Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery

Forum Quick Jump

190 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/21/2001 10:59 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: I understand that many gays feel alienated from the church for the condemnation of what they believe is their true sexual orientation. That is sad and unfortunate. However, it does not give another the right to be rude or hostile. Debate should be done in a considerate manner, respecting each person's beliefs even if you disagree with them and adknowledging that they have the right to believe as they do. The first person had a very valid point: Christians are targeted by gays, even though Islam, for instance does condemn homosexuality. Why aren't gays marching on Mecca? Because they know there is no such tolerance for them in Islam. That is something to think about when one condemns the church.
A couple of things should be brought up. Homosexuality is a sin, regardless of where it starts. There are many things that start in the brain that we condemn. Just because we have an "orientation" towards something doesn't make it right. We are sinners, after all. I believed homosexuality was wrong before I was a Christian and would still, even if I had never become a Christian because, regardless of the moral implications, it is very damaging to men.
Finally, there is within the homosexuality community a want not just to have general rights but to have their views accepted as right by everybody. It is an attitude of "you must accept what I believe." That, I think, it was motivates many within the gay community and why many have such hostility against Christians.
In the end, though, I do not share your take on the response. There is nothing (to me) to suggest the person is gay, only that they are hostile.
We are all sinners in need of grace and the church is remiss much of the time in delivering its message. But the message of love also involves harsh adknowledgment of WHY we need grace. In these times of moral relativism, many want God to love them and their sins. In sadness, I would simply suggest God is unwilling to do that. John 17:3 Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/21/2001 11:02 PM (GMT -6)

Finally, it should be noted that many "gays" who have no choice seem to have a choice and return to a sexual orientation they were supposely not born to, which makes one wonder which is which?

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/22/2001 5:05 AM (GMT -6)

Trosie,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am going to respond to it in depth later today, as well as to the other responses (after I get some sleep!) but I want to make sure you understand that I am not saying anything against divorced people.

My views will emerge more clearly as this discussion proceeds, but I just wanted to tell you personally and up front that I in no way judge divorced and remarried people--in fact I believe they are making the most life-affirming choice possible for their circumstances at that time. I will address Jesus' words, "Go and sin no more" in my response later. Please bear with me.

Thank you for the gentleness of your response. I'm sorry if anything I said suggested a negative view of divorced and remarried people. Nothing could be further from what I believe. Hopefully this will be made crystal clear as the discussion continues.

Blessings,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 10/22/2001 5:35 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for your concern and response, Semeia! Actually I didn't take your words negatively. In fact, I wanted to post because this was just the issues I had helped my Dad to work through before his death. This whole topic was laying heavy on my heart last night.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness

trosie

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/22/2001 7:07 PM (GMT -6)

Well, I never got back here today and now I'm too tired. I definitely want to continue this discussion, I just need a little sleep first...

Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/23/2001 4:36 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

quote:
The proposed parallel between allowing remarried people into leadership and a practicing gay person being allowed into leadership escapes me unless a) one regards the remarried person to be in sin by virtue of being remarried or b) one regards monogomous homosexual relationships to be without sin. I hold to neither.

Meph:

I'll clear it up. You said the following:

quote:
A divorced and remarried leader can model how there is no sin that undermines God's desire to use you in your area of giftedness if you will surrender yourself to him.

I read this as saying that because of the nature of God's GRACE being demonstrated in us, perfect sinlessness is not necessary, but surrender and living in said grace. This is what a divorced and remarried leader would be doing for the sake of life-affirming whatever. What I was essentially asking was...DOES THIS HOLD TRUE for gay ministers in monogamous "life-unions" who consider themselves CALLED by God, living in surrender to his will in Christ? If you admit that in some sense, divorce and remarriage really IS "sin" but people can deal with it and be ministers, why can't NON-promiscuous homosexuality within a "married" context fit into that category? Just wondering.

Side question for Doc: Would YOU have full fellowship with the ministers at the Cathedral of Hope...or Mel White? Why or why not?

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/23/2001 10:12 AM (GMT -6)

Trosie: I am sorry your father had to wrestle with this issue before his death, but glad to hear he died with a full confidence in God's grace.

Mephi: I think you're still confusing issues.
Issue #1: Can a person who was involved in moral failure in the past -- including adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc... -- be a leader of others when they have gotten their sin taken care of? To this I answer YES.

Issue #2: Are monogomous same-sex relationships condoned by God? Even if we grant, with Semeia, that they may not be "ideal" --- and in this sense "sin" -- are they nevertheless allowed by God, just as he allows for remarriage, even though it is adultery (in the same sense as thinking lustfully is adultery -- it breaks from God's ideal)?

Do you see the distinction? One's views of divorce and remarrage and whether a person who has been through this can still pastor a church has (in principle) nothing to do with one's views on same-sex relationships and whether a person who isat present involved in this can pastor a church.

I'd like you to tip your hand first Meph. Where do YOU stand on this issue?

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 10/23/2001 12:18 PM (GMT -6)

I think it's worth pointing out that for gay and lesbian Christians (and if you doubt that anyone could identify themselves as being both homosexual and Christian, check out Mephi's like to Cathedral of Hope web site), they don't view their sexuality and how they practice it as something that, as Doc says, "may not be "ideal" --- and in this sense "sin." They don't see it as "moral failure" that God "puts up with" because it is the best path possible. Quite the opposite, in fact...

***********************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 10/23/2001 5:19:19 PM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/23/2001 12:57 PM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

quote:
I think you're still confusing issues.

I don't see how I'm confusing issues. As Semeia indicated divorce and remarriage is not a one-time thing. When one is in a state of remarriage after divorce, then THAT person remains in a type of "sin", yes? Didn't YOU say:

quote:
I feel the full force of the passage you sited where Jesus says that when a man divorces his wife "he causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her commits adultery." I agree with you that it is sin: it falls short of God's ideal. I also agree with you that, in this sense, the remarried people are "living in sin." It is not just adultery the first time, and after that fine. And I agree with your view that it is nevertheless allowed becaues it is the most "life-affirming path" for the people to take, given the situation we are in.

(Emphasis mine)

I thought that you had. Later you tried to make a differentiation between this type of "living in sin" and the type that you characterized as "ACTUAL adultery." Though one may argue for the distinctions, the matter at hand is that there's sin involved both ways. Enduring sin. I figured that homosexuals who have life unions could be considered under the rubric of the FIRST "living in sin"

The common denominator, as I see it, is the following:

Can a person be in a certain state of "enduring sin", but if yielded to God, STILL be eligible for ministry?

Now do YOU see what I'm saying? If sin is sin, then there is effectively NO real difference between the "living in sin" of the divorcee who remarries...AND the homosexual who engages in a life union. So my questions, I feel, are not confusing anything. I'd still like answers to them.

Whassup, I understand what you mean. But that's not the only way that the situation can be viewed. And yes, SOME homosexual Christians DO see homosexuality as less than ideal. I know that first hand.

PS: Doc, I asked YOU first. Heh...

Edited by - mephi2K on 10/23/2001 5:58:22 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/23/2001 1:41 PM (GMT -6)

Whatsssup: I don't think it matters how homosexuals view their sexual preferences, either good or bad, or less than ideal. I believe it matters what God thinks of them...

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/23/2001 1:45 PM (GMT -6)

Oh, I think it should be noted that just because one identifies oneself as a Christian doesn't mean one is. I believe Jesus said that many will say on that, "Lord, Lord..." and he will say to them, "I never knew you." Just because one believes oneself to be a Christian doesn't make it so. If that were true we would need to include Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pens, Mormons, Christian Scientists, in fact just about anyone, simply because they "identify themselves as Christians."

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/23/2001 3:33 PM (GMT -6)

Doc said: But must we not distinguish this falling short of God's ideal, either in the mind or in remarriage, from committing ACTUAL adultery (I don't know how else to express this distinction)?

Isn’t the whole purpose of the Sermon on the Mount to erase this distinction? While Jesus was speaking did he do a “wink, wink, nod, nod,” and it got lost in the translation? When he said if you even say “thou fool” to your brother you are in danger of hell fire, did he really mean campfire? Jesus very clearly, unequivocally, erases that distinction. If you miss that point, you have missed whole point. When Jesus says, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye." what does he mean?

Let’s stay with this passage a minute. Everyone has read it a hundred times and thinks the meaning is obvious. The first sentence is a command: “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” For centuries people have tried to weasel out of this one. What most people come up with is: discernment is what I say about you – judgment is what you say about me. Actually, the first sentence is both a command, “Do not judge” and a reason, “so that you will not be judged.” Jesus, having mercy on our lack of comprehension, goes on to explain: “For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” If at this moment every bible in the world burst into flame, and all that was left of God’s word was this charred sentence, it might just be enough. Out of the layers of meaning in this line, one thing that emerges clearly is that we are in complete control of the judgment we will receive. We in fact create the judgment we receive. We “make” the judgment we receive. As we judge others, for their sin, for what they do wrong, for their self-righteousness, for what we “see” as their evil, we are “making” our own judgment. People should tremble before this line. This is the description of hell, and it is of our own making. Oh, if only God would judge us, merciful God. But Jesus tells us something different and horrifying: “For with the judgment you make you will be judged.” God have mercy on us. Here is the full weight of the Sermon on the Mount resting on our shoulders. We look for an escape from the terror of that line. Jesus says, “and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” For a moment we feel better, for surely we give to people, we’re nice, we write checks to the church, to the charities, we help Grandma across the street. But soon an uncomfortable feeling comes, and we start to squirm. Compared to what we’ve heard about heaven, what we do is really pretty paltry. When we add up everything good we’ve done over the course of a lifetime, it doesn’t look much like heaven. But Jesus says, “and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” Suddenly this too is a burden. Jesus tells us we make our own reward. We would much rather that God made our reward. God in all his generosity. Suddenly freedom closes in on us.

Jesus continues. He asks, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?” This is so brilliant. Our mouths just have to drop open at the word of God. What is Jesus telling us here about the importance of our sin compared to the importance of someone else’s sin? He gives us a great visual: our sin is a log; the other person’s sin is a speck. This is the ratio. This is how our sin is measured. This is how we should perceive our sin in comparison to others. If you put two piles of sin next to each other, one is as big as a log, the other is as small as a speck, which one demands attention? Which needs to be addressed? Remember, Jesus has already answered our objections. He has already answered the question, “But what about the murderer? I only kicked the cat! How can my sin be bigger than his?” Jesus has dismissed that argument. He has said, lust in your heart is the same as adultery; the angry thought is the same as murder. Now it starts to dawn on us what he meant. We have to get the proportion right. If we “see” the murderer as worse than us, we will never “see” the true proportion of our own sin. We will never hear the urgency of God’s message, that any transformation that happens in the world happens ONLY as a result of the transformation that happens within. In our whole life, could we ever get rid of this “log” of sin, so that we could take the attention off of ourselves, and turn our attention to the sin of others? Is this a “project” that we can complete, and as we chip away at our sin, can we reduce it bit by bit, so that finally we could turn our attention to the next guy, the ax-murderer and the litterbug? Remember, the other guy’s sin is a speck. So that means our sin needs to be less than a speck before we shift our attention. Jesus says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.” It’s interesting that he says that shortly after saying we should love our enemies. So if we are perfect, then we can judge. The question is, if we were perfect, would we judge? Or would we love our enemies?

The last line is a sleeper. Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” I am dumbstruck by the genius of this. Jesus has taken me step by step, and now he shakes me hard. I feel like Saul on the road to Damascus. I can see. He starts by addressing us as “hypocrite”, a nasty label if there ever was one. It would be nice to think he was referring to the Pharisees, but this is to the crowds, this is to humankind, this is the Sermon on the Mount, the core message of his whole ministry. So I cringe. “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” And then it hits me. Our own sin blocks us from seeing our neighbor’s sin. We don’t even know what our neighbor’s sin is, because we are blocked by the obstacle of our own sin. Our own sin makes it impossible for us to judge what is good and evil in another. Our own sin makes us blind. What we see, when we look at others in judgment, is through the darkness of our own sin, which is opaque. We do not truly see others. Jesus says so, “take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” When we take the log out of our own eye, what we will see is that our neighbor’s sin IS ONLY A SPECK. We judge the world through the veil of our own sin, and it makes us blind. Our judgment actually causes us to do evil, when we intend good. We judge the people around us as if their sin is in need of our help, and in so doing we create more sin. If we were to get rid of the sin that blinds us, we would see people with the eyes that God sees people with, the loving eyes of wisdom, understanding, and forgiveness, and as he tells us he loves each one of us, we too would see with love, and each person’s sin would be but a speck. How easy to love our enemies, if we could see them as God sees them, with their sin as just a speck.

Doc said: As I read it, Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of the those who were trying to establish "justified grounds" for divorce.

No. Throughout this whole passage Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of those who would point to someone else’s sin as worse than their own. He goes through various commandments and raises the standard, demands perfection, not because people are capable of perfection, but in order to get people to focus on their OWN sinfulness, not that of others.

Doc said: While neither of us has problems with (say) a pastor who has been remarried, would we not both have problems with a pastor who was married to someone but still having sex with someone else?… Isn't "living in sin" different in these cases?

This is the big question, isn’t it. This is the reality check. Of course we would have a problem with a pastor who was committing adultery, because that is a situation in which there are victims—the spouse and the mistress. Although we cannot judge another person’s sin, it’s certainly appropriate to stop someone from hurting another. How a church would handle the situation would depend on different factors—whether or not it was known to the congregation, what the spouse wanted, whether or not the pastor was seeking help, whether or not it was ongoing, or a one-time deal, whether or not the pastor was repentant and sorrowful or blatant and flagrant about it. But there is no similarity here between an adulterous straight minister and a monogamous gay minister, because the gay minister is not victimizing anyone.

Why did Jesus come down so hard on us for judgment, and yet say nothing about homosexuality? Did it slip his mind? Why was he so angry with the Pharisees? They were the “good people” of their day. They followed the scripture. Hey, it says right in Genesis and in the Ten Commandments, rest on the Sabbath. Jesus didn’t rest on the Sabbath. Clearly that was not sin. Maybe we don’t know everything there is to know about sin. Maybe sin is only something we can do something about in ourselves. Maybe it’s between us and God.

When people run out of scripture on this issue, and there is surprisingly little scripture to begin with, they often revert to this argument: I know homosexuality is against God’s design because of the repugnance I feel about it. If homosexuality were normal or “natural” then I wouldn’t have this feeling inside of me for how wrong it is. And besides, just because homosexuals have these feelings that they can’t help having, so do rapists and child molesters—are you saying we should condone that, too?

I’ve heard these arguments so many times I’d like to address them here. First, as to the repugnance. Feelings of disgust are not a metric that can accurately measure the “goodness” or “badness” of something. For hundreds of years vast numbers of white people felt disgust at the sight of black people. Go back to the Civil War literature, it abounds with such descriptions. At the time the people said it was because they knew inside that blacks were inferior, and lesser forms of humanity. Of course we now know that these feelings didn’t really come from inside themselves, or from God, or from the bible—they were feelings that they picked up from their parents and the people around them. It was learned behavior.

As to the second point, I am stunned that people are willing to compare a violent crime perpetrated against an innocent victim to private behavior that takes place between consenting adults. It doesn’t even compute. Maybe we should start investigating what other kinds of sex people are having in their own homes. I bet there’s someone hanging from a chandelier in a Batman costume—we need to stamp that out.

Both Doc and Trosie said: Didn't Jesus himself tell the woman caught in the act of adultery to "go and sin no more" (Jn 8).

Yes, he certainly did. And Jesus, being perfect, is the only one who can say that. My question to you is: do you think she went and sinned no more? Do you think we are in a position to judge another’s sin? Do you think we are told that story so that we can more effectively judge and admonish the adulterers of the world, or do you think we are being asked to look inside our own hearts, so that we may “go and sin no more”? What is the ratio? Should someone with a log in their eye be telling people with a speck in theirs to “go and sin no more”? Or is that the definition of the word “hypocrite”. Can any of us escape that?

I’d like to address the Romans passage that Trosie brought up, but that’s another whole discussion. For next time.

By the way, this is an emotionally charged issue for many people. It’s a hard discussion to have in a public forum. I very much appreciate anyone who is willing to read this and consider the issues I raise. It has been very helpful to me to write this down. I don’t so much have an expectation that people will respond, although my hope is that at the very least it will inspire some to examine their beliefs on this issue. I thank all who have taken the time to read this.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 10/24/2001 9:45:08 PM

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 10/23/2001 7:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Doc: Trosie: I am sorry your father had to wrestle with this issue before his death, but glad to hear he died with a full confidence in God's grace

Thanks, Doc! I too was happy when my Dad finally felt settled inside about his destiny. It's a sad thing that people are living their life feeling uncertain and in a sense an amount of shame because of this issue. I believe some people live their lives, after divorce and remarriage, feeling a sense of inadequacy. The church is a huge contributor to promoting divorced people to feeling second rate so to speak. In some churches a divorced person can perhaps teach a Sunday School class but NEVER pastor a church. Too bad Christians get so caught up in judging when the only real judge is Christ.

quote:
Semeia: By the way, this is an emotionally charged issue for many people. It’s a hard discussion to have in a public forum. I very much appreciate anyone who is willing to read this and consider the issues I raise.

Yes, it is an emotionally charged issue but I am glad it is being addressed.

Blessings,
trosie

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 10/23/2001 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia, there's a logic to what you're saying but I disagree with the full implications. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly. You said in effect that all of us are sinners and, even if believers, will continue to sin. Sin, to you, seems to be equated soley with hurting others. To a large extent, we can't help the way we were made (tendency toward depression, etc...) so we can't help our sin. But shouldn't we TRY???
Just because I have a tendency toward depression, does that mean that I shouldn't attempt to receive help to overcome it? If it's just my nature to be depressed, it sounds as though you'd say that I should simply embrace that aspect of myself and live a depressed life, never seeking help.
As for remarriage, I'm divorced. Very painfully nearly four years ago. Grounds for remarriage? Frankly I don't know. Do I HAVE to remarry? No. I can choose not to. Yes, I'm 26. Yes, I might at times wish otherwise, but I can choose NOT TO sin (if remarrying would, indeed be a sin). Does that mean that I'd be lonely? NO. God provides. It sounds as though you're throwing up your hands at sin and saying we don't have a choice but we do. I might truly want and desire to have sex with someone but do I choose to sleep with people just because I want to? No. I choose not to.
I'm NOT saying that we should all go out and begin judging everyone we see. I am saying that we have a certain amount of choice in whether or not we sin. "No temptation so great..." or something to that effect. God gives us the strength we need to OVERCOME temptation, to overcome our sinful natures.
A little clarification, too: A person who doesn't know Christ should NOT be judged for their sin. They don't know Christ.
A believer, IS to be privately corrected for recurring sin. It's of crucial importance whether we're talking about believers versus nonbelievers .
I don't know how much of this is coherent. I'm getting really tired.

Edited by - faith on 10/24/2001 11:03:45 PM

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 10/23/2001 8:01 PM (GMT -6)

Just want to add that I don't mean to make it sound as though I'm judging those who have remarried. I don't know anything about anyone's situation other than my own and my own I'm simply confused about at times. I hope that comes across.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/23/2001 11:21 PM (GMT -6)

Faith: "a person who does not know Christ should Not be judged for their sins. They do not know Christ." If that were true, why tell them about Jesus? If one will not be judged for their sins if they don't know Christ, why preach the gospel at all? Just curious...

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/23/2001 11:26 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: such a subject certainly as homosexuality and the scripture references to it cannot be totally worked out on a bulletin board. But I would like suggest you read "Straight And Narrow, by Thomas Schimdt. He shows that even if the Bible did not condemn homosexuality directly, it would still be comdemned indirectly because of its emphasis on male/female marriage. John 17:3 Harold

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/23/2001 11:43 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: I am curious: do you believe that when the prophets of the Old Testament condemned Isreal for their sins that they were violating Matthew 7? Should they "judge not lest they be judged?"
It would seem to me that as Christians we are called to preach the gospel which saves? Saves from what? Sin. Who decides what is sin? God? Who has declared what is sin? God? Therefore we listen to what God has to say is sinful and we tell people that such sin is wrong in God's eyes and then tell them that God loves them and wants to save them. Is that judging? I would think so.
One (as a person and as a Christian) cannot get away from the fact that we are called to judge situations and people all the time and much of the time the judgments are needed. Paul judged people all the time, using the standards that God had given him. I would argue that we as Christians are called to judge in love those around us that we may acturately assess in love what they need and respond accordingly. I would debate what kind of judgment Jesus is talking about in Matthew 7. Without judgment, people could not effectively live their lives and Christians could not truly love.
Oh, I, personally, think being repelled by certain acts is one way to "judge" whether an act is evil or not (not the only way, but one way). For instance, I am repelled by child abuse. That is an indicator it is wrong. Your argument seems to be that, for most people, the real reason they are against homosexuality is it disgusts them. I have no problem with that view. I think repulsion can be a good indicator that something is wrong.
Finally, I don't believe Jesus talked much about homosexuality simply believe it wasn't needed in the situations he was in. He believed the Old Testament. The Old Testament condemned homosexuality. The Jews understood this. There were other sins that were prevalent. They needed addressing. Jesus addressed what was in front of him...John 17:3 Harold

Edited by - writerdad on 10/24/2001 04:46:34 AM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 10/24/2001 2:33 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia: Well said. If that quantum of knowledge could be absorbed church life would be more productive.

We shouldn't deal with sin with the intent of ridding the world of sin ( Christ did that ), we need to help each other live in the fullness of the life we have been given. If we could get ahold of the power in confessing our faults to one another and helping each other overcome, this would be a different world.

don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/24/2001 4:28 AM (GMT -6)

Faith said:

quote:
To a large extent, we can't help the way we were made (tendency toward depression, etc...) so we can't help our sin. But shouldn't we TRY???
Just because I have a tendency toward depression, does that mean that I shouldn't attempt to receive help to overcome it? If it's just my nature to be depressed, it sounds as though you'd say that I should simply embrace that aspect of myself and live a depressed life, never seeking help.

Trosie had this concern too. If you reread what I wrote looking to answer the question, “Shouldn’t we try to eliminate our sin?” I think you will see that I put a HUGE emphasis on people working on their own sin. In fact I argue that Jesus’ words suggest that our eternal life depends on it. Because if we do not work on our own sin, we will continue to judge others harshly, which will result in us being judged harshly. Our own sin is exactly where we should be focused. My point is that Jesus repeatedly asks us to work on ourselves, not the other guy. He’s like the ultimate marriage counselor who, every time you try to complain about your spouse, says, “Let’s talk a little bit more about you…”

Hope that helps,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/24/2001 4:34 AM (GMT -6)

Don said:

quote:
We shouldn't deal with sin with the intent of ridding the world of sin ( Christ did that ), we need to help each other live in the fullness of the life we have been given. If we could get ahold of the power in confessing our faults to one another and helping each other overcome, this would be a different world.

That crisply and powerfully expresses what I was trying to say. Thank you.

Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 10/24/2001 4:42 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Semeia: My question to you is: do you think she went and sinned no more?

My answer to this is in a visual form. When a person truly repents of ANY sin they are basically making a move toward godliness. I visualize the arrow moving in the direction toward God and away form sin.

sin --->(repent)---> God

quote:
Faith said: To a large extent, we can't help the way we were made (tendency toward depression, etc...) so we can't help our sin. But shouldn't we TRY???

I agree with this. A person may slip back a bit into their old sin nature BUT a repentant heart will be set in striving toward godliness.

quote:
Semeia: Do you think we are in a position to judge another’s sin?

NO! We are told directly by Jesus NOT TO JUDGE. I agree with you, Semeia, if we were "perfect", like Christ, we then could judge because we would be doing so "perfectly" in love. We have been equipped with the Holy Spirit thus have the gift of discernment... BUT we are also given the Fruits of the Spirit to act out in love. Judgement (in the sense we are speaking) is NOT a gift that Jesus said we would be empowered with.

This discussion is so interesting and thought provoking!
trosie

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/24/2001 4:43 AM (GMT -6)

Judgement Vs. Accountability

I put this title because this is what I think this is coming down to. See, many people look at the phrase "Don't judge people" and EQUATE that with "Don't make any evaluations of people's beliefs and behaviors." Then the said people clammor that we human beings can't live without "judging". And I would say the same thing...if the ideas were, indeed, equivalent. But they are not. I believe that one can make evaluations of people's beliefs and behaviors without being judgmental. How? Accountability.

The difference between judgement and accountability (in my eyes) is that any aspect of judgement implicitly makes an attempt to place oneself ABOVE or OUTSIDE of another's situation. In judgement, the other is objectified by the judge. If judgement is indeed like this, then it's clear why it's plain STUPID for any human being to judge any OTHER human being personally. We are ALL finite, sinful beings with no true objective point of view from which to judge. Perhaps this is why, logically, only GOD is truly worthy of judging anyone. (Hence, all the log/speck talk) Moreover, because of human fallibility, it's easy to see how a spirit of judging can EASILY lead to self-righteousness, condescension, and aloofness.

Accountability is different. Accountability places one in CLOSE context with the other. Accountability people are able to place themselves INSIDE the situation, such that there is little chance for self-righteousness. With true accountability, everyone is VERY aware of their own faults and shortcomings. This includes the awareness of the fact that their own sin often BLINDS them to the full extent of their faults...and that they NEED to be examined by others. It is with this idea that a community examines each other. Accountability is not any "I'm ok, you're ok." type thinking, nor it is disinterested acceptance. The scrutiny and evaluations that go on in the context of accountability may be quite rigorous. (I definitely think that it was the case for Paul and his crew) However, the rigor is peppered with genuine concern, love, and grace...which makes the pains of self-examination slightly easier to bear.

Other short notes:

1) Notice that accountability CANNOT take place in a "me against the world" type format. It must take place in community. Judgement does not have to be in community and can be prone to a standoffish position.

2) The idea of grace seems to come much more naturally in the context of accountability. I believe that this is because, upon reflection of our own inadequacies, we realize that WE need grace more than anyone else we try to evaluate. This awareness is then brought forth with one confronts others about sin. With judgement, I spend so much time looking outward, I never look inward. Grace is for ME, not others.

With respect to homosexuality...

Example of judgment: The infamous "God Hates Fags" movement.

Example of accountability: Philip Yancey's relationship with Mel White and White's compatriots. (Read Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?" )

So, what's the final word?

Accountability---YAY!
Judgment---BOO!

What do you think, Semeia?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 10/24/2001 09:47:06 AM

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 10/24/2001 5:20 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi, you didn't ask my opinion but I just wanted to thank you for putting into words what I was trying to say about judging nonbelievers versus correcting believers. That's what I was trying to express exactly. Thanks!

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/24/2001 7:15 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: What do you think, Semeia?

BRILLIANT!

That’s exactly where I was going to go next. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls it the difference between JUDGMENT and ACTION. I’m going to throw out an extensive quote from Bonhoeffer’s “Ethics”, and I’ll come back later to tie it in. If I don’t get some laundry done today, my family who I am in close relationship with is going to hold me accountable for a lack of clean underwear!

I should also mention that Greg gave a brilliant sermon related to this concept on March 25, 2001—called Being and Doing. You can get a tape through Shepherd Tape and Books.

DOING from Bonhoeffer’s Ethics:

It is evident that the only appropriate conduct of men before God is the doing of His will. The Sermon on the Mount is there for the purpose of being done (Matt.7.24). Only in doing can there be submission to the will of God. In doing God’s will man renounces every right and every justification of his own; he delivers himself humbly into the hands of the merciful Judge. If the Holy Scripture insists with great urgency on doing, that is because it wishes to take away from man every possibility of self-justification before God on the basis of his own knowledge of good and evil. The Bible does not wish man’s own deed to be set side by side with the deed of God, even as a thank-offering or sacrifice, but it sets man entirely within the action of God and subordinates human action to God’s action. The error of the Pharisees, therefore, did not lie in their extremely strict insistence on the necessity for action, but rather in their failure to act. ‘They say, and do not do it.’

When the Bible calls for action, it does not refer a man to his own powers but to Jesus Christ himself. ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ (John 15.5). This sentence is to be taken in its strictest sense. There is really no action without Jesus Christ. All the innumerable different activities which in general assume the appearance of action are, in the judgment of Jesus, as though nothing had been done. This saying of Jesus demonstrates more clearly than any other saying in the Bible that all action is entirely bound up with Jesus Christ and no clearer distinction can be drawn than this between true action and all kinds of false action.

Our definitions are designed to ward off possible misunderstandings of the action of which the Bible speaks and to display the peculiar character of this action.

The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment. ‘He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge’ (Jas.4.11). There are two possible attitudes to the law: judgment and action. The two are mutually exclusive. The man who judges envisages the law as a criterion which he applies to others, and he envisages himself as being responsible for the execution of the law. He forgets that there is only one lawgiver and judge ‘who is able to save and to destroy’ (Jas.4.12). If a man employs his knowledge of the law in accusing or condemning his brother, then in truth he accuses and condemns the law itself, for he mistrusts it and doubts that it possesses the power of the living word of God to establish itself and take effect by itself. In making himself the lawgiver and judge he invalidates the law of God. Hence there arises the irreparable cleavage between knowledge and action. If by his knowledge of the law a man has become the judge of his brother and so eventually of the law itself, then he can no longer perform the law, however much else he may appear to reform. The ‘doer of the law’, unlike the judge, submits to the law; the law never becomes a criterion for him such as he might apply to his brother; the law never confronts him otherwise than in summoning him personally to action. Even when he has to deal with a brother who is at fault, the ‘doer of the law’ has only one possible means of giving effect to the law, and that is by performing it himself. It is precisely in this way that the law is held in honor and is rendered effective, and is acknowledged to be the living word of God which takes effect by its own power and which has no need of human assistance. This does not mean, then, that the doer of the law is content with his own doing and that with a sidelong glance he calls upon God to be the judge of his sinful brother whom he himself is, unfortunately, not permitted to judge. There is really no such sidelong glance here, but there is only conduct which is appropriate to the law of God, namely the doing of the law, and it is only in this exclusive concentration upon one’s own doing of the law, without any other thought in mind, that the law is given its due and is allowed to exercise its power also upon one’s brother. There does not therefore remain, in addition to action or through action, some ultimate possibility of judgment; action is and must continue to be the only possible attitude towards the law of God; any residue of judgment would disrupt this action entirely, and transmute it into false action, into hypocrisy.

MORE TO COME…

Later,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 10/24/2001 9:42:04 PM

190 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:14 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual