through Friday I deal with different subjects in this blog. I also post my blog
to my Facebook page at RFrederickRiddlesWorld. Monday’s I try to focus on issues. This week I am taking a look at Why it’s wrong for colleges to Queer the
There is a movement going on today that is taking over our colleges, a movement that attacks God’s Word. It is called Queering the Bible. In doing research on this issue I came across the arguments for queering the Bible and a site that comes out in direct opposition to this movement. The site is called True freedom Trust and it is for those people who have homosexual leanings but take a stand against it. I will be taking excerpts from their site and using them in this blog. I will also add comments throughout the excerpts which will be enclosed [ ].
I am a Christian totally opposed to homosexual, lesbian, transgender, and any other tag these people use. Before I get to the gist of the blog I want to, in my own words, answer the often given reason for such behavior, namely “I was born this way”.
Isn’t It True that People
are Born Gay?
Normally we answer that with an emphatic NO. But let’s take a Biblical
view. Back in the Garden of Eden Adam sinned and ever since we have been born
with a sin nature. With that in mind the answer could be YES!
Let me explain. When you and I were born we were born with a sin nature.
When we get saved we don’t lose that sin nature, it is with us for life. We are
given a new nature which is sinless and wants to please God. But in the
beginning we have a sin nature.
That means we have the ability and tendency to commit any sin! That includes murdering, lying, gossiping, homosexuality, stealing, lesbianism, bullying, transgendering, voyeurism, drunkenness, cheating, and the list goes on. It is sin and we are all capable of the vilest sin!
What is Queering the
Let’s define queer first. The term queer is a word that encompasses
homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgender.
Queering the Bible means studying the Bible from the homosexual point of
view. The article I referred to earlier is actually Queer Theology.
What is Queer Theology?
Queer theology is a theological method that has
developed out of the philosophical approach of queer theory, built upon scholars such as Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, and Judith Butler. Queer theology begins with an
assumption that gender non-conformity and gay and lesbian desire have always
been present in human history, including the Bible. It was at one time separated into
two separate theologies; gay theology and lesbian theology. Later the two would
merge to become the more inclusive term of queer theology. [emphasis is mine.]
- Theology done by and for LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex) individuals focusing on their specific needs.
- Theology that purposefully opposes social and cultural norms regarding gender and sexuality. It seeks to unearth hidden voices or hidden perspectives that allows theology to be seen in a new light.
- Theology that challenges and deconstructs boundaries, particularly with respect to sexual and gender identity.
Queer theology is inclusive to individuals’ sexual and gender identity
and allows the LGBTQ community to reclaim their space in Christianity.
How Do They Support This?
Well let’s start with Jesus. According to Wikipedia:
In a paper read at the Conference of Modern Churchmen in 1967 titled
“Jesus, the Revelation of God”, Hugh William Montefiore offers a controversial interpretation of
the early life of Jesus. Jesus was not
aware of his vocation as Messiah until approximately age thirty,
Montefiore argues, and this vocation can therefore not explain the celibacy of
[My reply to this: Such a belief completely ignores, dismisses, or misunderstands Jesus’ visit to the synagogue when twelve years of age! Not only that, it completely discounts Jesus’ statement to his parents: “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Jesus knew Who He was and why He came! Joseph was his step-father, God was His Father; and please note the capital F in ‘Father’s’.]
Montefiore finds the explanation that Jesus was homosexual consistent
with his identification with the poor and oppressed:
All the synoptic gospels show Jesus in close relationship with the
‘outsiders’ and the unloved. Publicans and sinners, prostitutes and criminals
are among his acquaintances and companions. If Jesus were homosexual in nature
(and this is the true explanation of his celibate state) then this would be
further evidence of God’s self-identification with those who are unacceptable
to the upholders of ‘The Establishment’ and social conventions.
One proponent of queer theology was Marcella Althaus-Reid, who drew
on Latin American liberation
theology and interpreted the Bible in a way in which she saw as positive towards women, queer
people and sex. She proposed a theology that centered marginalized people,
including people in poverty and queer people. For Althaus-Reid, theology ought
to be connected to the body and lived experience. She put it this way:
Indecent Sexual Theologies […] may be effective as
long as they represent the resurrection of the excessive in our contexts, and a
passion for organizing the lusty transgressions of theological and political
thought. The excessiveness of our hungry lives: our hunger for food, hunger for
the touch of other bodies, for love and for God. […] [O]nly in the longing
for a world of economic and sexual justice together, and not subordinated to
one another, can the encounter with the divine take place. But this is an
encounter to be found at the crossroads of desire, when one dares to leave the
ideological order of the heterosexual pervasive normative. This is an encounter
with indecency and with the indecency of God and Christianity.
One theme in the theology of her The Queer God
(Routledge, 2003) is the holiness of the gay club, as she explores the
intersection and essential non-contradiction of a strong, vibrant faith life
and sexual desire. An example of finding otherness and desire in Biblical texts
is her reading of Jeremiah 2:23–25 from the Hebrew:
[…] a young camel deviating from her path: a wild
she-ass accustomed to the wilderness, sniffing the wind in her lust. Who can
repel her desire? And you said, No! I love strangers, the different, the
unknown, the Other, and will follow them.
[My reply to this: This is a very convenient quote
particularly when you leave off verse 22. Here’s the KJV version of Jeremiah
“For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD. How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways; A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her. Withhold thy foot from being unshod, and thy throat from thirst: but thou saidst, There is no hope: no; for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go.”
Please note that this entire passage (plus verses preceding it) are directed at one who is clearly not pleasing to God. This passage condemns the gay life not exalts it. The above highlights are mine.]
The remainder of this blog features excerpts from the True freedom Trust (some words may seem odd but that is because it is
written from the United Kingdom – I have done some editing.)
This article offers a brief critique of the movement known as queer
theology, by analyzing two of its main distinctive features. These two
distinctive features are firstly the
broadness of queer theology and its unity of purpose and secondly, its aim of blurring boundaries in the
areas of sex and gender.
Distinctive One – Broadness and Unity
One key distinctive of queer theology is how broad the movement is and
yet how an overarching goal unites it. We will define the goal as a ‘…revision
of the church’s understanding of the Bible, sexual morality and the meaning of
The broadness of queer theology can be seen by contrasting scholars such
as Brooten, who acknowledge that the Scriptures condemn same-sex practice but
in doing so argue that they should be ‘disregarded,’ with those who are
supposedly more ‘evangelical’ in their approach.
An evangelical approach can be seen through the arguments of Vines who
seeks to show that the Scriptures do not prohibit all forms of same-sex sexual
expression. Instead, Vines asserts that ‘Christians who affirm the full
authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex
relationships.’ The approach of Vines and others is often argued by attempting
to show that the explicit references to same-sex practice in the Scriptures
should not be taken as applicable to modern, committed same-sex relationships.
Others, like Rudy, would not seek monogamy or commitment as a moral
principle for which to strive. Rudy, for example, claims that non-monogamous
sex can be viewed as a hospitable, progressive ethic.. .Wilson, on the more
liberal wing, talks of ‘bodily hospitality’ where promiscuity is considered a
gift, whereas Jeffrey John articulates an approach which talks of same-sex
relationships being ‘permanent, faithful and stable.’
John is seeking what he sees as
equal rights for same-sex couples, whereas Wilson is celebrating a more
expressive sexuality. One approach wants a seat at the table of societal institutions such
as marriage, whereas the other is happy to tip the table over. Both,
however, have a minimal aim of encouraging others to see same-sex practice as
honorable to God.
Someone who seeks to argue from the Bible for faithful same-sex
relationships is James Brownson, who states ‘my… commitment to the centrality
of Scripture has not changed’. We can contrast Brownson’s approach with that of
Adrian Thatcher. Thatcher makes it plain that his books are ‘always written
from a progressive, liberal perspective’ with the aim of helping to make
churches ‘more inclusive.’
Thatcher, Brownson, Vines, and Wilson all highlight the broad and
varying hermeneutical approaches taken within the sphere of queer theology.
One lamentable strength regarding the broadness of queer theology is
that it reaches a wide audience. If
for example, queer theology was to exist only in more liberal forms, its
blasphemous conclusions would be dismissed out of hand by many Christians and
would never pose a challenge to many in our churches. Two examples of this are
Boer’s view that God should be understood as a sexual top who engages in
sadomasochistic relationships with humans, and Althaus-Reid’s view that the
Trinity should be understood as an orgy.
Although still assiduously seeking to twist the scriptures, the more
conservative wing of queer theology is much less likely to be dismissed as
quickly as scholars like Boer. This wing at least has what it describes as a
‘high view’ of Scripture, and claims to discern the true meaning of the
biblical texts. As previously mentioned, however, the common goal of validating
same-sex practice within the Church is shared by both ends of this movement.
We have seen that the broadness of queer theology gives it a regrettably
broad reach. Both ends of queer theology do, however, have serious flaws, which
mitigate against it being considered a useful hermeneutic.
The more conservative wing of queer theology has failed in its attempt to reconcile a high view of Scripture
with a consistent hermeneutical approach that highlights how and why the
Biblical prohibitions on same-sex practice are no longer applicable. Even if
this were achieved, however, it would still be in danger of arguing from
silence as there are no positive references to same-sex practice in the Scriptures.
It is hard to reconcile arguments from silence with what many deem to be a
‘high view’ of Scripture, although Wilson does argue that biblical narratives
such as David and Jonathan affirm an LGBT experience.
[It is rediculous to claim David and Jonathan were gay. These were best
The work of theologians like Brooten highlights how weak the more
evangelical wing of this movement is. Brooten’s work highlights that it is not
just exploitative relationships which fall under Paul’s condemnation in Romans
Romans 1… establishes the
universal sinfulness of same-sex practice, rather than as merely a culturally
[This first chapter of Romans displays the weakness of
the arguments in behalf of queer theology. Verses 26 and 27 clearly describe
female same-sex and male same-sex practices. And it is clearly condemned!
Moreover the references to the Creator take us all the way back to Genesis and
establishes the universal sinfulness of same-sex practice.]
The information above was on the technical side but it
was so good I felt I had to include it with only minor editing.
Queer Theology is simply bankrupt! Try as they might
you cannot truly queer the Bible. It is the Word of God and must be taken as a
whole. God has consistently condemned the queer life-style. On the other hand
He’s never argued against the claim they were born that way. We are all born
sinners, capable of the filthiest sins, including same-sex practices. That
is why we all must be born again!
VISIT MY AUTHOR’S PAGE TODAY: amazon.com/author/rfrederickriddle.
ARE YOU A
BOOK REVIEWER? I am always looking for book reviews. Whether it is Perished
The World That Was (Book One), World of Noah and the Ark (Book Two),
World of Shem (Book Three), World of Abraham (Book Four) or Death Ship (Book One), Pauline A
New Home (Book Two), Task Force Hunter (Book Three), or Black Death (Book
Four), I value your reviews.
If you would
like to review any of these books contact me at email@example.com with
the subject line indicating that desire. An example of an appropriate subject
line would be: ‘Seek to review [book Title].’ In the email make sure to
indicate your email address, your name, and the choice of copy (PDF or ePub).
– – –
– – – –
R Frederick Riddle is the author of several books and is best known for
Christian Historical Fiction. For more information on him or his books visit
Authors Page. He is also
co-founder and Vice President of T&R Independent Books where his books are featured. To reply to any blog you have the option
of commenting on a blog and/or sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. You may also be interested in his Facebook
page at RFrederickRiddlesWorld.