The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum What do you know of Rev Peter Gomes

I know he is Baptist and is on the faculty of Harvard, but what else?

Rev Peter Gomes.

He is gay. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I saw that when I browsed. Specifically, I want to know his position on the Bible? Through my browsing he appears to be into the social gospel; talks about the Bible as containing ethical stories; and doesn't appear to talk about the redemptive nature of the Bible; iow, he talks around it in nice words.

Now, how about Benjamin Jowett?

He does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Peter Gomes writes in The Good Book, All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own." Gomes continues: "The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the Gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they know of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness and exploitation. These vices, as we know are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem," of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it."

Benjamin Jowett was a liberal and accused (later exonerated) of being a heretic by the Anglican Church for his book, On the Interpretation of Scripture. Look here.

He is a stark raving liberal. I had to read his book The Good Book in which he, among other things, excused his sin of homosexuality. I can't remember the whole thing, but it was definitely liberal.

I had to write a book review of The Good Book in college. I dug it out of my memory box for you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Granted, I would react stronger to it today than I did back in 1999, and I would disagree with some of the things I said at the time, but here are some helpful parts of the paper:

he says there are three main dangers with how we handle the Bible:
- worship of the Bible ("bibliolatry")
- worship of the text ("overbearingly" literal approach)
- worship of the culture (Bible is made to fit culture of the interpreter's day)

he details how the Bible has been abused by many to marginalize social groups, such as women, different races, Jews, and homosexuals

here is how I critiqued Gomes:
- Gomes says the Bible is a public book, yet he decries how few people possess the tools to interpret the Bible on their own- Gomes does not adequately answer how these two things work together
- Gomes makes the accusation that those who would take the Bible literally or as absolute truth are guilty of "worshipping the Bible"
- Gomes calls sola Scriptura a "temptation" to fall into- he confuses the doctrine of sola Scriptura with the faulty view that commentaries, devotionals, etc. are bad
- I gave Gomes credit for saying that, just because the Bible was used to endorse the slave trade up until the late 1800s, it doesn't mean that the Bible endorses that kind of slavery
- Gomes talks a lot about anti-Semitism- now I would have critiqued this section by saying that Jesus is the only way for salvation, and those that believe in Him prove to be "true Jews" but at the time I was a dispy who thought the Jew did not need to receive Christ...
- I strongly disagreed with the chapter on homosexuality- the whole thing was a violation of his own warning about worshipping culture! The Chronicle of Higher Education asked Gomes about this, to which he replied "Of course it's self serving! What a ridiculous observation." Gomes basically says the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, such as homosexuality only being a sin when heterosexuals engage in it. He also says that those that disagree "suffer from homophobia"

I ended with a quote I liked from an article called "The Agnostic's Expositor" by Douglas D. Webster, found in the April 7, 1997 issue of Christianity Today:

Joe & Marie,

Thanks for your input.

Do you know whether or not Gomes affirms the diety of Jesus? Is it explicity? Just tactfully implicit? Or does he denies it?

It appears from what I have read is that he nuances everything in that a liberal Christian sees him as believing in the true Jesus (the work on the Cross), but conservatives, like myself, sees him as heretical in his views regarding the Bible. But then, we get accuse of not believing in Jesus alone, we are bibliophiles. Aaaargh.

Not sure. My books (i.e. Karkkainen, Hodson, and King) covering liberals and Christology don't mention him.

I don't understand why we call these guys liberals and not apostates "in their doctrine."

Joe, I ask myself the same thing.

Isn't that what "liberal" means?

Joe,


My guess is this is because "Liberals" are apostate and heretical with nearly every orthodox Christian doctrine in existence. This is especially true for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Then, there are "simple" apostates in one doctrine or another. So, IMO - to merely call a Liberal an apostate is in many ways an understatement and an insult to those in the church for whom there might still be hope for repentance. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Well J. Gresham Machen argued (Christianity and Liberalism) that thoroughgoing liberalism is an entirely different religion than the historic Christian faith, and so should not be called a form of Christianity. However, most people do not equate liberalism with apostates, but rather with just not being a conservative "Christian."

This is why I stressed the phrase "in their doctrine," as I do see hope for repentance for the persons (as God wills) who embrace such apostate doctrine. However, it still would not be incorrect to call their doctrine apostate doctrine as it differs from historic Christianity.

Joe,


I certainly agree with Dr. Machen that liberalism is not Christian and this book belongs in every Christian's library. There is a public perception that liberalism is just another branch, yet a more "enlightened" form of Christianity.

Dr. Machen's entire book may be read or downloaded here:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/

IMO, liberalism is just another worldly "works" religion clothed in Christian semantics. This is precisely what makes it so dangerously deceitful.

Maybe we should call them Apostate Liberals in order to clearly distinguish them from other less dangerous and more benign apostates and heretics. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24