unChristian

So I started and wrote most of this at lunch, which is always dangerous what with my blood sugar being in flux. This was supposed to be more of a quick thought than a whole mini-rant or -thesis (I still have to get back to you, Katya. Argh-at-self!) but turned into something longer and I had to email it to myself so I could finish. So here it be.

Anywho, while perusing Amazon.com for a song I heard on Cross Rhythms ("Spirit I Am" by Erik Bibb if you're curious), I started surfing through their links and ended up at the page for unChristian by David Kinnamen. The title itself was too interesting to pass up, so I read the description to see if it's something I wanted to put on order with my library. While reading it, though, I started to wonder whether it was really the book for conservative/fundamental (since I can't seem to decide which word best fits) me. It seemed that so many of the "negatives" connotations being associated with Christians are the very things I've been arguing in my lay Apologetic ventures. So, like any good reader who wants a sense of whether she's going to like the book, I read the comments. They weren't proving very helpful either. Their comments just weren't giving me whatever keyword or phrases I was looking for that would tell me "This is a book with a Liberal Christian standpoint, be prepared to take it that way and see what the thought process is there" or "This is a Con/Fundamental Christian book, see what you can glean from this for your own use/knowledge." I was, and am, still going to borrow it but I wanted to not be surprised. *shrugs*


And then I found this comment. What I thought was of particular interest was: "These people are perverting the teachings of the Bible to fit their own bigotry. They are no different from folks who waived the Bible in the air to defend slavery or to reject women's suffrage." Ironically enough, I'd say the same thing about him. Yes it's true that the Bible and Christianity have often been used to push people's personal agendas and not God's (Katya and I argued slavery, dietary restrictions and women's rights(?) in our "landmark" discussion, which I can't link b/c it's on a members-only site), but just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean something isn't Biblically true. To determine what is or isn't you have to go to the Book itself. And the whole book, not just passages, not just the New Testament and not just the Old Testament, but a survey of the Book that focuses on the topic in question.

That said...homosexuality is one of those topics that is carried over from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and in which there is no new commentary by Jesus or the Apostles. The Old Testament calls it a sin and abomination, and the New Testament agrees. The NT doesn't tell you to stone anyone caught in homosexuality, or whatever the punishment might have been, but it doesn't change the tone of how it is viewed by God. It's one of those things that's clearly stated and definitely reinforced. So where's the room for "twisting" the text to say it is a sin when that is what it's clearly called? Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not negate it. If His coming didn't make theft, murder, lying, adultary, etc., okay to do then why did it make homosexuality okay or of no consequence?

And I'm gonna end here, but only because I feel a full thesis coming on.