A refutation of Dr. Walter Wink: Homosexuality and the Bible

A Biblical response to the pernicious Professor Wink, who wily works "wresting" (2 Pt. 3:16) words of God, while whispering, “Yea, hath God said..” (Gn. 3:1).

(Rom 1:22) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..”

Walter Wink is a United Methodist (liberal) minister and Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, and has also taught at Union Theological Seminary and Hartford Seminary, and as a visiting professor at Columbia and Drew universities. As such he seems to have become the main “theologian” at (sinful) soulforce, which is a non-violent homosexual organization dedicated to attacking churches and Christian ministries who do not sanction homosexual relations, including those who hold to the sound teaching of the word of God that homosexuality is sinful, and that homosexuals therefore must repent in their heart from this as well as sin in general (just as heterosexuals must from theirs), and turn to Christ to receive and follow Him.

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (Prv. 12:15).

Unlike most pro homosexual apologists (see Homosexual relations and the Bible for a more comprehensive treatment) Professor Wink does not attempt to use the Bible as an authority to support homosexual relationships, rather he strives to negate the Bible as a moral authority altogether. Though he makes some vain attempts to explain away a few of the clear Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, Wink's real objective is to disallow the moral authority of the Bible itself by rendering it as morally incoherent! Though he only seek to do so here in regards to sexual moral laws, his spurious hermeneutics and reasoning away of the Scriptures would negate the Bible in general as the immutable moral and spiritual authority is it manifested to be by sound exegesis. By constantly ignoring such the Professor Winks works to to misrepresent Biblical teaching, and to confuse basic unchanging moral laws with cultural laws (which have modifiable aspects), and to equate tolerated practices (i.e. slavery) with New Testament intent, and to radically redefine it's teaching under grace to allow sexual immorality, with morality ultimately being determined according to the word of souls like Wink.

Like the original deceiver, Wink whispers, “hath God said...” (Gn. 3:1) in regards to sexual injunctions, depending upon basic ignorance and exegetical errors and his own imagination to cast doubt upon the most basic of Gods moral laws and so deceive the simple. His demonic goal becomes increasingly evident as his polemic proceeds, that of establishing a supreme authority over the Word of God, that of post-Christian sexualized sectarian society and it's ever morphing morality. The professor ultimately proclaims a hermeneutic that holds dominion (man over women) in reproach, by which his unwanted sexual prohibitions are disallowed. This is all necessary if Wink's world is to take place, in which sexual morality is ultimately determined by what seems “loving” according to one's own reasoning, but which easily sanctions sexual sin. Both Wink's desired sexual practices and his carnal moral reasoning are manifestly contrary to the Bible which commands, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ., and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Rom 13:14), and ..seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring” (Num. 15:390.

The reader will notice my frequent rebukes of Mr. Wink''s works, which are not done lightly but because he is eminently worthy of such. Mr. Wink's page ranks as one the most extensive displays of exegetical sophistry on this subject that i have ever read, by a man who evidently supposes he is a Christian (i have no delusion that he is). If Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees of his day, who like Wink, added to and subtracted from the Scriptures, “fools and blind,” and who made souls twofold more the children of hell than themselves (Mt. 23:15, 17), then Wink is likewise worthy of such rebuke.

While page this responds to most all of what Wink wrote, it can only contain portions of Winks actual text (which are in red italics), but the original article can be seen here.

Homosexuality and the Bible by Prof. Walter Wink

Table of contents (click ^ to return)

Winks confusion: Why the issue of homosexuality is not like slavery

If the Bible teaches celibacy than why is homosexuality wrong?

Are some passages used against homosexuality irrelevant?

Today's norms do not disallow basic Biblical moral law

The use of the word sodomite

More on slavery. Wink further works to misrepresent Biblical morality, to justify his

Passages considered relevant

Wink's war against authority

Is patriarchalism a problem?

Confusion continued: Levirate marriage laws and homosexual prohibitions

Argument by outrage: The death penalty

Are laws against polygamy Biblical?

Romans 1:27: Paul judged as ignorant by “wise” Mr. Wink's, etc

Are Christian really “discharged” from obeying O.T. moral laws?

Hebrew Sexual Mores: Different classes of laws ignored

Judge for Yourselves.” By what you desire or by what God says?

Is adultery worse than homosexuality?

Love God and do what you will” according to whose God?

Wink misconstrues the sin of Ham

Deception Contd. Apply some morality to evil practices

Does the Bible really sanction polygamy and concubinage?

Wink advocates doing exactly what the the word of God condemns

Another analogous attempt refuted

Wink' again resorts to his confusion of sexual laws and slavery

Does the Old Testament really sanction unmarried sexual relations?

Wink's real war revealed more

Why the Bible's use of euphemisms does not sanction homosexuality

Wink works to “dominate” the Bible, which crushes him

More confusion of religious purity laws with immutable moral laws

Is love for God's word Bibliolatry?

Does the Bible really sanction prostitution, and should it conform to today's morality or do the opposite?

The Biblical consensus on homosexual relations — and Mr. Wink.

Why abrogation of endogamy does not allow homosexuality

Related Links:

Is Homosexuality Sin?

Pro homosexual arguments refuted

Allowance of divorce does not sanction homosexuality

Home Page

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?“

Like other “men of corrupt minds,” who “withstood Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8), in like rebellion to his authority Mr. Wink will seek to sink readers into his spinning apologetical quicksand, which negates the Bible as being the coherent moral authority such as God declares it to be. Mr Wink begins his apologetic as one sympathetic to the need for unity, and with that pretext he will work to promote unity based upon error. Wink's statement is that “Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before,” but by “our” he means between those that hold the Bible as the ultimate and coherent immutable authority versus those who, like Walter, want wiggle room for the allowance of homosexuality and other illicit practices. Wink then offers a fallacious parallel situation that equates rights based upon amoral aspects such as race and skin color, with an immoral, perverse practice that militates against life, and in fact is primarily responsible to the death of millions.

And rather than enabling unity, Wink's frequent specious comparisons illustrates why there actually must a split between those who love the truth and thus practice proven methods of sound exegesis, versus those who are found “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Cor. 4:2). Wink's comparison here does not support his polemic, as the very return to the evangelical faith and it's Biblical literacy and it's (usual) literal meaning that substantiated Christian support for abolition is what excludes acceptance of homosexuality. The evangelical great awakenings and political freedom enabled social change that was more consistent with Biblical morality under the New Testament. In which the primitive (model) church as an organic community had no slavery (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32, 33), while the later exhortation to slaves (who made up most of the early Gentile church) to act as Christians was not an advocation of slavery or unconditional sanction of such (Christians in Communist prisons are also to act Godly), while the requirement to masters to give unto slaves just and equal pay and good treatment in the fear of God, and even to accept them as brothers (Col. 4:1; Eph. 5-8; Philemon . 16) — and all that such entails — effectively disemboweled classical slavery, and would reduce it to more of an employer - employee type relationship, with the liberty to obtain freedom (which even non-Christian wives were allowed), as this what the apostle Paul exhorted (1 Cor. 7:21). The typical practice of modern slavery was already much in deleterious contrast to that which was regulated under the Old Testament, and a true and obedient, Biblically literate Christian would not justify such in the light of the New Testament delineation of what constitutes brotherly love (yet this does not exclude Biblical positional authority, which Wink will reveal is his great enemy).

Finally, in contrast to Wink's comparison, while God does not judge a man by the color of his skin, and punishing one for such is wrong, yet God does judge according to one's heart and obedience to His laws, and the Bible makes it clear that sexual relations outside marriage, or with those of the same gender, or with animals or close kin is sin, and that those who commit such things must be disciplined, and if unrepentant they will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

Knowing this, Wink charges that rather than finding guidance in the Bible, churches find “interpretative quicksand,” yet that is just what he offers, not the Bible! Walter then whispers the question, “Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?” In other words, and in a different setting, this question was “Hath God said” (Gn. 3:1) that you really must obey His command? While Wink was not there to negate the original command, his demonic attempt and method in seeking to join together what God has (sexually) placed asunder will progressively become more evident. The Biblical response to Wink's question is yes, as the Bible does indeed speak on this issue and overall remains a sure foundation and immutable, self interpreting spiritual and moral guide for those who know it's author, abounding with clear precepts and principals. ^

Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29).”

(Gen 19:4-9) "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: {5} And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. {6} And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, {7} And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. {8} Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. {9} And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door."

Wink here pronounces certain texts that place homosexuality in a bad light as irrelevant or ambiguous, the first being Gn. 19. While Wink does not seek to defend the typical specious argument that the “knowing” which the men of Sodom sought was non-sexual interrogation, yet it is too much for him to allow them to be homosexuals (perhaps because he cannot conceive of them being driven by lust), so he asserts that they were heterosexuals, even though they preferred men over women. While this and it's parallel (Jdg. 19) are about homosexual rape, not simply consensual homosexual relations, they are relevant because their manner of relations define the meaning of the term “sodomite,” and help confirm that the condemnation of Sodom was not that of the hostile manner by which they sought sexual relations, but because they went after “strange [other] flesh” (Jude. 7) — “other” than lawful, and perverse (cf. Rm. 7:3; Gal. 1:6). ^

Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites ...; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite.”

(Deu 23:17-18) "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. {18} Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Wink next seeks to disallow Deut. 23:17-18 from possessing any relevance, as without substantiation he declares that “sodomite” “most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites,” and that the KJV “inaccurately labeled such a "sodomite.” It seems the professor has forgotten that context is indispensable in exegesis, as perhaps the word “dog”(in the next verse) would give him a clue as to what manner of prostitute this is. But in the world of Wink, only heterosexuals rape men and engage in dog like sexual behavior. In the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's later contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds, and here “dog” is used to denote a homosexual and defines “sodomite.” The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but is used as an antiphrasis in all it's occurrences, signifying a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity (the male version of a female prostitute). The use of the word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated, and is far more valid a term than “gay.”

While the Levitical commands outlaw homoeroticism in general as it does illicit heterosexual sex, Dt. 23:17 specifically forbids those who work either abomination as an religious occupation , as well as the giving of their price as a temple offering. That this was their occupation is further indicated by the fact that they had houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful occupation. ,

Wink next proceeds to dismiss 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 as “too ambiguous,” which most everything is to Wink. See here on that objection. ^

Putting these texts to the side, we ^are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior [Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26-27]. ...male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder...such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.”

(Lev 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

(Lev 20:13) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

With these, Wink is not so bold as to completely deny that these texts forbid homo-eroticism, but instead engages in a demonic attempt to attribute their occurrence to superstitions (that only the sperm was sacred, being like a fertilized egg that just needed a container) thereby charging the author of Scripture, who gave them advanced laws on hygiene , etc., with biological ignorance! This type of thing may work in explaining the superstitions of the Quran, but it will not work with the Bible, and the evidence is lacking for his premise that the Jews regarded semen as symbolic of life, nor did the Orthodox take Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as having anything less than unconditional applicability. The context of these Levitical commands is that of illicit sex fornication, not wasting seed, which the Bible never explicitly deals with (the only judgment relative to that, of Onan in Gn. 38:9, 10, is contextually better understood as being against selfishness, and depriving a women, not waste). Illicit sex most basically has to do with laying with the wrong person (unmarried, another's wife, close kin, or same gender or animal), which basis laws are transcendent of culture.

Yet Wink is correct about homosexuality helping population control, with, with 25 million tragically dead in approx. 25 years (and approx. 39 million living with HIV) due to a radical virus (first called GRID: Gay Related Immune Deficiency Disease) that initially flourished due to male homosexual lust. As Wink will use ecology as a pretext for perversion again, this will be mentioned again. ^

The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females.” ^

Once a soul has rejected the righteous foundation that will one day judge him, there is no limit to the unrighteousness he may do. Wink next attributes the Levitical injunctions against homosexuals to cultural considerations, to patriarchalism and bigotry, when in fact it is God who established the male as the head, and His laws express that, while the Bible forbids and condemns homosexual relations based upon creative distinctions, not cultural ones. Of course, the same cultural factors argument that Wink employs in order to negate what he seeks to defend must also allow the negation of similar injunctions against others forms of sexual immorality. Which (we shall see) is the Hell his hermeneutical horse is headed to.

As for the lack of a corresponding injunctions against women laying with women, as God uses the male as he is the head, it is generally recognized that when a sin is forbidden that both genders are able to do, then it applies to both genders (“If a man shall steal an ox”). The other factor is that usually the degree of commonality of a sin mandates it's degree of mention, and it is quite likely that lesbianism was far rarer than male homosexuality at that time, or even bestiality. And in the fuller revelation of the New Testament we see that Romans 1:26 specifically and unconditionally condemns lesbian relationships as well as male homosexual ones . ^

The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts.”

Next, Wink employs a form of “argument by outrage,” as the professor asserts that Jews or Christians who uphold the authority of the Old Testament moral law must contend for the physical penalties that were based upon such. For Wink such penalties must be unthinkable, for in the world of Wink, how can anyone determine what is right and wrong? As regards the text at hand, Wink's premise is that Christians are to demand of the State the same penalties for sins as under the Old Testament theocracy, and indeed the State does act wisely when it adapts Biblical civil laws according to their intent (and which requires the eye witness of 2 or 3 persons for capital crimes — and the death of false witness that led to wrong executions), yet it is also consistent with Jesus to say to the penitent ”Go and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11).  And for those who are not, they are worthy of Old Testament penalties, though a Christian need not contend for the same degree of punishment for all sins as was enjoined under a theocracy when men were more accountable and justice was more assured, though such penalties for sexual sins would certainly save more lives in the long run.  In any case, Christians not demanding the full degree of punishment for homosexual relations does not require them to accept the sinful practice of homosexual relations, any more than it does for the capital crime of adultery, etc. ^

Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.”

(Rom 1:26-27) "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." ^

Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature...”

Hath God said?” continued. Coming to Romans 1:26-27 Wink again removes the Bible from being wholly God — inspired revelation, and continues on his specious broad way of exegetical extenuation, assuring us poor Paul was ignorant of modern psychosexual theory, of supposed innate proclivity to homosexuality, and thus Paul's condemnation of sin here only had to do with those who acted contrary to their “normal inclination,” rather than them acting contrary to what is normal (and healthy) in design and behavior in nature. Yet as even a cursory reading will reveal, what Paul condemns here is men who did act out their depraved nature, forsaking the natural use of the women in preference to men, while women likewise choose their own gender, contrary to the Creator's design, the rebellion against whom Paul shows homosexuality to be a result of.

Indeed they were acting according to their own nature in acting contrary to nature, as manifest in design and God's decree. The fact that they were “given over” to such depravity also was a result of choice, that of choosing a false gods, like today, making the living and true God into an image more to their own liking ( as Wink does), in order to serve the god of pleasure). Nor can we justify acting out perverse proclivities that are a result of the fall of man, and continued rebellion Neither is it proven that homosexuality is inbred, yet it is evident that all humans have an innate tendency to sin (even babies are selfish), and sinful behavior cannot be justified on that basis. And rather than justify acting according to such, this is the very thing Paul proceeds to deal with, showing the way to victory in Christ (Rm. 6-8). Wink provides for just the opposite, as here again, he invokes a rationale that would justify any behavior, as long as one can claim an inner proclivity for it!

Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple.”

Rather than being a servant Christ whose words are God-inspired Scripture (2 Pt. 3:16), the apostle Paul becomes a prisoner, of Wink this time, that of being an uninspired old scribe, locked into cell of first century ignorance where homosexuals had not advanced to their high degree of lust free relationships! And which defined “normal” by whatever one felt mostly inclined to do, rather than what design, normality and what the Scriptures decree! The reality is homosexuality was alive and prospering in the Roman world where Paul ministered, and he was not only quite aware of it's forms but more critically he was inspired in his writings by the Holy Spirit of God, not the unholy one of Wink. Paul clearly affirms that the homoerotic attraction and activity here was consensual, as men “burned in their lust one toward another;” while the fact that it was driven by sexual lusts (the word denotes earnest desire), as is much evidenced today, does not allow for a more “loving” eroticism, any more than it does for “loving” illicit heterosexual sex (which Wink will shortly seek to justify). And if you want an example of condemned homosexuality without lust being mentioned, then we have that the lust part is applied toward men, while lesbianism is also condemned as “even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Rm. 1:26).

We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.”

Wink's attempt to disallow the remarkable statement of stating that because lesbians are seldom at risk for AID's then that is not a Divine punishment. However, this ignores the fact that v. 27 distinctly refers to men receiving in their own bodies a just penalty (call it AIDS or whatever) for the sins they committed with their bodies. As the case today, God has cursed sex out of marriage, with men being held more accountable (and their perversion may be considered even more unnatural). Meanwhile, all STD's would be virtually non-existent in time if mankind obeyed God's laws regarding sexual activity.

And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species,..and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.”

Homosexual behavior is seen as more concomitant with “pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness” and sensuality, than overpopulation, which concern Wink supposes favors homosexuality. Meanwhile, Paul is arguing from nature as obviously designed, in which the pump does not go in the exhaust, as the professor might notice, and by normality (homosexuality is very rare in the animal world). But in Wink's world the perverse becomes what determines approved normality, even as his evident attempts at eisegesis seems to be natural to him. But again, the Creator is the One who decided what constitutes “normal,” not the deviations produced by fallen man.

The Bible has already laid down (no pun intended) the universal, unconditional injunctions against homosexual relations, Wink's wobbling spin notwithstanding, and no where is marriage of any Biblical sort provided for homosexuals, as it is explicitly and abundantly for heterosexuals, and attempts to find such are exposed as fallacious. ^

Hebrew Sexual Mores

Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, ... But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period”

(Lev 18:19; cf. 15:24) "Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness."

Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.

Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.

Wink next invokes Lv. 18:19; in seeking to disallow the immutable Levitical laws against homosexual relations by invoking the present lack of punishment for another forbidden practice. By such a hermeneutic he would also have to allow adultery since Jesus did not stone the adulterer in John 8. Moreover, as the penalty in Lev. 15:24 is for the male to be unclean for 7 days, and capital punishment for most other sins in Lev. 20 is made clear by the term “be put to death,” it is not certain that the “cutting of” of Lev. 2O:18 was by death, though that seems to be the case, if deliberate, whereas the 15:24 might be if it was accidental. In either case, it would be hard to prove, but would work as a deterrent.

While the same penalty for sins may or may not be physically meted out today, the real issue is the transcendence of this law itself. While the category other laws belong to is rather easily seen by their nature, and this one at least partly falls into the category of the purity laws given for the physical health of Israel (which shows advanced medical understanding), yet it also seems to deal with more than that. The health principal is observed today in the practice of feminine hygiene, and as such the violation of this would result in physical uncleanness but not necessarily moral uncleanness under the New Covenant, as touching blood is not the same as shedding it, nor is laying with your wife during her menstruation the same as laying with someone who is not your wife, or with a beast or another man. Yet it also possible that violation of this showed a type of disrespect to the women. But in regards to issue of homosexuality, the sexual prohibition here is only is only in respect to time, in contrast to the transcendent moral laws that deal with the type of sexual partner, which unconditionally excludes not only unmarried unions but with those of the same gender or animals.

For further clarification here and for future examples, notice there are different classifications of laws which are manifest under the Old and New Testament.

1. Transcendent moral laws, which deal with fundamental human behavior and tendencies, which basically are directly applicable to all cultures and current times (honoring parents, murder, stealing, fornications, etc.).

2. Culturally applied moral laws, such as related to appearance and practices that were uniquely (versus common things like prayer) part of the worship of idols: weird haircuts or cuttings in their flesh, etc. While these laws were enacted is response to idolatrous practices, that does not disallow them from being applicable today to the church in accordance with the immutable moral law they are based upon. Witchcraft as well as temple prostitutes were pagan practices of Israel's neighbors, yet the injunctions against them are culturally and historically transcendent, in spiritual ways as well as physical.

Some laws in this category deal with practices that may not necessarily be sinful in themselves, but are applicable according to the principal behind them. While a strange haircut today may not signify formal worship of demons, Christians are to “avoid all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22), which would include imitating distinctly demon-influenced pagan behavior (such as wearing the Hindu Tilaka). And while the cutting of one's flesh may be necessary in surgery, needless self-mutilation can often be an manifestation of demonic influence which would be contrary to the Spirit of Christ.

3. Civil and Judicial laws, which are based upon purely moral law, and like the preceding, can be adaptable to any culture according to their underlaying principal (put a fence around your roof = thou shalt not kill by negligence = present safety laws ). See also laws regarding dangerous animals (Exod. 21:28-32, 35-36), uncovered pits (21:33-34), and fires in fields (22:6). This category also include laws of jurisprudence, such as the requirement for eyewitnesses and punishment for perjury.

Certain laws within this category of civil laws are regulatory in nature, that of a cultural practice allowed for the time but modified in order to bring it more into line toward an original standard, such as laws regarding concubines as well as slavery.

4. Ceremonial/Typological laws, such as related to the sacrificial system (Heb. 9), which are manifest under the New Covenant as being typological in nature, such as the ritual observance of Jewish “days, and months, and times, and years” (Gal,. 4:10) and dietary laws (Col. 2:16) and various “washings imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10), as well as the entire sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-18). Christians observe these by looking to the reality which they represented, and thus they are to act in accordance with the holiness they enjoined: “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1Cor. 5:8). The forbidden foods under the dietary laws were a type of the Gentiles, now made clean under the New covenant (Acts 10:1-17), while the physical defilement of touching such things as lepers under the Old Covenant represented moral defilement under the New (Mk. 7:18-23; 2 Cor. 6:14-18), of which illicit sex (fornications: Mk. 7:21) is still a part. While Christians are edified if they observe the health benefits that such things as dietary and sanitary regs provided, yet apart from an overall unhealthy diet, it is not necessary a sin to eat a hot dog much less touch a leper. But sexual immorality is still sin. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4). “Flee fornication..” (1 Cor. 6:18). ^

2. “The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22),...It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity.”

Wink next seeks to use the lack of enforcement of stoning for adulterers as justification for acceptance of homosexuality, which he states causes less problems. But besides the fact that the the New Testament does not allow the church civil powers over those without (rather it sanctions the civil powers use of physical force in “the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” Mt. 22:21; 1 Cor. 5:12, 13; 1 Pt. 2:13, 14), the current lack of much of a penalty for adultery by the civil powers does not negate the immorality of it according to God's Word, nor of homosexual relations. Neither does the fact that some churches wrongly ordain adulterers justify ordaining homosexuals. Except according to Mr. Wink's reasoning.

Nor would adultery create more havoc than homosexuality, if the later were as widely practiced, especially as even “married” homosexuals are typically adulterous. And on a medical level it has created far more havoc the last few decades, as homosexuals (and bisexuals) are in-deed primarily to blame for the initial spread of AIDS and much for it's continuance, especially in the U.S. (44%) and Canada, as well as for numerous other diseases attributable to their unnatural and unhealthy sex.

(Jude 1:4) "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." ^

3. “Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). ..are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room ..as an accursed sin? The Bible does. ...”

Consistent with the liberal mind, Wink finds the laws made necessary by the fall of man repulsive, and here he further displays his ignorant scorn for the moral authority of the Bible, and that he is unqualified to engage in Biblical exegesis. Since the fall of man public nudity is indeed manifested in the Bible as shameful (thus mandating clothes), but there is no evidence that it was necessarily considered sinful among those of the same gender in an unavoidable (non-sexual) setting. It is certain when men bathed in the Bible that they often had to do so when other men could see them (especially in armies), and there is no record of anyone being punished for such necessity. It is quite possible Jesus was crucified naked, befitting the shame of one upon whom the LORD laid “the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:6).

Meanwhile, the context of Ham's punishment (Gn. 9) indicates that it was for irreverently gazing upon his father's sad condition and unnecessarily, irreverently telling of his father's nakedness to his kin (1 Cor. 13:5), who in contrast to Ham honored their father by carefully covering him without seeing his nakedness. It is also quite possible that the phrase that Noah “knew [yada] what his younger son had done unto him” (v. 24) can indicate a type of homosexual carnal knowledge.

Finally, as for Wink's worry that the Biblically shameful condition of nudity may hinder intimacy between husbands and wives (though studies show evangelicals are not), the prodigious procreation of the patriarchs and indicates the opposite, while the the Song of Solomon honors erotic marital love. The only problem for Wink is that it is between two heterosexuals. ^

4. “Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament....So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?”

Wink next asks why we don't allow polygamy today when the Old Testament did, and asserts the New does not reprove it, and even supposes that concubinage was just a woman living with a man to whom she is not married. The fact that he does not know the answer as to why the west does not (yet!) allow these today further evidences Wink's woeful ignorance. The concubines of men those of Abraham was not that of “woman living with a man to whom she is not married,” as is the case today, but it was a type of secondary (versus strictly a second) wife. This was an economical form of marriage, as no dowry was mandated, but their children were not illegitimate. That they were a type of wife, not harlots (unless they were unfaithful, as concubine of the Levite of Jdg. 19:2 was) or just live-in girlfriends is evidenced by the fact that Abraham's concubines, Hagar and Keturah, were also called wives (Gen 25:1; 1Ch 1:32), as was Bilhah, Jacob's concubine: "And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."(Gen 30:4), "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine" (Gen 35:22). The marriage commitment to them appears to be the same as primary wives, and it was an act of supreme iniquity for another man to lay with them, and after David's rebel son did so (2 Sam. 16:21, 22), David cared for them the rest of his life, but would no longer have relations with them, and which women the Bible calls widows (2 Sam. 20:3).

As for polygamy, this also is abundantly evident in Scripture, and served the same main purpose of concubines, that of increasing the tribe. And as child bearing was next to life itself for women, a concubine assured many women of being mothers, and as this seems to have been a practice of the wealthy, it could assure many of a more royal upbringing — none of which things makes it the original standard of marriage . However, just as Jesus stated God allowed more liberty in the marriage commitment due to the hardness of Israel's hearts, which He restored to it's original standard, so He also restores the original intent, as in the marriage of Adam and Eve, that of leaving his father and mother (singular), and cleaving unto his wife (singular). Adam, who had a whole planet to populate, was never married to more than one wife. Israel's overall failure to recognize monogamy as the ideal is part of spiritual blindness, which later was even more shown toward Christ (Rm. 11). This original intent became a primary requirement for church leaders (1 Tim. 3:2; 12l Titus 1:6), and it is after the example of good leaders that believers are to follow (Heb. 13:7). And that all believers were to have one wife is evidenced by the fact that the New Testament only deals with individual Christian husbands as having one wife, as in “let every one of you in particular so love his wife,” and by the example of Christ's marriage to His church after which the marriage relationship is patterned (Eph. 5:25-33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5; Col. 3:19 1 Pt. 3:7). Thus Wink's question as to why (in a Christian influenced culture) we do not allow polygamy and concubinage is answered, which stands in contrast to Wink's superficial regard for the Bible and his corresponding fostering of a lower standard of morality.

And in regards to his main promotion, the fact that polygamy and concubinage are made so evident reproves the premise of approved homosexuality by way of contrast, as lacking any manner of clear sanction of homosexual relations, they must labor to wrest inferences for such out of context, and force homosexual relations into the Bible which explicitly condemns it. And in which sex is only sanctioned between a man and a women in marriage (Gn. 2:24: and “wife” always means female). ^

5. “...When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir...Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?”

Again, Wink misrepresents a Biblical practice, given in Dt. 25:5-10 and which was a prior practice (Gn. 38:8, 9), but is not as Wink words it, but that a brother who dwelt with the clan (possibly indicating he was single) was to marry — not just have intercourse in turn as Wink words it — his deceased brother's barren wife in order to enable her to bear children (which was very important to her and the security of the clan and society). In the unlikely case that he died before she bore children, then possibly another brother who dwelt there could marry her, and in the extremely hypothetically case that he died and left her barren, the same sequence could be repeated. There is no record i can recall of such happening past a second marriage, and the hypothetical question of the Sadducees (the more doctrinally aberrant major sect) was not in regards to the legality of this, rather as unbelievers in the resurrection they had a question that made the Pharisees (who believed in such) look foolish (with a women that had 7 husbands in the resurrection), and so they sought Jesus position on it. The LORD Jesus reproved their major fallacious premise, which was that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Mt. 22:30), which revealed that the Sadducees did “err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.” (v. 30). This sad condition is also true of Mr. Wink, as his question as to why is this law is ignored today by Christians is answered by the Scriptures which reveals that Christians are under the New Covenant, and in a spiritual kingdom (Col. 1:13), not fighting for a physical one (Jn. 18:36), and their main priority is no longer physical procreation and it's security but holiness and spiritual procreation via the new birth (Acts 1:8; 8:4; 1 Thes. 1:8-10). While the New Testament clearly upholds marriage and sanctifies the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4) and forbids constant abstaining of marital conjugal relations (1 Cor. 7:5), and would not forbid the practice of Dt. 22:5 (if the single brother was free to marry), yet it's primary mission is not to build a physical nation but add to a spiritual “holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pt. 2:9). It therefore can even recommend (not enforce) celibacy for those single persons who are so called (1 Cor. 7:8, 17-35), while marriage is commanded for those who will not abstain (1 Cor. 7:2).

The main issue is that the the law of Dt. 22:5-10 was not part of the basic transcendent moral laws that forbade regarding illicit sex with others, though it was based upon Gn. 1:28 (which homosexuals cannot obey), and is part of the cultural universal laws that are adaptable to modern cultures (in this case the womens right and societal need to bear children, as well as enjoy martial relations). In contrast, while the Levitical commands of 18:22 and 20:13 were part of the first category of laws, and which is affirmed in Romans 1:24-27 and other texts.

Dt. 22:5-10, like abundant other texts, also affirms the necessity of marriage, and that it is only between a man and a women (unless Wink can make a women out of a brother), even as it only deals with a man and a women as the partners in marriage. Thus not only does the absence of this Old Testament cultural practice in the New Testament allow any negation of the Levitical law against homoeroticism, but the New Testament only condemns it while continuing to affirm heterosexual relations in marriage. ^

6. “The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. ....Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?”

Wink again displays his unrelenting antagonism toward the Bible (as the coherent moral authority), and his ignorance of it. Only a person as confused (or more likely, seeking to confuse others) could make the statement “both views are Scriptural.” It is evident Wink not only willfully views the Bible as an incoherent moral authority, but he likewise has little clue as to what Biblically constitutes a Christian (in his full text he even asserts that some “Christian” communities require a bride to be pregnant before marriage).

The determination of Wink to disallow anything he does not want to see is evident in his first statement that “the Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibit sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults.” But as the Old Testament explicitly calls a women “whore” who is not an virgin when she marries (Deut. 22:13-21), and for which the death penalty is mandated, then Wink (wrongly supposing her “virgin value” is the real issue) must set up a qualifier for his statement, that as long as the women is not a virgin, then premarital sex is not explicitly condemned! Yet as is evident in the above reference, if a women is not a virgin then she is a whore (harlot), and relations with which are condemned (Prv. 23:26-28; Jer. 5:7). But in Wink's mind such condemnation is not explicit enough. Perhaps Wink also supposes that the Biblical statement that Shechem treated unmarried Dinah as a harlot because they had consensual sex (Gn. 34) is not explicit disapproval. Or going back even further, that when Gn. 2:24 commands that a man is to “leave and cleave” to his WIFE that God also had premarital sex in mind! In addition, the requirement of Dt. 22:28-29 is that a man who seduces a virgin who is not betrothed must marry her — not continue to engage in carnal relations. And (unlike marrying a virgin) he can never put her away. So according to Wink, who also assumes that a record of sinful behavior (Gn. 38) constitutes sanction of it, if a women has premarital sex and escapes stoning or marriage to her first partner then a man can lawfully have relations with such a harlot, though men are warned against such a women! And which prohibition the New Testament makes even clearer, while the Jews (who Wink has elsewhere invoked as an authority) likewise would condemn Wink's fantasy. Thus the professor's repeated whisper, “hath God said” is once again clearly answered in the affirmative.

Next Wink imagines that a love affair between two unmarried persons in Song of Songs must mean sex, which “commentators have often conspired to cover up.” Apart from the conspiratorial Da Vince code type nonsense that homosexual “commentators” must sometimes resort to, it is not traditional commentators who are covering up the truth here but Wink. The Song of Solomon is poetic, and not of many poems but essentially one, and is written like a theatrical play, with the characters speaking in turn. It is definitely not about two unmarried persons engaging in sex, rather it is about a romance and a royal wedding and martial love and relations between Solomon (who counted heterosexual courtship and romance among one of the most wondrous things: Prov. 30:19), and a Shulamite maiden, and which very peom easily lends itself to allegorical application, that of Christ and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:23-32).

Here, with just a few verses of allegorical interpretation cited, is my analysis of this unique book of the Bible. Song chapter one is mostly about the longing of the bride for her husband to be, and expresses martial desire not yet realized (cf. Mt. 5:6). In chapter two the bride expresses what the bridegroom is to her, and about the wedding feast and consummation (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16, 17), of how he "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love." (2:4), and a night of love making which made her feel weak. Later he calls her to follow him (cf. Mt. 4:19; Jn. 10:27). In chapter 3 she tells us that her beloved was missing, and that she earnestly sought him (Heb. 11:6), and that having found him whom her soul loved, “I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me." This is not a description of unmarried relations, but of married, as the culture (and it's morals) reveals, just as Isaac brought Rebekah “into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her" (Gen 24:67). The text goes on to describe Solomon's royal bed, and (v. 11) how his mother had “crowned him in the day of his espousals” (chăthûnnâh — from H2859; a wedding).

In most of chapter 4 the groom describes the beauty of object of his love, calling her my “spouse” in vs. 10+12 (cf. Eph. 5:27). Chapter 5 tells of the bride hearing her husband at the door and calling her to open (cf. Rv. 3:20; Jn. 10:3; 21:4-6 ), but she is not ready and when she opens he is gone (cf. Is. 45:15). When she goes searching she is beaten by civil authorities who scorn her attraction to her beloved (cf. Jn. 16:33; Act 5:40). She responds by extolling her spouses beauty (cf. 1 Pt. 1:8; Rv. 5:9). In chapter 6 others (daughters of Jerusalem) inquire about the bridegroom (Jn. 12:21, 22), and she tells them where he may be found, and testifies of her security in his love (cf. 1 Pt. 3:5) . The bridegroom responds with praise for her, his “undefiled” (v. 9), then a call is given for her, the Shulamite (feminine of Solomon) to return (cf. 1 Thes. 5:23, 24). In chapter 7 the bridegroom extols the beauty of his beloved (cf. Eph. 5:27; Jn. 1:12-17), and she in turn expresses her great delight in him, and her desire to get away and commune with him (cf. Ps. 27:4), and to engage in love making, that would result in conception (cf. Mt. 28:19; inferred by the mandrakes: Gn. 30:14-16). In chapter 8 she continues to express her yearning for him, like as she has done before, and her longing for uninterrupted intimate relations to bless him in her earnest thankful love. He responds (vs. 7-5) by affirming she was chosen for him, and appeals to her to make sure her heart is fully committed to him, as such love endures all things, though hell fire attack it (cf. 1 Cor. 13:7; cf. 2 Pt. 1:10). The daughters (it seems), now make intercession for their little sister, who then speaks of the grace she came to realize in response (vs. 8-10; cf. Eph. 3:6; Rm. 15:9). The book nears it's closing with subject of the vineyard of Solomon, which the bride is in charge of (1 Pt. 5:1, 2), and the request that she hear his voice (cf. Jn. 5:24; Mk. 13:35-37; 1 Ths. 4:16). And finally that he come quickly (f. Rv. 22:20). "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church"(Eph 5:32).

And so it is easily seen as such, and even without the allegorical application it revealed that this is not about premarital sex, but a poetic story of a man and his spouse, which he is called, and of the wonder of heterosexual relations which God gives clear evident honors to. As for Wink, not only has he clearly attempted to distort every Scripture text he has gotten a hold of here, but he also radically redefines the Biblical definition of what a Christian is, to include those who engage in one of the most explicitly condemned sins of the New Testament, that of fornication (1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9, 13, 18; 7:2; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16, Heb. 13:4; 1Pt. 4:3). Of course, Wink must recognize that it is (or can he?), which is why he only vainly attempted to pass off the Old Testament as not explicitly (for him) condemning such, yet not only is unmarried sex condemned there as sin, but the abundant unconditional New Testament prohibitions have their foundation in the Old and serve to confirm them. Moreover, it is the New Testament that originates the term “Christian” (Acts 17:11), and manifests what such believed and did. And which absolutely excludes the practice of any manner of premarital sex from being part of the Christian faith. Thus it is written, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Co 7:2), or stay single (v. 8). There is no middle ground, and thus Wink's wishful idea that unmarried sex is Scriptural is exposed as pure deception and fantasy, which is why his goal is actually to disallow Scripture as The authority and to redefine Christian according to his perversity! ^

7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms ....as 'he knew her.' Today most of us regard such language as 'puritanical' and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice."

Resorting to another but rather novel desperate attempt, Wink now invokes the Bible's use of euphemism's as a reason to disallow the moral absolutes that he hates. His premise is that since we do not use such euphemisms today to describe private acts then it is hypocritical to regard the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations as binding! This polemic is so ludicrous that it hardly needs a response, suffice to say that to be consistent this hermeneutic would likewise disallow the prohibitions using euphemisms against adultery, incest, bestiality, etc. Which of course, is Wink's objective, and that of exalting his subjective morality as the supreme authority. In contrast, the Bible's choice of euphemisms is more evidence that Biblical propriety is mandated, and shows how fallen man is to best respect God's creation. In regard to the latter aspect, ancient laws as well as contemporary language make abundant use of euphemisms (perhaps Wink has heard of “gays”) and such need not convey any disrespect for the object, and often conveys just the opposite (“Golden Ager”). Wink has “struck out” again. ^

8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). ....Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."

Now the professor seeks to use the modern acceptance of semen in contrast to the Old Testament purity laws as reason to dispense with it's laws against homosexuality, yet this argument depends upon more of the type of ignorance and confusion that Wink relies upon. His type of example here is irrelevant as it confuses external religious purity laws with immutable moral laws, the latter class being what Lev. 18:22 is demonstrably in, and upon which Lv. 20:13 and Dt. 23:17 and similar laws (witchcraft, adultery, etc.) are based. Meanwhile, as AIDS and other STD's evidence, semen and blood are potent (and especially dangerous when mixed after the unnatural manner of sodomites), and if the modern enlightened world acted in accordance with the laws of the Bible more people would be healthier, happier — and richer. ^

...in the Old Testament ....a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).”

Once again the professor displays (or depends on) needful ignorance and selective use of Scripture, which he seeks to distort for his own deviant purposes. Here his unholy presuppositions lead him to conclude that God somehow approves of a man going into a prostitute, even though from the beginning He ordained marriage as the place for sex (Gn. 2:24), and required a man enter into a irrevocable marriage with a women he had consensual sex with (Dt. 22:28, 29), and mandated death for a women who was not a virgin (Dt. 22:13-21), while the New Testament makes it clear as a whole that no premarital sexual relations were sanctioned at all, marriage being the only provision for such (1 Cor. 7:2, 9), and which laws were based upon God's transcendent moral laws beginning in Genesis. Wink must attempt to equate the record (Gn. 38) of an immoral act as that of sanctioning it, which is not sound exegesis. He must then seek to negate the teaching of the New Testament that explicitly forbids joining oneself with a prostitute, by inferring that it is baseless, when in reality Paul includes prostitution as a type of fornication (v. 9), from which the word is derived! It is the New Testament which fully interprets the Old and it's condemnation of prostitution is as authoritative as the moral laws of the 10 commandments of the Old Testament, and Wink's assertion that Paul cannot lump prostitution into the category of adultery is like saying one cannot include contract killers under the category of murder. ^

9.Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. ...We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution...”

Having, with much effort, rationalized his rejection of the moral authority of the Bible, Wink now expresses his alternative vision of the world, where prostitution could be a career choice, and upon which loose morals he no doubt imagines great nations came to be, rather than such things being causative of and concomitant with their demise. First, as he must continue to distort and demean the Bible, he charges that the principal of male headship (patriarchalism) makes women mere chattel. While there are certainly negative examples (Lot's daughters, the Levites concubine, etc.) of how women were often treated in the ancient world, these do not establish God's standard, and Wink ignores the examples and commands of Scripture that refute his cherished caricature. Such accounts as Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Rachel, and Solomon and the Shulamite wife show they did not consider their principal wives as mere servants, but as objects of love. And in Wink's least favorite book, the New Testament, women are declared to be spiritually equal with men (Gal. 3:28), with consistent teachings on how husbands are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). The lack of this “so great salvation” (Heb. 2:3) is Winks biggest problem.

Yet in this context Wink's underlying issue seems to be that of male headship itself, as consistent with most liberal minds he is in rebellion against legitimate moral authority in general, that ultimately being God, which in the Bible is represented by the male (though that alone does not establish legitimacy). From Genesis (2+3) onward, and in Israel's basic laws (Dt. 22, 24, etc.), man is rightly recognized as the head, while still establishing protection for the women (though still being in condescension to cultural practices such as concubinage). The Old Testament also commends many remarkable Godly women, not simply as industrious wives (Prv. 31) but courageous women of faith. None of which militates against the headship of the male, which is clearly doctrinally affirmed in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:1-3; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). This further establishes a positional and functional difference, with the man being required to lead, and being held to overall greater accountability. Rather than a two headed entity, or a master/slave relationship, this best enables men and women to work together as a team under Christ, who Himself is under the Father, thereby exampling that such submission is not an inglorious thing (as Wink seems to suppose) to souls who are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6), and “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pt. 3:7).

Finally, Wink would have us believe that society is moving forward by dispensing with such Biblical principles as the headship of men, and to which he would add the injunctions against the perverse practice of homosexuality, but quite the opposite is true, as the morality that Wink espouses is manifestly detrimental to society, in souls, lives and money. And his comparison of freedom for homosexual behavior to that civil rights based upon skin color is equally perverse. Any beneficial societal moral change that has occurred (or will) has only been as it has been consistent with the Bible, (the abolition of slavery itself was an outgrowth of revived Christian faith), and thus the answer is not to make the Bible conformable to a supposedly enlightened society, but to make society conformable to the Bible as applied under the New Testament. ^

10.Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--...We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage ...Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.”

Wink again attempts to use a certain perceived abandonment of a cultural applied law that he supposes would justify a change of basic transcendent moral laws, but this is a specious hermeneutic, nor is there any essential change in application of this law under the New Testament (in contrast to the “Christianity” of Mr. Wink). While Dt. 7:3+4 forbids intermarriage with the Canaanites, in other places marrying foreigners is allowed (Dt. 21:10-13), under the condition (it is assumed) that they become converts (like Ruth). And contrary to Ezra (10), the New Testament does not allow divorce simply because one is an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-14; 1 Pt. 3:1, 2). The New Testament explicitly declares all races essentially equal in God's sight (Acts 10:1-20; Gal. 3:28), but entering into a spiritual union (which marriage is) with unbelievers (in the Biblical gospel) is forbidden (1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). This is the application of the Old Testament intermarriage injunctions, and which therefore would actually forbid marrying an unbeliever.

Like the sin Wink seeks to sanction, Wink's latest attempt to confuse of laws based upon race (which is an amoral factor) with laws based upon behavior is perverse. ^

11. “The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it. .... Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce... we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?”

Wink again seek to use a type of current non-compliance to obey the Bible as grounds for justifying homosexuality, which he supposes must not be an in issue since Jesus (personally) never specifically mentioned it. It should first be noted that when Wink says “we,” he is referring to modern culture and it's liberal church, which he looks to as more of an authority than the Bible. The validity of his argument is at first disallowed simply by the fact that the failure of many churches to obey the Bible in one thing does not justify disobeying it in another, and by the logic of Wink one could justify committing crime because some corrupt justice officials do so. And while he seeks to point out hypocrisy, the same churches that are liberal in the area of divorce are usually the same ones that allow homosexuality. As for the issue of divorce itself, there are only at the most two possible clauses that allow (not mandate) divorce, these being fornication by one partner (Matt. 19:9) and possibly abandonment (1 Cor. 7:15). To allow more is not justified, nor is acceptance of homosexual relations.

In regards to the “"red letter" hermeneutic Wink invokes here and which is often used by homoapologists, that the silence of Jesus on a specific form of sin, in this case fornication (which would include rape, etc.) equals allowance, this hermeneutic would also allow any other sin that Jesus did not explicitly condemn, and which reveals the desperate polemics homosexual apologist must engage in. This argument also presupposes that Jesus was not including homosexuality (etc.) under the category of “fornications” (plural: Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27), and that the same Holy Spirit by whom He spoke did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35). Any lack of mention of a specific sin by Jesus while on earth is explained by the observation that Jesus did not always mention every subcategory of sin, but He included their major families, and by condemning fornications (plural) He condemned all forms of it, and which forms are further specified within the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and in which homosexuals relations are condemned.

As for the “argument from emphasis” (that homosexuality is mentioned somewhat less than divorce), this is in keeping with the principal that the more common sins need to be mentioned more, we usually see more mention of sins that affect the immediate hearers the most.

As regards which is the greater sin, homosexual relations are supremely wicked in their own way, as they exceptionally insult the Creator who made man and women uniquely compatible and complementary. And which heterosexuals He alone joined in marriage and enabled to naturally reproduce, which is further evidence of God's design. The complementary nature of the two genders also extends to the balance in child raising as well (the polemic that seeks to negate this by invoking the example of bad heterosexual parents suffers from the error as the divorce argument). Homosexuals also typically seek to justify acting out their sinful desires, whereas adultery (which is even more prevalent in so-called homosexual “marriages”) is most always acknowledged to be wrong.

Adultery itself is also an exceedingly wicked sin, and also is a capital crime, and being far more prevalent than homosexuality, thus we see might more of it's delirious social results. Both sins are usually causative of and concomitant with the demise of a nation. And as far as health effects both are deleterious, though the spread of AIDS was initially primarily via homosexual activity, and is far more wide spread among them even today. ^

12. “The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy....Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation....And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?”

It is amazing how Wink can discern an aberrant teaching when he needs to, in order to promote his own, while using specious arguments to do so. Here he points out disagreement regarding the issue of celibacy, but the compulsory celibacy he invokes is a result of doing the very thing that the professor practices, that of exalting another authority over the the Bible! The Biblical fact is any requirement that mandates celibacy by profession, especially of the clergy, is indeed heretical, and Rome's mandated (except for Eastern Orthodox converts) priestly celibacy (and her priesthood itself) is a result of her exalting her autocratic Caesario-papacy above Scripture, which also makes another “revelation” (Roman “church tradition”) equal to the Bible. Yet God also reveals that there is no sin in being celibate, except in marriage (1 Cor. 7:3-5), and the actual sin of homosexuals is that of sexual relations with those of the same gender.

Wink's interest in celibacy is not because he would advance it, rather he seeks to disallow the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it cannot produce offspring. However, the Creator not did not simply enable men and women to be able to procreate, He very uniquely designed men and women to be able to have sex (unlike men with men), and for more reasons than just procreation (Sos; Prv. 5:19). God also declared that it was heterosexuals that were to be about it (Gn. 2:24), while prohibiting homosexuals from doing the same (Lv. 18:22). Wink even invokes Jesus singleness in advocating homosexuality for the present overpopulated planet, but Jesus was not simply single but completely celibate, and He upheld the laws which define lawful sexual relations, rejection of which are detrimental to both persons and planet! ^

Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative....In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!”

Actually, heterosexual marriage both normal and normative, according to the Creator who instituted and described marriage, and while being single and celibate certainly has it's benefits, the reasons for such in Scripture are not ecological but spiritual, as the chapter (1 Cor. 7) that Wink references makes clear. And if ecology and the health of the planet are his concern, than Christianity is the answer, as obedience to the Bible would drastically reduce the number of illegitimate births, as well as STD's, etc. And would save a LOT of money. However, Wink is sadly correct about homosexuality being able to keep the population in check, as over 25 million people (a half million Americans alone) have died due to AIDS, which initially flourished almost exclusively among homosexuals, and even today they are still the major carriers of such (among certain other diseases), as a percentage of the population. And if that means of reduction (including by heterosexual whoredom) is considered a beneficial preference, then Wink must also favor plagues. ^

13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example,” "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."(Deut. 25:11, 12). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!”

Continuing his attempt to find penalties that are no longer in force for Old Testament laws in order to justify his abrogation of moral laws upon which they were based, Wink now appeals to respect for life as a reason for why a commendation might be given today for the women's action, rather than punishment. However, endangering a man's ability to reproduce is an attack on life, and just as there are laws today that punish the use of excessive force in breaking up a fight, so here such is done under the Old Testament, in accordance with the priority placed on reproduction. This law is also likely only dealing with the man in a common brawl (“when men strive together”), not in an actual life threatening situation. While today the women might find more mercy, this would be in accordance with the New Testament (as is seeking to save, not kill, homosexuals), which would still disapprove any unnecessary actions that could forever render a man sterile, while being sympathetic to her motive. But what Wink really seeks is to negate the basic moral laws of the Bible, and to make the Bible bow down to the modern worlds ever morphing morality, whatever that may be. ^

14. “The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.”

Wink's carefully worded charges must be carefully considered, and in responding i will reiterate some what was said previously in regards to slavery . The slave owners who did such things that Wink rightly condemns did just what Wink here has done, that of using tolerated practices as the ideal, when in reality the laws regarding slavery were regulatory of an economic institution that pervaded ancient cultures, and the laws given by Moses established better treatment, as a step toward bringing the Israelites more into line with the transcendent moral law, which ideal the outworking of the New Testament would work toward. Regarding concubines, Winks first two references say nothing about slaves, nor was having concubines ever commanded, and they were not to be mere“ sexual toys,” while in Wink's latter reference (and in some others) they were called wives (cf. Dt. 21:10-14). And as those that were stated to have concubines usually were men that were well off (and part of the glory of kings), most likely it was considered an honor to be part of such a such a household, rather than being a poor wife.

All in all, this was not modern culture, which also must be kept in mind when dealing with the subject of slavery, which was not a monolithic institution, and slavery in the Bible is not to be seen by it's American and European extremes. See link here for an extensive examination of this. Yet it did exist in the Bible because it was an established institutionalized practice basic to the economic system of the culture of that time, and as such it is regulated, in which the Law moderated the practices that men were doing until the time when society could be persuaded of the highest standard. That highest standard is manifest in such places as when the church was an organic community, as in Acts 4:34-35, in which "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." And the apostles themselves would sometimes be physically worse off than slave laborers (1 Cor. 4:9-13).

While the early community was soon scattered by persecution (Acts 8:1-14), and later believers are said to have their own houses (1 Cor. 11:22. How else to learn to be good stewards?), this exampled just the opposite of classical slavery, and there is no doubt that if all of the culture turned to Christ there would have been no slavery (even the Roman church, which historically has hardly been the model of Christianity, taught against it). But although slavery was non existent when the church lived as an organic community, it had no political power to abolish institutional slavery, and the church itself would have been made up primarily by slaves (approx. 1 out of 4 persons in the Roman and Greek world were slaves). Nor did the primitive church engage in political activism, and opposition would have likely made it worse for the slaves and the ability of the primitive church to help them. Instead, slavery was dealt with as an unavoidable economic practice by requiring of the relative few believing slave owners, "give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven" (Col. 4:1), while mistreatment or threatenings were forbidden (Eph. 6:9), and the escaped slave Onesimus was to be received back as a brother, not a slave (Philemon v. 16). And Paul there expects the man to act even more graciously than what he required (v. 21). Moreover, slaves were encouraged to obtain freedom if they lawfully could get it (1Cor. 7:21). Such things as just and equal pay and brotherly acceptance and the ideal of freedom was superior to contemporary as well as latter day slavery. And in light of the clear teaching that there is no class (or racial) distinctions between slave or freeman (Gal. 3:28), and the constant teachings of loving one's brother as oneself, it would be up to the slave owner to reconcile how he could treat his servants as anything less than brothers, and as employees, as those that were worthy of just pay and free to obtain freedom as Paul exhorted, if they so desired. It is readily apparent, that if slaves were brothers, and we are called to wash each others feet, that this not only disallows mistreatment of those in one's employment and denial of freedom (in 1 Cor. 7:15 a man is even to let his unbelieving wife leave), but compels brother acceptance and treatment, by both parties. On a practical level this would have owner and employees pray and eat together, and essentially work together (according to their positions) for the ultimate goal of furthering Jesus work. Rather than bringing about radical change by force and revolt, the teachings of the New Testament required a radical change of the treatment of slaves, that of acceptance as brothers, with freedom from forced servitude being part of the goal. And as servants themselves, the apostles exhorted their Christians brothers who were slaves to realize who they were in Christ (sons of God and heirs of the kingdom) and to work as unto the LORD. But again, to slaves Paul wrote, “if thou mayest be made free, use it rather” (1 Cor. 7:21).

When the church (or a form of it) itself later (wrongly) became a civil power, it worked to make the condition of slaves better, such as by granting the right of asylum in churches for fleeing slaves, and automatically granting emancipation to any slave whose master forced him to work on Sundays. But the church at large had itself became increasingly apostate, taking upon the form and often the means of the Empire in which it found itself, suppressing knowledge of the Bible among the common people (the very type that heard Jesus gladly: Mk. 12:37), even using the sword of men to defend and expand the faith, while exalting itself above the Bible which forbids such (by the church). It was only as the effects of the Reformation were slowly realized, and a country was founded which enabled more political change and personal freedom, and a people progressively got more back to the Bible and it's adulterated meanings that the outworking of the gospel would have it's fuller effect in regards to national prohibition of slavery. The realization of the Great Awakening in the 1800's resulted in evangelical Christians becoming the driving force behind the abolition movement in America. Meanwhile Christian William Wilberforce labored for years to outlaw slavery in England.

In this battle, as today, the difference was manifested between churches who sought to equate a tolerated practice with the highest standard of the moral law, versus those who sought to more fully implement the New Testament's essential spiritual equality and holy brotherly love, as well as the the intrinsic racial equality of all men, on the most practical level. Yet in this Wink and other homosexual apologists further manifest their confusion by equating the abolition of slavery with acceptance of homosexuality, when in reality it is just the opposite. Prohibiting slavery, a practice that God never commands, forbids subjecting a man due to his race or economic status, not morality (which is the basis for lawful prohibitions), while homosexuality, which God clearly forbids, outlaws a perverse behavioral practice that has been and is destructive to nations, and is intrinsically wrong regardless of race or economic status, as are other sexual sins. Yet again, according to Wink's basis for morality, he cannot define anything as immutably right or wrong. ^

The Problem of Authority

Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding,....What is our principle of selection here?”

This question was basically answered here, that being the manifest distinctions between classes of laws, while in contrast Wink relies upon the rejection of the principle of sound exegesis.

...virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores..intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy .. naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions),... And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage,...And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it.”

they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [the Scriptures], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pt. 3:16).

Here Wink gives somewhat of a summation of the world of Wink, where he decrees what constitutes Bible teaching, but which he distorts, as in the case of celibacy, prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, unmarried (as he presumed) sex with women, exogamy, concubinage, and treatment of women as property. The professor must resort to such misrepresentation of Biblical teaching, including confusing obvious categories of law, and equating Old Testament tolerance of practices with New Testament teaching, as he seeks to reject the moral authority of Scripture where it conflicts with his promotion of perversion. He spends most of his time with culturally applied laws, in order to disallow the transcendent moral laws upon which they were based. But which immutable laws clearly and unconditionally condemn homosexual relations, and which prohibition is confirmed under the New Testament. In this case, Wink once again appeals to current ecclesiastical social declension the Biblical teaching of divorce (which he somehow rightly, but inconsistently discerns is incontrovertible), in order to justify rejecting other explicit transcendent commands that hinder his travel on the broad road of destruction. ^

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices?”

The direct answer is because the levirate marriage was a cultural applied law based upon the general moral law that men and women are joined together to procreate (Gn. 1:28). While this command does not require all to be married, nor does it purpose sex to only be procreative, it is based upon the basic general command that sanctions sex only between husband and wife (contrary to Wink), with the practical purpose of sex being that of bearing children. The inability of some couples to do so is a result of the fall, and the levirate marriage helped to ensure that the women (whose barren state would more likely be due to the early death of her husband) could bear children if possible, and which was critical for the building of the nation of Israel. Under the New Covenant the nation and it's building is spiritual, yet the foundational basic law of Genesis (which was given before there was a nation), is transcendent, including the limitation of sex to married people of opposite genders, and it is within this type of basic immutable moral laws the injunction against homosexual relations belongs.

The broader answer to Wink's query is that while the “we” to whom Wink appeals most likely do not disagree with him, for the true child of God the "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" Psa 19:7), it being a self interpreting, spiritual and moral authority, which rewards sound exegesis (of (which Wink evidences he is ignorant of) in which the main and plain things are just that, while limiting the scope of disagreement in peripheral issues. And by which sound exegesis the classification of laws is evident, but which Wink must ignore here and elsewhere as he strives to disallow the the transcendent prohibition of homosexual relations. ^

Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed ...Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.”
While Wink's logic is sometimes arbitrary, and his exegesis is not governed by principals of sound exegesis, the laws of the Bible are all consistently based upon His manifest holiness, justice and wisdom, and are given or our benefit, which is realized insomuch as nations abide by them. In contrast, Winks doctrine is governed by it's goal of negating immutable laws that are contrary to his carnal mind desires and that of present day sensual society, with the deleterious effects of such ethos being increasingly evident.

Here, Mr. Wink requires an explicit command against polygamy when the New Testament specifically forbids such of clergy, and only deals with monogamous Christian marriage, yet Wink cannot provide one single explicit provision for homosexual marriage or affirmation of such (nor implicit for that matter, which attempts have been soundly refuted), while condemnations of it are. The reality is that if Wink were not so given over to deception he would realize why Christians reject polygamy, because contrary to Wink, the Bible does offer sexual ethics, and thus like him, the Mormons had to come up with “another revelation” and supreme authority in order to practice polygamy, as well as unBiblically war against the U.S. Army. ^

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law.”

Wink never fails to astonish us with his wonders. Or rather blunders, and his ignorance or willful deception here is of absolutely no surprise, that of rendering Gal. 5:3 to mean that not only are the moral laws of the Old Testament no longer binding, but even the apostolic writings of the New Testament themselves need have no authority (except the passages that Wink would misuse to support his unholy freedom), and instead, all morality is ultimately left up to subjective feelings! Therefore in the gospel according to Wink, we no longer live by the Word of God but solely by the impressions of men. Therefore, while both Testaments forbid adultery (etc.), if you “feel the Spirit leading you” and judge that it will not be harmful, then one can do so! However, the Spirit of the living God will have none of this blasphemy. He who wholly inspired the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16) did not waste His breath in so often reiterating the immutable moral laws of the Old Testament under the New. Therein it is made clear that while the Christian is not under the law in it's entirety as a means of salvation (which is the context of Gal. 5:3), and is not under the letter of the purely typological ones (such as washing, eating and liturgical feasts mentioned before), yet he is to fulfill the righteousness of the law (Rm. 8:4), which requires keeping such commands as “thou shalt not murder” or commit adultery not only according to the letter but to the fullest degree, that of the heart as well (1 Jn. 3:15). The texts which speaks of being led by the Spirit (Rm. 14) refer to obeying the spiritual and moral laws by the power and leading of the Spirit, not just in letter (where applicable), but according to their fullest scope, and in heart. The very book which Wink supposes gives him liberty from moral absolutes goes on to declare that “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like” — and which are manifest under the law — are works of the flesh, and contrary to the fruit of the Spirit, and “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” Gal. 5:19-21). Rather “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev 21:8). This assuredly will be Wink's tragic end, and he will have an abundance of company, and his punishment will be even worse as he works to deceived others, unless he repents and becomes one of the moral believing — if it is yet possible for him to do so. ^

Judge for Yourselves

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history.”

Wink falls into a soliloquy here, repeatedly reassuring himself (despite the obvious) that the Bible offers no principals of proper sexual activity (nor ethics of any other according to Wink's type of exegesis). He went on to espouse things like “integrity,” as if that could have any transcendent meaning to him.

The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.”

We should indeed avoid hypocrisy, and it would be hypocrisy indeed to rightly support freedom from a practice that enslaved men on the basis of their skin color (or other amoral aspect) while failing to oppose an immoral behavioral practice that is harmful to society no matter what their race, and which is actually form of sinful enslavement. And how can i love my brother if i do not warn them of a practice that is almost sure to seriously be detrimental to their (and other's) health and send them to an early grave? And which will surely send them, unrepentant, to an eternal Hell? “..if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand” (Ezek. 33:8). If the professor applied his own reproof, We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science,” he might realize that good science reveals homosexuality to be anatomically perverse and unhealthy. Neither is there any proof of innate homosexuality. (Nor can we justify our actions according to sinful inclinations, which all souls are born with.) ^

Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. .. it does not dominate ..., it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."

Consistent with his blindness, Wink even invokes Augustine's summation of Christian obedience, “Love God and do what you will” in support of (what ultimately is) objectively baseless moral reasoning, as if obedience to the laws of God were not the expression of love for Him, as the Bible declares it is (Mt. 22:36-40; Rm. 13:8, 9). And which was the meaning of Augustine's summation, who himself was called to repent from his life of disobedience to moral laws which Wink works to disallow! Having effectively cast the anchor of the Word of God, Wink sets men sailing with a compass that points whatever way seems reasonable to them. Which is south.

The pervasive idea that love makes right is itself perverse, as many things are doing out of love which are wrong, from the women who loved her children to death (by killing them) to the spreading of STD's, though i submit that most of that is done more out of lust than love. Love for God and His Word must come first if we are to love others to their real benefit (Phil. 1:9), especially eternally. Having effectively cast the anchor of the Word of God, Wink's world follow it's own compass, which is steadily drifting south.

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. “

(2 Cor 11:3-4) "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. {4} For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." “..ye might well bear with him” (v. 5)

(Jude 1:4) "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

The subtle professor has already strove to misrepresent Biblical teaching, and to confuse basic unchanging moral laws with the modifiable aspects of cultural laws, and to equate tolerated practices with New Testament intents, and to radically redefine it's teaching under grace to allow sexual immorality, with morality being determined according to the carnal reasoning of souls like Wink. Here he seeks to further this delusion by calling souls to determine proper sexual actions by what they determine is “loving,” as if Jesus command to love is not a command to obey ("If ye love me, keep my commandments": John 14:15), and that obedience is primarily defined by motive rather than by doctrine. This is consistent with his statement that the last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone,” when in fact the Holy Spirit does not consider it simply “advice,” but Scripture (2 Pt. 3:16), which is to be obeyed throughout generations. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."(1 Cor 14:37). “...I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed” (2 Cor. 12:21). ^

We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.

What Wink really seeks to do in his subjective sexual ethics class is to apply some morality to evil practices, so that the beast of homosexuality is tamed. To be consistent with Wink's strategy, one could generally sanction everything from bestiality or adulterous relationships to consensual recreational heroin use by requiring the practitioners be caring, honest, etc. But a society built upon such (they never are) would be doomed to an early grave. And if “the best interests of the other and of society as a whole” were Wink's real criteria (and he were of sound mind), then he would not support a practice that God prohibits, and aside from other reasons, has proven so deleterious to both individuals and society.

Wink whines about the ecclesiastical lack of acceptance of homosexuality, which is explicitly condemned, while he denigrates the Bible's injunctions against it as homophobia (which typical assertion would indicative of a neurosis if it were not in fact a typical psychological slur). And we can be sure if a strange and incurable disease was realized among people who communally took part in the Lord's supper (which is explicit commanded), than it would have been banned long ago and the infected people likely quarantined. While “monogamous” homosexual relationships — as rare as they seem to be — would be less destructive, homosexual relations are unconditional wrong and perverse by nature, as saith the LORD, and the penalty of a resultant (seemingly diabolical) virus is not new: “receiving in themselves [their own bodies] that recompense [just penalty] of their error which was meet [fitting]” (Rm. 1:27). ^

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV).

After some polemical pretense WInk tends to state what he wants more clearly, which is subjugation of the Scriptures to whatever his sensual desires. Here he misappropriates Luke 12:57: "Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" as to support his advocation of his ever morphing morality, unbound from immutable Biblical law and it's historic sexual morality, which he infers is the result of unthinking ignorance. But in reality that verse is reproving souls for exactly what Wink manifests and depends upon, that of a serious lack of spiritual discernment, in this case of of Biblical judgment. Such judgment came about as a result of souls doing exactly as the word of Wink advocates, that of every man doing that which was “right in his own eyes" Judges 17:6; 21:25), and which was exactly contrary to the Word of God, "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes" (Deu 12:8). But Wink does not even possess the Holy Spirit of the Bible, and what is right in Wink's eyes is perverse in the sight of almighty God. As my initial verses in this study describe Wink, so the professor is show to be of those who, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22). For "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise" (Prov 12:15). The counsel of the Scriptures does indeed provide sexual ethics, which condemns that which Wink promotes, and which the world is suffering for. ^

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well,..”

As shown before in first dealing with slavery, comparing basic moral laws with practices that, like Old Testament liberal divorce laws, were regulated in condescension of a culture till the fullness of God's revelation would work to restore God's original standard, invalidates Wink's analogy. For under the New Testament God's laws regarding sexual activity are unequivocally confirmed, and same gender relations are only condemned, not in any way sanctioned, while in contrast slavery is dealt with by their treatment being radically transformed, and set in contrast to the primitive ecclesiastical life, which changes awaited a time when the outworking of the Christian ethos of brotherly acceptance of men of all races (not immoral practices) could be instituted by the civil government. Equating civil rights based upon amoral aspects with rights for an immoral behavior is confusion, as is the practice Wink works to promote.

Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds.”

Winks charge that abolitionists found it hard to Biblically oppose slavery is due to his selective idea of what a Christian is (as he evidently even thinks he is one), while the guilt of those who actually sanctioned it (versus seeking to modify it as much as was wise) as God's perfect will is easily proven by the Bible, which again, requires brotherly acceptance of those under slavery and exhorts freedom be chosen from it. But worse than sanctioning the slavery of the Old Testament as God's original intent, Wink's guilt is that of justifying a sinful practice that is clearly condemned, as if race is the same thing as willful behavior! ^

With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.”

"Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." (Jude 1:8). "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom 1:32).

After much exegetical effort, Wink he pulls out all the stops as he strives for a climax for his demonic deception. As is seen increasingly in his polemic, Wink's real war is with Biblical moral absolutes and the moral authority behind them, which is ultimately almighty God. Basic rebellion against authority in general is mark of an anarchist, which is what Wink spiritual is, and an anti-Christ. Like as the devil seeks for himself, Wink will ascend man to the level of to the Most High. Here the professor proclaims a supreme hermeneutic that holds all dominion in reproach, by which he would disallow sexual prohibitions. However, it is God Himself who is the ultimate authority (which i think Wink could soon face), and it is God who establishes authority that has placed the man positionally over the women, and government over the people. Not that injustice or abuse by those in authority is in any way sanctioned, and Christians must sometimes peacefully disobey in instances where such would require clear compromise of their faith; but what Wink means by domination is principally that of the male being the head over the women, which is one the most foundational doctrines of the Bible, as it is patterned after the Divine order:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3).

It is no wonder then that the devil would seek to destroy this chain of authority, as submission to God is the antithesis of himself, (Is. 14:12-20), and who Wink willingly gives voice to! ^

What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction.“

This further blasphemy of Wink not only infers that Jesus condemned dominion in all it's forms, but that the Bible itself which mandates that such is to be corrected according to the word of Wink's spurious, sensual, society pleasing sense! Yet the LORD Jesus never denounced all authority, only it's abuse (which is not defined simply by having dominion), and even commanded that the scribes and the Pharisees be (conditionally) obeyed (Mt. 23:2). In the primitive organic community of the primitive church, where believers lived and shared all things as common, the apostles were manifest leaders, and their ordination of God was without question (Acts 2:41-47; 4:33; 5:1-10). To the church it is commanded, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Heb 13:17). This is necessary, as everybody has a head, nor does this militate against brotherly love and community, as those that are in authority are themselves to be servants, as well as received as brothers. Of course, the dreamer Wink who despises dominion would have to be excluded from such a New Testament body. Instead he is (sadly) fitted for the pit, the habitation of demons who rebelled with the devil (1 Pt. 3:19, 20). ^

We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.”

What Wink really wants is to make the Bible bow down to his own subjective authority by invoking a god to justify him, which god is one of his own, one that is more pleasing to him. And this is the beginning of the stages of degeneration revealed in Rm. 1, the last formal stage of which is widespread homosexual relations. As for the charge of worshiping the Bible by esteeming it as the highest spiritual authority, that is one that is found in the writings of others who exalt another “revelation” about the Bible (such as the Papacy). However, God and His wholly inspired word are inseparable, and one cannot love and obey the Bible without loving and obeying it's Author, and as the Scriptures make that our continual and ultimate goal. And whose revelation declares, Thou [God] hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name” (Ps. 138:2). Love for God and His word also requires seeking to practice sound exegesis, which is not reading into it what one desires (eisegesis), but stead requires doctrine to be soundly substantiated so it can be proven to be so (Lk. 23:27, 44; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; 28:23; 2 Tim. 2:15). But one cannot overall rightly receive God's word unless one has and is yielding to the Spirit of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16).

We in the church need to get our priorities straight.”

Wink is right that love must be the motivating factor, but his love is not love for the Scriptures as the ultimate authority — and which determines how love is expressed — rather in reality he presents Scripture as morally incoherent, and fickle and finite human reasoning as supreme. ^

We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality.”

The problem is not that the Bible is incoherent but that Wink craftily works to render it as such. The Scriptural consensus is that homosexual relations are clearly condemned, which in turn judges the “we” of Wink as sinful seducers, or those who are deceived by Wink's manner of exegetical skulduggery, by which he has worked hard to present the Bible as a revelation which cannot enable such a consensus, though to the N.T church and true lovers of Scripture such teachings were and are clear.

Wink culminates his doctrine of demons with an appeal to love and unity, but his love is not that of the Bible, which rejoices in the truth, including sexual (etc.) moral absolutes, but a love that requires rendering clear transcendent moral laws as ambiguous, and it is by this posture that he seeks unity. Wink's professorial plan is that while the Bible as the moral authority is held in suspension, the practices Wink promotes progress, till the cry of the men of Sodom becomes great, and those who oppose it (the “intolerant hate mongers”) are dealt with according to the one sided homosexual idea of tolerance (Gn. 19:4-9). In contrast to the love of Wink, the love of the Bible is not only sacrificially benevolent toward the lost who are “clothed in sin,” but it hates “even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jude . 23) which Wink would dress man in.

In summation, Wink has misrepresented Bible teaching, while also ignoring the progressive nature of revelation within Scripture, as he endeavors to negate it's moral authority as a whole. He has appealed to current ecclesiastical social declension in Biblical teaching while majoring in confusing Biblically manifest categories of law, in order to disallow the transcendent moral laws upon which they were based, as within these laws homosexual relations are clearly and unconditionally condemned. He finally invokes a wholly unBiblical hermeneutic by which he disallows all laws that manifest the authority of the man over the women, as well as authority in general. This is because his father is the devil, the father of lies and deception, who promotes the rebellion that Wink wily works. To his own damnation and of them that heed him!

(Jude 1:17-19) "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; {18} How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. {19} These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."

(Rev 20:10) "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

(Ezek 18:30-31) "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel [read America, etc.], every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. {31} Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

(2 Cor 12:21) "And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed."

(Acts 3:19) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

(Acts 20:21) “..repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

(1 Pet 2:24) "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ^

Home page: http://peacebyjesus.net