Dear Rev. Singleton:

I am certain that over the past few days you have been inundated with correspondence regarding your January sermon series…and I am certain that the bulk of that correspondence is overwhelmingly negative. I hope that this letter might be of a more tempered spirit than those you have been receiving. However, I do feel it necessary that—as a Christian brother—I have an obligation to write you when I see that you are teaching doctrines which contradict proper Scriptural exegesis and historical tradition. This is, after all, the motivation behind the bulk of the New Testament epistles and most of the writings of the early church fathers—Christians writing to each other to clarify and correct points of doctrine. I hope that this is the manner in which this letter will be taken: you will find the language to be calm rather than accusatory, for my purpose is to edify, rather than destroy.

With this in mind, I beg your indulgence to constructively critique the two sermons in question. The particular concern which I have is that—despite listing Scripture and tradition as the two primary tools to help Christians answer difficult questions—you so rarely rely upon exegesis of Scripture or strong historical tradition. Rather, the bulk of your argumentation is based upon anecdotal evidence and many statements which are unsubstantiated by any evidence. As a result, if you will indulge me, I would like to discuss several points of your sermons in which I believe you have misunderstood (or misused) Scripture and tradition, or made statements which are contradictory to one of these two points.

Sermon A: Is Christianity the Only Way?

After a brief introduction to the topic and the four tools for answering difficult questions, you begin your investigation into the exclusivity of Christianity. You begin by quoting some statistics about the large number of non-Christian religions in the world, none of which are refutable. You then mention that religions tend to evolve over time, which is also true. (However, a quick note: you reference Karen Armstrong as an historical source: I would avoid dependence upon her, as most Biblical scholars find her woefully lacking. She begins all of her argumentation from the starting point that the Jesus Seminar and other revisionist historians are absolute fact, is notorious for her very poor misunderstanding of Jewish history, particularly in her exegesis of Psalm 82, frequently misdates Biblical books without even bothering to quote sources, and adheres to the JEDP theory, which even liberal historians are beginning to move away from. Many well-respected scholars, such as Kirsch, clearly state that her work is sub-par. So I would caution you that you are referring your congregants to scholarship which is very poorly received by her peers in general.)

We get to the heart of the argument when you divide believers up into exclusivists, pluralists, and inclusivists. And in reality, your entire argument is espoused in a few statements under the exclusivist topic. We would like to discuss those briefly. Your argument follows this line of reasoning:

1. The exclusivist view of Christianity is “not in keeping with Jesus’ own words and actions of inclusion in the gospels.” 2. Christ might disagree with someone theologically, but would not reject them. “I can imagine Jesus disagreeing theologically with someone, as he often did, but I cannot imagine him rejecting anyone. There is no Biblical story that says he does so.”

3. The exclusivist view must be rejected because it has led to evils such as the Crusades.

I find such statements quite troubling, especially for their lack of Scriptural and historical basis. Let us examine each independently.

Claim 1: The exclusivist view of Christianity is contrary to Jesus’ own words and actions of inclusion in the gospels.

If I may be quite frank, I find this to be an odd statement. What, precisely, did Jesus say and do that was “inclusive” to all people, or implied that the faith He taught was anything other than an exclusive truth? John the Baptist said that Jesus would separate mankind based upon the fruits that they bore (Matt 3:10), and that He would separate men into wheat and chaff (Matt 3:12). Jesus said that those who failed to follow God’s laws would be punished in hell (Matt 5:22-30, 18:9). He commanded us to fear the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell (Matt 10:28). We are told that those who rejected Christ’s philosophies were bound in eternal punishment, along with those who followed their teachings (Matt 23:15). We are told in the Scriptures that God will distinguish between the righteous and unrighteous, sending the unrighteous to hell (2 Pet 2:4-10). We are told that Jesus preached repentance (Matt 4:17), and denounced those who failed to follow His miracles (Matt 11:19-21). Jesus identified His mission as the bringing of sinners to repentance (Luke 15:7). The apostles taught that there were not other ways—that one could not remain a Jew and be saved, or a Gentile and be saved, but that all had to accept Christ and be baptized into His faith (Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31, 8:22, 11:17-19, &c.). In fact, it is quite clear from the Bible— in literally hundreds of passages—that God distinguishes between those who accept Him and those who do not. Though He desires that all men come to Him, not all do! (2 Pet 3:9).

No, to claim that Christ was inclusive is misleading—He was inclusive to all types of people, but was exclusive to those who rejected His teachings. He commanded His disciples to shake the very dust off of their feet from Jewish cities who refused to change from their existing religions to that of Christianity (Luke 9:5, 10: 11; Acts 13:51).

So that is where I fear you have been mislead or are mistaken: Christ is inclusive to all people, but not all philosophies. Someone cannot reject God and still expect to be united with Him in eternity. Ironically, at one point you reference Paul’s preaching to the “unknown god” on Mars Hill in Athens. You seem to have forgotten, however, the remainder of the passage: Paul tells them that though they are a very religious people (Acts 17:22), they could not be united with God unless they rejected their religion and believed in the resurrection of Christ (Acts 17:22-34). Indeed, he said that God is willing to “overlook the times of ignorance” in which they worshipped other religions!

Claim 2: Christ might disagree with someone theologically, but would not reject them. “There is no Biblical story that says he did so.” I fear that you overspoke yourself here, for I am certain that someone with your educational background would not make such a statement lightly. In addition to the numerous Scriptures cited above as to the non-inclusivity of Christ’s ministry, there are in fact numerous Biblical accounts in which Christ rejected someone due to their theology—including several occasions in which he stated that they would receive eternal punishment. For just a few examples, see Mk 7:8-9, Mt 3:7, Mt 9:11-14, Mt 12:23-25, Mt 16:6-13. In addition, note that Jesus said that the religion of the Pharisees “shut off the kingdom of heaven from the people”, resulting in neither the priests nor followers of that religion from entering heaven (Matt 23:13); that the followers of this false religion were the sons of Hell (Matt 23:15); that Jesus would destroy those who followed the religions of Balaam and the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:14-16); and that He punishes those who follow the spiritual adultery of Jezebel (Rev 2:22). These are, again, just a few of the many times that Jesus indicates that theological failure can in fact result in condemnation and rejection.

Claim 3: The exclusivist has led to evils such as the Crusades, and thus you “cannot accept this view”.

Surely you realize that this is little more than an example of an argumentum ad misericordiam—an appeal to outrage or pity. The statements that the Crusades were evil (which is granted) and were caused by the exclusivist view (which is stated but unproved) may be true, but even if they are, they have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the exclusivist viewpoint. Just because someone has misused a philosophy in the past does not mean the philosophy is not true! It is a logical fallacy of absurd proportions to reject a philosophical statement because it has been misused in the past. Atheism should be rejected if you find it to be untrue, not because you disagree with the actions of Stalin, who was an atheist; Kabala should be rejected because you believe it to be untrue, not because of the actions of Madonna; Mormonism should be rejected because it is untrue, not because certain people use it to promote polygamy. Likewise, you cannot reject Christianity as exclusivist simply because of the actions of some exclusivists—at least, not if you are wishing to be basing your decision upon the accepted methods of reasonable thought (your fourth “tool” for difficult questions).

Due to time restraints, we will ignore your exegesis of John14 for the time being, which was inadequate both in its descriptions of first-century Judaism and its over-reaching for an interpretation of Jesus’ words. If you would like to discuss a proper, more thorough exegesis of this passage (based upon Scripture, tradition, etc.), please let me know.

Conclusion to Sermon A.

In conclusion, your first sermon is—as I believe has been demonstrated—an example of poor debate. You reference four tools of the debate (scripture, tradition, experience, and reason), yet abandon them all in favor of unsubstantiated statements about Jesus’ inclusivity to theological differences and appeals to outrage/pity. You speak of the use of Scripture, but ignore the numerous Scriptures which contradict you; you speak of the use of tradition, yet ignore the overwhelming belief in exclusivity taught over the past 2,000 years; you speak of reason, yet make logically fallacious arguments which would not stand even in a high school philosophical debate. I do not claim that this brief response on my behalf is a proof of exclusive Christianity—nor was it written as such a proof—but it does clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that your opposition to exclusive Christianity is based upon arguments which are purely window-dressing, lacking in either Biblical or philosophical substance. Sermon B: Is Homosexuality a sin?

In the interests of time, we shall try and keep our discussion on your second sermon brief. You begin with more anecdotal evidence, of a gay seminary student with a new take on the Creation story of Genesis (a take which, we might add, is a total mangling of the text; like with John 14 above, I would be glad to discuss this in more detail at your request). You then discuss the stance of the United Methodist Church on the topic, which I will not cover because (frankly) it has little bearing on the truth or untruth of the matter. (I say that not as insulting: rather, the inclusion of this section was no doubt of great importance to your congregants as Methodists. However, the stance of the church has no bearing on the exegesis of the Biblical passages in question.) You then discuss the difference between revisionists and traditionalists, which again is good for clarification purposes, but is simply a definition—not a debate. Thus, we move into the actual argument in the second half of your sermon.

Your argumentation here primarily arises from Scriptural concerns, namely: what does the Bible teach about homosexuality? If you are interested in a more exhaustive treatment of the subject, I would be glad to attach a file on my own personal Biblical investigation into the topic. However, for now I will simply address the topics which you discuss.

Genesis 19:1-29 and Judges 19

Your first claim is that the stories in Gen 19 and Jud 19 are not about homosexuality at all, but are instead based upon hospitality in the Ancient Near East. Though I (and virtually every commentator throughout Christian history) disagree with this interpretation, I will grant that at least a few respected scholars (such as Wold) do agree with your interpretation. (Of course, I would argue that, since the passage uses the word yada as the reason for the mob in Gen 19—a word which implies “know” in the sexual sense—that the passage does, in fact, refer to homosexuality. Indeed, there are numerous other words for “know” that have no sexual connotation, and thus it is a bizarre word choice if they do not mean to imply that the Sodomite sin was that of homosexuality.) However, one should note that even those scholars like Wold who disagree with Gen 19 as a reference to homosexuality do not claim that the Bible is silent on the subject; rather, Wold argues that the grammar of Gen 9:20-27 is absolutely clear that the sin of Noah’s son was that of homosexuality. Arguing that this passage is a condemnation of the rape and not the homosexuality appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

Here, you argue that there are two types of sins in the Judaic system: sin and religious uncleanliness. (In actuality, there are three: universal laws, culture-specific applications of universal laws, and ceremonial laws of cleanliness.) You state that homosexuality is not really sinful, but is simply an example of uncleanliness—that it is no more a sin for Christians than eating shellfish or pork.

However, such a statement is clearly out of touch with the context of the passage. Read these statements in their context, and you will see that both are set in the middle of a series of laws on improper sexual relationships: incest, adultery, fornication, and the like. Can you seriously be arguing that this one verse, in the middle of all of these laws, is the only one which we should take to be not sinful? Or do you argue that all sexual relationships are Biblically valid—bestiality, incest, rape, and the like? Certainly not, yet those are your only options based upon context, for homosexuality is listed here among a series of laws which define proper sexual relationships.

The second citation—Leviticus 20:13—is even more damning than the first. Here, we see a series of crimes against God and punishments; the punishments go from worst (death) to best (barrenness), and homosexuality is placed in the “worst” category in God’s eyes. Can you cite any respected scholar of note who provides convincing cause to assume that this one statement should be treated differently than the others? Read the entire passage in its context:

Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress will be put to death.

If a man sleeps with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands.

If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

If a man marries both a woman and her mother…&c.

Your argument is that this passage is a reference to uncleanliness, and thus can be ignored by Christians. So I have to ask: do you apply the same reasoning to the other statements in the passage? If not, why should this be treated differently? Clearly, you must either accept the entire passage as applicable to modern Christians, or (as you do with homosexuality) assume that the entire passage is inapplicable and the actions here are available to modern Christians. If so, you are supporting calling down curses to Hellfire of one’s parents, adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.

I Corinthians 6

You dismiss this passage out-of-hand, giving no reason other than that there is some disagreement over its meaning. The word in question is arsenokoites, a combination of the word “man” and “laying with”, which some commentators (such as yourself) claim is a reference to pederasty, rather than homosexuality. However, such an argument is wholly without merit, which we shall demonstrate using three of your four “tools”:

(1) Scripture: the word arsenokoites not only literally means “laying with men”, but is derived from the very OT passages which you claimed were not applicable to homosexuality: Leviticus 20:13 commands that you avoid “arsenos koiten”—men lying with men. If arsenokoites does not mean homosexual sex in I Corinthians, why does it mean that in Leviticus?

(2) Tradition: despite that fact that you extol the virtues of Christian tradition, you completely ignore it. For 2,000 years, all commentators have clearly interpreted this passage as relating to homosexuality; only in the last two decades have scholars—all of whom admit that they are pro-homosexuality—tried to make this type of argument. The fact is that every major scholarly body which has translated this passage has translated the word identically: the NASB (“homosexuals”), NIV (“homosexual offenders”), KJV (“abusers of themselves with men”), NKJV (“sodomites”), Amplified Bible (“those who participate in homosexuality”), NLV (“people who do sex sins with their own sex”), and ESV (“those who practice homosexuality”).

(3) Reason: You speak of using reason in your argumentation, yet you completely ignore the vast bulk of scholarship on the subject. Wright dismantled this theory years ago in a peer- reviewed theological journal, pointing out that the grammar of the passage undeniably meant “those who sleep with males.” (Wright, D. “Translating arsenokotai”, Vigiliae Christianae, 41: 398.)

Romans 1

Romans also clearly condemns homosexuality, which you do not even bother to refute. Rather, you simply state that Paul condemns the action because he could not “recognize a possible committed homosexual relationship as reality”. You argue, then, that if Paul had realized that homosexuality was natural and that homosexuals could be in a committed relationship, he would not have made such a statement. There are two implied statements here:

(1) Paul was focusing on the promiscuity associated with homosexuality, rather than the act itself. If this is so, please provide some evidence. Paul appears to be referring to both the desire itself as well as the indecent acts individually. He gives no indication whatsoever that he is discussing promiscuity rather than a “committed” homosexuality.

(2) Committed homosexual were unknown at the time, and thus Paul could not have conceived of them. Actually, consult some historical texts about the Roman Empire (Paul’s audience) and you will find that they were in fact extremely tolerant of homosexuality. Indeed, homosexuality (or, more properly, bisexuality) was extremely common. Craig A. Williams and Ramsey McMullen—both secular historians of note writing separately—are clear that homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by most Roman citizens. In Roman society, homosexual sex was completely proper as long as the act of penetration was performed by the person of higher social class. However, Paul here—in his letter to the Romans—states that homosexuality itself is sinful: it does not matter what class the person is in, it is a “shameful lust” in Paul’s mind. He does not offer qualifications for social class or qualifications for commitment versus promiscuity. 1 Timothy

You simply ignore Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Timothy.

Conclusion to Sermon B.

As I believe I have demonstrated, your argumentation in this sermon is without merit. You dismiss the Old Testament verses as being inapplicable, but accept everything else within the passages in question; you dismiss Paul’s reference in Corinthians despite the overwhelming scholarly consensus on the matter; you dismiss Paul’s condemnation in Romans because of historical “facts” which—as I have shown—are completely untrue; and you ignore Paul’s condemnation in 1 Timothy entirely. You spoke in your introduction that Christians must rely on Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason: you then proceed to ignore inconvenient Scriptures, ignore the overwhelming tradition of the church, and avoid any serious scholarship based upon reason and experience (all of which is in agreement as to the meaning of the passages). In addition, you frequently allude to the “natural” lifestyle of homosexuality, implying that homosexuality is genetically determined (which has never been proved, and which—as a scientist—I would be more than happy to debate with you). You likewise imply that if one is genetically predisposed to homosexuality he or she cannot be blamed for following through on those desires—ignoring the fact that heterosexuals are not forgiven for fornication/adultery simply because they are genetically attracted to the opposite sex.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Reverend Singleton, I must admit that I find your arguments to be either uninformed and poorly researched or—far worse—deliberately misleading. You demand a reliance on Scripture, tradition, experience and reason: yet you frequently use extremely poor exegesis of Scripture, completely ignore all of Christian tradition, give greater weight to anecdotes than evidence, and ignore the vast majority of accepted scholarship.

I do hope that you take this letter as it was intended: a calm (but hopefully thorough) critique of the manner in which you teach Christianity. Your responsibility as a shepherd is not a responsibility to the community or to the congregants as much as it is a responsibility to Christ. I ask you to review the sources quoted herein, and honestly read the Scriptures in question. If you are intellectually honest, I believe that you will have to admit that the weight of Scripture overwhelmingly states that Christianity is the true path to Heaven, and that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle.

Sincerely in Christ, Michael D. Belote