[T619]The New American Encyclopedia

Perhaps the day has come when the well known comment made by C. S. Lewis is undergoing prophetic fulfillment. Lewis said that in today's world of intellectual pride and pomposity that Christ probably wouldn't be crucified at all. Instead, they would invite him over for dinner and spend the evening making fun of him.

Soldiers of the cross have suffered a drain of top leaders in the public arena of late. The passing of the fearless, Rev. Falwell and religious freedom's friend, Dr. D. James Kennedy is compounded by the aging of renowned evangelist Billy Graham. God is bringing up a new contingent of able leaders at the moment and seems to be crossing old and familiar lines to do so. In the lull the very shape and substance of sound theology is under siege.

In a recent article I entitled ?Sen. Larry Craig and the Other Side of the Coin? I received a record number of e-mails and blog responses, most of them from angry gays and squirming liberals. With flinted forehead, (Eze. 3: 8-9), I answered some of the responses but ignored most. A consistent theme began to wax apparent as I read the responses. It is best seen in this response and I quote.

??who use selected passages in the Bible (which were not written by Jesus and have nothing to do with his original compassionate and non-judgmental teachings which are more akin to Buddhism) to support their own bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance.?

Perhaps the blog respondent meant to say ?which were not spoken by Jesus? since Christ wrote nothing in the bible. I suppose since he is right, Jesus never directly addressed the subject of homosexuality perhaps I should lay down my bible and adopt the new theology based on ?what Jesus never said.?

This response is typical of the ?neo theology? that has emerged since the inception of the new morality about a generation ago. With something akin to tunnel vision neo theology only sees the gentle and loving Jesus who was found forgiving the woman taken in adultery or cradling the children on his lap. It refuses the Jesus that drove money changers from the temple with a whip or spoke of a place of ?eternal torment? for those who refuse to repent of their sins.

It is interesting that almost all dictionary definitions for ?interpolation? as a noun say it is applying meanings to something not otherwise clearly said. But when used as a verb, to ?interpolate? is a means of inserting words into texts, often falsifying it thereby. (One Look dictionary search)

Inferring a message from what was not said is not a new idea in the effort to derive meanings from the bible that are not there, it is as old as the bible itself. Possibly one of the best examples of what is referred to as an ?interpolation? is what is commonly called the ?gap theory.?

In a noble but somewhat suspect attempt to reconcile a young earth with the fossil evidence from various periods, some theologians espouse that all the geologic ages took place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. They could be right but such renderings are still only interpolation and can never be taught as Bible truths.

With no record of what took place between these two verses and no eye witnesses the teaching hangs on a conjectural thread that can barley support it's own weight, much less something that could be called a sound theology. It takes nothing away from the idea of a young earth but cannot be used as a legitimate proof text to support it. It is not a text, it is an interpolation.

To say that Jesus is ok with homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex or any of today's morality just because he doesn't mention them is the greatest ?interpolation? of all. It is not unlike the attempt to justify porn as something the first amendment always meant to cover as an element of free expression only because nothing was said to the contrary about it in that amendment. That would come under interpreting the constitution by what it doesn't say. Skullduggery and simply wicked intent is hard to disguise in this kind of word wrangling.

Where this faulty and spurious theology really breaks down is found in two places. Christ himself gives full credence to both sources and not once does he infer that the laws, mandates or the morality contained in them will ever be invalid. Let's see.

Looking to the Old Testament as the first of the two sources just on the subject of homosexuality we find no less than five references that strictly prohibit or condemn the practice of homosexuality. These verses are enjoined by the entire narrative account of the destruction of the ancient city of Sodom for its wholesale involvement in the practice of homosexuality.

That Christ never intended for these laws and examples to be erased, ignored or manipulated is something he clearly addressed. Jesus said ?Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mt. 5:17-19

That Christ ?fulfilled? these laws means that he resisted and overcame the temptation to break any of them. That included heterosexual or homosexual temptations and anything else covered in the law. Because he was the only human to ever overcome all sin doesn't make the laws disappear; in fact it gives them their first and final credence. In the plainest sense Christ does not ok homosexuality by what he didn't say but rather he condemns it by what he lived. His life was lived as the fulfillment of the law.

Evangelist Ray Comfort says he often asks people if they have ever broken any of God's laws. When they say they may have stolen or given false witness or committed adultery, he asks them why God should not judge them. Often they offer excuses based on what they think God really meant or the changing times and of course on what God didn't say. He tells them they are adding the sin of idolatry to their credit. He explains that they are heeding the god of their own mind, the imaginary god they construct based on their own exclusions. When someone heeds the words Jesus did not say they are also guilty of a perverse kind of idolatry. They are heeding the god of their own imagination.

The second source is the apostolic teachings in the New Testament. A perfect example of the twisted neo theology of the day is seen in presidential candidate Barack Obama's recent remarks about the use of an obscure passage in Paul's epistle to the Romans. Obama says the passage is ?obscure? but Jesus said everything his apostles say must be taken seriously. Paul clearly says that homosexuality and lesbianism is a sure means of coming under the judgment of God. Jesus said everything Paul said is correct. To wit; ?He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.? Luke 10: 16

Although it is a ?lagniappe? or something extra it does well to note that the comparison of Christ's teaching to those of Buddhism is also a huge interpolation and a whopping big extrapolation.

Buddha did not create the worlds, die for the sins of mankind, rise from the dead and promise to come again in the final judgment of man. Where did that comparison come from? Dare I say from the god of one mans fertile imagination.


Rev Bresciani is the author of two books. He also is a columnist for several online sites and magazines. His articles are read throughout the world. For more articles and news from around the globe visit "The Website for Insight" http://www.americanprophet.org