The gay christian movement’s favorite cliche has had the proverbial rug pulled from under its illogical and well as unbiblical footing.

One Bad Monkey, in his post “What Jesus said about homosexuality” intelligently lays out why the gay christian movement is infected with a deficient christology.

“If the gay church is going to proclaim its Christian faith to any extent as a foundational component of its convictions, a better understanding by the gay church of who Jesus is and why He came would appear to be in order.  Otherwise, I’m afraid I’m not going to be convinced of anything by its claiming to know what Jesus did or didn’t say.”

Failure to understand the true nature of Christ, leads one to create a false mission for Christ. Such is the case with the usage of the gcm’s “Jesus said nothing” defense. As we have argued before.  It is pure spiritual thievery to “compartmentalize” Jesus. Jesus, in the gay christian thought, is but a singular operative, some sort of emancipated son, divorced from both God and the Word (logos). Gay christianity intentionally allows Jesus do, say and think what he wants to without regard to the rest of the Bible or the will of the Father. Of course, this tactical position serves to bolster their chief claim: silence equals consent. Scripture, in contrast to gcm claims, is clear about the unity of God, Christ and the entire logos. (1 John 5:7; John 17:21,22).

In the beginning was the Word (logos) and the Word (Christ) was with God and the Word (Christ) was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. –John 1:1,14

Thus, from a proper approach and application of just John 1 verses 1 and 14, we can sum up the gay christian movement’s use of the “Jesus silence defense” as:

1. A faulty concept of Christ leads to
2. Deficient knowledge of Christ which leads to
3. An inaccurate portrayal of Christ which results in
4. Erroneous teaching and lifestyle

OBM points out  three very obvious contrasting truths that, if the gay christian movement possesed a proper perspective of Christ, they would quickly abandon their fig leaf defense:

First,the gay church assumes the idea of a subject being unimportant just because it wasn’t mentioned by Jesus is foreign to the gospel writers themselves.  At no point did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John say their books should be elevated above the Torah or, for that matter, any writings yet to come.

Second, the gay church assumes the gospels are more comprehensive than they really are. Not only do the gospels have no more authority than the rest of scripture, they’re no more comprehensive, either.  That is, they don’t provide all we need to know by way of doctrine and practical instruction.

Third, the gay church presumes to know all of what Jesus said.  Yet the gospels don’t profess to be a complete account of Jesus’ life or teachings.  Whole sections of His early years are omitted; much of what he did and said remains unknown. ”

If the gay christian movement truly desired to accurately reflect the Jesus of the Bible, they would not just co-opt his teachings on love, but demonstrate his teachings of fidelity and obedience.