To this day, 1984 is one of my favorite works of fiction. George Orwell certainly knocked it out of the park on this one. It’s because of having read books like this and studied logic that I know how to see past slippery language.
On a post written years back, I talked about how there are two “Christian” camps on the homosexual issue. One says the Bible is outdated and we essentially have to ignore it, and the other camp which tries to justify homosexuality from the Bible. I pointed out that while the first group is wrong, at least they’re consistent. They apply this view to all liberal “Christian” positions such as female clergy, divorce and remarriage and other things.
One of the homosexual apologists who tries to justify homosexuality through the Bible is Michael Coren. Recently he wrote an article and said something that I’ve heard many times before, though it’s certainly not unique to him. The article can be found here:
http://www.ucobserver.org/to_the_point/2017/12/unchristian/
The words that caught my attention are:
I wish I could claim that scripture is pro-gay and supportive of equal marriage, but I am not that arrogant or simplistic. Equally, however, nobody should claim that scripture is clearly opposed to same-sex marriage. It’s vague, partly because it was written a long time ago. It’s a living and breathing text, and should be read and understood through the prism of its central teaching: love. If we do that, so much that seemed muddy suddenly becomes as clear as bright, light truth.
The Bible is a “living and breathing text”, how wonderful! It’s funny how language like this is used only by liberals. It’s only used by people who want to get around the clear meaning of the text. People who have the highest view of Scripture never use this language regarding the Bible. I’ve had disagreements with many Evangelicals on this blog such as Ken Temple, James White, and Sam Shamoun. While I would disagree with their interpretations of Scripture, I will never deny that they hold it in the highest regard. They would never say it’s a “living and breathing text”. They also know that whenever they hear someone describe the Bible as such, they know immediately that they’re dealing with a leftist who deep down has contempt for Scripture and it’s teachings.
If Orwell were alive today he would be proud of these “Christian” leftists. They’ll never be able to win Christians over to their leftist ideas if they say that the Bible is an outdated text written by backward people in a backward time, in a backward place. Even though this is their view, they’ll describe it as a “living and breathing text”. Marketing is key in their campaign to destroy the Christian faith and telling the truth about how they feel about the Scriptures will only isolate them.
I should also add that in his book Epiphany, Michael Coren completely accepts the Documentary Hypothesis and says that the command to be fruitful and multiply was written by the “Priestly” writer during the Babylonian Exile when the Israelites needed to boost their numbers. So much for the “living and breathing text”. In fact, if you peel back the layers of Orwellian lingo you’ll find that he doesn’t believe it’s a living text, but a dead one. It’s not breathing either as Coren and other leftists have suffocated the truths of Scripture for their own anti-Christian lies.
I read two books recently that were written by Anglicans. They had the same attitude that you describe Michael Coren as having. He should fit in nicely with his new church.
What I ought to have added was that neither of them made a proper argument that was based on what Jesus Christ is reported to have actually taught, nor even did it match advice or counsel that the writers in the New Testament gave.
Hi Patrick,
Did these two Anglicans take the approach that the Bible teaches all these liberal ideas or did they say it was an archaic document that we need to move beyond?
Also, I’m curious, what books were these?
God Bless,
They did not say it was archaic and that we should move on, rather if I remember correctly they use the idea Coren expressed of the wider message being one of love, and that was the reason to assent to or approve of same sex relationships.
The books were:
“What the Bible really Teaches” by Keith Ward (formerly Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford)
“God is No Thing: Coherent Christianity” by Rupert Shortt (Religion Editor of The Times Literary Supplement)
Both books have some good stuff in them although I would not say that I would recommend that anyone buy them. The Ward book is pretty good although it is firmly directed toward the more enthusiastic evangelicals, but it was useful for someone at my stage of learning about the Bible. The Shortt book tends to be more to do with his personal opinions. I have read the Ward one cover to cover and quite enjoyed it, but I lost patience with Shortt, I should probably give it another try. The bits about homosexual relationships in both books are brief and a bit PC. They are not enlightening as to why we should accept or approve of homosexual relationships.