink of the wine with someone like Andrew Wilson. I don't call him a brother in Christ and I know he won't call me brother. When I see the heresy of what people like him push that destroys young, gay, souls, I'm filled with a righteous anger I will be glad to give an accountability to God for.



2 comments:

Frankie Smith said...

I couldn't get all the way in because I was so frustrated by this, haha. I mean the guy's heart was in the right place, but a you said, we keep hitting a wall when it comes to the whole matter of debating this out with scripture and nothing but scripture. I think it was about 3 minutes or so in, when Rob described sin as anything which breaks the "shalom" or peace. NO!!!! Sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4. We aren't under the Law, thus we can't transgress it. I could go on but I'd be preaching to the choir. I mean, what does it take to get into a discussion with one of these guys? I mean, I could have deflated this Wilson guy in no time flat.

rottenqueerchristian said...

Rob was going by the Jewish understanding of what sin does, it breaks the peace, it breaks the Shalom.
How you liking the book?