A Reply to Mr. Rudd’s Unbiblical Answer

Monday evening on Q&A, a Christian pastor asked a few questions concerning the Prime Minister’s changed view on homosexuality and asked “why don’t you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?” Mr. Rudd (who identifies himself as “a devout Christian”) gave his reply, “Well, mate, if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.” He went on to state that homosexuality is a normal condition. An examination of his eisegesis can be considered another time. After listening to Albert Mohler’s Briefing on 3rd September, I thought I would share with you some of the things he had to say (emphasis in the quotation is mine):

“Now one of the things that intelligent Christians must always keep in mind, is that when an argument is assailed against us or against the Scripture, it can come in many forms. But, to cut it in half, it can come in a stupid form or a rather intelligent form. It does serves us well to suggest that every argument made against us and every argument made against a Christian truth claim is in itself unintelligent. Sometimes the argument can come in an intelligent way, there needs to be answered in an equally intelligent way. This is not one of those cases. This is not an intelligent argument. This is a profoundly unintelligent argument. It is an argument made by someone who claims to be a devout Christian but doesn’t know anything about interpreting the Scripture. And instead simply throws the Scripture under the bus so to speak in order to try to do his very best to maintain some hope of being kept in office. To suggest that the human condition and the social conditions change and therefore we have to abandon the Scripture, is to defy the very nature of Scripture itself as not only the inerrant and infallible word of God but a word that has endured not only through the ages but will endure for eternity. In other words, even as social and human conditions change, we need to recognize that that change has been a constant since Genesis 3. It didn’t await the last couple of decades of Australian history. Furthermore, the kind of unintelligent biblical interpretation he offers here should be an embarrassment to the Australian Prime Minister and certainly a humiliation to anyone who would claim to be a Christian. Unsurprisingly perhaps this politician who joined so many others including Americans (including the President of the United States), and evolving on the issue of same-sex marriage, said that his decision to support gay marriage was in line with what he calls ‘the Bible’s emphasis on universal love’. He said, ‘I’ve concluded in my conscience through an informed conscience and a Christian conscience that it is the right thing to do’. He went on to elaborate, ‘What is the fundamental principle of the New Testament? It is one of universal love. Loving your fellow man. And if we get obsessed with a particular definition of that through a form of sexuality, then I think we are missing the centrality of what the gospel, whether you call it a social gospel, a personal gospel or a spiritual gospel, is all about. If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition, then frankly I cannot agree with you based on any element of the science.’ That is a very confused man offering a very confused argument. And that is a very confused man, who when identifying as a Christian bears a particular responsibility not to offer such a horribly corrupted and confused line of argument.

The church has spent centuries grappling with homosexuality, but Mr. Rudd said he spent months grappling with the issue and ultimately decided homosexuality is not unnatural and that same-sex couples deserves recognition of their relationships. His next sentence is very important, ‘I do not believe people when they are born choose their sexuality. They are gay if they are born gay. You don’t decide at some later stage in life to be one thing or the other. It is how people are built. Therefore, the idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is wrong. I don’t get that. I think it is a completely ill-founded view’. Well, this is an argument that intelligent Christians are going to meet over and over again, sometimes in a more intelligent form than that offered by the Australian Prime Minister. Though we need to note something very significant, when Mr. Rudd uses the word ‘natural’ he’s using it as if it makes perfect sense of this side of the fall. In-other words, things as they are now are simply as they are supposed to be. He would say that about any number of other conditions. That in a fallen world are also horrifyingly natural. But when it comes to this ‘natural’ is all the moral argument he thinks he needs. But Christians for the understanding of nature don’t go to fallen nature in order to learn our lessons, but rather to nature as it was created and intended to show God’s glory without the corrupting effects of the fall.”

If you would like to listen to the full episode of the edition of the briefing, click here.