Holier Than Thou: How God's Holiness Helps Us Trust Him
By Jackie Hill Perry
Linda recently finished Perry's recent book and loved it!
Upon Waking: 60 Daily Reflections to Discover Ourselves and the God We Were Made For
Thoughts about God, culture, and the Real Jesus.
Holier Than Thou: How God's Holiness Helps Us Trust Him
By Jackie Hill Perry
Linda recently finished Perry's recent book and loved it!
Upon Waking: 60 Daily Reflections to Discover Ourselves and the God We Were Made For
In technology, in medicine, in the sciences, humanity has progressed. For example, when I was in grad school at Northwestern University, I bought a refurbished IBM Selectric typewriter for $900. This thing was heavy enough to do serious medieval damage to anything it was launched at. My dissertation was 450 pages long. If I had to edit something on page 20, guess what I had to do. I typed and re-typed and re-typed my doctoral dissertation on this thing which, at the time, was state of the art. Thankfully, at this moment, I am writing this post on my Asus laptop computer.
That's technological progress. But humanity, as a whole, has not morally and spiritually progressed. I am calling this anthropic non-progressivism. Here's an example from Walter Rauschenbusch's Christianity and the Social Crisis. He writes,
"History is never antiquated, because humanity is always fundamentally the same. It is always hungry for bread, sweaty with labor, struggling to wrest from nature and hostile men enough to feed its children. The welfare of the mass is always at odds with the selfish force of the strong. The exodus of the Roman plebeians and the Pennsylvania coal strike, the agrarian agitation of the Gracchi and the rising of the Russian peasants—it is all the same tragic human life.
(Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century: The Classic That Woke Up the Church, p. 1.)
![]() |
| (Sunset, Monroe County) |

(Monroe county)
A friend recommended David Gushee's Changing Our Minds to me. Gushee supports same-sex marriage.
I haven't changed my mind, even after reading Gushee's book. Textually, marriage is between a man and a woman.
New Testament scholar (which Gushee isn't; and, BTW, neither am I) Robert Gagnon was unimpressed. (Gagnon's massive The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, is essential reading in this area.) In a review, Gagnon writes:
"Dr. Gushee carries no "intellectual heft" on the issue of Scripture and homosexuality, for two simple reasons:
(1) Dr. Gushee is heavily dependent on the "wet-behind-the-ears" Matthew Vine for his "exegesis" of biblical texts pertaining to the issue of homosexuality; and
(2) Dr. Gushee has ignored nearly all the major arguments against his embarrassingly bad exegesis, even when I sent him links to online articles that summarize more extensive arguments in my published work."
One of Gushee's most disappointing chapters is called "Two Odd Little Words," on the meaning of arsenokoites and malakoi. Gushee says, because we cannot know the meaning of these words, we cannot use them in an argument against same-sex marriage. I find his reasoning absurd.
So does Gagnon (and many New Testament scholars, which I have named elsewhere). Gagnon writes (I quote him at length):
"Dr. Gushee was trying to argue that these terms had to do only with exploitative forms of homosexual practice. It was clear that he had no personal facility with Greek and was significantly dependent on Matthew Vines (who likewise has no personal facility in Greek). The research, such as it was, was amateurish and unworthy of a scholar."
Gagnon continues,
"I sent him a private message on FB, asking him that if he was not willing to take an hour or two to read my 33-page analysis of these two terms in The Bible and Homosexual Practice (303-36), he might at least look at a 5 page online summary of the 4 arguments for malakoi and 8 for arsenokoitai, arguments which indicate that these terms are inclusive of adult-committed male homosexual relationships (point 4 here). I asked him if he would revise his article by at least responding to these arguments, heretofore ignored. He thanked me and did revise his article, but not in light of my arguments; rather, only in light of the comments that others, who were not scholars, left below his online article.
In his revision, he not only ignored my arguments, but he also mischaracterized an important scholar's view (William Loader) as supporting his (Gushee's) viewpoint and opposing mine (the exact opposite was the case). He added a reference from "biblical scholar Michael Vasey" about the cultural milieu. Yet Vasey, who was not a biblical scholar but a gay Anglican priest who died at age 52 (of HIV complications, according to some accounts), was oblivious to the evidence for committed homosexual relationships in the ancient world.
Dr. Gushee followed this with an over-reaching theological claim about Paul that is unsustainable from the evidence. He claimed that God's grace precludes the possibility that Paul could have warned sexual offenders, including homosexual offenders, about exclusion from God's kingdom. Yet Paul's offender list in 1 Cor 6:9-10 is precisely such a warning ("Stop deceiving yourselves: [The following] shall not inherit the kingdom of God"), where the larger context is the shocking case of a self-proclaimed Christian "brother" at Corinth in a sexual relationship with his stepmother (1 Cor 5). Paul has similar warnings to converts about sexual immorality sprinkled throughout most of his extant letters.
So I asked Dr. Gushee a second time through private FB messaging to respond to the many counterarguments that I offered. He sent me the message, "I appreciate your comments. Thank you.""
Gushee didn't respond.
(My mother and Father)
Influence is greater than numbers. The question is not, "How big is your church?" The real question is, "How is your church's influence?"
You could be twelve people, and salt the world with the good news of the Kingdom. You could be twelve hundred, and be an audience inside a saltshaker.
How is your influence going? Which way is it going?
Surely a loving God does not affirm everything.
Yale theologian Miroslav Volf personally witnessed the horrors of the Bosnian war. Out of this context he wrote,
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn’t God love? Shouldn’t divine love be beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature. That’s exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days!
How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandparently fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators basic goodness? Wasn’t God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.
Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace, (Zondervan 2005) pp. 138-139

| synonyms: | pertinent, applicable, apposite, material, apropos, to the point, germane;
connected, related, linked;
on-topic
"the relevant page numbers"
|