Tuesday, May 02, 2006

My Response to Jack Rogers New Book--"Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality"

Here is my response to published excerpts from Dr. Jack Rogers’ new book, “Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality.”

But first, allow me to introduce you to Dr. Jack Rogers, former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church USA General Assembly, retired Vice-President of San Francisco Theological Seminary, Southern California, and currently an avid supporter of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians (CNP). Along with the Covenant Network, Dr. Rogers endorses advocacy for the full inclusion of otherwise qualified sexually-active gay and lesbian persons to all ordained offices in the Church (Elder, Deacon & Minister of the Word and Sacrament). Such persons have been denied ordination in and for the Church both by historical understanding of the Word of God, the Authoritative Interpretation of the General Assembly and an explicit statement to that effect placed in the text of the denomination’s Constitution, Part II, the “Book of Order.”

Excerpts from his new book, “Jesus, The Bible and Homosexuality,” were published in the Spring edition of “The Covenant Connection,” the newsletter of the CNP.

The claims and assertions made in these excerpts are so brazen and outrageous that I could not restrain myself from making some sort of a response. Accordingly, I more or less randomly chose four statements and have limited myself to them for my response as illustrative of the quality (or lack) of scholarship represented in Dr. Rogers’ arguments.

The entire text of Dr. Rogers’ article can be found at here (beginning on page 2).

The quoted statements by Dr. Rogers are numbered 1-5 and highlighted in bold.

1. “However, Genesis 1-2 contains no reference to homosexuality, or marriage.”

My Response: Jesus seems to disagree with Dr. Rogers as he is cited in both Mark 10:6-7 and Matthew 19:4-5 as quoting Genesis 2:23-25 in support of God’s creative plan for marriage.

Paul also view Genesis 2:23-25 as relating to marriage as he quotes it in the context of his discussion of the mutual submission of husband to wife and wife to husband in Ephesians 5:31.

I cannot but wonder how Dr. Rogers can present himself as a better interpreter of scripture than either Paul or Jesus. Perhaps Jesus was not familiar with a politically correct “historical-critical” reading of the Word of God?

Indeed, it is the expressed view of the Reformed Faith that “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” Westminster Confession of Faith 6.009

Note: To read the rest of my response click here.