A refutation of Dr. Walter Wink: Homosexuality and the Bible
A Biblical response to the pernicious Professor Wink, who wily works "wresting" (2nd Peter 3:16) words of God, while whispering, “Yea, hath God said..” (Genesis 3:1).
(Romans 1:22) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..”
Walter Wink
(pictured right) 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” (Proverb 12:15).
Unlike some “homoapologists,” 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.
“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.
