The Bible is radical and offensive?
Sexual philosophy matters
Did you know that a State Representative called the words of Christ radical and offensive? Although we opened the hearing with a prayer ending with “In Jesus’ name, amen,” when I read Matt 19:4-5 Rep. Ortiz took offense. Why? She says it is because it is a radical belief. Let’s try to figure this out.
The Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona's Public Universities on 7-18-23 was a huge success. Evidence was given of harassment, intimidation, and the chilling effect against conservatives, Christians, and Jews. It was overwhelming. The representatives from ASU did their best but were not involved in the Lewis Center event, and so they were unable to answer many of the important questions and had to say, “we will get back to you.”
You can watch the entire hearing at the link below. If you go to 3:06:00, you will hear an interesting interchange between Rep. Ortiz and me. Rep. Ortiz says that I expressed views in my opening remarks that some would consider radical and offensive. She says that she considers them offensive as a person that identifies as a pansexual. I point out that what she is deeply offended by, and calls radical, are the words of Genesis and Christ.
I quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:23-24 in my opening remark to make the case that this is why the Barrett Faculty think Dennis Prager is dangerous—he believes God created humans as male and female and that marriage is between one man and one woman. I then quote Matt 19:4-5 to show that Christ also quotes these two places in Genesis.
Let this sink in. Rep. Ortiz believes that Genesis and the words of Christ are radical and offensive. If you think that sexual philosophy doesn’t matter and won’t affect society and politics, this proves you are mistaken.
I asked for the conversation to be elevated to a respectful level. Let’s continue to exemplify that here by considering arguments and beliefs rather than resorting to name-calling like Barrett faculty. Why does she consider the words of Christ radical? And on what basis does she justify her claim that pansexual behavior is moral? Here are a few options:
She believes there is no God and, therefore, God did not create humans, male and female. She then must have some other metaphysical basis for grounding her claim that pansexual behavior is moral or for showing that the claim “pansexual behavior is sinful” is not true. But what could her grounding be? Some options:
Humans are a mere accident of time and chance, having emerged from primordial ooze and hominids not too long ago on materialist timeframe. But now she has a problem justifying any moral claim or showing that a moral judgment she disagrees with is false. Therefore, she has no basis to be offended by the moral law in Genesis and Matthew (and in the natural moral law in general revelation).
Humans can act in pansexual ways, therefore they should do so. Of course, that isn’t true. There are many things we can do that we should not do.
She wants to act in pansexual ways, and therefore she should. But again, there are many things we want that we should not do. Lust is a main example.
Whatever you think you are, you are. We know this isn’t true either because we are often mistaken and do not know ourselves.
Whatever you desire is what you are. Again, we know this isn’t true. Gluttony, avarice, and lust are all deadly sins.
She believes God the Creator is real, but there is no Word of God (and so Genesis and the Gospel of Matthew are not inspired). Interesting here, even if they aren’t inspired they could still be correct about sexual morality. This view often turns into “spirituality” where “the life force” flows through all things, so you should want to share eros with as many as possible. It is the worship of Aphrodite, not God the Creator.
She believes God the Creator is real and that Genesis and Matthew are God's Word, but I’ve misunderstood these. Even if I had misunderstood these two books, mine would not be a “radical” position. It is the position of Jews and Christians down through the centuries.
Given the above, she has no basis for claiming that Christ is radical or that what Genesis and Matthew say about sexuality is offensive. Indeed, we can know what they say about gender and marriage is true.
But I will concede that both Genesis and Christ are radical for a different reason. We, humans, are born dead in our trespasses and sins. In that condition, we are confused about the most basic truths. We call good evil and evil good. We normalize lust. We are alienated from God our Creator. We neither love him nor glorify him. Instead, we pursue the vain imaginations of our fallen heart.
When Christ confronts us in our sin, it seems radical to us. I don’t know Rep. Ortiz, but this might be the first time she’s heard the words of Christ, and she may never have been presented with the Gospel. She may never have made any effort to read and understand the Bible or general revelation. But yesterday, in the Arizona Legislature, she was confronted with the words of Christ. “Haven’t you read?” he asks in Matthew 19:4. And the answer is, “no, I haven’t, it is too radical and offensive.” She heard the words of Christ yesterday and said, “no, it is too radical.” You are right, Rep. Ortiz, in the Gospel does sound radical to us in our sin.
An Arizona State Representative says that the words of Christ are radical and offensive. She is mistaken in the way she meant it, but in the most important sense, she is right. The Gospel is an offense and a stumbling block.
https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/1214431d00e83fb2bc5292c02f2ba9d581c60d69.mp4