A few days ago I saw a book advertised and reviewed which, like similar efforts in recent times, purports to debunk the Bible’s case against sexual intimacy between persons of the same gender. While I have not read the book, and am not at all sure I will take the time to do so, comments by its defenders that I’ve seen thus far offer little hope that the book’s arguments contribute anything to the discussion of this topic that hasn’t already been addressed.
But from the present writer’s perspective, what matters most regarding this and many similar issues is the spirit with which the professed Christian approaches the sacred text, and the underlying question as to whether the Christian’s relationship with the God of Scripture is best described as a negotiated settlement or as unconditional surrender.
Years ago an ex-Adventist described her relationship with the church’s teachings and general culture as one that involved “keeping what fits and shelving the rest” [1]. She wasn’t at all clear as to whether she was speaking of doctrinal or behavioral tenets arising from Scripture and/or the writings of Ellen White (often called the Spirit of Prophecy), or whether she was referring to cultural notions and taboos lacking an inspired foundation. Obviously the latter can’t be regarded as sacred, but the former must be. Anyone who views the written counsel of God as subject to intellectual and experiential judgment on the part of the believer will have notable difficulty ordering his or her spiritual journey after the pattern set by Jesus, who prayed in Gethsemane, “Not My will, but Thine, be done” (Luke 22:42).
“Clobber” Scriptures?
I am deeply troubled when passages from God’s Word are labeled by professed believers as “clobber” texts. This is a term commonly used by Christian apologists for the LGBT lifestyle who seek to de-fuse the forcefulness of those Bible passages which clearly condemn, without qualification, any sort of same-gender sexual intimacy (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10). But the fact is, this is a label which could be applied to Bible verses that address any subject where the reader finds the Biblical message, for whatever reason, to be unwelcome.
Cain appears to have thought the Lord was “clobbering” him when he was confronted with the murder of his brother and sentenced to a life of perpetual wandering (Gen. 4:9-12), as he subsequently exclaimed, “My punishment is greater than I can bear” (verse 13). The people in Enoch’s and Noah’s time doubtless thought these servants of God were “clobbering” them with their admonitions. When future prophets condemned such practices as idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, the mistreatment of the poor and vulnerable, and any number of other choices that violated the Sacred Word, their listeners might themselves have been inclined to label such counsels as “clobber” testimonies. But this would hardly have excused the listeners in their all-too-frequent rejection of these divinely-inspired instructions. Ahab and Jezebel would likely have considered Elijah’s denunciation of their false worship and of the murder of Naboth the Jezreelite in the same way. But this would hardly disprove the need for the corrective counsel delivered by these inspired messengers.
Herod and Herodias, more than likely, considered the rebuke by John the Baptist of their adulterous relationship as of a “clobbering” nature; certainly the way Herodias schemed to have John beheaded would lend itself to that conclusion. Perhaps the priests, rulers, merchants, and money-changers thought Jesus was using “clobber” Scriptures when He declared, quoting the Old Testament, “It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Luke 19:46).
In our own time, people who cherish ethnic and racial antagonism might well view as “clobber” texts those verses which include the entire world in God’s plan for both salvation and social fellowship (e.g. Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; Isa. 56:7; Matt. 8:11; Gal. 3:8). Those verses which enjoin justice to the strangers among us (e.g. Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 1:16; 10:19; Psalm 94:1-6; Eze. 22:29; Mal. 3:5)—those we today often call immigrants—might well be seen as “clobber” Scriptures by those preferring to exclude from society those ethnically and culturally different from themselves.
At the bottom line, unless the Word of God arrests our attention with its condemnation of our disobedience to the divine law—what some might describe as “clobbering”—it cannot perform its role as the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Unless we know through the law that we are sinners (Rom. 3:20; I John 3:4), we will never know that we need a Savior. Too many seem to think of their relationship with God, and with the church, as if it were similar to adding friends on social media or going out on casual dates. Such a mindset views a relationship with God as just one of a person’s many relationships, a religious faith as but one of life’s many priorities to be counterbalanced against all the others. Those who have allowed their religious life to drift into such a state need a total reordering of their thinking—the Biblical experience often called conversion (John 3:3; II Cor. 5:17).
An Upended Worldview
The biggest problem with so many now reconsidering such divine imperatives as Biblical sexuality standards is that their worldview has become more postmodern than Biblical. “Inclusion” has become the ultimate virtue, as distinct from faithfulness to the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). One comment by a favorable reviewer of the book mentioned at the beginning spoke of having wrestled with the meaning of Romans 1:26-27, asking aloud if these two verses could possibly mandate the exclusion of millions of men and women from heaven.
Such persons might also ask how the God of Scripture could possibly have excluded our first parents from Eden because of one apparently small mistake. Or how He could have destroyed so many millions in Noah’s day because they refused to brave the mockery of friends and loved ones by coming on board the ark. Or why Jesus was so severe with the rich young ruler, demanding that the latter surrender his hard-earned material and professional achievements as a condition of discipleship and salvation.
What this ultimately means is that when we read the Bible, we are forced to confront a stark and irreconcilable contrast between the worldview we find in its pages and the one so pervasive in this postmodern age. The unconditional surrender required by the Bible for salvation demands a total upending of the postmodern worldview, a surrender which subordinates all features of human experience and individuality to the imperatives of the written Word. In other words, when Scripture meets life, the latter must submit to the former.
Social and spiritual inclusion are not, for the God of Scripture, the ultimate good so many in our time hold it to be. Our experience, our desire for personal fulfillment as we might wish, can never become the lodestar of the true Christian’s spiritual journey. The written counsel of God must be upheld as the lamp and light of our spiritual path (Psalm 119:105), above and beyond all else.
Conclusion
In matters spiritual, allowing the pull of the heart to dislodge the anchor of the mind is one sure path to eternal destruction. That’s how Mother Eve permitted her senses to overrule the plain Word of God (Gen. 3:6), and how the sons of Seth were enticed from purity and obedience by the daughters of Cain (Gen. 6:2). It is how the Samaritans were beguiled by the sorceries of Simon Magus (Acts 8:10), and how in history’s final moments the whole world—with the exception of God’s faithful, final generation—will be deceived by the miracles wrought by Satan when he poses as Christ [2].
Returning to the subject of “clobber” Scriptures, it is best we endure the pain and discomfort of the Bible’s convicting witness as the prescribed precursor to the transformation and empowerment essential to our readiness for the courts of glory. The Holy Spirit, working through the law, convicts the heart of sin and righteousness (John 16:8; Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24), thus leading the penitent to allow the writing of that law upon the heart thus renewed (Deut. 30:14; Psalm 119:11; Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 10:8; II Cor. 3:3; Heb. 8:8-10). Thus the believer is changed into the one of whom Paul speaks when he writes:
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away: behold all things are become new (II Cor. 5:17).
This is the true Christian worldview—one in which all culture, all experience, all comfort, all scholarly endeavors, all our heart’s desires—are placed under the unqualified authority of God’s Word. Those who would marginalize certain Bible passages as “clobber” texts—antithetical to fictive, postmodern illusions of “love,” “inclusion,” and “acceptance”—would do well to remember the admonition of the apostle John, where he writes:
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous (I John 5:3).
REFERENCES
1. Kim Shaw, “Why I Left,” Adventist Witness, April-June 1997, p. 7.
1. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 624-625.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan