In Matt. 7:1-6 Jesus is not saying do not judge another person, he is simply saying do not judge another person hypocritically. In verses 15ff of the same chapter he tells us about judging false prophets, and he speaks about knowing a tree by its fruit. We are certainly called to judge doctrines, beliefs, ideologies, behaviour, lifestyles and actions. I try to make that case here and in related articles.

Jesus says we are to judge with righteous judgment (John 7:24). So he has never said don’t judge, just judge justly and wisely. I guess your point is like the old saying: we are to love the sinner while hating the sin. So too here we judge wrong beliefs and practices, yet try to love the person in the process, praying for them and warning them to come back onto the right path.

Yet as we judge actions and beliefs, sometimes it is hard to separate that from the person. For example, Jesus judged Peter harshly (Mark 8:33). He was pretty direct: he did not say Peter’s ideas or actions were Satanic, but he called Peter Satan to the face! A quite strong rebuke, because Peter was in effect listening to Satan here, and seeking to deflect Jesus from his God-ordained task. So here Jesus clearly judged a person, not just his actions or ideas.

Yes we all need to be humble and gracious and aware of our own shortcomings. But we are also called to judge when it is needed.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Regarding your above article. I find one point confusing. Where Turek says that Jesus wasn’t telling us not to judge, but how to judge. Jesus says clearly “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. I am somewhat confusted by Turek’s comment because I think that Jesus is specifically saying here not to judge others at all. As a Christian I think it is very important to use discernment and then make a judgement as to whether, for example, a particular doctrine or practice in the church is Biblically correct. I have actually been called “judgemental’ by other Christians for not just accepting some Christian practices etc. However I did always believe that we were to make a judgement as to whether an act or behaviour was right or wrong, but not to judge the actual person, as God is the only rightful judge. I thought that we were to be merciful to others so that God is merciful to us. I feel that this article in the above mentioned point says the opposite to this. So can you please clear this up for me?

Many thanks,
Belinda Horne

Many of these cases occur even when both parents are otherwise perfectly healthy, so your notion about genetics requiring heterosexual behavior to work makes little sense.

Juliana, I’ve been having a really busy week so I’m pretty limited at the moment how much I can reply to your posts. But your statement above from last week has me astounded. I admit I’m no expert in genetics (I did a basic level at school), but I certainly understand that the study of genetics assumes reproduction, which requires sex between a male and female.

For the militant gay lobby to claim genetics as a cause for homosexuality is ridiculous because an exclusively homosexual relationship cannot reproduce this trait. If they then want to talk about surrogates or artificial insemination or lesbians using a man to get pregnant, all they are doing is admitting that the same-sex relationship lacks the biological function of reproduction and they need to borrow from ‘outside’, which reinforces my point. It also suggests aberration in terms of reproduction, not normalcy. And then, how does the ‘gay gene’ persist in nature when it requires that those who homosexual deny its influence? (even if temporarily). There is an obvious problem here.

Sex and genetics in humans is about males and females, Juliana. That is normal. Feelings don’t change biological fact. There are two complementary halves that come together to complete the picture. There is no doubt that to claim genetics as a major cause for homosexuality is clearly propaganda and it is that argument that makes no sense. It simply cannot be true.

Imagine a world where everybody was infected with a disposition for homosexual behaviour and a distaste for the heterosexual. How much use do you think we would have for genetics then? Don’t you understand how your advocacy of homosexuality effectively being equal is undermined by this simple hypothetical example?

Mark Rabich

No one is denying that there are difficult portions of Scripture, and interpretations will vary. But as our original focus was on the topic of homosexuality, I again submit that Scripture is quite clear on this issue, despite what the theological revisionists try to argue.

Paul’s view on women in another whole debate, and I will defer on that for the time being. But calling his views ‘misogynist’ is certainly making a value judgment here – an interpretation, I might add. And very few NT scholars seek to solve this “dilemma” by simply saying that they are later additions to the text.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

No disagreement over the issue of authority in general, but I think our interpretation must be tempered by wisdom and knowledge about the origins of the various texts, and the degree to which cultural considerations influenced the writers.

There are many teachings in the Bible which are not followed today. Examples include the dietary rules and the punishments for various offenses in Leviticus. Similarly there must be questions about the meaning of the origins stories in Genesis and Noah’s flood, given our current knowledge of earth history.

Other teachings, particularly attributed to Paul, are controversial, for example his teachings on the subjugation of women (1 Cor 14:33-35, 1 Tim 2:11-15) and his views elsewhere that women must submit to their husbands. There are scholarly opinions that Paul’s misogynistic views are out of character and possibly later additions by others to fit with the cultural attitudes towards women in the second century. Indeed there is widespread opinion that 1 Timothy was not written until long after Paul’s death. Scholars have also puzzled over the differences between the Paul described in Acts and the Paul that we know from his own writings.

So while I have no dispute about the general authority of the Bible as it relates to Christ and his teachings, I think we have to be cautious about excessive reliance on the minutiae of particular verses to justify aggressive positions on social issues.

Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

But I again submit to you that the issue of authority here is paramount. Is Jesus Lord or is he not? And is the Bible God’s inspired word or is it not? There questions must be taken seriously by every one of us.

And you understanding of Paul seems a bit fuzzy here. He certainly did not claim to be God. But neither did he claim to be a holy man. In fact, he claimed to be the chief of sinners. He was a forgiven sinner, saved by grace.

But as a writer of inspired Scripture, we must submit to what Paul and the other biblical authors wrote. It again must be asked: do we sit in judgment on God’s word, or do we let God’s word judge us? The biblical view on homosexuality is straight forward and clear cut. We either accept what God has said about this issue, or we reject it. There is no middle ground here.

And discussion of interpretation only makes sense if we do indeed believe there is an inspired Scripture. If the Bible is simply the words of men (as you seem to imply about Paul), then any interpretation will do. If we want to say Paul believed in green aliens, so be it. If Scripture is not God’s revealed truth to us, then any wild interpretation must be as acceptable as any other.

And you seem to do injustice to the biblical teachings on admonishing one another, encouraging one another, holding one another to account, testing all things, being discerning, insisting on good doctrine, and so on. I cannot tell who is ultimately saved, but I have a biblical responsibility to seek the wellbeing of my brothers and sisters.

Your hands-off approach (“I happen to think that we should leave judgment of the spiritual state of other people to God”) simply does not square with the New Testament. Was Paul wrong to judge the brother living in sin in Corinth (1 Cor. 5)? Or to judge the Galatains about their teachings (Gal. 1:6-10)? Or to judge those with wrong behaviours and beliefs in the book of Jude? The whole NT is full of such examples.

We are called to make these judgments all the time. But the spirit of the age says all discernment and judgment is wrong and intolerant. Sorry, but our biblical obligations should trump trendy secular pieties.

I hope we do agree on more things than we disagree on. But these agreements must take place within the confines of Scripture. A high view of Scripture must be our starting point here. Sure, on some issues there will be interpretive discussions, but the authority issue must frame all such discussions.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Paul was a very holy man and a good teacher, but he was not God, and we need to understand his teachings in their historical context. There are many of his teachings that trouble good Christians today, for example his views on women being heard in church and female submission.

You may not agree with me on all matters, but you would have to agree that there are many different interpretations of scripture within the broad Christian church, and none of us can legitimately assert that our interpretation is more superior or godly than another’s.

As for your accusation that I have a “pro-homosexual agenda”, I am merely expressing an opinion that differs from yours. I am neither “anti-” or “pro-”, but I happen to think that we should leave judgment of the spiritual state of other people to God. I respect your right to your opinion on the matter, and I would simply ask that you respect mine. I’m sure there aren’t too many issues on which we would disagree.

Juliana Simbroski, Darwin

But your first paragraph simply repeats what we have already said: we live in a fallen world so things are not the way they were meant to be. But the Christian does not stop there. He or she will recognise that Jesus Christ came to change lives. Yet it really seems that you simply do not believe God is able to transform sinners.

And it is Paul who says homosexuality is a clear rejection of God. All sin is a rejection of God. Sure, we are born into a fallen world, but we also choose on a daily basis to pander to self and sin, and deny God.

You say you know homosexual Christians who want to change. Well, I know many such people as well, and they have changed. Change is possible in Jesus Christ for anyone who really wants it. God is in the change business.

But you let the cat out of the bag when you side with your mates over Paul, whom you denigrate as one merely having an opinion, instead of speaking inspired words from God. That, as I have said before, is the real problem here: the question of authority. You continue to tell God that his word is bunk and you are not interested in it.

And spare us the medical bluff. I too have doctor friends, and they have a quite different view to you. As part of their practice, they treat homosexuals on a regular basis. They have seen tremendous change and success in working with homosexuals, and they are fully involved in the “medical field”.

And who is being obsessed here? A militant homosexual minority is campaigning to push their agenda in society, and in the church. It is a very real threat indeed. Do believers have no obligation to stand up to that? And as I said, you should be more obsessed with homosexuals: in the sense of really loving them and telling them the truth. The truth is, homosexuality, like every other sin, can be overcome and forsaken by the tremendous power of the Holy Spirit living inside of us.

Countless ex-homosexuals can testify to this, yet you simply want to continue calling them liars, and deny the power of God to transform lives. You also seem to deny the clear teachings of the word of God. That is something I would not take lightly.

You are quite free to push your pro-homosexual agenda. But I would be careful in also claiming that you can somehow do this as a follower of Jesus. We either take God at his word here, or will tell him to get lost, because we know better.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch