On May 26th 2023, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into law The Anti-Homosexual Act. This law not only criminalizes homosexual acts but the promotion of homosexuality itself. The act has overwhelming support in Uganada’s government, having been passed by its parliament by a vote of 348-1. Outside of Uganda, however, the law has been severely criticized. Since June has been declared “Pride Month” the timing of the act’s passing could not be more offensive to western progressives. In the United States, The Anti-Homosexual Act has been condemned by both liberal and conservative politicians. Republican senator Ted Cruz, a professed Christian, tweeted that the law was “an abomination”. Russell Moore, the Editor in Chief of Christianity Today, wrote that the law is both repulsive and unchristian. Are these Christian public figures correct in their assessment of The Anti-Homosexual Act? Right or wrong, the chances of such a law being passed, or even brought to a vote, in the United States Congress are close to zero. Nevertheless, because of the importance of Bible’s teaching on sexuality, American Christians need to be prepared to respond to criticisms of The Anti-Homosexual Act with biblical fidelity. The responses of Cruz and Moore are prime examples of how not to do so.
Cruz was quick to take to Twitter to condemn Uganda’s new law, calling it a human rights abuse.
After prominent Baptist pastor Tom Ascol responded to Cruz by citing Leviticus 20, Cruz doubled-down with a perplexing citation of Jesus’ response to trap question from the disciples of the Pharisees about the Roman poll tax (as recorded in Matthew 22) and straw man argument about another crime that warranted the death penalty in Israel during Old Testament times.
1/x Pastor, I don’t know you, but I honor your ministry.
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2023
Your biblical analysis is in error. Jesus told us to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
We are talking the laws of man, not the Old Testament laws of God.
Do you really… https://t.co/R7pxogJwap
2/x Leviticus also tells us: “For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 5, 2023
Should the govt execute every child who’s disrespectful to his parents?
That ignores Grace & the New Testament. As our Savior taught us,
“Let he that is without sin…
What should have been very obvious to Cruz, especially after being reminded of Leviticus 20, is that a government-mandated death penalty for homosexual acts cannot be considered a human rights abuse. This is because human rights come from God and God himself mandated the death penalty for homosexual acts in Old Testament Israel. That God did so in that nation at that time does not mean that modern, secular nations are obliged to criminalize homosexuality or make it a capital offense. Nevertheless, the law Uganda enacted cannot be considered a human rights abuse by biblical standards. Cruz erred, and painfully so, by using the term “abomination” to condemn the Ugandan law. This is because the English term “abomination” is precisely what the translators of the King James Bible (history’s most popular English Bible) used to translate the Hebrew word תּוֹעֵבַה in Levitcus 13:20. In that verse God calls homosexual acts an “abomination”. How, therefore, can a law criminalizing homosexuality be summarily condemned as an abomindable human rights abuse?
It can not and Tom Ascol knows it. Cruz, on the other hand, has a very strange view of what Jesus meant when he said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. In the context of Matthew 22, Jesus is gave shrewd answer to a group of men who were trying to put Jesus on the horns of a dilemma: say it is wrong to pay Caesar’s poll tax and provoke the Roman authorities or say it is right to pay Caesar’s poll tax and provoke the Jewish people (who resented Roman rule). Jesus’ wise answer allowed him to provoke neither group. Somehow, Cruz has concluded that Jesus was making a didactic statement about a separation between of the laws of God and the laws of man.
If Cruz’s application of Matthew 22 was correct, wouldn’t Uganda be Caesar and its anti-homosexuality law the Roman poll tax? Wouldn’t “rendering unto Caesar”, no matter how unpleasant, be obeying the Ugandan law? Cruz’s application is, of course, not correct. It’s completely out of left field. The comprehensive New Testament teaching about government, even secular government, is that government is an authority ordained by God. Uganda’s government, like all other legitimate governing authorities, does not (Romans 13) bear the sword for nothing. As long as a government’s laws do not conflict with biblical morality, then those laws should be respected. Cruz’s misunderstanding of the Bible and government is alarming, all the more so because he is a prominent Christian government official. Sadder yet is Cruz’s attempt to use the scripture about putting to death those disrespectful to their parents to trap Tom Ascoll in a dilemma of his own. Cruz actually adopts the posture of the very hypocrites who tried to trip Jesus up in Matthew 22. Cruz, himself the son of a preacher, is in desperate need of Biblical correction.
Enter Russell Moore. Instead of correcting Cruz’s egregious misapplication of the scriptures, Moore took the opportunity to lend support to Cruz. In June 1 article entitled, “Don’t Pretend the Ugandan Homosexuality Law is Christian,” Moore refers to the controversy caused by Cruz’s tweet and takes the same straw man approach in condemning The Anti-Homosexuality Act. Moore writes, “To cite such passages of the old-covenant civil law as a mandate for a civil state outside that covenant is a misinterpretation that doesn’t fit with any historic, apostolic teaching of Christianity.” It’s tempting to argue that Moore is actually wrong in his assertion about historic Christianity. There have been theonomic postmillenial sects of Christianity that believe modern civil authorities are mandated to adopt Old Testament laws. Those sects are wrong but they have existed. Are Cruz’s critics and the defenders of the Anti-Homosexuality Act arguing for such mandates? Tom Ascol certainly isn’t. There is a difference between citing an Old Testament civil law and arguing for its mandated adoption across all governments. Cruz and Moore aren’t stupid men. They are smart enough to see this difference. So, one is left to wonder if they are honest enough to affirm it.
Ultimately, Russell Moore engaged in the same “mandate” argument that Cruz did. He was wrong to straw-man. Moore was right about how thing, however. The Anti-Homosexuality law is not Christian. It’s Ugandan. Uganda is a sovereign nation that is free to make its own laws. It made one that its leaders felt addressed its needs. Imagine how wealthy western Christians like Cruz and Moore look to Ugandans, hurling insults at Uganda from across the Atlantic in a nation under the rainbow shadow of Pride Month. Almost 10% of Ugandans who live in Urban areas are infected with HIV while nearly 100% of American Target stores are festooned with decorations and products which celebrate sodomy. Ugandans are trying to curb homosexual influence on children. In the land of Cruz and Moore, drag queens read to children in public libraries. Do Cruz and Moore think their criticisms are going to be taken seriously by Ugandans?
Their grandstanding is obviously aimed at American progressives. All I hear from them is “Don’t blame us or the Bible, we Christians are just as shocked as you are.” They are likely more concerned with their seats at the American political table than they are about the fate of Ugandans. That’s not to say that they couldn’t have an honest problem with Uganda’s law. For one thing, it prohibits freedom of expression. By prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality, Uganda is abridging free speech. It’s easy to see how an American politician and ethicist (which Moore used to be) could have a problem with that. That’s not the problem they expressed. They misrepresented God’s word instead.
For more on Ascol’s interaction with Cruz:
*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.
