If Jesus was "gay affirming" then why didn't He mention homosexuality?
The above picture was taken from the Kindle app on my ipad. It's an excerpt from Matthew Vines book "God and the Gay Christian." The highlighted text is the portion that I want to discuss in this post.
So let's break the statement down.
"They long for a charitable yet biblically sound message on this topic."
I can understand a desire for Christians to be charitable when speaking about the topic of gay marriage. Too often Christians have been mean spirited and insensitive to those caught in the sin of homosexuality.
But what this statement presupposes is that the Bible isn't clear on the subject. And yet it couldn't be more clear. The Bible is not ambiguous on the subject of homosexuality. It calls it a sin.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
And even though "Gay Christians" will make the argument that we really have not understood these six passages, they are really only grasping at straws.
"that's not at odds with the Jesus of the Gospels."
So Jesus was not at odds with homosexuality? Wasn't Jesus a Jew? No Jew during that time period would have ever accepted the idea that monogamous loving same sex relationships were okay. Proponents of "gay christianity" would say that because Jesus never mentioned homosexuality that He wasn't against it and so we can't use Him to defend our position.
But doesn't the fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality strengthen and not weaken our position? Think about it for a moment. Wasn't there homosexuals at the time of Christ. Wasn't there people who desired what Matthew Vines desires today, to be accepted and affirmed in their desires to marry a person of the opposite sex. The human heart hasn't changed. "There is nothing new under the Sun."
And yet Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. He never once affirmed homosexual unions. He never once mentioned the pain and suffering that homosexuals endure at the hand of those who viewed their lifestyle as sin. Don't you think if Jesus was gay affirming that He would have talked about the injustice and cruelty of not accepting these men and women who just wanted to be loved but we're born with same sex attractions? Doesn't this make Jesus "unloving."
Isn't Jesus the Creator? Isn't He God? Yes He is God. As the Bible says:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him.
he who fashions the hearts of them all
and observes all their deeds.
So if Jesus, who is Creator and Lord of all, made homosexuals the way they are, then wouldn't He have affirmed their same sex desires? Wouldn't He have condemned those who were against monogamous same sex unions? And yet, He said nothing.