A column in today's NY Times by by Nicholas Kristof takes on the claim that homosexuality is bad because the Bible prohibits it. He gives some examples to show that the claimants themselves don’t even follow that rule.
Kristof seems to concede that, taken as a whole, Scripture doesn’t support homosexuality. (That’s also my view.) He suggests instead that, if traditionalists are going to rely on Scripture as the definitive statement of rules for life, then they need to explain why certain other, less-convenient scriptural passages aren’t equally binding.
For example: The old shirt I’m wearing at the moment is a cotton-poly blend. I’ve never heard a traditionalist criticize anyone for flouting the scriptural prohibition against blended fabrics. (Although my wife has criticized me for not having thrown out the shirt. )
Kristof’s argument is not new. We've seen it many times before, including in this posting. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a credible response from the traditionalist wing of the church. (My posting also levels a blast at those who claim that the inconvenient scriptural prohibitions were merely transitory "civil" or "ceremonial" laws, as opposed to permanent "moral" laws.)
Traditionalists seem to be amazingly obstinate about this. They refuse to face facts of the kind that Kristof outlines.
I have more than a faint suspicion that their stubborness is suborning the mission of the church: to change lives for God.