A Blasphemy Among Blasphemies

April 4, 2005

I suppose most, if not all of you have seen this article reporting that the “first openly gay bishop” is suggesting that Jesus might have been homosexual.

I hope no one dismisses this as just merely an opinion, instead of realizing it is pure evil. Listen to the supposed basis of this twisted man’s thesis:

The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the United States, said that Jesus was an unmarried, “non-traditional man” who did not uphold family values, “traveled with a bunch of men” and enjoyed an especially close relationship with one of his disciples.

Did not uphold family values? What? He defined them for all the ages. And non-traditional? Well, no, He came to shake up the world. Of course He didn’t fit into the established pattern. If He would have there wouldn’t have been much point in Him coming.

One would have to be morally blind to read the Bible and suggest that Jesus, who along with the Father and Holy Spirit, inspired its words, would be endorse, much less participate in homosexuality.

The article elaborated further:

In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: “Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, traveled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as ‘the one whom Jesus loved’ and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That’s who Jesus is, that’s who he was at heart, in his earthly life.

”Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be all and end all of God’s creation probably don’t find that much in the gospels to support it,” he said.

Surely this guy isn’t suggesting Jesus didn’t underscore the sanctity of marriage.

Sometimes we see homosexual activists try to make the point that while the Old Testament and New Testament condemned homosexuality, Jesus Himself didn’t. What has always amazed me about such vacant analyses is the idea that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament.

The Christian God is Triune and unchanging. The fact that Jesus didn’t take on human form until He was born doesn’t mean He was detached from the Godhead prior to that, or that He just came into existence with His earthly birth. No matter how much people are confused on this point, Jesus has always been: “Before Abraham was born, I AM.” This idea that Jesus was a completely different God from the God of the Old Testament is pathetically misinformed. Yes, there was progressive revelation and, I believe, different dispensations, but God’s nature has not and cannot change.

Beyond the theological points, the most interesting observation I’ve read about this gay bishop’s theory is that only because he is sex-obsessed could he possibly interpret the factors he cites as evidence of Jesus’s homosexuality. I wish I knew where I had read that, but the author basically said that you’d have to be preoccupied with sex to an alarming degree to conclude that Jesus’s love for another disciple and his failure to marry, etc., were a result of his sexual affinity for males.

I feel almost filthy discussing this subject, except that we must stay informed as to the increasing outrageousness of events going on in our times, not the least of which are happening in the church. But He warned us that they would.