There is a fascinating article on Newsweek.com about Gay Marriage and what the Bible says about it. Here is the opening paragraph:
Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple-who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love-turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
I think they make a good point that Christians should address…when did marriage become 1 MAN & 1 WOMAN? Certainly not in Bible times.
“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female? ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’”
– Jesus (Matthew 19:4-5)
He goes on to address divorce, but repeats that “it was not this way from the beginning.” (v.8 ) Just because people did things in Bible times does not make them good things to do. With that reasoning, we could excuse all sorts of behavior.
Jesus was unmarried, true. But that second phrase about indifference is more gnostic than biblical. He plainly stated that following Him superceded other relationships, and attachment to material things was short-sighted.
He also did not allow His family to manipulate Him. But note that as the eldest Son in His own earthly family, He transferred the responsibility of seeing after His mother to John — one of His last words on the Cross. That hardly sounds like He spurned His family.
They would if they knew where to read.
Didn’t mean to preach, but articles like this are misleading. They make a person think the Bible says one thing, when in truth, it says something entirely different. It’s kind of like all these people who think that Jesus is some pacifist who just preached love. Or pastors who teach that God exists for man’s benefit. Grrrrrr!!!
WOW RP!!!! I’ve been waiting for someone to be on the same page as me regarding polgamy, those OT patriarch’s had it going on!!!
Imagine PMS x %n (where %n equal number of wives) … shudder … I have heard that within polygamous marriages (LDS, etc.) concurrent cases of PMS has a cascade effect … Oh the humanity!
‘Scrupe
PS – glad to see you guys back up and running again – I thought maybe the CBC intercessors had finally brought down the blog …
Par for the course nowadays, anna:
-joe
I hear the gay community is going to introduce an initiative in California that would make divorce illegal. Heh. I wonder how the Evangelical community will come down on that one?
My guess is they’ll ignore it. Divorce is one of those sins Evangelicals don’t like, but still see the necessity of.
The writer of the Newsweek article should have read Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Judges 19-21, Matthew 19:4-9, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 3:2, and Jude 7. The Newsweek staff don’t know what they’re talking about – or they are liars.
I appreciate many of the posts I read on the City Business Church website. As a survivor of an abusive church experience, I like it when arrogant clergy are taken to the woodshed. And I too am utterly revolted by many of the things I see in contemporary American evangelicalism, so I like it when others point out the ridiculousness of some of these things.
But I see a danger, namely, that some would-be syncretists would like to join in the criticism of the Church, not because they love truth or Christianity, but because they want to distort it, and they see the present troubles in the Church as their opportunity to do just that. I won’t go along for the ride – I am still a Christian, and I intend to remain so. Sola Scriptura.
Just my two cents.
Anna,
I don’t disagree with you at all. I do however find this to be a good question that should not be ignored. I’ve never heard anyone address the issue of Biblical polygamy in regards to 1 Man & 1 Woman.
Is there anywhere in the Bible where polygamy is rebuked? Did Jesus or any of the Apostles address the issue? I ask honestly because I don’t know.
As my good friend Richard Giles always says, “At the end of the day we choose to believe or disbelieve by faith, but our faith must not be blind faith”.
I have not read the article and probably will not.
I agree with RP that the question needs to be addressed. I think if the issue was addressed well it would provide an understanding of the church’s position on marriage. The Bible has clear standards but acknowledges that we cannot consistently reach those standards without Christ.
Questions about the different types of marriage in the Bible does not change my personal position on monogamous, heterosexual marriage. It makes me wonder at what level christians should be dogmatic about public policy on the issue.
Often, the church is not consistent on its moral stance on issues. The embryonic stem cell/invetro issue is one example. Embryos can be destroyed in one case but not the other. The moral stance should be the same for both but it is not. Marriage and divorce stances provide similar contradictions in moral logic.
As usual, Anna has brought out some very good scriptures for the 1 man + 1 woman marrige doctrine. The key to understanding the issue is to realize the preemminence of Christ. Matt.17:5, Mark 9:7 and Luke 9:35 say the same thing 3X. “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; hear Him!” I’ll add Hebrews 1:2, “God, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” If you’d like more on this, see 2 Peter 1:17-19.
So, when Jesus says divorce was allowed because of hardness of heart, but it wasn’t that way from the beginning, that should settle it.
When I was at PBC, Kevin Connor taught that all scripture was equal, and that red letter bibles with Jesus’ words in red were silly. I now think that is a dangerous position. Luke 6:46, “And why do you call Me Lord, Lord,and do not do what I say?” All scripture should be interpreted through what Jesus has to say on any given subject. He hast the last word!
I’m throwing out my thoughts…
As for polygamy, in todays world there are men that cannot support one woman or one wife. How many dead beat dads are out there that dont pay child support or take care of family responsibilities? In those days, men were expected to take care of their wives and provide for them.
On the side note: some men fail to even please one woman (viagra anyone). So, how do you expect a man to handle more than one wife?
As for polygamy, in Timothy there is a verse saying that it is required for elders to be husbands of one wife. Polygamy was viewed acceptable culturally but the Bible always portrayed the ideal of one man and one woman.
I was told that the Bible as a story of redemption rather than a book of “What can i get away with?” . As the process of redemption there was less instances of polygamy. Are there any “godly” or biblical characters in the NT that had more than one wife?
The point of Abraham was to show that people deviate from the image God wants them to be, when they lack faith or due to their own human nature. It is to show that humanity is broken and do not follow the right paths. It is not meant to excuse the behavior. Like someone else mentioned, according to this article every sin would be acceptable.
God wants us fallen people to go back to the beginning, where God created man and woman in his image and that the 2 will leave their father and mother to become one flesh. It never mentioned “several fleshes”
As for Ruth & Naomi and David and Jonathan, that has been used to support homosexuakity, are we implying that platonic love without sexual interest does not exist? Are they saying that we cannot love another person in a non-sexual way?
pardon the typos
Great comments, everyone.
I must say, though… the Newsweek quote brought up the verse where Paul says “Better to marry than burn with passion”
This could be an interesting point for those Christian Homosexuals who are genuinely pursuing God, and genuinely conflicted about His Word vs their innate sexuality.
hm.
Perhaps I don’t understand the point of the Newsweek article — or why it was brought up for discussion here. Is the Newsweek writer seeking to show hypocrisy on the part of religious conservatives for condemning behavior that was in the Bible? Is this another way to make a plea for acceptance of homosexuality based on their view of biblical inconsistency?
RP, I guess I don’t know what your real question is, or what point you are trying to make.
Is there a biblical standard for marriage and sexuality? Yes. As Jesus said, from creation, it has not changed.
Has humanity broken God’s plan in this area? Yes. For this, and for other sins, we are guilty and need a savior.
Should Christians seek to impose God’s sexual and marriage standard on the world but bypassing forgiveness of the Cross and the grace of the resurrection? Probably not.
Where should the legal governmental lines be drawn? After all, murder and theft are illegal. What sexual activities should be illegal for the good of society — not considering the biblical standard? Don’t know. Maybe that should be the discussion?
What I mostly see in the Newsweek article and in others in a similar vein is that for some reason the gay community would like the Church to sanction their sexual activities. Why? Why do they care?
Is it because the church has failed so miserably to love people for their intrinsic worth to God? That the church sees the labels of sin and has decided which ones are acceptable — as in, pride and anger are acceptable, but lust and homosexuality are not?
RP, I guess I’m asking you to define the question. I am quite confused.
I just postede my ethics paper from a class I took last spring which explores the question, Ought a Christian to Support Same-Sex Unions?
In my exploring of this question I give my opinion that I think Christ would support SSU in America today. Just my perspective.
If you read my paper feel free to quote me here to add to the discussion. You guys are such a lively bunch with kick-ass critical thinking skills and bible knowledge.
Last week a young woman asked me my church was “gay friendly?” This drives home the current research which shows that many young Americans perception of church is that we discriminate against our gay brothers and sisters. Whether or not this is a fair or undeserved perception, it is a perception just the same.
Quaker statement on gay marriage
By DAVE CHAKOIAN | Viroqua, Wis.
We of Religious Society of Friends believe the movement to isolate and scapegoat homosexuals, to promote hatred against them, and to impose in law one group’s religious beliefs on us all, is blatantly immoral and contrary to Jesus’ teachings.
With half of marriages ending in divorce, unquestionably the right thing to do is to strengthen marriages. But diverting the question to whether two people of the same sex can have legal rights together completely loses track of the problem of frail marriages.
The proposed constitutional amendment really has nothing to do with marriage; it is a thinly veiled attack on gays and lesbians, part of a pattern of discrimination and institutionalized hatred. It is a strategy of power practiced by would-be tyrants throughout history.
Some have portrayed persecution and hatred of gays as a Christian thing to do. We can find nowhere that Jesus said anything about homosexuality. Nor did Jesus ever suggest encoding Christian teachings into a Sharia-like law to force religious beliefs on society.
We believe that God loves us all equally, and that we are called to treat each other with the same love in which God created us. We have no need to hate, or to discriminate against, any group for any reason. It is simply not Christian to do so.
Anna, I think the concern is that many of those who oppose gay-marriage due it by quoting the Bible and claiming that God only intended for marriage to include 1 man and 1 woman. e.g. “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
When in fact, the Bible isn’t clear on the definition of marriage, as Old-Testament Biblical marriage included multiple partners.
And I don’t think the gay community is looking for approval from the Church, I just think they want the church to stop promoting laws that prevent them from getting married.
That said, this is pretty clearly a generational issue. And in 20 years, gay marriage will be legal in just about every state. I think the gay community should probably relax a little bit, realize that institutions don’t change easily, and take comfort in the fact that public approval is moving in their direction, albeit slowly.
Catalyst, the whole point of all the verses that have been quoted is that the Bible is quite clear on the definition of marriage. How do the verses that have been quoted allow for any ambiguity? I like a lot of your blog, but I must disagree with you here.
Okay, maybe it’s just me. According to the Bible, what do you believe is the definition of marriage?
If we just look at the New Testament (there are also many verses in the O.T. regarding homosexuality), there is Matthew 19:4-9, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 3:2, and Jude 7. If I may answer your question with a question, what does Matthew 19:4-9 teach? Regarding homosexuality, what does 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 teach?
Thank TH. I’m not arguing that the Bible has verses opposing homosexuality. I’m arguing that the Bible doesn’t have a clear definition of marriage, since the majority of the old-testament leaders were married to multiple partners. But good scriptures, thanks for looking them up.
[Comment ID #35995 Will Be Quoted Here]
Yes, but where in the Bible did JESUS speak out against homosexuality?
Yes, that’s what the opposers do. But should we be questioning 1M+1W, or should we be questioning if biblical morality = secular law?
As others said, the Bible IS clear. That patriarchs and others had multiple wives (not partners) does not excuse it. They also had concubines and used prostitutes.
Well, maybe this is where the question of Bible vs. Law comes in. But if they don’t want approval, then why is the community wanting church marriages, asking if churches are “gay friendly” as Pam said, and seeking clergy positions?
Perhaps it is a generational thing, and societal laws change with the times. Fine and dandy. But in God’s society, if something is God’s truth, then it is applicable to all God’s people in all places, no matter when or where they live.
Again, to me it’s not a question of whether marriage = 1M+1W, it’s whether Christians should force everyone live up to God’s standards. If they are going to try, then they have forsaken evangelism for Dominionism, IMHO.
He did not mention it specifically that I know of. He did not mention a lot of stuff. But He affirmed the Law.
ok, I’ll quote myself. From my paper:
And then I conclude my ethics paper with this:
Slinging bible verses at one another without carefully studying the cultural and historic context as well as the original intent of the message is what gets us followers of Christ in trouble. It becomes rules based religion rather than justice and love based spirituality. Glancing at many scriptures in plain english would leave us to tell women to shut up, treat slaves well (no nt scripture exhorts the freeing of slaves) , and when we go on missions trips to only take the clothes on our back. And no money. Trust the locals to take care of you, for Jesus said it. Yep. He did.
My weak argument here is that quoting a bunch of bible verses ain’t gonna cut it when Larry and Steve ask you why you think your holy book forbids them to love one another and be together, and yet you tolerate a woman to speak and demand slaves to be free. It is illogical to literally interpret the entire bible without carefully taking into account the timeless principle that is meant to be extracted, rather than apply a dogmatic rule from a text that is 2000 years old.
themz me thoughtz………….
@ Anna:
don’t you mean that it would instead be evangelism FOR dominionism? Isn’t dominionism another word for theocracy?
{and how are you by the wayt???}
um, duh, i get it now what you are saying, anna.
sigh.
i need another cup of coffee.
i totally agree with you.
more frogs jumping in the water getting heated up on the stove
more frogs jumping in the water and getting heated up on the stove
[Comment ID #35997 Will Be Quoted Here]
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; I was at work. I will answer your question in the following way. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He always did those things that pleased the Father (John 8:29). It also teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, being three Persons, are yet one God (John 10:30 and other places). If therefore the Father showed His opposition to homosexuality in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah at least 400 years before the Law was given, where is there any evidence in the Gospels that He changed His mind? And if the Father opposed this sin, then you can be sure that the Son was of the same mind.
This is also seen in Matthew 5:17-20, where the Son says, ““Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” He also says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” – Matthew 7:21.
As I have said before, I have enjoyed many of the posts on the City Business Church blog, because you all have righteously skewered the ungodly and un-Biblical practices of the religious and political elites in American evangelical culture. But the same Bible that condemns their practices also condemns the evils that are being championed by the Left. I have to confess that some of your latest posts have left me scratching my head, wondering what your actual goals are – if you don’t mind my asking.
I’m glad Newsweek ran the article. It is time for people to understand that “marriage” refers to two different things in our culture — a civil contract and a religious rite. These two institutions may or may not be synonymous, depending on the participants.
The argument that biblical interpretation must dictate our society’s institutions is false. Our system of laws is based on individual rights, not theocracy. As such, I have no problem allowing two or more consenting adults to share a contractual relationship. The participants can determine to what extent and in which ways that relationship will be intimate.
As for the religious angle, the Newsweek article simply brings to the surface something every student of the Bible has known for a long time — namely, there is no uniform ethic of marriage in the Bible. If marriage is so important to God, why isn’t the Bible clearer and more consistent on the points regarding marriage? Even Jesus’ statements about male and female do not limit the participants to 1M and 1F. All he said was that two different sexes mate. There is no prescribed marriage ceremony, and Jesus did not condemn the polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, or Solomon.
I can understand and respect an argument from scripture that homosexual relations are sinful because it is clearly taught against in both testaments. But others disagree with that interpretation. A conservative church may not want to perform the religious rite of marriage with participants of the same sex, whereas a liberal church may have no problem. Either way, the choice is left up to the individual person and his/her understanding of God and the Bible. That’s what religious freedom is all about. Ultimately, God will judge us all individually based on the choice we made correctly or incorrectly.
The first thing for social conservatives to do is realize that marriage has meant different things to different cultures for millennia. Next, don’t try to make society conform to your standards. Instead, live your life according to your standards. Finally, stop reacting against (fill in the blank with anything that comes to mind). All it does is perpetuate the idea that Christians are fearful and insecure in their faith.
The point of the Gospel is not for us to figure out how bad we are in God’s sight, but to point out that regardless of how good or bad, we still aren’t perfect and are in need of redemption through Christ. Let’s stop focusing on the scintillating details of the sin and instead focus on the remedy we all personally need and have in Christ.
Rather than fight culture wars, why don’t we encourage our fellow Christians to follow God’s standards and trust that God will bring about his godly changes in his children — regardless of the fact that Christians may disagree on how to define those standards?
Tiresias – are you saying that the bible is not clear about homosexual marriage? Does the bible forbid homosexuality?
I am saying that it is debatable. I have looked at the arguments and have concluded that I believe gay relations are sinful, but there are other Christians who take the opposite viewpoint. The fact that it is debatable, along with the issues of divorce, remarriage, polygamy, adultery, etc., means that the Bible does not speak clearly enough about marriage and sex to say that it is completely uniform in its presentation of how God wants people to act. At some point, we must decide individually what the Bible means to us, live our lives accordingly, and know that God is doing his work in us. We are individually accountable to God and will be judged accordingly.
My point is also that America is diverse enough to allow for multiple types of relationships to exist as civil unions. Conservative Christians should by all means work on their marriages and live as godly examples. But they should not use the force of law to stop other people from sinning. Instead, we should use the law of love to persuade others to make a voluntary decision for Christ and allow him to begin his work in them as well.
From what I can gather from reading posts/comments here and at other blogs concerning this article, people are quoting scripture that says homosexuality is a sin & then quoting scripture from Genesis about a woman leaving her family and cleaving to her husband (or something like that). Then they couple those two scriptures together to come to the conclusion that the Bible speaks out against gay marriage.
I can understand the argument that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin (though I disagree)…but I think that people are reaching when they say that the Bible is anti or pro gay marriage.
Can you imagine how many insane, ridiculous rules/sins we could come up with by putting together two seemingly unrelated scripture verses? I would like to see who could come up with the most creative…
I’m done with this thread unless RP says something about why he brought it up.
To Pam: Dominionism isn’t theocracy exactly, but we could go to lunch and discuss it!
@Anna :
email me! LL’s comment about frogs has got my appetite stirred. Know any good boiled frog eateries?
Hi Pam;
You said:
Not wanting to take the time to count myself, I searched the net to find out how many times the New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament.
The total number has been documented at 937 times.
See this page:
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:8B-KdoqK0w4J:forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D50%26t%3D8726+list+of+NT+quotes+from+the+OT&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us.
Total references or allusions to the Old Testament have been estimated at some 4,100. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. I, p. 617).
(These references for FICM/Belteshazzar, as he insists upon precise documentation.)
It looks like the Apostle Paul was the most prolific Bible-quoter of all the New Testament writers, as he quoted from over 100 O.T. passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians alone. I got tired of counting after that.
Jesus was the 2nd most prolific Bible-quoter we have record of, specifically quoting from the Old Testament some 60-80 times (counting for repeats in the Synoptics), and referring or alluding to it about 180 times. At times He sounded almost smug in doing so, with an O.T. quote being the totality of His response. Remember His confrontation with Satan in Matthew 4?
Some expositors even think He quoted ALL of Psalm 22 as He hung on the Cross. And in light of John 20:31, it’s safe to assume Jesus quoted the O.T. even more times than those we have record of. The way Jesus referred to it, it was as if He believed that since the Scriptures said this or that about the subject under discussion, then that was enough for Him and the case was therefore closed.
Those who quote the Bible in our day do so because it reflects their view of it as an “authoritative” standard for making decisions and living. To tell them what to believe or not believe in, what sin is, and how to live their lives acceptably to God.
On the other hand, many rely on their emotions or personal opinions to decide what is right or wrong, or make reference to the latest Gallup Poll. Some even go by what celebrities like Lindsay Lohan or Tom Cruise believe about something.
So Pam, since this isn’t the first time you’ve pooh-poohed referring to the Scriptures to ascertain what to believe in, what standard do you refer to in order to determine what is sin and what isn’t?
What is authoritative to you?
How do you form your personal standards, and decide what to believe in?
-joe
This?
@joebib:
You make a great point about how often Paul and Jesus gave credence to the OT. This was not my point to discredit the bible. What I’m saying is when we use the bible against one another like a weapon, slinging verses around like stones from the slingshot of morality and piety, this is what I have a dispute with. I’m sure you’d agree that Jesus kicked ass when the bible slingers of his day used OT verses like ammo to moralize him.
As has already been discussed in this thread, there are disagreements among great bible scholars as well as blogging bible buffs about hot topics such as same sex unions and same sex attraction as well as a host of other topics, like gender equality or whether to be dunked or sprinkled at baptism, etc… we each determine how we will interpret scripture based on the filters we have, our mindset, which becomes established by culture and denominationalism as well as many other factors. (hang out with a pentecostal and a cessationist and they both will have strong biblical support for their points of view…!) You and I obviously have different filters when it comes to scrutinizing the word of God.
I feel so special to be singled out by you Joe and for your kind interest in my ethics and values formation. Rather than explain with lofty language what makes me tick, I invite you to go to my blog and read through the things I have written about. Much of what makes me tick can be found there in the stories, essays and reflections I post. You might bump into a naughty word or two as you peruse my writings. I hope that won’t offend you. My blog is my digital living room so just like I am freer at home with language, I am freer on my blog as well.
I can thump bible verses along with everyone else. I have been a bible-thumping-demon-stomping-born-again-spirit-filled-woman-of-God for more than two decades. I have shelves filled with bible study aids and commentaries, computer software and many notebooks filled with studies and notes. I can be armed and dangerous if I want to be.
But I locked it up when I began to feel uncomfortable that I was using the written word of God as a means to judge others and defend my own beliefism. This is my story, not saying it’s yours. I just decided it was time to start trying to live out bible verses rather than quote them. A friend of mine who’s been a pastor and Christian leader for decades is of the opinion that when we corrupt the bible into a religious code than perhaps we need to set it aside for a time and detox. Not set it aside out of disregard for it’s authority, but because of respect for its’ authority.
I do my best not to use the bible as a weapon against others. This is my story.
Go read my blog. You are more than welcome to report back here or email me privately with your findings.
Pan: in california, homosexuals have access to civil unions which provide the financial protections of marriage. Also, there is no proof, one way or the other, that people are “born gay”.
All of the wrangling over exactly the Bible says about marriage is odd to me. Genesis makes it clear what God’s model is. All the other stuff is simply proof that God’s grace is bigger than our individual life choices. It also seems to show that “the rules” are not the point. The Bible, especially the OT, is full of people acting in ways that are clearly not the Godly standard. Everything that happens in the Bible is not meant to set a standard. On this site, folks have argued that the tithing of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were individual actions, not meant to be prescriptive. I would say the same about the marriages of the patriarchs.
I was thinking about this issue the other day and it reminded me of a long standing debate I have with my nephew’s guardians. They do not let him wear Nike shoes. It is all because of Charles Barkley’s 1992 “I am not a role model” commercial. I did not like the commercial. They hated the commercial and banned Nike from their home forever. The problem is that in the end Charles was right. Basketball players should not be role models simply because they can dunk a basketball. To quote him, “A million guys can dunk a basketball in jail; should they be role models?” So, I did not like the commercial but agree with the sentiment. Parents, teachers and others should be role models not actors and athletes.
This is exactly like the homosexual marriage. I believe that homosexual behavior is sin. I also believe that much of the activist homosexual agenda is not good for the nation, without referring to the “good book”. Yet, I also believe that homosexuals should have the opportunity to access the financial security that comes from legal unions.
I call this giving up the practice of Christianity but not the faith of it…something I did a long time ago.
Tiresias said
So does your effort to persuade social conservatives conform to your standards on the gay marriage issue make you a hypocrit, or just hopefully confused?
I think that writing one *necessarily* persuasive paper for a class is quite different than raising/spending millions of dollars, organizing thousands of people and relentlessly pursuing legislation in order to force ones ideals on others…
[Comment ID #36002 Will Be Quoted Here]
[Comment ID #36003 Will Be Quoted Here]
LL as always you are so right on!
To everyone else: The bible is not only clear on the 1M=1W. It even goes to into careful and full detail of the ceremony itself. It is alarming how quickly our society is turning away from even the ceremony that God established. Vegas weddings?!? Hello!
Anyway, in one way or another all Christians believe this, they just might not practice it. For those wondering what God’s plan for marriage is, it’s outlined clearly in scripture:
1. The prospective bridegroom takes the initiative and travels from his father’s house to the home of the prospective bride. Christ left His Father’s house and came to earth to gain a bride for Himself. (Ephesians 5:25-28)
2. The father of the woman then negotiates with the prospective bridegroom the price that must be paid to secure his bride. Christ paid the price with His own blood. (1st Corinthians 6:19-20)
3. When the bridegroom pays the purchase price, the marriage covenant is thereby established. At that point, the man and woman are regarded as husband and wife, even though no physical union had taken place. The believer has been declared to be sanctified or set apart exclusively for Christ. (Ephesians 5:25-27)
4. A date for the ceremony is then established. And then before the ceremony the groom enters first, as he is the initiator of the covenant.
5. The father then walks the bride down the aisle. Why?
• The parents are an important part of the ceremony.
• The father’s duty is to present his daughter as a pure gift.(Deut 22:13â€21)
• Also, the white dress symbolizes purity. And there are many other wonderful representations as well, such as the aisle runner and candles.
6. The father gives the bride away to show the full blessing of the parents. This is the formal transfer of authority from the father to the groom after he has asked for the daughter’s hand in marriage. (Num 30:4â€8).
7. The ring is a “token of the covenant.â€
8. The couple is introduced to establish the changing of names. Illustration: Abram’s name was changed to Abraham. Spiritually we wear the “new name†of Christian once we enter into a covenant relationship with God upon baptism.
9. What is the significance of the guest book? It should be signed after, not before. It indicates there are witnesses to the covenant who have a vested interest in supporting the marriage. (The Armenians have a low divorce rate. When a couple gets in trouble, the godparents move in until they get it settled!)
10. What is the purpose of the receiving line? To give a blessing to the couple as in Ruth 4:11
11. The food at the reception is for the covenant celebration. This is very similar to the Lord’s supper. The couple feeds each other cake and they become “one flesh†in the eating of the cake, just as we become one in the eating of the bread. (I Cor 11:24f)
13. The moment the covenant is established, the bride is declared to be set apart exclusively for the bridegroom. The groom and the bride then drank from a cup over which the betrothal benediction has been pronounced. This action symbolizes that the covenant relationship has been established. Christ symbolized this marriage covenant through communion at the Last Supper. (1st Corinthians 11:25)
14. After the marriage covenant is in effect, the groom leaves the home of the bride and returns to his father’s house. He remains there for a period of twelve months, separated from his bride. Christ returned to His Father’s house following the payment of His purchase price. (John 6:62)
15. During this period of separation, the bride gathers her wardrobe and prepares for married life. The groom prepares living accommodations in his father’s house for his bride. Christ is preparing a place for His bride and is also sending pastors and teachers to perfect the bride for the coming wedding. (John 14:2 & Ephesians 4:11-13)
16. After this period of separation, the groom, best man, and other male escorts left the house of the groom’s father, usually at night, and conducts a torchlight procession to the house of the bride. Christ will soon come from His Father’s house in heaven accompanied by the angelic host. (John 14:3)
17. The bride should be expecting her groom to come for her; however, she does not know the exact time he will arrive. Thus, the groom’s arrival is preceded by a shout. Christ’s return will be preceded by a shout. (1st Thessalonians 4:16) We expect His return, but we do not know the day or the hour of His coming.
18. The groom receives the bride, along with her female attendants, and returns to his father’s house. The bride will be caught up with the Lord to be with Him. (1st Thessalonians 4:14-17
19. The bride and groom then enter the bridal chamber, and, in the privacy of that place, enter into physical union for the first time, thereby consummating the marriage. Christ’s union with the Church will take place in heaven for all eternity. (1st Thessalonians 4:17)
20. Finally, women need to realize and accept God’s plan for them. Once married, they are not to witness to other men outright. But rather they should live their testimony out. Far more powerful that just words alone!! “In a similar way you wives should be submissive to your own husbands, so that if any of them will not be persuaded by the message, they may without message be won over by the conduct of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.â€
~ 1 Peter 3:1,2 (New Berkeley)
THIS is the one and only scriptural way and what God and Christians mean by “marriageâ€.
Thank you for letting me know that I’m not really a Christian
It’s in the bible! If you believe it, you’re a Christian. If you don’t believe the Bible, you’re not a Christian! Simple!
PS. By the way, are you a man or a woman?
[Comment ID #36019 Will Be Quoted Here]
No, there is no hypocrisy. I would be a hypocrite if I used the law to make people believe what I believe. Using the law is coercive in nature. Persuasion relies on voluntary responses.
I can try to convince people that their behavior is incorrect and still not advocate for laws against it. For instance, I encourage people not to smoke cigarettes, but I am not in favor of banning cigarettes or their consumption.
Haha! How about if I said I believed the entire Bible to be true except for the 1 man + 1 woman argument — am I still not a Christian??
I think most “Christians” would say that the only thing you need to believe in order to be a Christian is that Christ died for your sins & that He is your Savior.
Does my gender really matter here?
If you believe that murder is ok, that’s not “Christian”. That’s “Whatever Religion That Thinks Killing Others Is Ok”. Your beliefs are your beliefs, but if you don’t believe the bible, then it’s not Christian is it? Can a American not believe the whole constitution? Only the parts he likes?
As to your gender, I only ask because of 1 Tim. 2:11.
Whoo-boy! I’m glad I’m done with this discussion!
I see now that you are a fundamentalist to the most fundamental degree and it is not worth my time to spar with you.
I can appreciate that you think your comments are made “in love”…but I find it totally offensive that you just quoted that scripture at me.
The “safe” cocoon-like world that fundamentalists have created for themselves blinds them to the beauty & opportunity of the complex world that God created.
p.s. What if I was born transgendered? Where in the Bible does it address what role I should take as someone not wholly female and not wholly male?
[Comment ID #36024 Will Be Quoted Here]
The lack of clarity around here on this issue is equal parts humorous and frightening.
Of course there is hypocrisy.
Telling someone that they shouldn’t impose their standards/morality on someone else IS an imposition of a standard/morality. It is the falacy of relativism.
If you can’t understand that point, I can’t help you.
Your effort to justify the hypocrisy by distinguishing between coercion and persuasion makes you an anarchist, which I assume you are not.
If you really believed that distinction was meaningful, then you would oppose ALL law because all law is coercion of one kind or another. Apparently you favor government by non-binding resolution, or perhaps committee suggestion.
Moreover, if you were truly opposed to changing current law to coerce other’s to living by your preferences, you would be speaking against gay marriage advocates. They are the ones who are trying to change the law to force other’s to recognize their lifestyle.
So not only is your argument implausible, but you have landed on the wrong side of your own argument.
No matter how hard Christians try to fight against “recognizing” the gay “lifestye”, it still exists. And it will continue to exist and the Christian community will continue to try and keep it as subdued as possible under the mistaken idea that if they do that, then there will be less gay people and/or gay people will convert to Christianity (I am sure due to Christians perception of their own loving & compassionate behavior) and either become non-gays or live a celibate life.
Why do Christians fight SO hard for something that will never happen…and that only produces hatred & dissension on both sides?
If the world cannot recognize Christians so called expressions & acts of love, then isn’t it time to change those things??
[Comment ID #36031 Will Be Quoted Here]
Blessed are you when they revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely in my name. For great is your reward in Heaven.
Pleasing people who love their sin is not an objective of Christ.
Loving them humbly is.
Yes, it is a difficult balance. But the idea that Christians have an obligation to make people like them doesn’t come from Jesus.
I know Joe and Doc will back me up on this but Living Life listen to yourself:
The fact that you’re offended is not at me, but at Christ in me. As He said I came to divide and destroy: Brother against brother. I take it from the fact that you’re offended that you are a woman. Don’t be upset at me because of the truth of scripture, but rather humble yourself and pray. There are hard truths in the bible for all of us. Don’t discard the baby with the bathwater!
It doesn’t matter that I am a woman…my boyfriend would be equally offended by that. As would many, many other men.
Also, I am NOT Living Life. Check the name…
I know that doesn’t seem like a big deal…but Living Life more than likely agrees with you on the gay issue whereas I do not.
[Comment ID #36033 Will Be Quoted Here]
I am deeply offended by your ignorance here and I am 100% man. JT is right, you sound like a pure conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, James Dobson type Christian (the kind we really don’t like around here). But that doesn’t make you any more or less of a Christian. That’s the beauty of Jesus Christ. We are called to serve Him and only He makes the true judgments of our salvation. Using moral standards as a compass of who’s more Christian is a joke! I think EVERYONE needs to stop pushing their own personal agendas on other people. If you look at Jesus’ life, He was too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. He never aligned Himself with anyone but the Father. It is completely OK (and generally needed) for Christians to disagree on these topics. It’s what brings diversity and open-mindedness. If everyone looked, acted, and thought the same, we’d all be a bunch of robots!
What ignorance? Explain the ignorance so we can all be on board. He quoted 1 Tim. 2:11. Why is that ignorant? (I’m defending the use of the scripture in that context, I’m just asking you to engage the idea rather than attack the guy.)
Yawn.
On this, we agree. However, discernment is a biblical virtue that some of you lack. Doesn’t mean you aren’t covered by the blood, though. We all have things we need to work on.
Let me get this straight. He makes an argument, its pushing a personal agenda. You make an argument, its…what…philanthropy?
Just like it was completely ok and generally needed for Christians to disagree about the appropriateness of slavery. I’m with ya.
Exactly, because God really values open mindedness. Yeah, I couldn’t find that verse either. Forgiveness–absolutely. Tolerance of sin, not so much.
I know you don’t like me DOC so I won’t even give you the time of day. Make real points, not just personal attacks.
[Comment ID #36037 Will Be Quoted Here]
I have no problem with you. I expect you are a perfectly decent guy. Besides, I don’t think I made even a single personal attack. I hate personal attacks more than anyone I know.
But I do call it like I see it, and I think most of your arguments on the political issues are weak. I was simply trying to point out the deficiencies in your arguments in the hope that you might reconsider your conclusions or provide defensible arguments based in actual reason and less in prevailing political sentiment (as yours appear to be).
I admit that I was a bit sarcastic, but I think the point in each case is obvious and not at all personal. And if my sometimes sarcastic tone is misinterpreted as a personal attack, please forgive me. I did think that was encouraged around here.
If the points were not clear, I would be happy to elaborate.
But most of all, if I’m wrong, please tell me why.
Ok, heads up LL and OT, ’cause I’m throwing the ball to you…not at you, but to you….:
In light of your understanding of scripture how would you ethically resolve the following true life scenarios according to your biblically interpreted world view:
- a baby is born with both male and female plumbing. The parents make the excruciating decision to choose the sex of their child to be a boy, who then grows up not ever feeling at home in his boyness. He is attracted to other men and then decides to become a woman….
- a young girl from the age of three begins to exhibit strong male characteristics and insists she is a boy, not a girl. She has never been sexually traumatized and she comes from a drug-free, stable home. Now in middle school, this girl begins to realize she has feelings for other girls and wonders what she is. A girl or a boy? Gay or straight?
- A tween boy realizes that is rather effeminate without trying. He is naturally good at girly things and feels much more comfortable around girls, though he recently admitted to himself and a trusted friend that he has his first crush. On a boy.
Pretend for a moment these are you children.
The writing of the bible is not always black and white. I have sometimes wondered why Jesus did not write a plain gospel to settle theological disputes, but then it dawned on me that maybe he didn’t write one because it would simply become ammo for arguing and displaced judgment.
I don’t quote many bible verses here because I know that the readership of this blog is very well versed in the scripture. And in the instances of the three, true life histories I just cited, there is not clear biblical insight…however, I do believe very much that our decision making can be guided by biblical wisdom and principles. And for this reason, it is complicated, often complex of why something is truly a sin for one person but not for another. Some of the readers here ought not to ever drink alcohol. Others keep it in the fridge and go to the pub. I suggest that human sexuality is not black and white and that a careful, thorough study of the whole counsel of scriptures I doubt would support that homosexuality is unequivocally a sin for every human being. Just like killing someone else is not always murder, or a sin…
Ok, I’m done with my preach.
{I’m gonna go hang out with Anna and look for a restaurant serving boiled frog soup….ANNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!}
DOC, I have never hidden my libertarian leanings. There is no hypocrisy here because I freely admit that the Bible and civil government are two separate things, as they should be.
People should have the freedom to discuss, debate, and persuade each other about their personal, religious beliefs. But imposing those beliefs on someone else by penalty of law is not loving and is not the role of government we have established for ourselves.
As an aside, I do believe that much of what our government does is unnecessary. You may consider this “anarchist,” but I don’t. There is a legitimate role for civil government, but not the massive system we have in place today.
“Marriage” is a religious rite, and “civil unions” (whether gay or straight) are the role of the state. Let’s not confuse the two any longer by calling them both “marriage.”
Thanks Doc. It breaks my heart to see how many Christians have turned their hearts on the scripture. I by no means can say who is going to heaven or not. It says in the Bible that none but God can know that! As to everyone being offended, why? Have I taken anything out of context? If it’s your scripture, how can I cause offense?
I love that you brought up slavery Doc. I don’t think I would have been very popular even in times past. You wouldn’t see me at a MLK rally! I mean, I’m not for slavery, but there sure isn’t ANYTHING in the bible condemning it. Quite the opposite.
Don’t pick and choose your verses folks! Read the WHOLE bible! Get to know God by HIS words!
But if you believe ANY law is appropriate, then you believe it is appropriate to force everyone to conform to a particular standard. So unless you are an anarchist, the argument is about WHICH standard to enforce, not the appropiateness of enforcing any standard.
Then you don’t understand the purpose of government. (not just the current big government role). Government exists to keep people safe. It does so by prevent certain behavior. That requires conformity to a standard establish by the government, presumably on behalf of the people. That is an imposition of an established standard on every person within the jurisdiction of the government. You can’t possibly oppose that in every case or else you oppose the entire criminal code.
On this we agree. But my points above still stand.
That is your standard. Many people (and current law) disagree. How dare you try to change the law to force me to comply with your standard
DOC, of course we are talking about which standards to enforce, not whether to enforce anything at all. But legal standards must be based on the concept of rights, not passages from the Bible or “traditional values.”
Society is unharmed by gay unions. There is no reason to legislate against them. The burden of proof is on those who seek to continue to hold the traditional values of the Religious Right. I hear often from them that society with gay rights will decay overnight. They said the same thing about prayer in schools, teaching evolution, no-fault divorces, violence on TV, rap music, broadcast standards, internet porn, etc., but we’re still here. The earth has not stopped turning. There haven’t been any fire and brimstone catastrophes.
If you don’t like what society is doing, don’t do it. But don’t stand in the way of people who want to do it (as long as they are not harming anyone else in the process).
Our environment is no longer friendly toward “traditional values.” If you use Christianity or tradition as the basis for governmental standards, you will lose. Christians are one small segment of society among other small segments. It’s time for us to realize that we don’t need to christianize our culture anymore, we just need to make sure that we are personally living up to our own Christian standards.
Why are you so scared of a society in which traditional sexual roles and rules no longer apply? No one is saying you must change your personal rules. All we’re saying is that you have to respect the freedom of other people.
Pam: those are tough issues you bring up a number of tough situations. The challenge is that we have moved from public policy (1 man/1 woman) to homosexuality in general. To me the blurring of these issues is part of the reason why folks can’t have a reasonable policy discussion without making accusations at each other.
I have no answer for the person with both plumbing except that they and the parents have every right to be confused.
To be completely honest, I hate this perspective. Why is effeminate behavior a sign of homosexuality? I know folks who dealt with same sex attraction but were not at all effeminate at all until after they “came out”. Part of that is a cultural thing. It drives me crazy. Why not big, macho gay guys and effeminate heterosexuals? We begin putting people into boxes of cultural/gender based behavior patterns, then wonder why people who don’t fit the mold begin to question who and what they are. From where I sit, the effeminate/gay connection is a social construct much more than reality. If we take Roman culture for example, warriors tended toward homosexual behavior as a bond between warriors.
We do not know and no one knows if people are “born gay”. We should also know that “being gay” is not sin, homosexual behaviors are sin. So, in general, as Christians we make a mistake when we freak out about people’s desires. Folks desire to get drunk, have sex outside of marriage, commit violent acts against others and lie for personal gain. Yet, we have the means and grace to deal with these feelings and when people follow their feelings. We need to develop the same means and grace for same sex attractions.
I would like to say more, but do not want to blather on. I am also tired.
tiresias said:
Our laws can be based on Dr. Seuss if the legislature wants. The only thing limiting the power of the legislature is the constitution, which in no way requires the thing you’re asking for.
At the micro-level, I understand your argument. My gay neighbors aren’t a specific harm. However, the health of society depends absolutely on the long-term success of heterosexual marriages that produce lots of healthy, well adjusted children. I believe it is appropriate for government to esteem that relationship above all others without interfering with the ability to choose to live in other arrangements without interference.
Why, because you said so? Typically the one proposing the massive change has the burden of proving its a good idea.
Are you totally unaware of the massive social decay that has taken place over the last 60 years? Virtually every measure of social decay (crime, suicide, drug use, depression, psychological problems, every kind of violence, sexual and otherwise) have increased exponentially. At the same time, educational achievement has plummeted. We’re less honest, we don’t value virtues that used to be expected.
Pornography has ruined countless lives and marriages and the effect of rising divorce rates on children is incalculable.
Of course correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and the particular impact of any one of these social changes can be debated. But the suggestion that our moral health is somehow better or unchanged is unsupportable.
Isn’t telling me not to tell other people what to do… actually telling me what to do?
Thats right. Joy, love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, honesty, courage, faithfulness, kindness, temperance, gratefulness, self-control… So passe. Who needs it?
Or were you just referring to sex?
That’s right William Wilberforce. That’s right Martin Luther King Jr. Take your minority religious views and shove it.
The census disagrees, but I understand your point. Belief in the written Word of God is very rare, even in the church.
Yeah, kinda like the German people during World War II. “Nevermind the trains full of people that never come back, kids. Just don’t kill any Jews today.”
(I mock only because I find it ironic that the sex issue is one of the few issues it is “inappropriate” for Christians to appeal to Christian virtue on.)
You’re right. I’ll back off the pedophiles.
Or were you just referring to homosexuality?
Sure they are. They’ll fire the teacher who won’t teach that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. They’ll punish the business that would not extend benefits to a homosexual relationship. And they’ll punish the biblical position on the issue as a hate speech.
I’ve been doing that my whole life. What you’re saying is that I should no longer have the freedom to act on the basis of my conscience with respect to this issue. You’re saying that you want my government to endorse it, subsidize it, teach it to my children in school, and punish private citizens who act on the basis of a different belief.
Government does not need to esteem one type of relationship over another. If there is no harm in gay relationships, as you concede, there is no reason to classify hetero marriage is better than homosexual marriage. The rationale for protecting one over the other is whimsical. With the advances in medical science, gays can have children as well, so hetero marriage for procreation is no long a valid argument.
The only reason we have seen increases is because these activities were kept hidden before. If anything we are more honest with ourselves now. Sure, some people elect to do stupid things with their lives. That’s fine. That’s what individual freedom allows for. I would rather live in a society that values individual rights, knowing that there will be more apparent problems, than to live in a society that is whitewashed as “good,” whatever that is.
No, because of the context. there are two different spheres — church and state. One is voluntary in nature, the other is coercive. My point is different standards apply within each realm. I can personally approve or disapprove of an action, yet respect the rights of someone else to engage in that action.
You cannot legislate the fruit of the Spirit, and if you try to use it as the basis for legislation, you will get nowhere in an argument. You must model this behavior as a personal virtue to persuade others to live their lives in like manner, while they, too, respect the rights of others to live in a completely different manner.
I was referring to sex, but the same could be said for almost any other social taboo.
Wilberforce and King may have been motivated personally by the Bible, but they did not seek to impose exclusively biblical values on the rest of the world. They sought to have respect for human and civil rights. They helped create legislation that use rights as its basis, not the Bible.
Same issue as above. The Nazis were wrong because they violated human rights. They also violated biblical principles, but the Nuremberg trials were based on the issue of rights, not God’s Word.
I’m discussing the actions of consenting adults.
Years ago people used similar arguments to oppose granting civil rights to African Americans and to oppose the teaching of evolution. This is just part and parcel of the same slippery slope argument conservative Christians make about almost every social change. It’s old hat.
I still think America is a better country now, than in 1948. And I suspect most minorities would agree with me.
The last eight years have given Evangelicals the chance to prove how wonderful the country would be under Conservative Christian leadership. And it was a disaster. Christianity and Conservativism as political policies were a failure. It’s over. Now it’s time to give those dirty liberals a chance to run this country. And I for one am thrilled.
@ fred flintstone:
yes, you’re right. the blurring of homosexuality and public policy about 1m1w defined as marriage is unavoidable. At least for people for us people of faith who insist on a biblical world view.
I hear ya about the whole Born Gay is Not a Sin, but homosexual practices are. I’ve had rousing debates with good friends who point out that there is a genetic predisposition for alcoholism but this does not mean a person is destined to be an alcoholic, nor would it be in their best interest. I understand this POV. However, to compare sexual orientation to addictive behavior seems, well, it doesn’t seem like a fair comparison to me.
As for your point about effeminate males and all the stereotyping that can go on with gender roles, it’s true. I have met plenty of effeminate men who I was surprised to learn were happily heterosexual and married. As for some men coming out of the closet and then suddenly becoming girly, I have no idea about this. The point I was making, however, was about the complexity of gender and sexuality.
And it is because of this complexity that 1m1w as the sole definition of legally recognized marriage is the debate we are having here and across the country.
Ok, folks, I got to skidaddle. Busy day and weekend ahead of me.
Ya’ll are great to discuss and debate with. You make me think harder and pay attention to other ideas I had yet to consider.
Have a great weekend!
ONE TRUTH wrote:
What a pompous and heartless thing to say – to sling a sword at a brother or sister and hide behind the words of Christ to do it.
One Truth, it could be said of your approach to scripture that you “strain a gnat and swallow a camel” – translation – you have completely missed the big picture.
Imagine if Jesus had done what you just did! He could have said to EVERY sick person brought to him: “you brought this on yourself by your sin – don’t be mad at me that I don’t heal you – be mad at the scriptures” – or to the woman caught in adultery who was dragged before Jesus – he could have said “yes, you’re right, the law DOES say that – let’s take her out of the city and stone her” …
Do you wonder why in Matthew 23, Jesus told them concerning the LAW: “but you have neglected the more important matters of the law: … MERCY …” Tell me ONE TRUTH, where is it given in the Law for men to show mercy to men?
IF Jesus insisted like you do, that the letter of the law be followed, mercy and grace be damned, every one of us would be put to death and sent to hell for our transgressions … but Jesus showed a HIGHER calling – to aspire to mercy and grace.
So how is it, that the likes of Abraham, when God’s judgment was upon Sodom and Gomorrah, PLEADED with God to spare them? Did Abraham have more grace / forgiveness in his heart than God? Or did Abraham understand that was God really wants from us, is for us to ASPIRE TO SONSHIP? To be like Jesus in compassion, grace, forgiveness? Likewise, when Moses jumped into the gap, between an angry God just in extracting punishment for sin, to plead for his mercy? What about Joseph? He had every right to have Mary put to death? Instead, Joseph aspired to the higher calling: grace – mercy.
Can such be applied to the likes of other scriptures, such as 1 Timothy 2:11? You see, I am a spirit-filled tongue-speaking prophesying vessel of the Holy Spirit, just as is my wife. I know what that scripture says, but, why would I want to silence a vessel filled with Jesus? Likewise, I have read in Genesis where man and woman were one flesh – help mates one to the other – but it was AFTER THE FALL that the Lord said to the woman “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” … and so the way you have used that scripture, apparently, is to rule over women … tell me ONE TRUTH – did Jesus redeem us from the curse? If HE redeemed men from the curse, how about women? Does a man RULE OVER the woman, or, as it says in Ephesians 5, does man LAY DOWN HIS LIFE (like Jesus did for all men) for his wife?
Do you understand that Jesus, when He lay down his life for us, that he did NOT seek to enforce a single OT law over us? He did not require any one of us to pay the penalty of the law? He did not seek to hold us responsible for any of it?
In telling a woman “you must be silent, submit” etc., you are essentially telling her that she must continue to live under the ‘curse’ … that may be OK for you and your marriage, and the way you rule your church / assembly, but it doesn’t work for me – as I prefer to live with my wife as help mates, one flesh, both of us freed from the curse. She is every bit the temple of the Holy Spirit, every bit the living stone that I am. I give thanks for every word of spirit that comes from her mouth.
To aspire to sonship is the higher calling of scripture. Literal application of scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:11 is for rulers, overlords, pharisees and hirelings … for an example of how a son treats women, look to the example of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, or Jesus and Mary sister of Martha – or Jesus and the woman caught in adultery – or the woman at the well … not one of them did Jesus say “silence, woman” like you did.
‘Scrupe
Tiresias:
Go back and read my last post that was responding to several of your arguments. Every one of your comments in response misses the point. I can’t tell if thats because you didn’t get the point, or because you agree that your argments were weak so you’ve become a moving target.
I’ll give you one example. You said, you can’t legislate the fruit of the spirit. Of course you cant’, but that wasn’t the point. I was responding to your comment that our environment is not friendly toward traditional values. Which is nonsense. Virtually every “traditional value” is still higly valued. Its just that lots of people, particularly in the gay community, are insecure about their sex lives.
One Truth:
Take my advice. Before he goes nuclear on you
, repent and burn some incense to sam-scrupu-444.
I know, it sounds like an Israeli archaeological dig, but just do it…you’ll thank me later.
(Sammy: You owe me some emails dude.)
-joe
I DO NOT!
DOC, I responded to your assertions quite directly. There is no moving target here.
The problem is that you are on the wrong side of history. Minority rights will continue to increase, as they have through the 20th century. Gay marriage is coming our way in the next few years. You will have to get used to the idea. You may not like it, but it will be reality.
What I’m suggesting is that we formulate strategies for vibrant Christianity in a post-Christian America. Trying to impose traditional Christianity on our general society won’t cut it anymore.
And instead of scoffing at every societal change, let’s see this as an opportunity to secure individual liberty and show people why they need to choose to follow Christ voluntarily and personally.
I agree with catalyst above. I don’t want to return to 1948. (I disagree with him that the liberals may have the solution. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals have the of the best solution. For that, try the libertarians.)
BTW, insulting members of the gay community is no way to show them Christian love, compassion, or any of the fruits of the Spirit you say you are so fond of. Have a little less judgment and a little more understanding.
I think I was trying to make a slightly differnt point. What I was trying to say was that we have a way to deal with people “missing the mark” on purpose or on accident, regularly or irregularly without completely condemning them. We need to find a way to act in the same way with homosexual behaviors.
As far as my comparison being fair, I think it is completely fair even with your misreading. The activities related to the issues I discussed tend to have a greater effect on complete life than sexual attratraction, are extremely addictive and have more devastating results to life and relationships than homosexuality. So, I think the comparison is fair.
There is a guy in the Chicago area that has a ministry to the gay community. One of his things is that same sex attraction is different than “being gay”. To way oversimplify his perspective, he says that being gay is a complete socialization/identity thing. Same sex attraction is simply what it states being attracted to people of the same sex. All of the clothes, hair, effimenant, manly, stuff is learned behavior. To me, when we buy into the culture part as a necessary part of the internal piece, we make it a bigger issue than it has to be. To me, when you make the statement that it is unfair, I am assuming you are saying that homosexual issues are larger than a penchant for lying, heterosexual promiscuity, anger, or chemical dependency. But if you break it down and compare: I am attracted to people of the same sex to I have a tendency to get overly angry. In God’s eyes, I am not sure they are really all that different.
Ah … I had wondered what Catalyst was up to …
The guy’s name is Andrew Marin
Hi Reformer (ex-city-slave),
I don’t think it’s that DOC doesn’t like you personally, and I think the time-of-day thing was maybe uncalled for. I mean if he is being that way, why stoop to his level?
It’s just that in the past few months, in contrast to the good points you’ve made, you’ve also said a lot of stuff, even politically, that comes off as a bit arrogant and made you sound at times like a know-it-all.
“What the country needs is this or that, Obama/Democrats are great, while Bush/Republicans are idiots, etc.” {Kind of like how other (younger?) folk on this blog imagine they have all the answers to fix the many ills of the Kingdom of God and the Church of Jesus.
}
And so, to hear that type of stuff coming from a younger person who hasn’t had a chance to live through the stuff we older ones have — and especially when realizing in hindsight that so much of what we older ones firmly believed when we were younger was wrong due to our youthful perspective — it can rub someone the wrong way.
Not that this example is perfect, but sort of how you might react to someone quite younger than you, a child for instance, telling you all about how it is to be married with kids. Yeah, he may have a general idea or two about it, but you’d probably agree he really needs to wait a few more years before offering authoritative advice on the subject, and gone through the experiences of courting a woman, getting engaged and then married, establishing a household, raising teenagers, paying bills, working in a job, etc.
After all, the Word has much to say about the pitfalls of being young, not promoting novices, the wisdom that comes from older age, etc. In other words, like the old saying we have that Experience is the best teacher.
No offense, just sayin. Hey, I have the same affect on people and I’m an old codger.
-joe
Joe, I think you are referring to the rule of age – it goes something like this:
Joe –
I hear you, and have no beef with you. You and I have had thoughtful discussions before and have agreed to disagree. This is way beyond an age gap. DOC is the typical example of the shut your mouth, dominate Christian types that I have run far away from. He’s the type that makes it personal when you disagree with him. CBC is a place like that. They go below the belt when you are strong and independent. It’s something these Christian circles do to young guys like me who believe in changing things. So thanks for your input, but I for one have no desire to deal with DOC ever again.
Much love!
Those are a few. Most other CBC types avoid me, gossip about my “backsliding” and act very snotty about it.
Is backsliding anything like moon-walking?
Funny you mentioned that because backsliding always reminded me of waterslides in the park
Backsliding is a funny term. It implies the surface is slippery or sloped. Where Christ is the sure foundation, the ROCK, how does a person “back slide” – as if Christ is a slippery slope to be climbed?
There’s something else about “backsliding” that bugs me – that is the notion that human effort – a man’s own strength – is what propels him onward and upward in Christ … isn’t it Christ who carries us? Aren’t we saved by the strong arm of Christ alone?
It almost sounds like the notion of “backsliding” has its roots in a church pyramid scheme – where the pyramid is the established pecking order / hierarchy of the church – should a person ever quit the church game and retreat to the wilderness with the Lord, for some intense 1:1 time, I’m certain the churchy people consider that person a “backslider” – when in reality, he is simply ceasing the vain works of churchianity and following the Lord …
It also bugs me that it implies the notion that if we should stumble, we have somehow lost the Lord’s favor, or, that Christ the ROCK and sure foundation upon which we are built / assembled, is NOT there to pick us up when we fall.
“Backsliding” seems to be a “works-based” mindset – and the Bible teaches us we are not saved by works, but by faith and grace …
[Comment ID #36091 Will Be Quoted Here]
Great points Scrupe!
I don’t think there is such a thing as backsliding. You either serve God or you don’t!
-joe
Both yo’ references to “backsliding” are OT – where it was up to men to abide by the law, through vain attempts to discipline their will/flesh – salvation based on following the law was indeed an uphill battle that the flesh never could ascend …
Can either of you find an occurrence of “backslide” in the new testament, where the message is salvation is through Christ alone and where he is our sure foundation, our rock?
It just seems to me that the term “backsliding” is something that applies to the children of the bond-woman, but not children of the free-woman …
While the N.T. may not use that specific term, it certainly deals with the same concept. There are lots of words/terms not specifically found in the Bible that are nevertheless truths found therein, the Doctrine of the Trinity for one.
And I’m sure you’d agree that when the Father said he was “married” (a powerful word!) to the O.T. backslider in Jeremiah, He wasn’t manifesting any more love to him, than he sheds upon the N.T. Believer as well. The same, unchanging God (Mal. 3:6) is faithful to both:
Whatever you want to call them — worldly, carnal, weak, unspiritual, or backsliders — these Christians who still struggle with the flesh (as well as those who don’t struggle against it that hard
) are recognized and given warnings throughout the Epistles.
See the entire Book of Galatians (specifically 4:9); 1 Cor. 3:1-4; Jas. 4:1-8; Romans chapter 14 and also in 15:1-2; 1 John 5:21, etc.
The N.T. teaches that not all believers are super-Christians, nor are all at the same spiritual level.
Thus Jesus’ mention of the 30-60-100-fold Believers in Matt. 13:23, the Parables of the Talents and the Pounds, His teaching on the two classes of Virgins in Matt. 25, the Apostle John’s mention of little children/young men/fathers (with their 3 corresponding experiences) in 1 John 2:12-14, Paul’s differentiation between those overtaken in faults and the spiritual ones in Gal. 6:1ff, Christ’s admonitions to the differing Saints within the Seven Churches of Rev. 2-3, etc.
Who but God really knows the true condition of the hearts of His People? Who is truly strong in the Lord and moving on in Him, and who is not moving on, and is thus sliding backwards?
-joe
The word “backsliding” literally means to turn away from. Turning away from God can be done by anybody, OT or NT, saved or unsaved.
What bothers me most about the “backsliding” label, so easily applied to others by the religious elite, is that it emphasizes a person’s ability to move away from Jesus, moreso than Jesus ability to find and save the person. In my view, while I’m sure the hyper-religious intend it as a dig at the person who is backsliding, it is in my view more a dig at Jesus, as if His arm isn’t long enough to save that person, or, that He is not out there, diligently scouring the hills and valleys, looking for that 1 sheep that became lost …
Same with calling someone sinner – as if Jesus’ blood doesn’t cover them …
Calling someone names / labeling people like that, is far more slanderous to Jesus than to the alleged backslider … or have we forgotten: “whatever you have (not) done for the least of these my brethren, you have (not) done it unto me” … or the words of Jesus to Paul: “Why do you persecute me”? When did Paul ever persecute Jesus?
It depends on which standards a person is being judged as backslider – God’s or human standards. People tend to look at the outside, while God knows the heart.
For instance, I could be considered a “backslider” because I occasionally go out and have a drink, prefer an egalitarian marriage over taking a subservient female role in a marriage and role in society, not an outspoken republican, voting for Obama, and for not always being psyched about the new celebrity preacher, conference and Christian hype.
And of course in CBCesque churches, a person’s spirituality is judged by what they wear. If I came in looking like a Nordstrom model, I would get good approval looks by people. But if I came in jeans and a tshirt and look poor, some people are shallow enough to wonder if I am a Christian or if I’m new to church.
Another example — there is a girl I knew that visited and started going to CBC. She is shy and has autism. She wouldnt appear perky and outgoing.
Also not everyone is like that. She is a very godly girl that loves God. Others would not even take the time to get to know her and judged spirituality by that. I even had another person approach me and ask me if my friend was involved in the demonic. I was like…uh, no why? She then started saying that she senses a demonic spirit or oppression from her and all that charismatic BS. I got mad and told her that she was wrong to judge a person without even knowing her.
This is a perfect example of self-centered elites that cannot think outside their sheltered box. First of all, there are people who are quieter and a bit shy. That is who they are and we need to accept that.
I also remember some CCHS grads going into college and I heard comments like “I feel weird going to college. There seems to be such a oppresive, depressive spirit. People seem depressed walking down the halls and not smiling…” ugh!!! I had no idea what they were talking about.
- as for backslider, it refers to the state of the heart. Every Christian questions and has their moments but that wouldnt make them a backslider. I dont like the term backslider casually used to judge people based on human superficial standards.
Yes, there are people who gradually turn away from Christ for many reasons. It’s by their spiritual fruit we can tell and heart rather than the superficial things I mentioned.
Hi Nina….you said:
Excellent point. Just like when Samuel went looking for the next king of Israel:
You relating the story about the IC’s reaction to both you and your friend
illustrated how some Christians are anxious to: a) mentally judge, and then, b) spiritually label others. Probably because they are insecure in their own lives, and so it makes then feel better to pass judgment on someone else.
It’s also quicker and easier for them than to have to actually take the time to get to know someone. Evidently, this was also a problem in the Early Church (see James 2:1-17).
James, who was probably the Lord’s brother, already learned his own lesson about judging and looking down on others when he had done this same thing to Jesus (John 7:5). And so in his Epistle, he challenges those who are well off to not judge that “poor man in dirty clothes†(Jas. 2:2) but instead reach out to him with their own riches and provide for his needs. What a radical concept.
Years ago, this one winter morning I was in the PBC cafeteria on Glisan getting a cup of coffee, and I saw this obviously homeless man walk in the side door, probably just looking for a place to stay warm. There was an extra plate of food leftover from breakfast sitting there on the counter, and he started checking it out. So when Pop (the cook) saw that, he walked over, snatched the plate of food and put it in the kitchen fridge.
Bro. Conner was the Dean at that time and had been sitting over in the corner of the cafeteria watching the whole thing. When he saw what Pop did, he got up and walked over to the fridge, grabbed the plate of food and brought it over to the homeless guy. Then he went over and brought him back a cup of coffee.
And then he sat down there with him while he ate it, and just loved on him. I guess the cook forgot that’s what the Church is for.
-joe
Most often, I think the label “backslider” is applied as a way of saying ‘that person is not like me/us’ or ‘not a member of our group/church’ – the person applying the label is usurping the role of judge … or trying to promote their own spirituality at the expense of another – there’s also an odor of manipulation / control with the labeling of ‘backslider’ – implying to those who are discussing the non-present backslider that if ever you drop out of our little group, you’ll be labeled a backslider too … the evidence of that has been told many times here on the blog – when someone visits CBC / GC after a long absence only to be greeted by the cold shoulders and icy stares of their former peers …
Realistically – how often have any of you seen a genuine ‘backslider’? Specifically in the context Anna and Nina have described: one who has turned away from God in his heart?
The majority of the time, I’ve seen ‘backslider’ applied in a churchy / religious way, for someone who no longer attends some regular church function – such as youth group – or a cell group – or teaches Sunday school – or dropped out of the w&p band / choir … all are human standards / assessments that know nothing about the condition of the person’s heart …
I also have to wonder why such conversation comes up in the first place – that believers are talking about someone who is not around to defend themselves – I thought that was called “gossip” or “slander”?
One thing that affects my view about all this is, in the story of the prodigal son – the model backslider – the Father still refers to him as son and brother to his brother … whether he be dead or alive, he is still son and brother …
Likewise in 1 Cor. 5 – the man is said to be immoral, a fornicator, though he is still referred to as a BROTHER … I believe for some, it is necessary to turn the brother leading a double life over to the sin he craves, to work it out of him and bring about his full devotion to the family of God … the genuine body of Christ does NOT respond to the ‘backslider’ or one given to fornication with smug self-exaltation and gossip about the ‘fallen’ brother, but is in fact a heart-rending condition that causes the rest of the body to suffer (1 Cor. 12:26) – for God has gifted and called the brother, but his actions and absense cause the Body pain and loss – for as it says ‘the gifts and callings of God are without repentence’ – so the brother who genuinely turns from the faith to sin causes loss / suffrage to the body …
So I find it callous / heartless when the ‘religious elite’ speak of the departed as ‘backsliders’ etc. A person in touch with the heart of God and with a heart for the condition of the Body of Christ, would feel the departed as an injury to the body, something to be grieved and prayed about, until the brother returns to the family …
Out of all the arguments that I have read it appears that 1) The bible isn’t clear about marriage. When in fact it is. 2) The bible isn’t clear about the definition of marriage. It is. and 3) When it appears that both these are proven in the bible we pull the so you are saying that one sin is greater than another card or what about the OT when people were marrying more than one wife. The truth of the matter is that in all Christians eyes not sin should be greater than any other sin whether it be Divorce, homosexuality, fornication or ect.
The bible also tell you instead of condemning Christians or stronger Christians should win a person over with Love not hate. It doesn’t mean condoning any sin, but in Love and allowing GOD to work how he works to give the Spiritial increase to whomever. This topic along with many others is and will be debatable as long as man exist. This is what we do and have always done. The bible also says that so that it was in the day of Noah it will also be in the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus). Only 8 people in the entire world was saved due to misbelieve, idols, sex and just faithlessness. Wrong is wrong. I still have some sins I am praying that God will work out of me, but does that mean because I am sinful in one area that I just lay down and except everything or do everything else wrong?… You tell me? If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. I stand for scripture and I try everyday to walk in as much of it as possible from divorce, to submission as a wife, to my husband loving me a Christ loved the church, to homosexuality. Can you see that the arguments are fleshly and materialistic…. not at all spritial for much of the opposition. So no matter how you debate… it will take God to give the increase and to extend judgment not any man. None of us are worthy.
Thanks everyone.