Letters - Christis

Dear CHRISTIS,

In my letter in CHRISTIS issue 7, I argued against homosexuality, suggesting that it does not fit in with what we find in the Bible. I would like to emphasise that I was neither attempting nor wishing to suggest that we should not love homosexuals, but the ensuing criticism aired in the forum of this magazine has caused me to think over my case, and prompts me to explain both my statements and beliefs more fully. I will begin by re-examining the particular episode of Jesus and the adulterous woman (Jn 8:2–11), and thence proceed to a more detailed exposition of my views.

The teaching of this story is that we are not to condemn others, nor are we to be complacent about sin in our lives. Any sin could be fitted into the spirit of that example, not just adultery, and so I felt justified in using it in my look at homosexuality; I will come to why I class homosexuality as a sin further on in this letter. John used adultery because that was the particular situation into which the historical Jesus really came: Jesus was there because the imminent threat of death hanging over the woman pointed to the rightful consequence of sin, and although He made it quite clear that it was not for man to carry out the punishment, He never suggested that it was no longer the right of God to do so.

What then is sin? One definition of sin is “everything that does not come from God”, and is hence in contradiction to his character. One of the primary values of the Scriptures is that they give us clues to God’s character, and since God is eternal and unchanging, what is revealed in one part of the Bible is going to be relevant to all time; it is the consistent witness to the nature of God that binds the Bible together in its entirity.

We must of course be wary of the changing cultural filters through which we hear God’s Word, but we are the losers if we use this as an excuse to ignore anything vaguely related to the history of the Jewish people. Let me show the type of exegesis I am advocating. The verse forbidding sexual relationships with menstruating women (Lev 18:19) does not show an example of mans age-long repression of women, but instead, points to God’s love for womankind; by Divine Law women became protected from sexual, and other, exploitation from men during their monthly period, the time of the month when most women seem to admit feeling at their weakest. It can be legalistically exploited as a tool of oppression, but Christians should view it from the perspective of God’s love. Perhaps (and I say suggest this only very tentatively) it is a law which could be considered waivable today, but to do so is the prerogative of the individual woman, according to her wishes. In a similar manner, lex talonis still applies today (cf. Mt 5:18, 38–42) as the maximum acceptable degree of retaliation, but Christians should so love their neighbours that they lay down this right of their own volition for the benefit of others (we have the perfect example for this in Christ’s incarnation, qv. Php 2:5–8, cf. vv 9–11).

However, in contrast to this, Lev 18:22 describes homosexuality as “detestable”. Since this whole chapter, as with those surrounding it, are records of God’s direct commands, it follows that v.19 means that homosexual acts are not acceptable to God, and hence sinful.

Perhaps this opens me up for attack once again, and perhaps there are some who would label me a “narrow fundalmentalist, missing the spirit by hanging onto the words”. However, by denying the words if they happen to disagree with the ideas which have been ingrained upon us by our society, do we not fall into even greater and graver error, losing all basis on which to truly understand God, ignoring what we do not like, or would rather not have to countenance in Him? Those who seem to place importance only on the words of Jesus should remember that in addition to showing us an infinitely loving God, he also showed us a God who is uncompromisingly Holy, and who had already begun revealing himself in the Old Testament (hence Jesus’ claim that he came not to destroy but to fulfill in Mt 5:17). It is nonsense to attempt a synthesis without including all the relevant facts, and the fact of God’s Holiness is not to be wished or explained away.

For my understanding of the Bible, and my faith, I humbly follow the advice given by St. Paul in Rom 12:1–2, which urges us to become living sacrifices to God and to be transformed by the renewing of our minds rather than being conformed to the world; the promise given with this is that we will be then be able to understand God’s will (thus I do have the “impressive, direct, two-way line to Christ”, mentioned in issue 8). We can only achieve this by submitting ourselves to Christ, and asking Him to justify us (cleanse us of our sin in the eyes of God, giving the Christian the only true assurance of salvation) and sanctify us (removing habitual sin from our lives, a life long process which we should willingly undergo) so that eventually He will be able to glorify us (raising us up to share in his glory, praising and worshipping Him). He can do this because of His victory on the Cross at Calvary, and promises all this to those who follow Him because of His great love. Only if it can be proved that Christ was not raised from the dead will there be any reason to doubt that it is in His power to cleanse us from even the most “natural” and ingrained sin.

Just as I am forced to think when others accuse me, or the tradition of Evangelical Christianity that I represent, of being blinkered in regard to any issue, so I earnestly desire that this letter will provoke similar honest self examination in those who think differently: may Christ remove the obstructing pieces of wood from all our eyes.

Glory to God.

Wulf Forrester-Barker

Dear CHRISTIS,

It was good to read A-R Khooli’s full and accurate account (Issue 8) of Jesus (Issa) in the Qur’an and of the tradition surrounding Jesus’ “disappearence” (namely that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus on the cross). However I would like to mention 4 points:

1) Why does A-R Khooli ask us to consider the “Gospel” of Barnabus with the Biblical Gospel? Also, the “Gospel” of Barnabus is widely considered to be a mediaeval European forgery. Apart from being internally inconsistent it also contains glaring factual inaccuracies e.g. the account of jesus and his disciples going to Jerusalem — by boat. Jerusalem is land-locked.

2) there are two references to Jesus’ death that I know of in the Qur’an. Surat 3:48: “God says, ‘O Jesus, I will cause you to die and will take you up to myself.’ ” and Surat 19:34 where the infant Jesus says “Blessed am I on the day of my birth, on the day when I will die, and on the day I will be raised up again.” Muslims interpret these references to Jesus’ death as being subsequent to his return to this world because, they claim, he hasn’t yet died but, being human, must eventually die once. In support of this view they site Surat 4:156 “They [the Jews] did not kill him or crucify him, but so it was made to appear to them … assuredly they did not kill him.” Christians also do not believe that the Jews killed Jesus, rather Jesus’ death was God’s will (c.f. Jesus’ prayer “not my will but your be done”) but God used the Jews and the Romans to carry it out.

3) Unfortunately, A-R Khooli didn’t mention the titles given to Jesus in the Qur’an; I shall mention just two which are interesting because they have Biblical parallels: “Spirit of God” (“We breathed into her [Mary] of our spirit and made her and her son a sign to all men.” Surat 21:91 and “We breathed our Spirit into her womb” Surat 66:12) and “Word of God” (“…God’s word which he cast into Mary as a Spirit proceeding from him” Surat 4:171).

4) Finally as A-R Khooli mentions, the Qur’an claims that Jesus promised that God would send another prophet called “Ahmed” whom Muslims identify with Mohammed. In Greek (the original language of the New Testament) the word “Ahmed” sounds similar to the word for “Spirit”. New Testament documents dating from before the time of Mohammed quote Jesus as promising that the holy Spirit would come after he had gone (John 15). Muslims claim that these documents and all subsequent copies of the New testament differ from the original (now lost) manuscripts which contained the word “Ahmed”.

Steve Nicolle