Jesus, God’s Name, and Gay People

Every day, there is a set of web comics I read. I even have an application setup on a server at home that aggregates these comics on to one page to make viewing these comics easier and faster. One such comic is Player vs. Player, one I’ve read for years. While the strip is consistently funny, it is occasionally a little off color, and sometimes downright offensive. One example actually spans two days. The first day (warning: this is likely to offend) is where the offense started. For those of you that didn’t click the link (Trust me. You’re not missing anything) the last panel has a talking cat taking The Lord’s name in vain. As can be expected, some PvP readers were offended and wrote in to let the author know, which led to the second and possibly more offensive of the two strips (This one is "safe" and this post depends on your knowledge of it). Over the next few paragraph’s, I’d like to explain why Scott Kurtz is wrong.

First, let’s start with Scott’s doctrinal statements. The first statement is that God doesn’t care if someone takes His name in vain if "it’s [just] a comic strip." The Old Testament is quite clear and seriously God takes such infractions. God felt the sanctity and respect of His name so important, that it listed at least twice in the first five books of the Bible (Exodus and Deuteronomy), forever etched as forbidden in what we know as The Ten Commandments. God takes His name so seriously, that he codified a rule not to violate it in what was the foundation for Jewish law, set of constraints that are just as valid today as they were so many years ago. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we see God evaluating the source or intent of violations of this law before meting out justice. It is always punished.

Scott’s second assertion in the final panel is that God is "cool" with people being gay. Not only is that misleading, it is downright wrong. We see in Romans 1:26-32 that God is not "cool" with this lifestyle:

(26) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, (27) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (29) being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; (32) and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Paul here is absolutely clear that homosexuality ("degrading passions", "women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural", "the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts") is a sin ("receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.") What, exactly, the "due penalty" is is, at this point, irrelevant. What is important is that Paul clearly spells out that God is not "cool" with homosexuality. Rather, He considers a sin that will punished along with wickedness, greed, deceit, disobedient to parents, etc.

On both these doctrinal statements, Scott is dead wrong. Of course, he is likely to argue that he’s making a joke, but I hardly think condoning sin, even as a joke, is the right thing to do. In fact, verses 30-32 above would probably even apply to such an attitude.

Other than the doctrinal errors, Scott makes another error. In the first panel in which "Jesus" appears, he intimates that God (Jesus is God. You know that, right? : ) can’t really get all worked up about this little thing if (in Scott’s view) there is even anything wrong with it, as there are more serious issues in the world (i.e., "people are dieing"). The problem with that statement is two fold.

First, it implies that there are degrees of sin, and that we shouldn’t worry about X until Y is eradicated. The Bible is clear that if you break even one "little" rule, you’re guilty of breaking the whole law, and, thus, stand guilty before a perfect God.

Second, we can’t simply write off one bad thing because a different "badder" thing is happening over there. We shouldn’t ignore either. We should do what we can to correct what we can. Does John Tuttle’s email to Scott preclude him from helping prevent people from dying around the world? Not at all. Since John was able to email Scott, he probably lives in a safe environment, not in the midst of the people dieing. Maybe John is in a wheel chair and can’t lay down in front of a tank, or carry medicine to refugees in Africa. He can, though, give money to organizations who can do those things. He can also email errant web comics while his bank account is automatically drafted to make said donation.

I think John Tuttle’s response, while I haven’t seen the actual text, is appropriate. Scott, though, has shown himself to be pretty flippant when it comes to people offended by his irreverant takes on Christianity, so I have no reason to expect him to understand the frustration of some of his readers. In defending his "humor," though, he makes some statements that I can’t let go uncorrected. Of course, if you’re reading a web comic for your theology, then there are deeper issues. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to make a public response to the awful theology Scott presented.