Reviews for Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law

The average rating for Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-05-30 00:00:00 Matt Laws This book could have been good, but it was marred with misinterpreted passages, inconsistency, and important counter-arguments being ignored (the latter being no surprise since in his look at counterarguments in Chapter 5, he explicitly declares from the onset that his positive case is so strong that no prooftexts of the other side could possibly refute it). Misinterpretation Things are read into passages that just aren't there. One would be his interpretation of Matthew 22:36-40 on page 28. That's where Jesus says the two greatest commandments of the law are to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. From there, he writes "love is defined by law." But that passage (or the passage Jesus quotes) don't define what love is. He's saying that if you love God and your neighbor, you will obey the law. But he's reasoning it in reverse. All that the passage says is, if you follow the law, you will love, not the converse of that (being that if you love, you will follow the law). Similarly, when looking at the practical benefits of applying the Law to out governments, he looks at Deuteronomy 25:13-15), which is about using just measures and weights and not ripping people off. Somehow, this prevent deficit spending, because government (which probably wasn't even a thing back then) was totally what God meant even though He didn't say it in words... Another one worth noting is his argument that Exodus 30:15 would mean that the government couldn't unfairly tax the rich. The passage required all people, poor and rich, to make a one-time, half-sheckle payment when Moses called a census of the Israelites. First off, it's never a good idea to base an entire doctrine on a single passage that dealt with a one-time event that didn't even directly deal with that doctrine. In fact, it's inexcusable. Second, although God didn't try to make Israel into a communist utopia, that census is about the only time God didn't distinguish between rich an poor in the Old Testament. The poor were allowed to give pigeons and doves instead of expensive livestock as sacrifices because they were poor (Leviticus 5:7, for example). Debtors (i.e. the poor) were freed from their debts (to the rich) every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1). Farmers were to leave parts of their farms unharvested so the poor could take some of their crops to live on (Exodus 22:23). People never really even owned their own property because at the jubilee every 49 years, property went back to its previous owners. A lot of what Gentry calls the "rights" of the rich are probably among those things (private ownership of land, being repaid debt except when the debtor is bankrupt) that the Old Testament did not protect at all. INCONSISTENCY As far as inconsistency goes, we never really are told what parts of the Old Testament Law are applicable today. Initially, it is assumed that all of it is except for that which the New Testament explicitly says is no longer binding. But then he introduces the concept of "ceremonial law," laws which were only in place to point to Jesus. However, the Bible doesn't explicitly make such distinction. So how do we know what a "ceremonial law" is? When working within the framework of the Law being for Israel, but in it being much that can be applied to humanity at large, this isn't that much of an issue. We can see the thematic and symbolic meaning o random and seemingly arbitrary laws about cleanliness or regulations that to us just don't make sense but would have an ancient community really well (since God certainly knew what He was doing). But if you're whole point is that the Law as a whole wasn't just for Israel, it's kind of problematic to then say that we can dismiss "ceremonial laws" without the Bible ever telling us that we can, or what those even are... IGNORING COUNTER-ARGUMENTS In addressing some passages that people point to to say that the Law isn't directly applicable today, he conveniently leaves out Galatians 3:23-25, which is kind of like arguing for the right of women to be pastors without addressing 1 Timothy 2:11-15. I get, it's a small book, but that's a really important passage (as are some others that he doesn't address). When looking at one opponent of his ideas, he quotes someone who says "The list of criminals awaiting execution is long: homosexuals, Baptists, swindlers, and gatherers of sticks on the Lord's Day."Gentry's response: "He offered no documentation of this charge." Rather than dealing with the issues, Gentry just writes it off as if the guy was just making stuff up. But surely someone with a doctorate in theology knows that isn't true...So I will give documentation for the charge. Homosexuals being executed? See Leviticus 20:13. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. Homosexual sexual behavior is a sin, and God could certainly command no mercy for those who do it, as He did for Israel at the very least. But it is something that would carry over under Gentry's ideas here (same as the death penalty for all murderers, as he later lauds). Gatherers of sticks on the Lord's Day? Well, technically, that's not in the Law. If we were to follow the Law, we'd worship on the Sabbath, which is the day before (Saturday, not Sunday). But when we do follow the Law, he certainly would be executed (Exodus 31:14; Numbers 15:32-36). This one is a little trickier because many Christians (including myself) do see the Sabbath being made no longer a requirement in the New Testament (which is not directly said about stoning homosexuals). Whatever the case, that's what the opponent had in mind. As for Baptists, that's obviously not in the Law. That was probably more of a shot at the "reformers" and the stuff that happened during the reformation. When so-called Christians formed theocracies, a lot of people "including those who dared to suggest that baptism wasn't for infants) were murdered in the name of God and the sate by people who claimed to be God's children (following in the footsteps of the Catholic Church they split from). I don't about the comment about swindlers; as far as I know thieves just had to pay back what was stolen, plus 20%, and then make a sacrifice at the temple. But there might have been something. Either way, Gentry just ignored a totally relevant claim bout what following the Law would entail (even if not everything the opponent said was totally on the mark). OTHER THINGS The ending section, on the practical benefits of what he calls theonomy, is very mixed. On the one hand, since God's Law is obviously good and just, it is indeed good and just. But at the same time, I think overestimates the positive change. He says we could get rid of the prison system if we followed the rules of just recompense in the Old Testament (eye for an eye, restitution + 20% for theft). But what about all the things that weren't issues 3000 years ago that the Old Testament Law doesn't address (because they weren't issues back then). What about treason, or counterfeiting, or voter fraud, or things that just aren't mentioned specifically and that don't amount to simply theft or assault? Surely we would need prisons for some things (or something in addition to the Old Testament code). He also says that the implementation of the Old Testament Law in America is what it would take for a large Christian revival. It must precede revival, he says. But, how can you possibility expect to implement things that unbelievers find intolerable if there isn't first a massive revival. Do we really think that a majority of Americans are God-fearing Christians? I wouldn't think so for one second. The section also ends up feeling like a bit of a "ra ra, Amurica is a Christian nation!" rally. And there's glaring issue with this section: a lot of the benefits only work if the OT Law is not only implemented, but people actually follow it faithfully. Why would we expect a bunch of godless people to follow God's law when they don't follow the laws we have now? Conclusion It fell short, and kind of even left me wondering exactly what he even meant :/ Fortunately, Kenneth Gentry has other books, and at least one, Before Jerusalem Fell, is really good, so it's not all bad.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-07-18 00:00:00 Edward Papesh A primer on the use of God's Law today. Not exhaustive, not rich. Very basic. The page format makes this less than a few hours read.