Brandon Blake: Actually, I think Carl Laney holds that divorce and remarriage is never permissible. But Heth argues that there are grounds for divorce but not remarriage, which I believe, he has since changed his stance on and now allows for remarriage.

The point I was making with regard to Boyd, which I presume he doesn't view sin in such a hierarchal manner as you do because sin may be primarily mis-relation to God and to fellow human beings ie., the greatest commandment is to love God and then our neighbour. For him I suppose a relationship is not dependent on every little act or better on actions, behaviours or attitudes, just as ones relationship with one's spouse is not gauged by every (wrong) word spoken. As a matter of fact, you can read that here:
“http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=5&p=1&m=19767”

You can also read that in his book, “Repenting of Religion.”

In the link provided above, (and I would read the whole linked page[s]) he says this:

“Abiding in Christ---the Center
* So long as we are working toward the center by ethical striving (evaluating how we and others are doing), we keep ourselves from the center. God's goal isn't a bride who obeys out of ethical obligation all the "rules" that a "perfect wife" should do. A bride who did this -- even if she COULD do this (which she can't) -- wouldn't be a bride worth having. There's no "life" in sheer obedience to external rules. God's goal is a bride who is loved and loves in a manner that reflects the love he is. His goal is loving UNION (mirrored, analogically, in the husband-wife "one flesh" union, Eph 5:22ff.). When the loving union is established, the loving DOING gradually follows. But the doing is only LOVING doing if its not doing to express what is already there.

* God plays the game we create "outside the center" to get us to despair of it so as to receive the gift of being in the center. He sets the bar at perfection -- which is where it really is -- so that we come to the realization that we can't attain it, and getting three quarters there -- in contrast to those who are only one quarter there -- is utterly irrelevant. The law brings DEATH, Paul says, which is how it leads us to life. The letter kills so the Spirit can bring life.

* As we abide in Christ, he loving leads us to confront the "outside the mark" aspects of our life that keep us from experiencing full life. Our lives are gradually transformed into his likeness, the likeness of one perfectly united with God, as we yeild to his influence (the Holy Spirit) in our life. Love leads us to in certain contexts be used by God to confront death aspects of anothers life and sometimes even death aspects of soceity. But this isn't done with any presupposition that we are farther along than others, or that we have in our behavior met a minimum bar of approval while others have not. Whether one is three quarters to perfection or one inch is utterly irrelevant. Hence, if we are abiding in Christ, there is no life or worth or righteousness one derives from confrontation. One doesn't feed off of others. One doesn't judge. One only serves out of love. One expresses the life they already have by serving another in a way that facilitates their life.
Also, something Boyd said among the many conversations on this board was that, it isn't necessarily the fact that God allows for the sin of divorce and remarriage but rather that divorce (which is permanent or ongoing) and remarriage (which would be ongoing as well) would, in his thinking, be ongoing and continual sins.

So, I don't think for Boyd it's really a question of severity but rather that God EVEN makes concessions to sin (sinful humans) to begin with, given human realities and situations.

Now, when you add to the mix the question of a conflict of "absolutes" that Grenz speaks of, I think the general lay person is confused about how this question is going to be worked out in the life of the church (and society ie., same-sex marriage) and when Boyd says things like he said in a discussion thread I started years ago: Sex: What’s it good for? "http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=5&m=19494" :

“Also, too Brandon, I see your point in noting that sometimes the admission that some non-ideal situation (e.g. loving gay couple adopting) is better than another non-ideal situation (e.g. no available homes, or unloving heterosexual couple adopting) gets translated as all situations are equal (e.g. homosexual adoptions are just as okay as heterosexual adoptions). On the other hand, NOT making this admission condemns us to default to one non-ideal situation where as a different non-ideal situation may be preferrable.

Seems to me, in the fallen world, we almost always only have non-ideal situations to choose between. We need to remember what the ideal is in order to confess our need for grace, and in order to know what general direction we should be growing towards. But in day-to-day situations, it seems we have to choose between non-ideal situations in order to get a situation that is closest to the ideal.

I think the distinctions Empiress made on "levels of non-ideal situations" is insightful and was well done. I totally understand the fear of relativism in admitting these sorts of distinctions. But I believe that it is a fear that a) doesn't have to be actualized and which b) results in a form of absolutism that is very far from the ideal if it is given into.”

there is going to be some level of confusion going on. (By the way, the first paragraph is not exactly what Boyd thinks I said). I’m not saying I totally disagree with everything Boyd is saying, (he actually notes the incestuous relationship in 1 Cor 5 on the second page). But there certainly seems to be something of church pragmatics here. For example, someone asked,

“How are we to judge "people in the Church"?

Doc: WHICH "people" in the Church? Newcomers? Strangers? The prostitute or pan handler who walked in off the street to get warm? The old lady who sits across from you each week whose name you can’t remember? You’re close friend? And which "church"? The universal Church? You’re local church? Whoever shows up on a Sunday morning at the location you go to? Whoever is a regular attender? How regular must they be before they are considered part of "the Church"?

Who are we to judge is not an easy question, it seems.

The problem I’m getting at, **** is that our modern western "church" context is radically different from the first century. First century Christians didn't have this worry. In the first century, Christians were a persecuted minority who met in each others houses on a regular, even daily, basis. Helping those you fellowship with daily discern loving and holy things means one thing. "Helping" total strangers about whom you know nothing by "judging" them means something different. Is this any clearer?

Robert A. J. Gagnon: ‎Brandon, I skimmed through what you sent but didn't find it too helpful (the link was even less helpful). It was a bit too rambling for me. I don't think the "gay adoption" is just a less ideal situation but rather a bad situation characterized by great immorality. There isn't anyone who lives as if all sins were equally bad. No one. Anyone who did would be regarded as perverse. Scripture is clear that some sins are more offensive to God than others. As for the center analogy of being in Christ, some actions are further away from the center than others. None of this is designed to excuse sin at any level; but only to say that some accommodation to lesser offenses does not justify similar accommodation to greater offenses.

Brandon Blake: I agree with you on "gay adoption." I disagreed with Boyd on that and told him so. I agree with everything you say thereafter. I guess the question is not whether there are more severe sins. Boyd would agree that the sin of the incest in 1 Cor was evil. He said that if there was someone in his church on his “leadership team” who was involved in that sort of sin he would deal with that. So I don’t think you would find much disagreement with him on that.

However, given some of what he says, ie., if the standard is perfection, then does it matter if one is three miles or three inches from God? He even says this--it is utterly irrelevant. Now, you might say, “Stealing a pen from your company isn’t as bad as homosexual relationships” (when it comes to keeping you out of heaven)? But given that the standard is perfection, then I don’t know if you can honestly say that. I’m not saying its all EQUALLY OFFENSIVE to me or God, what I’m saying is that it is all equally offensive in that the sense that it keeps one misaligned or out of relationship with God. Now, just to let you know Robert, I tend towards an evangelical universalism as pertaining to Robin Parry, Talbott, Keith DeRose. If, given my assumptions about universalism that we all eventually make it in, then what does this say about Hitler as opposed to someone who stole a pen from the company? Well, if the mis-relation is soooo bad as it is in Hitler’s case, he will have some major work to do post-mortem. The person who stole the pen? Well, probably not as much. It’s the difference between one who needs to be “re-sensitize” who is on drugs (think prostitute whose life is withering away via drugs and what not) and one who is pretty much there--one who doesn’t need that level of re-sentization. The bottom-line is that sin is still sin and grieves the Holy Spirit. This I think becomes something of the problem with what you are saying. There can be the mis-step that because the hierarchal thinking of sin is at the forefront of your thinking on this issue, that you give the impression or may think that that all of it doesn’t keep you from God or heaven or that this “smaller” white lie type of sin doesn’t grieve the Holy Spirit. At the same time, I don’t think I would agree with some liberal types who want to fully equalize sin as you say.

Again, if we were to think of the center some are closer to the Kingdom while some are not. Some are closer to God while some are not. Hitler is farther away then Johnny who stole a pen from his teachers desk. But in all cases, both Hitler and Johnny are mis-aligned with God.

Now, I think you might find there to be disagreement on is how these things are to be dealt with. Boyd doesn’t want to be known for where one stands on this or that moral or doctrinal issue. He doesn’t want that to DEFINE us as a church. What he says is that love should define us. I would agree with you that love isn’t defined by relativism or letting people do whatever they want. If you look at my signature on that discussion thread I quote gospel singer Darwin Hobb’s who said: "Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life." Though there is some humor there let’s face it, love is tough. I don’t disagree with you nor do I think Boyd would. Well, actually he wouldn’t because he says so---“As we abide in Christ, he loving leads us to CONFRONT the "outside the mark" aspects of our life that keep us from experiencing full life.” and I would say actually bring DEATH or dying.

What I think he and many in church today would say though, in on this discussion is what he said in that discussion and I repeat:

“WHICH "people" in the Church? Newcomers? Strangers? The prostitute or pan handler who walked in off the street to get warm? The old lady who sits across from you each week whose name you can’t remember? You’re close friend? And which "church"? The universal Church? You’re local church? Whoever shows up on a Sunday morning at the location you go to? Whoever is a regular attender? How regular must they be before they are considered part of "the Church"?”

Given the context of church structure where people don’t know each other, how should a church confront those “missing the mark aspects” of our lives? A stranger who is in a homosexual or incestuous relationship who walks in into your church, what do you do? What if we add to the mix what Fee says about the incestuous relationship actually destroying the Church? Shouldn’t that sort of rebuke and discipline be reserved for that? Or “…do you feel it your moral obligation to point out ALL the sins of EVERY person who professes Christ? Do you apply Paul’s rigorous confrontation of the Corinthian adulterer in a universal manner? Since about 80% of all Americans profess Christ, you’d have to be a VERY busy person!” (Boyd).

See what I'm saying?

Robert A. J. Gagnon: ‎Brandon, I've already covered your first point in the original posting: "There is a hierarchy of sin. Yes, all sin, any sin, can get one excluded from God’s kingdom if one thinks that one can earn salvation through personal merit. But that doesn’t mean that all sin is equally offensive to God." As to the quotation from Boyd things aren't really as difficult as you/he make it. Alan Chambers has assured "gay Christians" who engage in serial-unrepentant homosexual practice that none of this will ever interrupt their relationship with God. This is a false statement from the standpoint of Scripture and deserves to be corrected. It really isn't that difficult to respond correctly in the interview that Scripture teaches that those who engage in egregious sexual immorality, repeatedly and unrepentantly, risk being excluded from God's kingdom.

Brandon Blake: Hmmm...OK...Robert...let me put it like this because this is what I hear him saying. On the one hand Chambers is saying:

A. Anything outside a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is very clearly stated as sinful in the Bible. This would…
B. mean same-sex relationships.

On the other hand he is saying:
C. Behavior matters, but it doesn’t INTERRUPT one’s relationship with God. Why? Because…
D. This relationship is a life long process. In one sense it’s not as if you have “made it in.” It’s not as if you have arrived. We've usually called this sanctification.

In other words, just as one can engage in egregious sexual immorality, repeatedly and unrepentantly and risk being excluded from God's kingdom one can engage in egregious stealing of pens repeatedly and unrepentantly and risk JUST AS MUCH at being excluded from the Kingdom of God.

Again, if the question is one of perfection then I’m afraid we’re ALL doomed. And if you think about attitudes and heart failure ie., hard hearts toward others, grumblings against others, etc, then this puts all of us at risk for being excluded from the Kingdom of God. So if I constantly think ill thoughts toward someone, this should put me at risk of being excluded. Amirite? Unless of course you believe that ill feelings don’t keep you from God’s Kingdom but homosexual practice does. But that is not what I hear you saying. And this is where the difficulty seems to be. Because I think that he is saying if one takes (action, behavior) one pen that shouldn't excluded you from God's kingdom or interrupt your relationship with God. Do you think taking one pen will exclude you from the Kingdom of God?

It's kind of like the new Christian who still struggles with sin, some of it rather inbedded. Do they risk losing the Kingdom?

Robert A. J. Gagnon: ‎Brandon, a side point on a previous posting but related to the one above: I believe that your belief in "evangelical universalism" is indefensible on any reading of Scripture. That aside, I have other disagreements with your argument. I don't think that repeatedly taking a company pen puts one as much at risk (if at risk at all) of being excluded from the kingdom of God has someone engaged in serial unrepentant adultery of an egregious sort. The Corinthians were doing many wrong things according to 1 Corinthians but only at one part does Paul insist on immediate removal of a member: the case of the incestuous man. The reason for the action is the extremeness of the offense. Jesus spoke about "weightier matters of the law" than tithing tiny amounts of spices. I think repeatedly violating the former would put one at risk of being excluded from the kingdom, the latter not all. Paul talks about different grades of actions in 1 Cor 3:10-17: one can construct poorly on the foundation of Christ and suffer "loss" while still inheriting the kingdom. However, to "destroy the temple of God," the local community of believers, over matters of indifference would bring about one's own destruction at the hands of God. This destruction is contrasted with being "saved ... through fire" over the lesser offenses. You see: It is not all equal. Sin undoubtedly impacts all the 7 churches that the Risen Christ addresses in Rev 2-3. But certain actions put certain communities in special jeopardy of removal from the kingdom.

Robert A. J. Gagnon: ‎Brandon, you also misunderstand Alan Chambers' views. Alan does not believe that any amount of repetative-unrepentant homosexual practice (or, apparently, of any other immoral act) could possibly have any effect on excluding those who call themselves Christians from being excluded from the kingdom of God. A Christian can engage unrepentantly in homosexual practice or any other high immoral sexual actions (or any combination of high immoral actions) from the time of his or her conversion for decades and die unrepentantly and it would still have no bearing on the person's salvation. He does not believe that a transformed life has any bearing whatsover on inheriting the kingdom of God.

Robert A. J. Gagnon: ‎Susan, first I cite Alan's glowing blurb for the book. Then I give lengthy quotations from Whitten's book. My words summarizing what Whitten says in his book are in brackets but these too represent Whitten's views. Everything outside the brackets is a verbatim quotation.