About five years ago, Michael Coren departed from the Catholic faith. What did he become? A liberal Anglican of course. He changed his faith because his views on homosexuality have changed. As I mentioned a few posts back, I don’t believe one can hold these contradictory positions forever. Coren has held this position for a few years but as time goes on, it’ll be harder to hold it.
He recently wrote a piece in the Toronto Star called Evangelist Franklin Graham distorts the Bible’s message on homosexuality. This can be found here:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/04/28/evangelist-franklin-graham-distorts-the-bibles-message-on-homosexuality.html
I have no respect for people who try to be super religious, support homosexuality and claim that it’s Biblical and criticize people who hold the true view and say they’re distorting scripture. Three examples of people that come to mind are Michael Coren, Matthew Vines, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. I have more respect for charlatans like Tovia Singer and Ahmed Deedat than I do these frauds.
This piece by Coren comes in response to Franklin Graham tweeting about Pete Buttigieg claiming to be a Christian while being in a homosexual “marriage”. Regarding the words of Franklin, Coren writes:
So Graham’s words matter. And even putting aside his obsession and malice, he is simply wrong. Theologically, historically, ethically, and most of all with his hideous absence of love and empathy, crucial to anybody who claims to follow the authentic Jesus.
I really like the word historically. So for 2,000 years the church has endorsed homosexual relationships as something taught by Jesus? Historically, right? How about the absence of love and empathy? I don’t see what empathy has to do with this. As for love, I don’t believe that one shows love by encouraging this kind of behaviour. It’s not loving to tell and addict to keep sticking a needle full of dope into his forearm. I don’t think Coren is being loving by doing this. Also, anytime someone like Coren talks about the authentic Jesus, it’s a figment of his imagination. It’s the Jesus that he has created for himself. An idol.
He continues:
I’ve spent the past five years of my life studying the issue of homosexuality and the Bible, returning to original texts and languages, and reading and interviewing many of the world’s finest scholars in this area.
Of course in Shabir Ally like fashion, these scholars only have their opinions taken into account when they agree with Coren. When they disagree with him, they’re not counted as worthy in the slightest. Is Robert Gagnon one of these scholars perhaps? Doubt it.
Coren continues:
It’s deeply complex but what we can say with confidence is that scripture must never be used selectively and without context, to prove a political point. It has to be understood with an open and clear mind free of bias and anachronism. It must be interpreted with a deep grasp of history, intent, and meaning.
So technically one could say that in the 2,000 years of church history, no one has interpreted the Biblical portions on homosexuality and marriage with a deep grasp of history, intent, and meaning. At least not until the 1980’s when homosexuality ironically starts to become popular in Western culture? Imagine those odds? Aren’t we lucky!!!
Coren writes:
Homosexuality is hardly mentioned in this enormous library of texts that we know as the Bible. Jesus never refers to the subject, the Old Testament doesn’t mention lesbianism, and when St. Paul speaks of the matter he is — if you read him in full and with learning — describing pagan cults where same-sex intimacy was forced on people as a means of initiation and worship. He never condemns a loving, committed partnership between two people of the same gender. He has little to say about the contemporary conversation.
There is no such thing as a loving, committed partnership between two people of the same gender.
He finishes the article:
I try to live by biblical teachings but also know that scripture is a breathing document to be met with dialogue and questioning. It was never supposed to be anything other than that. Literalism and fundamentalism obscure the truth, promoting perversion of what was intended, and empowering people such as Franklin Graham to cause untold agony. The quintessence of the Gospels is love and forgiveness. I will try to love and forgive you sir — that’s not easy but, as a Christian, I have no choice.
Scripture is a breathing document to be met with dialogue and questioning? I have Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox readers. If anyone can show me a theologian from any of these three traditions that says scripture is a breathing document to be met with dialogue and questioning, please give me a source. Maybe tonight when I read the Bible I can meet it with some dialogue and questioning. How about it?
–I have no respect for people who try to be super religious, support homosexuality and claim that it’s Biblical and criticize people who hold the true view and say they’re distorting scripture. Three examples of people that come to mind are Michael Coren, Matthew Vines, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach–
Plus every single ‘LGBT-friendly, loving, tolerant church’ which by their choice of definition portray every other church as unfriendly, unloving and intolerant towards LGBT people.
–I have more respect for charlatans like Tovia Singer and Ahmed Deedat than I do these frauds.–
Perhaps similar to James White in debates… He is much more aggressive, abrasive and hardcore when debating a fellow believer in the Bible than say, a Muslim!
–It’s deeply complex but what we can say with confidence is that scripture must never be used selectively and without context, to prove a political point. It has to be understood with an open and clear mind free of bias and anachronism. It must be interpreted with a deep grasp of history, intent, and meaning.–
Physician, heal thyself!
Amen! Good stuff!