Love the Christian. Hate the Greed.
Posted on July 8th, 2007 by catalyst into the City Boobie Church categoryAccording to the local media, our dear little City Bible is holding a conference next month dedicated to helping homosexuals. The conference, called Love Won Out, shows gays how not to be gay.
This is the natural follow up to City Bible's legislative efforts to keep gays single. Once you ensure homosexuals can't get married, the next logical step is provide them with an avenue toward matrimony, namely, heterosexuality.
That said, I tend to cut City Bible some slack here. They clearly believe homosexuality is a sin, and so this conference isn't really anything new.
I have a good friend who is gay and grew up in a conservative evangelical environment in Southern Oregon. She is constantly defending Evanglicals to her gay friends. She is comfortable being gay, but also doesn't harbor any bitterness or anger. She grew up in the church, so she understands why some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. She disagrees with them, but she's cool with it.
(Fun side note: I met this lovely young lady when we both worked for the same firm in Washington DC. And when I found out she grew up in the church, I started singing Oh Ancient of Days to see if she would recognize it. She did, and promptly joined in for the seond verse of "Every tongue in Heavan and Earth shall declare your glory." We've been great friends ever since.)
So, if City Bible wants to hold a "Don't be gay" conference on their property. Whatever. I don't really care. No gay people are going to attend anyway. It's just going to be a bunch of Conservative Christians re-affirming what they already believe. No different than any other event up there.
Of course, I wonder if City Bible is going to charge attendees of the conference to park. I mean if you're going take advantage of Believers, I see know reason that gays shouldn't get the same treatment. Charge those homos the same price to park as you do the Holy Rollers. Let's be honest, City Bible sees all people the same, as dollar signs.
(Also, I recongize that I'm in the minority on this one. Most of our readers still think homosexuality is a sin, including my brother and co-blogger Johnpaul.
Whatever.)
July 8th, 2007 at 7:07 am
My very first apartment was in the building the billboard appears on. It’s got 30-ish studio apartments and three one-bedrooms. When I lived there, it was managed by a couple of gay guys. Couldn’t have been nicer. Several of the residents were members of the GLBT community. I have fond memories of all. It’s been a decade, but I bet most of the residents are still queer. I wonder how they feel about the new advertising on the building.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Notice how the minority of the sessions are actually geared towards “the gays”? Instead it seems like this is more for churchies than anything else. So when do the conferences on drug abuse, anti-shacking-up, anti-divorce, and anti-women-in-leadership begin? Oh wait…
July 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
We must discourage them from marrying because we don’t want them to reproduce.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Good point, WTFWJD. The Focus on the Family “ex-gay” promotion is about telling conservative Christians that gays and lesbians are not fully developed, relationally deficit, emotionally dependant and otherwise sexually broken, psychologically unhealthy, and spiritually lacking. Most importantly, it’s about ampflying that gay rights are a threat and to solicit money to the right-wing organizations like FOTF.
I wouldn’t be surprised if conservatives see this as a great opportunity to collect signatures and solicit funds to overturn the gay civil right wins in Oregon and Washington.
As a gay Christian and former ex-gay participant, forgive me for not choosing to give CBC slack. It’s sickening to me that FOTF/Exodus/CBC are profiting off of demeaning my life.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I still find it funny that intelligent, semi-enlightened people living in the year 2007 can look at the few places in the bible (which didn’t even exist til 1452) where something vaguely resembling modern homosexuality is mentioned and come away thinking that two men or women loving each other and consumating that love can be considered “wrong” or immoral.” It takes some crazy historical and interpretational acrobatics to avoid the realization that “god” didn’t “rain down fire” on sodom and gomorrah because it was a bunch of fags with rollerskates smiling and grabbing each other’s bums, but rather because of the “fullness of bread” which wasn’t being shared, because of pride and because of certain “abominations” which actually involved dudes gang raping strangers to assert their dominance and superiority…much like veteran hockey players “sodomizing” the new guys with hockey sticks in the locker room. Men have been doing that to each other since they’ve had “sticks” to assert their dominance with. It has nothing to do with attraction or love. This is just one example. Anyone that thinks that the bible says homosexuality is “wrong” should take another, closer look. PS. (good luck finding anything about lesbianism).
July 9th, 2007 at 4:50 am
Catalyst, you describe this person as:
“a good friend”
“grew up in a conservative evangelical environment”
“she is constantly defending Evanglicals (sic)”
“she is comfortable being gay”
“doesn’t harbor any bitterness or anger”
“she grew up in the church”
“she understands why some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin”
“she’s cool with it” (that is, their beliefs)
“this lovely young lady”
knew the lyrics to “Ancient of Days,” (one of my personal favorites, BTW).
Though these traits are admirable — naturally speaking — none of them matters a whit as far as biblical Christianity is concerned. Any more than if she was your worst enemy, grew up in a liberal, atheistic environment, constantly bashed evangelicals, harbored bitterness and anger toward Christians, etc., or even knew by heart the lyrics to the satanic ballad “The Bridge of Death” by Manowar (quote: “Lucifer is king, praise Satan”)
Thankfully, God judges no person by the things that are outwardly important to us: how intelligent, good-looking, wealthy, cool, friendly, or nice someone might be, nor by their background, social standing, what kind of car they drive, their race or job…which is good for some of us (like me). He judges their soul by the standard of whether or not they have confessed Christ as Saviour, and are living for Him in obedience to and accordance with the Word of God.
(catalyst said: “No GAY people are going to attend anyway. It’s just going to be a bunch of Conservative Christians re-affirming what they already believe.”) (emphasis mine)
I have always found it amusing the way our society seeks to sanitize unpleasant things, that which makes us cringe at the mere mention of the term/word, and then re-labels them in cute little packages so as not to offend anyone’s sensibilities:
1. it’s not used…it’s previously owned
2. it’s not a retreat…it’s an advance to the rear
3. he’s not a janitor…he’s a sanitary engineer
4. you weren’t laid off…it was a reduction in force
5. they’re not civilian deaths…it’s collateral damage
6. it’s not genocide…it’s ethnic cleansing
7. we got it on…not we committed fornication
8. they’re not terrorists…they’re insurgents/freedom fighters
9. it’s not murder…it’s wet work
10. you’re not lost sinners…you’re seekers
11. we’re not sodomites…we’re just gay
And yes, I agree with you 100% on the attendance. The possible exception being a few “homosexuals” who perhaps feel sufficiently guilty about their lifestyles to show up seeking some sort of deliverance.
(catalyst said: “Of course, I wonder if City Bible is going to charge attendees of the conference to park. I mean if you’re going take advantage of Believers, I see know (sic) reason that gays shouldn’t get the same treatment. Charge those homos the same price to park as you do the Holy Rollers.”)
I’d count on it
(catalyst said: “They (CBC) clearly believe homosexuality is a sin…Also, I recongize (sic) that I’m in the minority on this one. Most of our readers still think homosexuality is a sin, including my brother and co-blogger Johnpaul.”)
Guess I’m with the majority on this one.
Just curious though, cat. How do you interpret the following Scriptures?
“22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22, NASB)
————————————————–
“13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act” (Lev. 20:13, NASB)
————————————————–
“26 for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB)
————————————————–
“9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10, NASB)
————————————————–
“7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7, NASB)
————————————————–
(catalyst said: “Whatever.”)
Hmm…
joebib
July 9th, 2007 at 5:42 am
JoeBib,
I know you asked Cat, but I would like to answer from my perspective.
Personally, I think we put way too much stock in the conduct of the flesh. The OT seemed to be all about teaching men that no matter how hard they tried, they could not cleanse themselves from sin, whether by water washing, animal sacrifices, self flagellation, resisting sin, we still suffer from that sin condition as Paul lamented: “I don’t do what I want to do, and do what I don’t want to do … who shall deliver me from this wretched body of sin …” (Sam’s paraphrase). There surely is a tension in scripture, with admonitions to refrain/resist sin, while at the same time scriptures such as Paul’s which say that our flesh can’t help but sin - that is its very nature.
There are a couple scriptures that really speak to me concerning the interpretation of scripture, that our focus should be much more spiritual and less literal/physical. For example John 4:24 where it says: “God is spirit” and in John 6:63 where Jesus says “my words are spirit”.
We might spend a lifetime whipping our flesh to refrain from sin, in vain attempt to condition it not to sin, but then the ultimate disposition of the flesh is destruction.
I should think then that the more important pursuit, would be to love God (1st commandment) and love one another (2nd commandment), for clearly in the end, our love for God and one another is all that is going to matter (Matthew 25:31-46).
There was something the Spirit showed me a few years ago that has radically changed my view concerning homosexuality. First, it is the understanding that the condition of the flesh, is reflective of our spiritually fallen state. God created man to be in fellowship with Him, to worship Him and rely upon Him for their spiritual sustinence, but instead, after the fall, men turned to men for their spiritual needs, hence the birth of law and religion and turning away from spirit-life and faith (trust) in God.
Scripture paints the picture of Jesus as husband and the bride, where the result of our relationship with Jesus is spiritual procreation (re-birth / born again). Religion on the other hand, aka the “law”, does not generate life, it is barren in terms of spirit-life.
The reflection of those spiritual realities in the flesh, is heterosexuality and homosexuality, respectively.
Consequently, I have come to view my homosexual brothers in Christ simply as those whom God has ordained to bear the sin of religion in their flesh. To that end, I am amazed that the most vocal and hateful toward homosexuals are religious people.
I know what I’ve said is out there, but the years have taught me that we really know little about God, little about spirit, that we are inclined to take the spiritual words of God and interpret them literally / physically, because we are literal / physical beings. Time and again, the dreams, visions, words I have received from the Father, I initially interpreted with a physical / literal meaning, but in time, the Father showed me the spiritual meaning which proved my physical / literal meaning totally wrong.
Deep down, I wonder if God has placed all manner of people in the world, to challenge us in our ability to love, to show grace, to have compassion. It is easy to love the lovely, but what of those who have been afflicted by original sin? Who by virtue of being the sons and daughters of Adam, are rendered helpless in the face of sin?
Note that I have my own very obvious sin condition, which is almost as loathsome to the lovely as homosexuality. I am obese - often associated with stupidity, laziness, gluttony, etc. I have to wonder if CBC and other ignorant religious institutions would ever put on a conference / seminar for reaching out to those of us who are afflicted with morbid obesity? Surely we sin with gluttony, food has become our god of comfort and pleasure.
Homosexuality, like my morbid obesity, is a cross to be born, and because it is something obvious, our lives are continually like carrying our cross through the streets of Jerusalem on the way to the skull, through crowds of angry religious spectators, hurling insults, spatting on us, etc. Occasionally, someone comes along side to help carry the cross, or like in the movies offers a cloth to wipe our face, but mostly, it’s ridicule and hatred.
Personally, I think the visible ‘cross bearers’ in this life, are in effect “God’s mirrors” - whom the Father has sent, to test and show the people the real love condition in their hearts.
Confronted with someone loathsome to our ’sensibilities’, unlovely and bearing a cross, how do we respond?
Sam
July 9th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Fair enough. But City Bible thinks that sex outside of marriage is a sin, even for heterosexuals. And they do hold “Purity” conferences to convince people to wait until marriage. So, in that sense, I’m not so sure they are picking on the gay community.
This is of course, why I think prohibiting gay marriage is ridiculous. Don’t we as Christians want to encourage people to form state-sanctioned committed relationships?
I don’t think they are applicable in 2007. There are a lot Bible verses Modern Christians don’t follow. And I’m just adding those to the list.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:16 am
A few thoughts…
I still think the IC shot themselves in their collective foot by opposing civil unions. Instead of giving everyone, including gays, the legal and humane rights and privileges we cherish, we now have to have a legal battle over religious issues, i.e. marriage. I think anyone should be able to enter a legally binding civil union with another person if both people are willing to care for each other. It’s no different than the oath that David and Jonathan took with each other in the Old Testament. David went so far as to take care of Jonathan’s crippled son for the rest of his life. The slippery slope argument by Christians is stupid. If everyone has the same legal rights, most gays won’t care that they can’t get married in a church. By confusing a legal issue with a religious issue, they muddy the waters and force a showdown that shouldn’t exist. (end rant)
As far as homosexuality being a sin, it’s still a fuzzy issue for me. Joebib and others who believe in the detailed infallibility of the Bible make it a rather black and white issue. Even so, if the IC had the balls to take on other equally egregious sins, the hating wouldn’t seem so out of whack. Since I don’t take that stance about the Bible, I’m open to the possibility that some people are stuck with bodies that are inherently “different” somehow. Science still cannot tell us why, but on the other hand, anyone who says it is merely a choice is being painfully naive. I appreciated Sam’s comments about how some people are affected by sin in different ways. We all have our faults and weaknesses because we are all given sinful bodies that still need redemption! His analogy that we all have sins that are like crosses we bear is particularly meaningful to me. I’m reminded of Paul’s story where he asks God to “remove the thorn in his flesh”. It’s easy to assume that he is talking of a physical ailment, when it is equally probable (and in my opinion, more likely) that he was talking about a tendency towards a particular sin! Who knows? Maybe Paul was obese, an alcoholic, or had a sex addiction? The fact that God refused to completely free him from it is a powerful lesson about (forgive the Christian-ese here) “bearing one another’s burdens”.
As far as the conference goes, it seems they are heading away from a hateful stance, but I still wonder if they confuse some issues.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:01 am
I understand that many conservative Christians believe the Bible prohibits same-sex behavior, because I was raised to hold the same belief. Certainly if someone is led in their faith and morals to refrain from certain sexual behaviors (i.e. premarital sex, promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, pornography, lust, etc.), I respect that. I may personally disagree with some aspects of their theology, but I respect their faith just as I respect clergy who take a vows of celibacy.
When I considered myself a Bible-thumping Christian with same-sex attractions, I felt abstinence and celibacy were probably God’s direction for me. I avoided fantasizing about heterosexual marriage because I did not want to risk the lives of my future wife and children on the homes that heterosexuality would miraculously develop. However, I felt I was keeping my sexual struggle secret from God, so I confessed my sexual struggle to the church I attended. They referred me to an Exodus-affiliated ex-gay ministry.
The “ex-gay” movement, which CBC is promoting, was a very disillusioning, confusing, and harmful to me. No, the “ex-gay” movement does not promote hatred of gays. However, their messages about that I was “sexually broken”, “not fully masculine”, “psychologically stunted”, etc. are just as harmful as being called pervert, pansy, deviant, fa**ot, etc. Actually, more harmful because I believed these assertions because they were presented as psychologically proven.
Gotta go, just thought I would share my perspective on this issue.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
FICM, I agree with you:
Catalyst, I don’t believe that “the goal” is
, in terms of “that’s one way of ensuring married vs. unmarried sex,” somehow making it pure in God’s sight. Biblical marriage is a covenant between God, a man and a woman, not a legal contract (although it is that, as well, in our and some other culture(s), at this time). GOD is who “puts together” a man and woman, and creates the all-mysterious “one flesh” unit, not man, not law.
This conference looks and sounds ludicrous. The first speaker is listed as a prof at an un-named “major research university system,” which is suspicious (although Bob Jones University could consider itself such, and that place is an academic and spiritual JOKE). Sidebar: I’m surprised CBC is putting on a conference based on someone’s materials other than their own.
Let’s legalize homosexual civil unions. I’m all for it. But, let’s not confuse a legal contract with a covenant. Homosexuality is a sin, per the Bible, but it’s not any worse than any other sin, so the “airtime” given to it by conservative Christians is maddening. We’re all born with a sinful nature. While self-centeredness and a determination to find identity and meaning outside of Christ forms the core of all of our sinful natures, my sinful nature looks different than yours. We’re all sinner and we all need what Christ died to give to us. God wants us all to love each other, to accept one another unconditionally AND also to encourage one another to increased godliness. Love god and our neighbors. That’s what Jesus boiled the law down to. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just focus on these “major” issues instead of tearing each other up with the “minor” issues that drive us from God and from each other?
Wow, there’s a bit of idealism rearing its head through my typical cynicism. Hardly recognized it.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Sorry Joebib, et. al. I don’t buy it. If the “church” was spending nearly as much time legislating against 7-year mandatory civil unions, no-divorce laws, mandatory marriage in cases of pregnancy, mandatory head coverings for females (or maybe burkas?), etc. I might.
But they don’t.
If the “church” was legislating against Atheists, Buddhists, and Jews being able to marry I wouldn’t think them any less crazy, I’d just have a tiny bit more respect for being consistent.
But they don’t.
It’s called “bigotry” mmmkay?
July 9th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I like to take the John 8 approach to Homosexuality
Those who are without sin can cast the first stone.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I hate to bring up the idea of the dangers of tolerance. I really do. Most Christians, whether they view tolaerance as a negative or a positive, see it in the extreme, new age view, where truth is relative and every man is okay just the way they are. There is a light and dark side to tolerance. God calls us to extend grace to all men, to love our neighbors, and even our enemies. We are not to pass judgement upon the soul of a man lest we be judged ourselves. But at the same time Christians, being children of God born in his image, must abhor sin. We must recognize, resist, and attempt to fight it, with the help of the Lord of course since we can never accomplish this on our own. Therein lies the danger of tolerance. To see sin prevail in a brother’s life, a fellow child of God, and not act, is weakness. It is not hatred of sin. It is selfish and immoral. We are called to carry each other’s burdens, to lift one another up in Christ. How much love are you extending to your brother when you watch him continually walk in sin, shackles tied around his feet and baggage upon his back, and not lift even one finger to attempt to help. It is sin itself.
To say that today in 2007 certain biblical passages do not apply is absolute bullshit. To pick and choose which verses apply to today’s culture and which don’t is to refute the validity of the word altogether. Do you honestly think the almighty God, creator of all we see and experience, the orchestrator of time itself, changes his mind? Does he change his stance on issues according to our culture? Is he subject to our will? If the word of God was once true, it is always true. We do not get to change out the truth and power of the wod of God as we see fit, and to think so is absolutely ridiculous, and dangerous to your relationship with God. The Bible itself says our Lord is unchanging, the one constant in our changing universe. I do not believe that Christians have evolved an ability to see past the bible and come into a deeper relationship with God wher it is no longer needed. I do not believe we have reached a point where God reveals himself to us solely through personal visions and eperiences without the use of his word. If anything, history and humanity have shown that we are extending more and more into chaos, entropy at work, and need his word even more.
That said, the word says, clearly, that sodomy and homosexuality is a sin. It is a simple fact. However, that does not mean we are to treat homosexuals an different, and judge them any diferently, than ourselves. In the end, aren’t we all sinners, and always fall short of the glory of God? His grace covers all sinners alike, and does not pick one sinner over another. I have no problem believing people are born with an affinity to be gay. I was born with an affinity towards pornography, and I know people born with an affinity towards numerous other sins. It is in our nature. We are sinful from the womb. Therefore, their is no reason to seek to punish or condemn one sinner over another; a gay man over a man addicted to pornography.
I don’t neccessarily disagree with working on methods to fight homosexuality, but I haven’t seen an effective method yet. The best thing I’ve seen, was actually modeled at my old church. A man, gay for years and by all accounts still gay, attended our church. He was not discriminated against, lampooned or harrassed. he was welcomed with open and loving arms. He was not welcomed because homosexuality is not a sin, because it is. He was welcomed because he was a fellow sinner, seeking freedom from an inbred sinful desire that constantly pulled him back to his mistakes, just like us. He was forgiven of his sins just like we were, and he was repentant, just as we were. He still screwed up, but so did we. The bottom line is he was no different from us, so why would we turn him away?
July 12th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Samaritan, I appreciate your candor as well as the difficulty inherent in opening up one’s personal life to the scrutiny of others, some of whom could be hostile. Thank you for being transparent.
Having said that, however, I feel I must respond to some of your observations and conclusions on what our perspective should be as Christians. It seems your remarks smack of the Docetic and Cerinthian Gnostic heresies which sought entrance into the Early Church.
————————————————————————
(Samaritan said: “Personally, I think we put way too much stock in the conduct of the flesh.”)
Outwardly observed sins, which you call “the conduct of the flesh,” are merely manifestations of inward sin (attitudes, thoughts, etc.) and can’t be separated from them. Cause and effect.
So then, would you have us put less stock in this “conduct of the flesh” than Jesus did?
21 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 “All these evil things proceed from within AND DEFILE THE MAN.” (Mark 7:21-23, NASB, emphasis mine)
Or than Paul did?
19 Now the DEEDS OF THE FLESH are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH THINGS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. (Gal. 5:19-21, NASB, emphasis mine)
Or than Peter did?
9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
10 and especially those who INDULGE THE FLESH IN ITS CORRUPT DESIRES and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,
11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, WILL in the destruction of those creatures ALSO BE DESTROYED,
13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong…. (2 Pet. 2:9-13, NASB, emphasis mine)
——————————————————————————-
(Samaritan said: “Paul lamented: “I don’t do what I want to do, and do what I don’t want to do … who shall deliver me from this wretched body of sin …” (Sam’s paraphrase). There surely is a tension in scripture, with admonitions to refrain/resist sin, while at the same time scriptures such as Paul’s which say that our flesh can’t help but sin - that is its very nature.”)
I think you miss Paul’s meaning here, and thus misinterpret what those verses in Romans 7:5-8:3 are saying. May I suggest you go back and read the passage in context? Paul calls the Law “holy,” righteous,” “good,” and “spiritual,” and is thankful for it because it shows him what God considers to be sinful. Paul is not giving any Christian license to sin, but is rather emphasizing that it is the one who is OUTSIDE OF CHRIST who “can’t help but sin.”
—————————————————————————–
(Samaritan said: “There are a couple scriptures that really speak to me concerning the interpretation of scripture, that our focus should be much more spiritual and less literal/physical. For example John 4:24 where it says: “God is spirit” and in John 6:63 where Jesus says “my words are spirit”. We might spend a lifetime whipping our flesh to refrain from sin, in vain attempt to condition it not to sin, but then the ultimate disposition of the flesh is destruction.”)
Again, I can’t buy your speculative leaps here. You suggest we interpret Scripture from passages which are talking about different subjects (i.e., the nature of God, and the power of Jesus’ words) and which refer to the word “spirit,” and use that to say that in other passages concerning a different subject (i.e., living a godly lifestyle) that what we do outwardly is therefore not the point. Two entirely different areas here.
However, in regard to real change, yes, it must start from within, spiritually, and if outward actions are contradictory then there has been no real change:
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (Jas. 2:14, NIV)
—————————————————————————
(Samaritan said: “I should think then that the more important pursuit, would be to love God (1st commandment) and love one another (2nd commandment), for clearly in the end, our love for God and one another is all that is going to matter (Matthew 25:31-46).”)
So then, you are inferring that because our physical nature is bent toward sinning, that we should ignore it and focus on the spiritual aspect of loving God. Bad logic it seems to me, not to mention being in violation of what Jesus said:
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (Jn. 14:15, NASB)
And of what Paul said:
2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication. (1 Thess. 4:2-3, KJV)
And of what John said:
3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 Jn. 2:3-6, NASB)
————————————————————————–
(Samaritan said: “…the result of our relationship with Jesus is spiritual procreation (re-birth / born again). Religion on the other hand, aka the “law”, does not generate life, it is barren in terms of spirit-life. The reflection of those spiritual realities in the flesh, is heterosexuality and homosexuality, respectively. Consequently, I have come to view my homosexual brothers in Christ simply as those whom God has ordained to bear the sin of religion in their flesh”)
I cannot agree with your leaps of presumption here, either:
1. Equating heterosexuality and homosexuality. Heterosexuality is endorsed starting in Gen. 3 and right on through the Word with, of course, restrictions – no fornication or adultery, etc. Sodomy, on the other hand is roundly condemned in the Scriptures, some of which I posted above, q.v.
2. God ordaining homosexuals to “bear” anything. Your words seem to me to echo verses like Mark 8:34, Gal. 6:17 and even Heb. 12:1. You’re inventing interpretive applications out of something the Scriptures don’t teach. I don’t see God as the author of sin, nor do I see Him “burdening” anyone with things He has condemned in His Word. Christ came to do just the opposite:
36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (Jn. 8:36, NIV)
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Rom. 6:18, NASB)
5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal. 5:1, NASB)
etc.
We saddle ourselves with the just consequences of our own disobedience, and then when God doesn’t immediately intervene and remove them, it becomes His fault, even His Will somehow, and thus something He wants us to “bear.” I don’t think so. Instead, it is the law of sowing and reaping. Witness Abraham’s poor decision to go down to Egypt and obtain Hagar. This was his own choice, not God’s. God didn’t then magically wave His wand and remove Ishmael, but rather continued to work redemptively and covenantally within the framework of Abraham’s disobedience. Just like He does with all of us. Which isn’t an endorsement of our sin, but is rather a manifestation of His mercy and grace to not consign us to the nether regions on the spot:
11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. (Ecc. 8:11, NASB)
——————————————————————————-
(Samaritan said: “I know what I’ve said is out there, but the years have taught me that we really know little about God, little about spirit, that we are inclined to take the spiritual words of God and interpret them literally / physically, because we are literal / physical beings. Time and again, the dreams, visions, words I have received from the Father, I initially interpreted with a physical / literal meaning, but in time, the Father showed me the spiritual meaning which proved my physical / literal meaning totally wrong.”)
Of course dreams and visions can’t be physical since they are mental/subconscious/spiritual by nature. So, what does that have to do with plain, literal statements like these?
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22, NASB)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10, NASB)
Are you saying these words are not to be taken literally?
—————————————————————————–
(Samaritan said: “Deep down, I wonder if God has placed all manner of people in the world, to challenge us in our ability to love, to show grace, to have compassion. It is easy to love the lovely, but what of those who have been afflicted by original sin? Who by virtue of being the sons and daughters of Adam, are rendered helpless in the face of sin?”)
Yes, we are commanded (“thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”) to love all manner of people. Which has nothing to do with these same people being in need of repentance if they are breaking God’s commandments.
—————————————————————————-
(Samaritan said: “I have to wonder if CBC and other ignorant religious institutions would ever put on a conference / seminar for reaching out to those of us who are afflicted with morbid obesity? Surely we sin with gluttony, food has become our god of comfort and pleasure.”)
Good point here. I’ve always noticed that the Church definitely focuses on certain “sins” and ignores others. One example would be covetousness:
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Co. 5:11, KJV)
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Co. 6:10, KJV)
By rights, we are to shun anyone in the congregation who manifests covetousness. But the leadership would never do this, right?
Or what about the idolater who puts his job, car, sports, clothes, personal appearance, wife, etc. ahead of the Lord? No biggie. Just don’t let the poor sucker be seen puffing away on a cigarette behind the gymnasium; he’d be in the office of His DP for some heavy counseling, posthaste.
——————————————————————————
(Samaritan said: “Personally, I think the visible ‘cross bearers’ in this life, are in effect “God’s mirrors” - whom the Father has sent, to test and show the people the real love condition in their hearts. Confronted with someone loathsome to our ’sensibilities’, unlovely and bearing a cross, how do we respond?”)
Yes, we are to love the “unlovely.” But you equate “cross-bearing” with remaining in sins from which God has already commanded us to flee and repent of. When Jesus enjoins us to take up our respective crosses (Mt. 10:38 and 16:24, etc.), He is referring to forsaking the pleasures/conveniences of this world and our carnal lifestyles in exchange for obeying the Gospel and following Him.
Samaritan, though I disagree with the way you interpret and apply Scripture, I am drawn to your open and honest heart.
joebib
July 12th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Jobib,
It’s just been my experience that our vantage point has profound effect on understanding scripture. If we examine it intellectually / religiously, we’ll come up with a literal meaning. If we examine scripture with our heart, we’ll see everyone’s fallen nature and not just that of others. If we examine it by the Spirit with understanding of who God is, we’ll see something altogether different.
Take for example the words of Jesus preceding his proclamation “my words are spirit” … Jesus basically said “eat me” (eat my flesh and drink my blood). Surely those words are, at first blush, physical and literal. But Jesus explained they had spiritual meaning. How does one decide when a scripture is physical / literal or spiritual?
When I consider scriptures concerning homosexuality, I try to do so within the so-called ‘whole counsel of God’ - meaning NOT that I’m looking at it within the context of all scripture, but with understanding of God’s love, grace, and expressed intent of saving all men and that there are scriptures where obviously God is looking for reasons to admit people to His kingdom.
Take Matthew 25:31-46 for example. The nations are unsaved by definition. To the sheep he sorts from the nations He says basically that for no more than giving a drink to “these brothers of mine”, you can enter the kingdom. They are SO honest that they say “we don’t know you” (presumably, not baptized, didn’t say the sinner’s prayer, didn’t go to church or worship him …) Yet He gives them life and lets them into the kingdom. That is a picture of an incredibly loving and merciful God looking for any reason to admit people to the kingdom - even loving Jesus by proxy (through showing a kindness to Jesus brothers, in whom Jesus lives).
We also have the example of Jesus himself, who rather than let people pay for their own sins, died in their place, AND, who said to the woman caught in adultery “neither do I accuse you”. So, with the example of a Savior who would rather die himself than let us pay for our own sins, and a Savior who does not accuse us, I always wonder why believers accuse, why they campaign against gays? If believers are truly concerned about “What Would Jesus Do” - why don’t they ever answer “he’d rather die than condemn” - “he’d rather save than accuse” …
Perhaps the healing of all people afflicted with a sin condition, is love. Unconditional love. Love knowing even that they are sinners. Love knowing even what that sin is.
I think when it comes to those kinds of scriptures, we need to remember “God is Spirit”, His “words are Spirit”, the “flesh counts for nothing”, “lean not on your own understanding” … when we do that, I believe we might just understand sin and sinners in a whole new light - perhaps even find room to love one another, and God all the more in knowing how merciful He really is.
Take care. Sam
July 12th, 2007 at 9:17 am
The irony of this statement makes me giggle. Thanks for the laughs Jasp!
July 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Look. I know that’s comforting to believe. And I used to think the same way. But then I actually read the Bible, and came to the realization that Christians (myself included) ignore the vast majority of the Old Testament.
And I understand the whole “New Covenant” way of thinking, but in the end, it’s just a doctrine so that Christians can eat Bacon and wear Gap clothing. (BTW, I love bacon and am about as preppy as they get.)
Not to take away from the Bible. But I now read it with a bit of a different perspective, that’s all.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Kind of like my name implies, I haven’t made up my mind about a lot of things, but I don’t feel that anyone (here or elsewhere), has given me a reasonable explanation for why some things in the old testament are adhered to (or at least referenced in order to strengthen an opinion), and some are not.
Exodus 35:2 — why aren’t people still being put to death for working on the sabbath?
Leviticus 11:7 — every man, woman and child who has ever played football is now unclean for touching a dead pig (and no one seems to be calling them on it or judging them in the slightest).
Leviticus 15:19-24 — I’m not gonna lie–I have been in close contact with men and woman while menstruating.
Planting different crops side by side, wearing clothing made of two different threads–when did those stop being things that we were supposed to detest?
July 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Reminds me of one of my favorite sketches ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dRRYXtk1CA
July 13th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Just thinking – Not wanting to appear unduly pedantic, I would like to attempt to answer your question.
The OT as a whole provides an overview of various aspects of God’s covenantal dealings with the forebears/nation of Israel — including God’s use of Gentile nations to accomplish His Will. Within this framework, there are differing literary genres and methods employed, e.g., historical narrative, genealogical tables, poetry/prose, predictive prophecy including apocalyptic/visionary writings, personal sketches/vignettes of individual’s lives, ceremonial, civil and moral law codes, practical/moral instructions to aid people in the living of their daily lives, e.g., various details concerning clean and unclean animals and their consumption as food, determining the contagiousness of communicable diseases, safety guidelines for the construction of dwellings, etc.
When we come to the NT, the writings take on a different slant. The purpose now being to detail the arrival of Christ into the world to provide redemption for mankind and the practical outworkings of the resultant lifestyle which is now to be exemplified/followed.
As can be seen in the way in which the NT writers interpreted/applied/used the OT Scriptures, all of the Old Testament has varying levels of moral relevance — and thus application — to our lives today.
While the Gospel writers sometimes take OT verses apparently, it seems, out of their original historical context and interpret them as referring prophetically to various aspects of the life of Christ — Matt. 1:23 quoting Is. 7:14; Matt. 2:18 quoting Jer. 31:15; Mark 14:27 quoting Zech. 13:7; Mark 15:28 quoting Is. 53:12; John 12:38 quoting Is. 53:1; John 19:24 quoting Ps. 22:18, etc. — the writers of the Epistles also take OT verses originally written to individuals or the Houses of Israel/Judah and interpret/apply them at times spiritually to the NT Church/believer — 1 Cor. 9:9-10 quoting Deut. 25:4; Eph. 5:31-32 quoting Gen. 2:24; Heb. 2:13b quoting Is. 8:18; 1 Pet. 2:10 quoting from Hos. 1:9 and 2:23, etc.
On the outside chance that your queries were serious, then I don’t mean to insult your intelligence by the above mini-lesson.
But if, as seems more likely, your attempts at poking fun at the OT are deemed as a kind of “proof” that the Scriptures are therefore unreliable and thus unapplicable for our day, then I would like to know something:
Do you really find yourself in the midst of a moral dilemma/crisis as to if you or anyone else have actually violated the OT injunction to Israel, found within their time-specific dietary laws under the Mosaic Covenant, to avoid pork? Do you really see the flames of hell licking at the feet of those you/us who have ever tossed around the ol’ pigskin?
Do you deny the practicality of the admonitions of Lev. 15:19-24 (in regard to them not having modern disinfectants, etc.) as having a vital bearing on health/sanitary issues for that day? And perhaps even ours?
Or even the benefit of following the various agricultural ordinances in the Pentateuch, especially in regard to the over-use/cultivation of land?
Come now, my friend.
Have you never read the various NT verses explaining the prophetic/typological nature of the OT (Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:25-27,44-45; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11, etc.)? Or of the abolishment of the ceremonial/civil Law of the OT (e.g. Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14; Heb. 9:1-15, etc.)? While the moral Laws of the OT have transferred through the hermeneutical filter of the Cross of Christ to continue to be applicable to us today (Matt. 5:19:16-19; Rom. 2:21-22, etc.)?
I’ve recently witnessed, on more than one occasion, where various bloggers attempt to question the validity or accuracy or applicability — and thus authority — of the Bible, basing their arguments on verses detailing time- and circumstance-specific injunctions in the OT Scriptures, simply because they cannot (or refuse to) see fulfillment or use for them in our modern day. And then defend certain practices in our day, e.g., sodomy, undue criticism/personal attacks of others, profanity, etc., which have been clearly prohibited in straightforward, biblical teachings, from both Testaments, declaring propositional truth.
Which misses the point, sometimes even purposely, or so it seems.
Not to offend, but I wonder if an application drawn from the “willing ignorance” referred to in 2 Pet. 3:5a is not in play here at times?
Or even the following:
23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. (2 Tim. 2:23, NASB)
9 But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless. (Tit. 3:9, NASB)
YMMV
joebib
July 13th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Joebib, you make a good point. There’s a difference between ceremonial law and the moral law. Even so, it can difficult as to where to draw the line. Even if you could make a clear distinction, how does this fit into the life of the Believer?
I think too often people confuse the issue of being saved by Grace, and living free from sin. These are two very different things. Yes, it is important to recognize that we are saved by Grace, and the Law was merely to point out sin, and that observing the Law can’t save us. On the flip side, we are free from the Law, but we are not free to sin, but we are to live life free from sin. Christ fulfilled and abolished the Law, but since the law merely points out sin (Romans 7), getting rid of it doesn’t solve the sin problem, otherwise why would Paul lament
“21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature [d] a slave to the law of sin.”
We have to understand we are still stuck in the middle of being free from the Law, but trapped in sinful bodies. Until our redemption, either by death or the 2nd Coming, we are doomed to struggle with this terrible paradox of sin and grace. It is not an easy thing to understand, let alone live out.
I see two extremes: the one camp says we need to obey the Law as much as the Jews, and the other camp says we can completely ignore the Law since it doesn’t apply. But logic says there’s no real middle ground here - either you obey the Law or you don’t!
Paul gives us the attitude we should have in Philippians 3
Jesus said that we could fulfill the Law by loving God and loving each other. If we do everything motivated by love, there is no room for sin. Which, for me, helps to answer the question of which parts of “the Law” are to be obeyed or followed to the absolute letter. The Holy Spirit enables us to live this way.
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”
My point is this: Both groups, those who live by the letter of the law, and those who reject some or all of it, are missing the better way of living life by the Spirit.
Does this answer the question “Is homosexuality a sin?” If we are to believe that the Law and Scriptures merely point to sin, then I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude “yes”. Does this conflict with modern thinking in that homosexuality may not be a choice? Not any more than some people do not choose alcoholism, obesity, or other sexual addictions. That doesn’t make them any better or worse than the rest of us who sin in other ways. But to excuse some sins because they seem to be packaged with who a person is, seems unfair to the rest of us who haven’t achieved equal opportunity status with what we struggle with.
Some of you might not agree with my conclusions on this matter. I won’t condemn or judge you, but I do think it’s certainly possible to be led by the Spirit to become free from those things. We know that through things like counseling, 12-step programs, and other things, people have conquered powerful sins and addictions that tormented them for decades. If people can remain clean, sober, and celibate without the help of the Holy Spirit, how much more should we put our hope in the one who has the power to deliver us from all things?
But as has already been mentioned here, the IC has done a terrible job of demonizing certain kinds of sinners, and the stigma created by their judgment has driven them from the Gospel. Programs like “Love Won Out” may be a step in the right direction, if imperfect in their understanding.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:14 am
I disagree with your intepretation, but still, that’s very well laid out.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Homosexual threads always seem to bring out the hard of heart, blind and hard of hearing. But that’s OK Cat … life and years are all about God healing those conditions.
Funny for example, I never said that homosexuality wasn’t sin, but some of the comments suggest that I did. We all sin of course, some of us more visibly than others, together with the social/moral stigma we afix to some sins and not others, makes homosexuality among the most difficult crosses to bear, in a straight - at times anti-gay society and religious culture.
How I could wish that the sin of everyone was equally visible by all. Perhaps then the religious people would be less haughty about their own perceived righteousness and perhaps even learn to love and respect homosexuals as they would any other sinner - themselves included.
I’m afraid that conferences like the above, give people the impression that religion is all about hatred and intolerance.
Sam
July 13th, 2007 at 8:27 am
joebib,
Thank you for your response. I was being serious and I was not poking fun–that was your assumption. I don’t think this is funny. It is relevant to my life and becomes more relevant every day. Some of those things I of course don’t take as seriously–I was simply curious thus, the light nature of my tone. I understand what you are saying and when I am not at work will give it an even better read–again, thank you. Could you address one more that I did not mention? Slavery. Wouldn’t that be considered a moral issue?
I personally think that Christians don’t know how to love (much like most of the world). We know how to love each other and we know how to love the world in a peripheral, detached sort of way. But to what degree do we meet people at their need with love and compassion? That degree is small and again, peripheral.
I would say that the person whose life I actually got to see lived (in part), that I admire most would be Mother Theresa. What better example of someone who at first went to the people and in turn the people were drawn to her can we find (besides Jesus)? That is what I think our mission should be. I would say we should shut our mouths and open our arms–God will do the rest. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t share what we believe with others–just that it should come second to the love and compassion that we share.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
(Samaritan said: “Funny for example, I never said that homosexuality wasn’t sin, but some of the comments suggest that I did.”)
I re-read your comments Sam, and no, you did not actually SAY it wasn’t sin, but it seems to me that was the tenor of what you were saying/inferring:
“…for clearly in the end, our love for God and one another is all that is going to matter…Consequently, I have come to view my homosexual brothers in Christ simply as those whom God has ordained to bear the sin of religion in their flesh.” (quote from Samaritan)
——————————————————————–
(Samaritan said: “We all sin of course, some of us more visibly than others…How I could wish that the sin of everyone was equally visible by all. Perhaps then the religious people would be less haughty about their own perceived righteousness and perhaps even learn to love and respect homosexuals as they would any other sinner - themselves included.”)
Yes, it would certainly provide plenty of shame. But I, for one, wouldn’t like to see it happen, though, as I can’t see it doing much else good. Anyone who has heard the Father whisper to them, “I forgive you, my child” wouldn’t want those failures paraded before the leering crowd. ymmv
However, as Anna has pointed out in some of her thoughtful posts — in regard to judging the IC I believe – sin does need to be reproved (cf. Isaiah 58:1). Which, of course, always ends up offending some people, as it did in the OT as well:
8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. (1 Kings 22:8, NASB)
But, and if, those thus offended then play the “politically correct” card, and accuse others of being “insensitive” or “-phobic” because they stand with God’s Word concerning various practices which it prohibits, then they are in effect plugging their ears and covering their eyes (cf. Zech. 7:11) to something that God/the Word does not. And, sin left unattended will ultimately bring forth death (James 1:15).
As far as being haughty because of (so-called) personal righteousness, and instead having compassion for others still captivated by their sins, I am reminded of the saying “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” I have often identified with the confession of Luther’s co-laborer Philipp Melanchthon: “Old Adam was too strong for young Melancthon,” as well as with Luther himself, who was heard by his fellow monks to cry out in the night, “Oh, my sins, my sins!”
In regard to our personal attittudes towards sin, especially in others, I would like to append a quote from the Puritan, Jonathan Edwards, famous for his sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”:
“It has often appeared to me that if God should mark iniquity against me, I should appear the very worst of all mankind that have been since the beginning of the world to this time…When I look into my heart and take a view of my own wickedness…it appears to me that were it not for the grace of great Jehovah…I should sink down in my sins below Hell itself, far beyond the sight of everything but the eye of His grace which can pierce down to even such a depth.”
I say “Amen” to that.
joebib
July 15th, 2007 at 6:10 am
(FICM said: “I think too often people confuse the issue of being saved by Grace, and living free from sin. These are two very different things. Yes, it is important to recognize that we are saved by Grace, and the Law was merely to point out sin, and that observing the Law can’t save us. On the flip side, we are free from the Law, but we are not free to sin, but we are to live life free from sin. Christ fulfilled and abolished the Law, but since the law merely points out sin (Romans 7), getting rid of it doesn’t solve the sin problem, otherwise why would Paul lament…We have to understand we are still stuck in the middle of being free from the Law, but trapped in sinful bodies. Until our redemption, either by death or the 2nd Coming, we are doomed to struggle with this terrible paradox of sin and grace. It is not an easy thing to understand, let alone live out.”)
FIMC — Your opinion/remarks are, as usual incisive and the points well taken
I’m right there with you on the difficulty (frustration?) of finding the balance between realizing we have been saved/delivered from the yoke (Eph. 2:15 and Col. 2:14) of the litany of laws in the OT – all 613 of ‘em — and yet still recognizing that we in the NT era of grace are nevertheless enjoined to live within the constraints of NT “commandments/law” (Matt. 19:16-19; John 14:15,21; Rom. 2:21-23, 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 7:17; 1 Thess. 4:2-12; James 1:25, 2:8; 1 John 2:3-4, Rev. 12:17, 14:12, 22:14, etc.).
1 John 5:2-3 tells us these commandments are not intended to be “grievous” (KJV) or “burdensome” (NASB), but we nontheless frequently make them so, it seems.
—————————————————————-
(FICM said: “Does this answer the question “Is homosexuality a sin?” If we are to believe that the Law and Scriptures merely point to sin, then I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude “yes”. Does this conflict with modern thinking in that homosexuality may not be a choice? Not any more than some people do not choose alcoholism, obesity, or other sexual addictions. That doesn’t make them any better or worse than the rest of us who sin in other ways. But to excuse some sins because they seem to be packaged with who a person is, seems unfair to the rest of us who haven’t achieved equal opportunity status with what we struggle with.”)
I very much agree with you here concerning the free pass so frequently given to those who engage in certain “practices” in our day, sins which are perceived as being somehow more fashionable or acceptable to the whims currently en vogue in our society (do you think there is a correlation based on the amount of money/media time their adherents spend protesting against any opposition to what they engage in?).
Witness, on the one hand, the leniency/understanding/acceptance awarded to men who engage in sodomy, for example, which is clearly prohibited as “abominable” by the Scriptures (see references posted above), and yet, on the other hand, the hysteria-whipped, media-frenzied retribution doled out upon men who molest children, which, though altogether detestable and obviously prohibited in principle by the Bible, is not, AKAIK specifically referenced therein.
These misguided souls are, IMO (perhaps in an attempt to justify that by which they are bound, i.e., the frustration/guilt of their inner selves?) desperately grasping at whatever straws they can, including the opinions/justifications/field-studies of unredeemed, so-called “scholar-shrinks” who hold, as rebellious, fallen man ever has that, given our carnal bent, we have no choice but to engage in these actions, and which therefore must be as completely normal and natural as heterosexual practices.
The same rationale, BTW, the aforementioned child molesters employ.
Thus, again as always, exalting the fickle musings of man over the Word of God:
8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
(Mark 7:8, NASB)
Given our Babylonish society’s ever-increasing predilection to re-label/sanitize that which in reality it subconsciously finds repugnant (“20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness…” Isaiah 5:20, NASB), and for the sin under consideration as well as for other unrepented sins (including those “acceptable” practices of being covetousness, greedy, malicious gossipers, boastful, lovers of our own selves and pleasures more than lovers of God, blasphemous, etc. – cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-5), I fear we are rapidly heading toward that time when God will have no other choice than to concur this world’s cup of iniquity is indeed full, and will unleash the prophesied judgments to come (cf. Rev. 18:1-9).
Beginning with us…
“17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God….” (1 Pet. 4:17, NASB).
“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
joebib
July 15th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Joe, what I was musing about is the tension we find in scripture - we have a great struggle between scripture’s many admonitions to refrain/run from sin and Paul who confessed that the flesh can’t help but to sin - that the flesh seemingly has a mind of its own - that the only way to subdue the flesh where the lust for sin is concerned is to crucify (kill) it. Since we are utterly incapable of pleasing the Father in our flesh, since we are utterly incapable of keeping the law and therefore saving ourselves, what remains is ‘faith (trust in the one who can save us), hope (of salvation) and love (for God and one another)’, of which in the end, we are saved or condemned for whether or not we know and love the Savior and whether the Savior knows us.
Sin is the great equalizer among men, all sin. Why we pick on one sin and seemingly turn a blind eye to the others, I don’t know, unless it has something to do with self-exaltation.
With all the shit homosexuals have taken from religious people in this life, and where scripture says “he who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted”, wouldn’t it be just peachy if religious people who have spent a lifetime condemning gays for their sin, while concealing their own, wind up on the receiving end of a holy smack-down and watch in horror as the gays are exalted before them?
Consider:
What few gay people I know well, have spent a lifetime struggling with their flesh, trying to come to grips with what scripture says, what religion teaches, etc. Conversely, most religious people I know are apathetic about their own sin and the sin in their fellowship.
Now if the measure of repentance is the degree with which we have struggled with the sin our flesh insists on committing, I dare say the gays I have known will be in much better shape when they meet the Lord than your common, prideful religious person.
Jack
July 16th, 2007 at 4:32 am
(Samaritan said: “Sin is the great equalizer among men, all sin. Why we pick on one sin and seemingly turn a blind eye to the others, I don’t know, unless it has something to do with self-exaltation.”)
Would you not agree that while all sin is equally “sinful” to a Holy God (cf. James 2:10-11, NASB), some sins are, if you’ll pardon the word, “worse” than other sins?
For example, if I observe you tooling around town in your new corvette, and then wishing I had one too, I could conceivably, at that moment, have become guilty of the sin of covetousness.
Which, though needing to be repented of, will not probably not affect me in the long run, since I really don’t like muscle cars. I would no longer covet your car in perhaps a few hours. Wouldn’t you say temporarily coveting your car had less impact/far-reaching effects than if I, say, murdered you so I could have your car?
Or, if during reading one of your posts, I am convicted of my behavior by what you have said, and I allow anger to unnecessarily arise within me, I have violated Matt. 5:22. My wife witnesses by behavior and confronts me. I then say, “You’re right, hon.” I bow my head and say, “Lord, forgive me, and help me to not get angry with him again,” which He does. I then go on reading your posts with a new attitude, never to get angry at you again.
Was that momentary sinful attitude as horrible a sin as when a Supreme Court Justice casts the deciding vote allowing for the murder of babies within the womb, thus changing the law throughout the country, which in turn leads to the death of millions?
Or, when a field general in Europe instructs his soldiers to engage in the “ethnic cleansing” of indigenous women, raping them by the thousands? And then, most of the resultant children born to them are abandoned in the streets to lives of misery and abuse.
Or, when a society allows the destruction of the institution of marriage — and thus, to millions of households and lives — to potentially be destroyed by making homosexuality legal?
All sins are sinful, but not all sins are equal, nor do they have the same ramifications to others or ourselves.
joebib
July 16th, 2007 at 7:39 am
joebib said:
“All sins are sinful, but not all sins are equal, nor do they have the same ramifications to others or ourselves”.
I don’t know if I agree with that (just the first part). I do think that in the spiritual realm all sins are equal–but here on earth of course they are not equal and that is because of the ramifications to others and ourselves that they have (good examples of this given by joebib). That is actually what I was taught in church growing up–that all sin is the same to God.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:55 am
I think I enjoy these philosophical questions too much!
Is all sin the same? I think I agree with Joebib this time. Some sins are “worse” than others because of the effects that they have upon us and others. Jesus seemed to agree with this line of thinking when He said,
Another popular Jesus quote on this blog is when He condemns the Pharisees for tithing from their garden when they refuse to give social justice to widows and the poor. Apparently, he thought that refusing help to the poor was the greater sin!
The modern evangelical thought that all sins are equal is a method of simplifying the Gospel message, but it is misleading. Paul clarifies the topic in Romans by saying we have all sinned, and we are born into sin through Adam. It doesn’t matter what kind of person you are, we are all born into a doomed state. In that sense, there is no on particular sin that is more likely to separate you from God, they all have the same outcome. But I think it is wrong to conclude from this that all sins are equal in terms of consequences that are not a Heaven/Hell issues. Clearly, some sins have greater consequences than others, which is why we don’t punish a speeding violation with life in prison! If it didn’t matter, then authors like Paul wouldn’t work so hard to simultaneously proclaim our need for grace and our need to refrain from sinning!
OTOH, Sam I understand your point about how some people may find themselves among the goats when it comes to accusing “sinners”. It’s not how well you follow the rules, it’s how well you know Christ! I don’t doubt there will be some surprise entries into the Kingdom of Heaven!
July 16th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Has anyone checked out the love won out website? Honestly, their mission and motives actually seem love and grace oriented, which surprised me. Now I know they can doctor the website up to look any way they want, and the conference could be totally different. But it truly seems they are out to help people. The only thingI got hung up on was this:
“Our goals include aiding parents who want to learn how to better love their sons or daughters without compromising their faith”
This shouldn’t be something parents need to go to a conference for, and if they are, then I think they need to have a better understanding of the love of God. Their children’s sexual orientation should have no affect on the amount of love they extend to them, since it is unconditional love. Even showing signs of distancing themselves from their child is one of the worst things a parent can do. If the conference is there to show them that, than I have no qualms.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I also was really surprised by their site. For instance:
http://www.lovewonout.com/questions/#3
I personally think it’s useless and naive to get someone “with unwanted same-sex attractions choosing to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions”… there are many examples (besides Haggard) of how well that works.
I’m sure just like the Spanish inquisition, pipe organs being of the devil, black people having no souls, and women needing head coverings, 100 years from now this will be just another interesting period in religious history.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
jaspercreel,
It’s great that you carefully read between the lines of the Love Won Out website. LWO is mainly directed toward straight, conservative Christians — not gay/questioning Christians. That is why it is mainly sponsored by Focus on the Family. Oddly, the local ex-gay ministry, Portland Fellowship, or any other local ministry are not even mentioned — which seems to be a major omission if it is really about helping gay Christians. LWO seems to be more about giving conservative Christians a “compassionate conservative”, PC-friendly way to discriminate against LGBT while seemingly to look less hateful (i.e. ‘gays don’t need civil rights because God can “change” them’).
Worse yet, ex-gay therapy often blames parents for their child’s “sexual brokeness”, so Christian parents are guilted into curing their gay/questioning children. Exodus has even advocated for parents forcing their gay/questioning kids into ex-gay therapy. One ex-gay ministry has re-launched their infamous youth ministry which has been scrutinized after a teen complained about being forced into the ex-gay program against his will. (Interestingly, the ministry initially priced the four-day program at $2000 plus $1000 with child, but recently reduced the pricing to $600 per person. So turning your queer child straight somehow got cheaper.).
July 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Careful, you are assuming that because someone has a predisposition towards something, that they are no longer responsible for their actions! Or that it is useless to make individual choices despite your own tendencies. If everyone were to take that attitude, this world would be full of petulant children with no adults to keep things from chaos. There are many predispositions that we all have, whether they be of nature or nurture, but ultimately we decide our individual fates.
I just finished the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, the head scientist for the Human Genome Project. This man is a scientists’ scientist, but surprisingly he is a Believer, who also believes in the Big Bang and Evolution. That may be hard to swallow for fundamentalists, but after reading his explanations, I’m inclined to agree with many of his opinions. I hope to write a full review of this book and post it here, but later.
The part of this book that is pertinent to this discussion is the idea that people may be predisposed towards certain personality traits, cognitive abilities, and even sexual orientation - stuff that is not a physical attribute as we usually define it. Studies have shown that at best, most of these traits can be shown to be predisposed by DNA on an average of 30-50%, and quite often it is much less. There have been numerous studies with identical twins that demonstrate this effect and that statistically DNA has a small influence over these traits and it usually requires a complex interaction between DNA, environment, and various significant life events. In the case of identical twins where one is homosexual, there is only a 20% chance that the twin will also be homosexual (as opposed to 2-4% of the general population) and the correlation between homosexuality and DNA is a poor one. This correlation, as well as others mentioned, is only valid statistically in a very large population and cannot reasonably predict a predisposition to something as specific as one’s IQ or sexual orientation. The conclusion is that we can have some things innate within us that may predispose us towards certain traits or tendencies, but they are not predestinations (to use a theological term).
Many alcoholics who are predisposed towards drinking remain dry and sober for years. Many people with eating disorders can learn to control their eating and maintain a healthy lifestyle. Many heterosexual people refrain from sex and practice abstinence or celibacy for various reasons, some of which are not even religious in nature. To use the argument that sexual orientation presents an insurmountable personal obstacle for someone’s behavior is absurd because there is no scientific evidence to show that it is beyond a person’s ability to refrain from acting on those impulses.
Now, I just reread what I had posted earlier to make sure I haven’t contradicted myself. I think I may have shifted my position slightly, but I will restate that I do believe that some people are more predisposed towards certain things than others, and we need to treat people with an extra measure of love and grace in those matters. But it doesn’t change the Truth that some of these things are indeed sinful and wrong. Those people caught in this terrible conundrum are to be helped, not vilified. I think “Love Won Out” is on the right track towards doing the right things, even if they may not