Brandon Ambrosino wrote a much-derided article suggesting that Jesus was simply wrong about homosexuality. To Ambrosino, the text accurately depicts Jesus’ incorrect views. Poor Jesus wasn’t aware of his biases and limitations.
Matthew Vines wrote a book without saying that Jesus is wrong, but that we simply misunderstand Jesus and the text.
The revisionists are jousting.
Either the text means what it says and is incorrect (Ambrosino); or the text doesn’t mean what it appears to say and is correct (Vines). These are mutually exclusive claims.
For the revisionist account to proceed, one of them must be right. The other must be wrong. But if the revisionists can’t agree on which revisionist account to use in order to make their case for affirming homosexuality, which revisionist is right?
Or, since they can’t both be right. How about the third option? They are both wrong.
I’ll take option three, along with 2000 years of settled church consensus. The revisionists can’t agree on which revisionist account to accept because one cancels the other out. Perhaps it’s the revisionist accounts that should be rejected.
The issue of the Bible and homosexuality is simple: You accept what the Bible says or you don’t. We can thank the revisionists for helping us reach this most basic conclusion.