Gwyneth Paltrow: Theologian
We can all breathe a sigh of relief now, my friends. The cultural battle waging across the globe on the issue of homosexuality can finally be ended. A theologian has spoken wisdom to us all, and, not surprisingly, this theologian who no doubt studied God’s Word in its original languages, read it thoroughly to see its overarching themes of holiness before a just God, and who surely speaks with an inspired voice, came to the conclusion that boyboysex and girlgirlsex is okey-dokey with God.
Who is this eminent voice of measured scriptural authority before whom we should all willingly beat our swords of divine truth into plowshares of earthly claptrap? None other than one whose initials can stand for Gay Pride: Gwyneth Paltrow.
Yes, the excellent actress Ms. Paltrow decided she should join my vocal in-crowd on an issue for which God is decidedly and vocally out: homosexuality. Writing in her GOOP Newsletter today, Ms. Paltrow, after certainly studying scripture closely and seeking the very heart of God, found the notion of the Bible’s condemning homosexuality “foreign.”
Ha ha ha ha ha.
I love it. Once again my lies on earth are working. How can homosexuality be wrong when homosexuals can be so nice? We all, like Ms. Paltrow, know homosexual people, and they are our friends, coworkers, and neighbors. In this case, can’t we love both the sin and the sinner?
I do, of course.
Theological meanderings such as Paltrow’s are common, but to maintain acceptance of homosexuality on the belief that the concept of homosexuality being condemned in the Bible is “foreign” reveals that it is the Bible itself that is foreign to Paltrow.
The Bible, like it or not, condemns homosexuality in numerous places. I wonder which part Paltrow finds “foreign”? The part where the Bible says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God? Or the part where the Bible says that homosexuality is a perversion? Or the part where the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God?
Yes, pretty Gwyneth, who like most of her persuasion apparently has never read the Bible, finds the very concept of the Bible condemning an abomination to be foreign. And she worries that this concept is “used to justify so much judgement [sic] and separation in our society.”
Tell me, my pretty, does it worry you that “concepts” condemning murder tend to justify judgment and separation of murderers?
Really? Because murderers are condemned in the very same Biblical passages alluded to above.
Do you see, my servants, what is happening here? Ms. Gwyneth doesn’t really know or care what the Bible says. She just knows what she wishes to be true. I’ve said before that everyone has a line drawn in the moral sand, beyond which even they find judgment and separation of offenders justified.
God has his line. Gwyneth has her line. All of God’s chillens have a line.
What I love to see is human beings exercising human wisdom to reason their way to moving God’s line over to their line. It’s easy to do, really. All one must do, as other writers on Paltrow’s GOOP page do, is make the Bible something other than God’s inerrant word.
A mighty wise Episcopal priest named Cynthia Bourgeault, for example, sees the Bible as a:
“symphony (sometimes a cacophony!) of divinely inspired human voices bearing witness to an astonishing evolutionary development in our human understanding of God.”
Get it? We were dumb before to believe homosexuality to be sinful in God’s sight, but with evolutionary development in our understanding we come to see that God didn’t really mean what he said. Because, according to the mighty wise Bourgeault, “God reveals Godself in time, through process and dialogue, not in unchanging monolithic statements.”
So according to the might wise Bourgeault, it is only a matter of time before we have enough process and dialogue with “Godself” (who seems remarkably similar to Bourgeaultself) to find that murder is not really a sin.
No, really, why not?
To Ms. Paltrow’s credit, she does include, somewhat reluctantly and only with an asterisk signaling her reasoning “to include as many perspectives as possible on this issue,” a correct view by Dr. John Stott. I urge you to not read Mr. Stott’s view; let me summarize his views as he did in his conclusion:
Here, then, are three truths which Jesus affirmed: (1) heterosexual gender is a divine creation; (2) heterosexual marriage is a divine institution; and (3) heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention. A homosexual liaison is a breach of all three of these divine purposes.
I wonder why Ms. Paltrow didn’t mention Jesus’ view on the subject. Or the Apostle Paul’s? Or any other of those “inspired human writers” the mighty wise Ms. Bourgeault writes off?
Maybe because she has never read those views?
Ms. Paltrow ends her schooling of God by wondering:
What does is actually say in the bible [sic] that will cause some people to be upset by my line of thinking?
Yes, what does it actually say, Ms. Gwyneth?
Ha ha ha ha ha.