 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 12/1/2001 7:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here's an article that is relevant to the ongoing discussion about the similarities between divorce/remarriage and homosexuality. It's taken from http://www.soulforce.org/lewissmedes.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIKE THE WIDENESS OF THE SEA?
Lewis B. Smedes
I remember the first time that I watched the General Synod of my (Christian Reformed) church in action. The Synod met back then (late 1940's) in the reading room of the old Calvin College library and, since there was no separate gallery for visitors, some of us got to nestle close enough to the delegates to make us feel as if we were right there in the dugout with the real players. The delegates, as they looked to me, were, most of them, old, all of them male, dark suited, and with such solemn demeanors they gave me the impression that they might that day be sealing the spiritual future of the world-wide Church. I was brand new to churchly deliberations then and when I now try to recall my feelings, the word "awe" does not feel to me like a huge exaggeration. But, then, this was no ordinary Synod.
On the table that day was the church's long standing policy of excluding a certain class of Christian people from its inner circle. These were people who confessed their love for God and their faith in Jesus as their Savior and lived exemplary Christian lives in every way. Except one. And that one exception was serious enough to disqualify them for membership. It had to do with their marriages. They had been married once, then divorced, married again to someone else, and were committed to keeping their covenant with each other this time. That was the rub. Odd as it may have seemed to an outsider, precisely because these people stayed faithful to their marriages, they were, in the church's eyes, implicitly committed to sin and for that reason alone were excluded from the circle of grace.
The church believed that by excluding them it was simply obeying the word of the Lord. For the Lord had said, in terms that seemed as clear as mineral water, that people who stayed married to anyone other than their first spouse (if, to be sure, he or she were still living) were devoted to a life of continuous adultery.
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she [also] commits adultery. (Mark 10:11)
There it was, the Lord's Word, simple, uncompromising, absolute, with no casuist's accommodation to special cases or extenuating circumstances. People who divorced one person and then married another are really, in the Lord's sight, not married at all, but are only having an adulterous affair. And that was that. True, Jesus did not expressly say that, once wed, they went on living in sin every day of their married lives. But the church had long inferred , and with a certain logical necessity, that if divorcees commit adultery by marrying another person, they must be recommitting adultery every time they have carnal knowledge.
Harsh as it seemed, the church believed that its exclusion of such people was nothing else but obedience to the clear teaching of the Bible. The Bible said that adulterers cannot be members of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said that divorced and remarried people are adulterers. And so any Bible believing church had to exclude the remarried from the Kingdom of God and the Body of Christ.
The only way they could clean their slate with God and the church, then, was to break up their marriages. The ideal solution would be for them to have gone back to their previous spouses. But in the event that their previous spouses had also remarried, maybe bred a nest full of young ones, and had no intention of breaking up their families, the next best thing was to live as celibates. Either way, go back to their first spouses or stay celibate, their only entrée into the church's inner life was to break up their present marriage.
What their exclusion always came down to, outwardly, was banishment from the Lord's Supper. They may have been welcomed at its Sunday services, invited to its scalloped potato suppers, permitted to put money in the offering plates, and quite possibly been well liked by everyone in the congregation. But banishment from the Supper signed and sealed the church's judgment that they were banished from the circle of grace and the fellowship of Christ. While some churches may construe the supper to be a public dispensary of Gods grace, for mine it was a private meal for certified Christians. And when such a church turned you away from the Lord's Supper, it was saying that, no matter how nicely you fraternized with the saved, you were - as best it could tell - an unsaved soul.
The church could keep the matter this clear and this simple, however, only as long it leaped directly from the Lord's blunt statement about divorce and remarriage to its own banishment of divorced and remarried people. No pausing to consider any special circumstances that might have made their divorce necessary. No pausing to discern the love and devotion that the remarried people had for each other in their second marriage. No stopping to consider how bitter and cruel the consequences of its policy were for all the people it affected. As long as it read Jesus' words with no regard for the devastation that its policy inflicted on the human families involved, especially their children, the church could go on believing that it was only following Jesus' own instructions.
But once it factored human reality into its reading of the Lord's words, it was bound to ask: Could Jesus have actually meant the church to cast away people who were committed to him, on grounds that they were committed to each other too? It was thus, on that early June day a half century ago a new breed of church leaders pleaded for the church to change its policy of exclusion to a policy of embrace.
In what must have been one of the better debates in the history of churchly Synods, they pleaded with the Synod to consider the fact that these people wanted to be faithful to their spouses and to their Lord. They asked the Synod to consider the tragic consequences of compelling them to divorce again. They asked the church to consider how spiritually betrayed such devoted Christian people felt when they heard the church's door slam in their faces over and over again.
The ministers who challenged the tradition of exclusion lost the debate the year I heard it. But they had put it on the church's agenda, and no-one could take it off again. Finally, in the middle 1950's, the church did reverse its policy of exclusion and began embracing divorced and remarried couples into its family circle. The grace of Jesus Christ, it decided, could bless and support remarried people in their second marriage. The result is that today, rather than requiring them to break up their second marriages and families, it devotes itself to helping them keep those marriages alive and well.
How did the church come to such an amazing reversal of its age old exclusionary practice? Was it because the champions of embrace argued more persuasively? Was it because the party of embrace just happened to have the majority at a given Synod? Was it because the Spirit moved the hearts and minds of delegates in a new direction? All of these factors, human and divine, were doubtlessly at work. But congregations paved the way for the reversal by a change in their personal experiences with divorced and remarried people.
First, more sons and daughters of the faithful were getting divorced and were marrying again. Before World War II, the church could comfortably exclude such people on the assumption that they would very rarely turn up among their own loved ones. After the war, however, local congregations discovered that persons whom they loved as brothers and sisters in Christ - and, yes, their own children - were doing it. And it was very hard to look their own sons and daughters in the eyes and say to them: "You will go to hell unless you leave your present spouse." .
Second, ministers and congregations were revising their sense of the sacrament. Reformed congregations had always had double vision when they looked at the Lord's Supper. At one level, they saw it as the prime occasion for the faithful to signal that all was well between them, their God and their brothers and sisters. At another level, they saw it as a gift of strength to help unworthy sinners fight the good fight. Earlier, people focused on the first vision; you could tell it by the buzz that bounced through congregations when anyone stayed away from the Supper more than once. After the War, they focused on the second vision; they came to the Supper, not to witness that all was well with them, but just as they were, "torn about with many a conflict, many a doubt, [with] fightings within and fears without" and so they came "without one plea but that thy blood was shed for me."
Third, the church came to see that it had to factor the consequences of its policy into its discernment of what the Lord required. When it had seen the cruel consequences of its practice of exclusion, it also came to see that Jesus simply could not have meant to lay down a hard fisted rule for excluding remarried people from the family of faith. Instead, it concluded, the Lord must have been witnessing to God's original intention for married people, an intention that included keeping our covenants to each other as long as we lived. But if, in our broken life, people did get divorces and did marry again, surely God would want them to keep their covenants the second time around.
In these ways the way was being paved for a new policy of embrace; the hearts of the people were ready for it.
I have gone on this long about my church's about face in its ministry to divorced and remarried people in order to set the stage for asking about its exclusion of another group of Christian people. I refer to homosexual people who trust in Christ as Savior and want to follow him as their Lord. More specifically still, I have in mind Christian homosexual people who have committed themselves together in a monogamous partnership. These Christian people have always been, and still are, officially disbarred from membership in the inner circle of the church.
Which brings me to the question that I wish to raise.
Was the church's embrace of people who were once divorced and are now living faithfully in second marriages a precedent for embracing homosexual people who live faithfully in covenanted partnerships?
To answer this question, we must answer two others first. The first question is this: Is a partnership of two homosexual persons morally similar - in relevant ways - to the marriage of divorced and remarried heterosexual people? The second question we must answer is this: Does the Bible's word about homosexuals lay down a rule for excluding partnered Christian homosexuals from the church's fellowship? Or does it witness to God's original intention for sexual orientation without laying down abiding rules for the church?
How can we find the answers to these two questions?
It seems to me that the only way to answer the first question is to take a good look at what is really going on with partnered Christian homosexuals and then compare what we see in them to what we have seen in remarried heterosexuals. And the only way to answer the second question is to go back and study the Bible's teaching on homosexual behavior in the light of what we have discerned about what was really going on when homosexual people committed themselves to a monogamous partnership. In short, we have to do the same thing the church did when it decided to embrace remarried people.
Are the two situations significantly and relevantly like each other. Let me share five ways in which I think they are.
Both divorced and remarried partners and homosexual partners are seeking to fulfil a fundamental, God-implanted human need for a shared life of intimate, committed and exclusive love with one other human being.
Both are fulfilling their God-given human need in the only way available to them, not what the Creator originally intended for his children, but the only way they have.
Both are striving to do the one thing the Lord considered supremely important about all sexual relationships: they are living their sexual lives within their covenants with each other.
Both are trying to create the best lives they can within the limits of personal conditions they cannot change.
Both want to live as followers of Christ within the supportive embrace of the Church.
It seems to me, therefore, that the moral and spiritual situations of divorced and remarried heterosexuals and the situation of homosexuals in a covenanted partnership are significantly similar. Enough alike, at any rate, to lead us into the second question: Is the biblical basis for excluding partnered Christian homosexuals any stronger or clearer than it was for excluding divorced and remarried heterosexuals? I suggest that we examine just one passage, Romans 1:18-27, the text most scholars agree is the New Testament's most definitive judgment on homosexual behavior.
In this passage, Paul tells us that God had abandoned people who refused to worship and give him thanks for his gifts These God-forsaken people - bereft of the restraining presence of God - lapsed into a swarm of deplorable behaviors with which most of us are experientially familiar. Some of them fell into unnatural homosexual lusts with which most of us have had no personal experience. (Mind now, God did not abandon them because they had done such things. They did them because God had abandoned them.)
Who were these people, the ones who were having sex with partners of their own gender? Temple prostitutes? Pederasts? People engaged in wild orgies? Nobody knows for sure. But it seems to me that we can be certain of who they were not; they were not the sorts of people that I am talking about in this essay - Christian homosexual persons who are living out their need for abiding love in monogamous and covenanted partnerships of love. Three things about these people tell me that the apostle could not have been talking about them.
The people Paul has in mind had refused to acknowledge and worship God and for this reason were abandoned by God to their lustful depravity.
The people I am talking about have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?
The people Paul speaks of had turned from "natural" heterosexual practices to homosexual practices.
The Christian homosexuals that I am talking about have not given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have never been heterosexual. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings.
The people Paul had in mind were constantly lusting after each other and in their actions were only following their lusts.
The homosexual people I am talking about do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people lust after each other. They seek abiding personal companionship, enduring love, shared intimacy and complete trust from each other just as heterosexual people, at their best, do. Their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be.
Hold on, wait just a minute, a sharp reader may say: "You ignore the fact that Paul said that these people were doing something contrary to nature. If what they did was contrary to nature in Paul's day it must still be contrary to nature today. And their sexual practice does not become more natural by doing it in monogamous partnerships. Remarried heterosexual people's second marriage sex is natural. So what makes the cases essentially different from each other one is that one is natural and the other is unnatural. "
Well, Paul certainly did consider the sorts of homosexual behavior that he had observed (or heard about) to be contrary to nature. But what he meant by "contrary to nature" none of us knows for sure. The traditional Catholic and Reformed view has been that it was contrary to nature because, to be natural, sex had to be capable of conceiving children - a view derived reasonably enough from the simple biblical story of how God created his children. Therefore homosexual relations are not natural and, being unnatural, they are essentially different from and much worse than the sexual relationships of remarried heterosexuals.
But not many modern evangelical Protestants believe that only baby-making sex is natural. Most believe that God meant sex to be the most intimate was to express love within a committed partnership. To be consistent, then, modern evangelicals would have to agree that, at least on this score, homosexual relations within committed love can be as true to nature as are heterosexual relations within committed love.
The whole argument would be avoided, some say, if homosexuals were willing to be celibate. When the church asks homosexual Christians to be celibate, they say, it asks no more of them than it asks of any single heterosexual person. But in fact it does ask more, much more of homosexual people. To single people in general it says: you must choose between celibacy and marriage. But to all homosexuals it says: You have no choice; you may not marry and you must be celibate.
The apostle conceded that most heterosexual people did not have the gift to be celibate. Such people, he said, were free to get married even though celibacy might have been more ideal for them. (I Corinthians 7: 8,9). If Paul thought that most heterosexual people lacked the gift of celibacy would he not have thought that at least some homosexuals lack it?
In sum, then, the promiscuous and lust-driven people Paul was talking about in his letter to the Romans could not have been, it seems to me, Christian homosexual people who - being left with no better option - choose to live together in covenanted partnerships. And the biblical ground for excluding them from embrace within the church is actually weaker than was its ground for excluding divorced and remarried heterosexuals.
Early on, back when I was talking about divorced and remarried people, I mentioned three shifts in the church's consciousness that were going on behind the scenes and preparing the way for their embrace by the church. Let me recall them. For one thing, the church became sensitive to the growing number of divorces and remarriages among their own sons and daughters. For another, the church began to see and feel the sacrament more as medicine for our spiritual illness than as a symptom of our spiritual health. And, thirdly, it became more aware that it could not tell how the Lord's Word about marriage should be applied to real people unless they also had eyes for the real people it affected.
It seems to me that our attitudes toward Christian homosexual partners are being modulated these days in exactly the same way. And I wonder whether the changes might be preparing us for the consideration of a new policy of embrace just as they did half a century ago.
We have, in the first place, begun to see the "homosexual problem" in the faces of beloved homosexual persons who are our own or our friends' sons and daughters. We have, in the second place, become more sensitive to the sacrament is a support for Christians who are trying to do the Lord's will for them even though the Lord's ideal is out of their reach. And, thirdly, we have begun to see that we need to factor our discernment of what is really going on with partnered Christian homosexual people into our understanding of the Lord's will for the church's policy toward them.
Recall that I began this long discussion by asking this question:
Does the church's dramatic move from the exclusion to the embrace of divorced and remarried Christians provide a precedent for an embrace of homosexual Christians who live together in a committed partnership.
My own answer to my own question is, Yes, it does seem to me that our embrace of divorced and remarried Christian people did indeed set a precedent for embracing Christian homosexuals who live together. .And I am here and there, as mothers and fathers of homosexual people tell me their stories, picking up signs of hope that eventually the church will see it as I - and they - do.
This is the end of my argument. Before I quit, however, I need to make a couple of personal remarks.
Some homosexuals feel devalued when people like me say that their orientation and their way of life is not how the Creator originally intended his sexual children to live out their sexuality. They say that their homosexuality is as at home in and native to God's creation as heterosexuality is. Some say that it is God's special gift for them to celebrate and thank him for just as their sexuality is gift for heterosexuals to celebrate. I cannot believe it is. I have not found quite the right word for it, but it seems to me that homosexuality is a burden that some of God's children are called on to bear, an anomaly, nature gone awry. But I do believe that homosexuality is the only raw material they have for living as good a life of sexual love as they can within our broken world where so much of life is bent out of shape.
I believe that God blesses us when we improvise on nature's lapses. To create my own family, for instance, three mothers had to have given away their own children. And my children had to suffer the deep trauma of being torn away, long before their time, from their mothers. . Surely Doris' and my way of family making was no part of God's design for the family. But I know that he gives his supportive grace to such improvised families as mine. And, in the same way, I believe, he gives his supportive grace to the way homosexuals improvise marriage-like covenants for themselves even though they cannot by sexual means create families.
Some time ago, an elderly couple of a fundamentalist persuasion told me about their fear for their daughter's soul. She had left their church because she could no longer accept some of its fundamentalist demands on her life. The daughter still confesses Christ as her Savior, but her parents consider her denial of some fundamentalist standards an equivalent to a denial of the Lord. Their sorrow and fear for their daughter made me very sad. And, as happens to me often these days when I feel sad, a hymn popped into my head as a kind of anti-depressant: "There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea." I wished that my friends could believe that mercy so wide must embrace their daughter even if she is no longer a fundamentalist believer.
My church's exclusion of homosexuals who confess Christ and live together in committed love makes me very sad in the same way. And when I think about it, I am haunted by the same hymn. Is there really a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of sea? Is his mercy wide enough for people who, through no choice of their own, have no other way to fulfil one of the deepest of all human needs but the way that my wife and I have fulfilled them for fifty years - in an abiding partnership of lasting love? I think I know my own heart well enough to believe that if his mercy is wide enough for me, it must be wide enough for them.
Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 12/01/2001 12:55:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 12/1/2001 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Please sum this up to me semia.
God Help Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
"God cannot be concieved not to exist_God is that,than which nothing greater can be concieved.That which can be concieved not to exist is not God." St.Anslem | | Back to Top | | |
|
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 12/1/2001 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Faithful dude, I love you, but it's not fair for you to ask Semeia to do that! For one, it can't really be summed up without losing all the flavor of the whole discussion so far, and two, I doubt Semeia has any motivation left in her to do such a thing!
*********************
If we are going to change the world at all we must first be a little crazy.
-Wislawa | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/1/2001 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Wu, Thank you so much for that. This piece so beautifully expresses much that we have been trying to get at. I love it all, but I especially love the end: quote:
Their sorrow and fear for their daughter made me very sad. And, as happens to me often these days when I feel sad, a hymn popped into my head as a kind of anti-depressant: "There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea." I wished that my friends could believe that mercy so wide must embrace their daughter even if she is no longer a fundamentalist believer.
My church's exclusion of homosexuals who confess Christ and live together in committed love makes me very sad in the same way. And when I think about it, I am haunted by the same hymn. Is there really a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of sea? Is his mercy wide enough for people who, through no choice of their own, have no other way to fulfil one of the deepest of all human needs but the way that my wife and I have fulfilled them for fifty years - in an abiding partnership of lasting love? I think I know my own heart well enough to believe that if his mercy is wide enough for me, it must be wide enough for them.
Wu, I thank you for this from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for seeing that I am losing it a little lately - coming apart at the seams - and for stepping in with loving support. I appreciate it more than I am able to say.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 12/1/2001 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Wu - awesome article - nice piece of research finding this! It is both moving and logically compelling. What a heart this guy has.
I really liked this part:
>>>
1. Both divorced and remarried partners and homosexual partners are seeking to fulfil a fundamental, God-implanted human need for a shared life of intimate, committed and exclusive love with one other human being.
2. Both are fulfilling their God-given human need in the only way available to them, not what the Creator originally intended for his children, but the only way they have.
3. Both are striving to do the one thing the Lord considered supremely important about all sexual relationships: they are living their sexual lives within their covenants with each other.
4. Both are trying to create the best lives they can within the limits of personal conditions they cannot change.
5. Both want to live as followers of Christ within the supportive embrace of the Church.
<<<
God in his infinite outrageous mercy allows and encourages us to always go forward on the most life-affirming path we can find. Even in our total brokenness he finds a path for us that leads to life.
Reminds me of the saying: I prayed to God that he would give me all things so that I may enjoy life. But he responded that I gave you life so that you may enjoy all things.
The analogy is: I prayed to God that he would fix my brokenness so that I would be OK and able to seek life. But he responded that I made you OK so that in your brokenness you would still be able to seek life.
Thank you for that post Wu. From now on whenever someone asks I will just hand them this article.
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/1/2001 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia – Although I may have missed it, I don’t recall you responding to this particular post in this thread from writerdad page three, dated 10-24. quote:
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
Since he first asked it, and I very much agree with it, I’d like to hear your response.
Here is my response about Jesus’ word on homosexuality given through various writers. quote:
Ro 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Homosexuality in the NT is
unnatural,
according to burning lust (lust is a sin),
shameful,
making penalty due for doing such error.
That is a picture of sin, and sexual immorality if I ever saw it.
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
Sexual immorality collection.
Mt 5:32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Mt 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
Ac 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
Ac 15:29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
Ac 21:25 "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."
Ro 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
1Co 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles----that a man has his father's wife!
1Co 6:13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1Co 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
1Co 10:8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality;
Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Re 2:14 "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.
Re 2:20 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
Re 2:21 "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.
Re 9:21 And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.
I’d say that Jesus had plenty to say about homosexuality. Any references to sexual immorality by definition should include homosexuality. Jesus is against all sin, including homosexuality. I haven’t read your personal testimony post yet, but I printed it out to be read later. Glad to hear you are feeling better.
Edited by - 1way on 12/01/2001 4:17:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/1/2001 11:42 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way: Although I never responded directly to that specific post, part of it I had already answered (and he simply disagreed with, without offering a counter-argument: for example the part about repulsion being a good indicator), and most of the rest of it is answered in subsequent posts without direct reference. If you want to understand our view you really have to read all the essays by Iconoclast and I, and they will make more sense in order.
As far as the scripture you quote, some of it is directly addressed in our posts (like 1Cor.6.9) and much of the rest of it is addressed by Walter Wink's essay which there is a link to on one of these threads.
I have no strength to rehash this right now, and I don't want to in any case unless the whole argument is considered. I just don't want to go after piecemeal stuff without the whole thread being engaged. I apologize if this is a burden. I understand if you don't have the time to do that right now. I need to take a break anyway.
The essay that Wu posted just today is a powerful expression of the view we are trying to convey.
I hope you are OK with me taking a break on this right now.
Thanks for your time in reading all this.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 12/1/2001 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Because it's been referred to several times, here's Walter Wink's essay:
Homosexuality and the Bible by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink
Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?
The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.
Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."
Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and "sex-for-hire."
Unequivocal Condemnations
Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.
In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)
Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.
Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.
And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.
Hebrew Sexual Mores
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.
The Problem of Authority
These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?
For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).
And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.
Judge for Yourselves
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.
The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. It is non-exploitative (hence no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."
Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.
Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.
Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.
Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.
In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?
What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.
In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.
With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.
An Appeal for Tolerance
What most saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps back and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an air tight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others'. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality.
Rather than tearing at each others's throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser for Christians to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?
I know of a couple, both well known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed.
We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers who are often sitting beside us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiably agree to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/2/2001 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | “That” is unbelievable. Does any of the home grown associates of this forum see the fraudulence and error and harm?
In the initial statements in “that” writing, the writer claims that “genuine love” can be shared between two consenting persons of the same sex (homosexuality), which is a complete lie. The only kind of genuine love is Godly, and Godly love can not be homosexual. God condemns even unto capitol punishment(!) such a terrible sin.
Does anyone here expect that God would prescribe capitol punishment for a righteous or good or even an amoral deed?  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/2/2001 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | I really shouldn't write this as late as it is. I should also return to this page and read again.
I'd like to make one side comment on Smedes' article, though. I have one of his books, and enjoyed it. I have a friend who's family knows his. (I go to a CRC church.) But there is, it seems to me, a tendency for the Christian Reformed to mix together the kind of emphasis on fallenness they have with Creation-Fall-Redemption-Office-Restoration with a forgetfulness of sin in trying to be Caretakers-of-the-Garden (the Cultural Mandate.). Smedes can maintain that homosexuality is: "a burden that some of God's children are called on to bear, an anomaly, nature gone awry, nature's lapses." At the same time he offers (or seemed to read this late) that humanistic fulfillment is a good thing in itself. (the emphasis is important)
Reformed sometimes take a Restorationalist bent. (Don't ask; its weird. But it tries to bring the Kingdom now by human actions.) There seems to be a bit of restorationalism in Smedes here.
His emphasis seems to be, somehow, that fulfilled living is an end in itself; almost as if "nature" is not not-natural. (Created nature=good; "nature" now is anything but that original, essential nature--which still remains in the gnosis...if I'm getting that word correct...alla Maximus.)
I'm not "pro."
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/03/2001 6:06:01 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/3/2001 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Again, does anyone here expect that God would prescribe capitol punishment for a good or even an amoral deed?
Homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle (for “brethren”), it's in the category of a sin of sexual immorality and is righteous cause for dis-fellowship, and according to God’s word, it is punishable as a capital offense like murder and rape. As to nature, it is unnatural and since it is accounted as a moral sin punishable by death, it is not about genetics, it’s a moral plague of immorality.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/4/2001 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/7/2001 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | | Stretching yawn, ho humm, loud silence. (looking at the clock again.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/8/2001 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks faithfullservent! I noticed that you were less than agreeable with them.
I’m getting sort of tired waiting for the anti-death penalty and pro-Christian homos to respond. They seem objectively confident when folks generally agrees with them, but their objective convictions seem to have suddenly faltered.
Hey!
Does anyone think that God would command the death penalty for something not terribly sinful and evil?
It’s a simple question.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/8/2001 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I’m getting sort of tired waiting for the anti-death penalty and pro-Christian homos to respond. They seem objectively confident when folks generally agrees with them, but their objective convictions seem to have suddenly faltered.
I think that may have been a little uncalled for. There is a thin line between debating an issue and mud-slinging. I think you may have just crossed that line.
To answer your question: I don't think that God gives capitol punishments for individual deeds, good or bad. We are the ones who choose death...We are the ones who choose hell. By not being in relation with God, we are in effect turning our back on Him and bringing capitol punishment on ourselves.
Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Philippians 2.3-4
Mr I.
Edited by - mrindifference on 12/08/2001 4:21:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/8/2001 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr I – I assure you that I have been simply trying to attract attention to initiate edifying discussions and debate. As for my conserns, I am a caring conservative, I’d rather be safe than sorry. Thanks for responding. As to quote:
To answer your question: I don't think that God gives capitol punishments for individual deeds, good or bad. We are the ones who choose death...We are the ones who choose hell. By not being in relation with God, we are in effect turning our back on Him and bringing capitol punishment on ourselves.
Lets see Jesus is fond of saying, “have you not read”, and “have you heard”, when He is surprised at the people’s disregard for His word. He also said that they are children of the devil because their hearts have no room in their hearts. Jesus and God are united as one, and so it was Jesus who commanded the death penalty for capitol crimes and sins. Do I have to show you God’s word that it is so, or do you just use the parts of God’s word that supports your preconceived theology? Either way, here is a little something that is called for. quote:
Capital crimes under the Mosaic code included: (1) Murder: Nu 35:16. (2) Blasphemy: Le 24:16. Jn 10:32n.
(3) Manstealing: Ex 21:16. 1 Ti 1:9. (4) Idolatry: Ex 22:20. Dt 17:2. (5) Enticement to Idolatry: Dt 13:6, 9.
(6) Adultery: Le 20:10. (7) Sodomy and Uncleanness: Le 20:13, 17-20. (8) Incest: Le 20:14, 21.
(9) Bestiality: Le 20:15, 16. (10) Witchcraft: Ex 22:18. (11) Smiting Parents: Ex 21:15. Dt +27:16 (T#54).
(12) Cursing Parents: Ex 21:17. Le 20:9. (13) Disobeying Parents: Dt 21:20, 21.
(14) Sabbath Profanation. Ex 35:2. Nu 15:32. (15) Endangering Human Life: Ex 21:29.
(“The new treasury of scripture knowledge” from Ex 21:15)
Notice the Sodomy verses are clearly about homosexuality. quote:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.
18 You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.
That was God’s idea of a homosexual prostitute, he is a called a “perverted” one and a “dog”.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
God considers people who are his in terms of being righteous saints, not sinners, it is wrong to identify yourself as a homo or sodomite and think that description is compatible with being a Christian believer. I believe that a person can struggle with the sin of homosexuality and be saved, but the bible teaches that we are not to be known or identified as such, we are not to be known as a homosexual or sodomite or a fornicator etc. It is wrong to claim to be a Christian and a practicing homo, but you can be a repentant even struggling homo and be saved.
Jude 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
I think it is clear that the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah did indeed intend homosexuality, which was “going after strange flesh”. And we all know that the men turned down the women to go after the men. Men wanting to be with men like men with women = homosexuality.
I find scripture explaining and interpreting scripture to be much more reliable than manmade interpretations. What do you think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/8/2001 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1Way: I assure you that I have been simply trying to attract attention to initiate edifying discussions and debate.
From my experience making statements like "I’m getting sort of tired waiting for the anti-death penalty and pro-Christian homos to respond." is not the way to initiate edifying discussions and debate.quote:
Jesus and God are united as one, and so it was Jesus who commanded the death penalty for capitol crimes and sins.
Why is it that Christ must judge and sentence individuals with the death penalty? Through our relationship or significant lack there of, we are judged. By us turning our back on Christ, we bring judgement on ourselves. Yes, we have to atone for our sins, but salvation is through relationship to God, not individual deeds.
Lets take a quick look at the story of jesus being confronted by the pharasees about the woman caught in adultry. First of all, he made the statement "let he who has no sin throw the first stone." That convicted everyone and they left. At that moment, Jesus had the right to throw the first stone, but He didn't. That in itself tells me that there is more to this story. Then Jesus told the woman to go home and sin no more. By this He told her not to let it happen again and gave her a second chance, but beneath that wasn't he in effect telling her to come back into relationship with Him.
Relationship is the key here... Relationship...Relationship...Relationship...Relationship.
That is where it is at.
Just so you know, I do know what you are saying about the sinfullness of homosexuallity. At the same time, I question the contextuallity of the verses that you refer to.
Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Philippians 2.3-4
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/8/2001 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr I – Confrontation can be Godly and I highlighted what my post was getting at. Be edifying and as shrewd as need be. As to quote:
Why is it that Christ must judge and sentence individuals with the death penalty? Through our relationship or significant lack there of, we are judged. By us turning our back on Christ, we bring judgement on ourselves. Yes, we have to atone for our sins, but salvation is through relationship to God, not individual deeds.
We are not talking about salvation and damnation, we are talking about capitol punishment and the sexual immorality of homosexuality. Why ask me why Jesus commanded man to put man to death for capitol crimes like homosexuality, rape and murder? Don’t you trust and respect and understand God and His word?
As to quote:
Lets take a quick look at the story of Jesus being confronted by the pharasees about the woman caught in adultry. First of all, he made the statement "let he who has no sin throw the first stone." That convicted everyone and they left. At that moment, Jesus had the right to throw the first stone, but He didn't. That in itself tells me that there is more to this story. Then Jesus told the woman to go home and sin no more. By this He told her not to let it happen again and gave her a second chance, but beneath that wasn't he in effect telling her to come back into relationship with Him.
Relationship is the key here... Relationship...Relationship...Relationship...Relationship.
That is where it is at.
David committed adultery, yet the bible portrays him as a man after the heart of God. The point is that God has the right to personally forgive capitol offenders and even did so in the OT when God personally had man carry out His death penalty**. And the setting for the adulterous women was brought about by men who were bent on trapping Jesus and eventually wanted to see Jesus killed, so I very much doubt their credibility and innocence of their involvement. So I find that Jesus simply decided to be forgiving and to convict the others of their own sins to protect the woman. I agree that Jesus’ tact was merciful and would lend to a redemptive outcome. But she may not have been as guilty as they made it seem. Relationship is key, Jesus is God and unlike the others, He could forgive an adulterous person because He alone could read and know her heart. Or He could know the hearts of all those involved in the whole situation to asses if there was some manner of foul play that lead to her demise and thus she may not have been truly guilty of a capitol crime in the first place.
**(Ex 35:2, and
Nu 15:32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."
36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.)
No one here in this life can say for sure about the adulterous woman, but, we do know that Jesus was in favor of the death penalty. quote:
Mt 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
Mt 15:6 `then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
As to quote:
Just so you know, I do know what you are saying about the sinfullness of homosexuallity. At the same time, I question the contextuallity of the verses that you refer to.
The context is of utmost importance. Which context are you questionable about?
Love is amoral, divine love is moral.
Hatred is amoral, abhorrence (extreme hatred) of what is evil is moral, and keeps love from being hypocritical.
Ro 12:9 [Let] love [be] without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.
Edited by - 1way on 12/09/2001 02:52:01 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/9/2001 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
We are not talking about salvation and damnation, we are talking about capitol punishment and the sexual immorality of homosexuality.
Truthfully, I don't see any reason to make distinctions between damnation and capitol punishment. When "God" gives the death penalty, isn't he in effect eternal damnation. When you look at the world-wide sexual immorality, I am sure that 99.95% of the world is either involved in sexual immorality or has been in the past. Do you suggest that they all should be put to death because of it? You may want to get a taskforce togeather and get cracking. That is alot of lives to end. Shouldn't we be more concerned with bringing our neighbors to God instead of trying to play god and bring judgement on them? The death penalty may have its time and place (which I question), but isn't that job reserved for Christ?
Paul in the New testamant deals with issues like this, but instead of sentencing them to death he takes a more christlike approach. He confronts them and if need be cuts them off from the temporal church. What you suggest more borders on vengence than the "love your neighbor as yourself" message that christ brought.
quote:
No one here in this life can say for sure about the adulterous woman, but, we do know that Jesus was in favor of the death penalty.
Mt 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, `Honor your father and your mother'; and, `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
Mt 15:6 `then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
Well, you may want to reread that. Those verses were taken slightly out of context. Lets look at a bigger chunk of the passage.quote:
1Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2“Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”—6then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
Jesus is simply using legalism to combat legalism. The Pharisees have missed the "heart" of the law. As Isaiah said: "These people draw near to Me with their mouth...But their heart is far from Me." Jesus in not stressing legalism, but instead relationship.
Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Philippians 2.3-4
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/13/2001 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | 1 of 2
Mr I – Sorry for waiting so long, I had half this response done on the 10th, but I felt that this issue was important enough for a more serious response.
God placed the death penalty at the heart of evangelism and the message of salvation, and yet you callously say that the distinction between the death penalty (the first death) and eternal damnation (the second death) need not be respected. In your own words, you said. quote:
Truthfully, I don't see any reason to make distinctions between damnation and capitol punishment.
The difference is as large and as important as eternity. Let’s put you in the hot seat, which would you prefer?
Being condemned to loose your life at the first death (including perhaps a half a day or so left to get right with God prior to execution)?
Or being condemned to the second death (eternal damnation) where no redemption resides at all?
As to quote:
When you look at the world-wide sexual immorality, I am sure that 99.95% of the world is either involved in sexual immorality or has been in the past. Do you suggest that they all should be put to death because of it? You may want to get a taskforce together and get cracking. That is alot of lives to end.
That is off the absurd chart. I have not in the least way suggested that sexual immorality is grounds for capitol punishment. The connection I made was that homosexuality is a sexual immorality sin, and the bible speaks quite clearly about how to treat those who are sexually immoral and call themselves brethren. My understanding about sexual immorality is that it disqualifies a practicing Christian from (corporate) fellowship until they repent, they are to be excommunicated. Such a false witness is not to be tolerated within the body of Christ. As I said, a homosexual who repents from that lifestyle, if they deny it as a viable Christian alternative lifestyle, according to my understanding of God’s word, they can be saved and in fellowship. I thought I had made myself clear as to these things, so I find the insinuation false and completely unfounded.
Your comment about killing those who were already guilty would be a terrible injustice is outrageous and contemptuous, and again, a completely unfounded notion. As to quote:
Shouldn't we be more concerned with bringing our neighbors to God instead of trying to play god and bring judgement on them? The death penalty may have its time and place (which I question), but isn't that job reserved for Christ?
I think God’s idea is sufficiently redemptive. The law is good if Christian’s use it lawfully. It is the first part of God’s plan of evangelism we find on the road to Roman’s, man has a sin problem that only Christ can cure. So out of love and obedience to God and man, I (personally and lovingly and redemptively) judge and condemn the wickedness in this world in hopes that sinful people will better understand their need for God’s righteous love and forgiveness. It is redemptive and loving to judge sinners and point them to their need for Christ. It’s the job that God gave to us by the authority of His word. We have the ministry of reconciliation quote:
1Cor 5:18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
We are synergistically part of God’s redemptive plan. quote:
1Co 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, [you are] God's building.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Think about all that precious rewards and not suffering loss, when we spread the truth about God and His ways. And think about all the lack of rewards and all the suffering loss whenever we fail to live obediently to God and His ways. Homosexuality is an outright unGodly, unnatural, abomination that has no place for acceptance and support in the Christian life. God judges and condemns it, and He teaches us to do the same in hopes that they will repent and live a life of goodness instead a life of destruction.
1 of 2
Edited by - 1way on 12/13/2001 11:16:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 12/13/2001 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | I think I see where you are comming from. If you go back to the origional question, my posts may seem a little more in context.quote:
Does anyone think that God would command the death penalty for something not terribly sinful and evil?
You were asking about God and the death penalty. God's death penalty in the context of today is eternal damnation. There is no difference.
I am emphasizing Christians preaching the love of Christ. The "Heavens Gates, Hells Flames" approach can be effective. You know...scareing people into repentance, but personally I think it is better if you can lead them to Christ by showing them Gods love in your life and how He has worked miracles through it. Have you ever thought that if we as Christians were actually doing our job and being effective witnesses for Christ, that maybe, just maybe, we would not need the death penalty.
MrI. :|
________________________________________
He who blesses his friend with a loud voice,
Rising in the morning,
It will be counted a curse to him. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/13/2001 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | 2 of 2
Mr I – As to quote:
Paul in the New testamant deals with issues like this, but instead of sentencing them to death he takes a more christlike approach. He confronts them and if need be cuts them off from the temporal church. What you suggest more borders on vengence than the "love your neighbor as yourself" message that christ brought.
What I suggest is the confrontation and if need be, dis-fellowship. If the laws of the land was Godly, then homosexuality would be a capitol offense, but until that happens, they will continue to corrupt and destroy by their abomination.
You said: quote:
Well, you may want to reread that. Those verses were taken slightly out of context. Lets look at a bigger chunk of the passage.
I’ve read it plenty. I don’t see any violation of context at all. All I said was that Jesus was in favor of the death penalty. He used it as a valid argument to make His point. But you go on to say: quote:
Jesus is simply using legalism to combat legalism. The Pharisees have missed the "heart" of the law. As Isaiah said: "These people draw near to Me with their mouth...But their heart is far from Me." Jesus in not stressing legalism, but instead relationship.
Jesus isn’t deceptive and illogical like a hypocrite. Example, God would never suggest to rape in order to imply somehow that rape is wrong. That is too weird, and you have no textual support to suggest that Jesus wasn’t being honest and truthful about God’s commandment included the death penalty for extreme rebellion to parents, and honoring your parents. He used those two commandments mutually and in perfect harmony. Both serve to honor God and parents. Jesus’ teaching pitted their
manmade traditions
against
God’s commandments
and He condemned them as hypocrites for nullifying the commandment of God because of their traditions. Jesus plainly validated the death penalty as one of two examples of a commandment of God. The Roman government forbade the Jews from capitol executions. That was one of the problems that the Jews had who wanted Jesus dead. They could not legally do it themselves, they had to go through the Roman’s, and they did.
I believe that Jesus stresses right relationships and supported the law to be right with God especially for those prior to the dispensation of Grace. But nothing was mentioned about “legalism” nor “relationship” as it’s correction. Jesus upheld the law throughout the gospels and early Acts, as is further demonstrated here in this passage. The problem was not that they were into legalism, it was because they honored their way over God’s way. In a nutshell, Jesus taught to obey God’s commandments instead of manmade traditions. The death penalty is still at the heart of evangelism and the message of salvation, and the governing authorities can do nothing to get rid of that fact, even though believers can and still try to nullify God’s commandments by their manmade traditions. Say one thing and do another. God is not hypocritical, nor facetious, nor a bad example, nor against the law He created, nor did He oppose or rescind the death penalty.
2 of 2 | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 12/13/2001 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr I – As to quote:
You were asking about God and the death penalty. God's death penalty in the context of today is eternal damnation. There is no difference.
I think I understand your view better, but I disagree with it. I say that God is still in favor of the death penalty today, and that today, the first and second death is still as different as eternity is to this temporal life.
As to quote:
I am emphasizing Christians preaching the love of Christ. The "Heavens Gates, Hells Flames" approach can be effective. You know...scareing people into repentance, but personally I think it is better if you can lead them to Christ by showing them Gods love in your life and how He has worked miracles through it. Have you ever thought that if we as Christians were actually doing our job and being effective witnesses for Christ, that maybe, just maybe, we would not need the death penalty.
I am also emphasizing God’s love. The message of eternal damnation is God’s approach. My approach is to honor and teach from the entire counsel of God’s word, the judgmental, the damnation, the loving kindness, the harsh abhorrence, the whole truth, not just the softer easier stuff. It is unloving to not be abhorrent to evil men. I hope Bush has Bin Ladin and his network of terrorism put to death swiftly. If he succeeds in so doing, it will be one of the most redemptive messages the world will have from America in a long time.
God created and supports the death penalty to oppose and punish evil men. Be Christ like and support Him and His ways. Don’t try to be nicer than God and support letting people live who should not live.
Eze 13:19 "And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?"
Ge 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. – God
A Godly legal and justice system with a swift death penalty is righteous and promotes and protects life, even today. :)
| | Back to Top | | |
| 190 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:42 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|