 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and Christian Rebuke | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/17/2002 3:18 PM (GMT -6) |   | Adam, I just read your last post. I agree. I wrote this up earlier today but didn’t have a chance to post it until now.
Adam said:
P.S. - I think I'll start putting a disclaimer on every one of my messages, "This is all my fallible opinion."
Semeia:
We could all use that disclaimer on all our posts.  But we do also have to be able to give each other feedback when we feel hurt or attacked. Feedback is not the same as judgment. Feedback doesn't assume a certain intent, but rather it speaks to impact. This is why psychologists always tell us to use "I" statements rather than "you" statements, to say for example, "I felt attacked when you said this..." rather than "you attacked me when you said this..." The first makes no assumption about intent, whereas the second assumes bad intent. (Of course, there is a limit to this: if someone takes a baseball bat to your car, or beats you up, you assume bad intent and call the police and let them sort it out. When your life is being threatened you don’t worry about whether or not you’re using “I” or “you” statements. I’m talking about ordinary conflicts here.)
This is also very pertinent to the subject of this discussion, because when we approach people on our perception of their sin, we are making judgments about their intent. But if we stick with situations in which the impact calls for feedback or intervention, we never place ourselves in the position of judge - because we are not assessing the "sinfulness" of the behavior (impossible for us to do without a "God's-eye" perspective, which we don't have); we are instead giving feedback on the "impact" or result of the behavior.
Back to the log and the speck.
Okay, call it a parable - it certainly is a metaphorical analogy, and maybe that qualifies it as a parable.
In any case, what does the disparity in size between a log and a speck suggest to you? Do you think a "log" of sin is easy to deal with?
After reading earlier in the passage that to even lust in one’s heart is the same as committing adultery, and to even say 'You fool' will make one liable to the “hell of fire,” do you think that anyone can get their own sin down to less than a speck, in order to confront their brother's speck?
What do you think Jesus' point is here? Do you think he is trying to train us to get better at removing specks?
Doc said (about the LOG/SPECK scripture):
Several points worth noting.
a) The first two sentences set the theme, the next three specifies them. Note, Jesus just says "Do not judge… for with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure (proportion, extent, degree) you give will be the measure you get." Nothing here is said about "judge a person of a particular sin that you happen not to have." It’s a blanket principle. Do not judge. EVER. If you judge (period) you will be judged (period)
b) Jesus then goes on to say WHY we cannot judge. We, the ones judging, have logs, while others, the ones we judge, have specks. Nothing is said about our logs being the same kind of "wood" as it were, as the specks. On your reading, Hand Carved, we’d have to assume that Jesus just happens to be speaking to a bunch of extraordinary sinful judges who happen to be judging minor sinners. But the teaching , including the log/speck analogy, is spoken of as though it were UNIVERSAL. Its not audience-specific. ANY who would be inclined to judge must consider their own sin – whatever it is – as a log and anothers sin – whatever it is – as a speck.
c) Note the great contrast between a LOG (tree trunk) and a speck (dust particle). Do you really think that Jesus is referring to an extraordinary degree of sin this group of people have (whose he’s talking to? It’s either a crowd of ordinary people or his disciples… nothing indicates it’s the Pharisees) in relation to a much much lesser degree of sin the people they judge have? Isn’t it rather obvious that Jesus is here giving a principle ABOUT JUDGING? Whenever we are inclined to judge, we must regard our own sin as tree trunks and the sin of the people we are going to judge as dust particles.
d) Jesus says "first take out the log… then you’ll be able to take out the speck. As soon as we get every dust particle (the entire log) out of our eyes, then we can see the dust particle in our neighbor. Which is to say, as soon as we are sinless, we can judge sinners. Personally, I’m not there yet. I still think and speak idle words, have lustful thoughts, say "fool," and am not perfect "as my father in heaven is perfect."
Semeia:
Do you agree with Doc’s analysis? Whether or not we can "see" someone's speck is not as relevant as the main message: that our sin has to be "less than a speck" before we can go around taking specks out of other's eyes. And as Doc notes, that means that we have to be "sinless" first.
So do you think that it is possible to take the "log" out of one’s own eye, thereby becoming sinless, so that one is free to go about removing other people's specks?
I’m really trying to understand what you are saying.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/17/2002 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Semiea. If you wish, I can remove these. (I'm just on a roll.)
This is a REALLY nice site! snapshotsofgod.com/getsmall.htm
 
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
==============================================
==============================================
 
==============================================
.............................................
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/17/2002 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | hand_carved:
The guy who has a log in his eye SEES the speck in his brother's eye without even noticing the log in his own eye. It does not say that because he has a log in his eye he can't see his brother's speck. Nor does it say that the log distorts his vision to where he sees specks where there are no specks. They guy with the log sees a speck though he ignores the log in his own eye. The lesson is not "you have to remove the log to be able to SEE the speck" it is "you have to remove the log to TAKE THE SPECK OUT of your brother's eye." He sees the speck before it is removed; he sees the speck after it has been removed. The speck is really there, and even though he's got a log in his eye, he can see it.
Iconoclast:
My experience is that when I have a speck in my eye I can hardly see anything – my eye hurts, it is watering a lot and I am just generally unconcerned about anything but getting it out of my eye. Now if I had a log in my eye…
I also tend to find it just a bit challenging to see a speck in someone else’s eye even when I don’t have a speck in my eye. I find it even harder to take someone else’s speck out than it is for me to see it. Often I don’t even try. My experience is that it works best just to keep giving the person a stream of feedback about where the speck is so that they can remove it themselves. Of course, if they are not a willing participant we don’t get very far. Shoot – the last time I tried to pluck a speck out of an unwilling participant’s eye they flinched real bad and I nearly poked their eye completely out!
It seems to me that Jesus is using a metaphor. He is mapping logic from a body-based source-domain (trying to take someone else’s speck out of their eye when we have something much larger than a speck in our eye) to a spiritual-based target-domain (trying to detect and fix someone else’s sin).
Just imagine if we came across someone with a speck in their eye trying to take the speck out of someone else's eye. Now imagine that they had a little twig in their eye and they were trying to take someone else's speck out. And then imagine that they had a big old fireplace log stuck square in their eye and they were actually trying to take the speck out of someone else's eye. I don't think any of us would hesitate - we would try to stop them. To do anything else would be like sitting back and watching some kids play barricade on the freeway.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/17/2002 10:54:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/18/2002 3:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Do you agree with Doc’s analysis? Whether or not we can "see" someone's speck is not as relevant as the main message: that our sin has to be "less than a speck" before we can go around taking specks out of other's eyes. And as Doc notes, that means that we have to be "sinless" first.
So do you think that it is possible to take the "log" out of one’s own eye, thereby becoming sinless, so that one is free to go about removing other people's specks?
Ooooo...a rather perfectionist view of the world. Something that Gordon Fee would disagree with here. No. One does not need to be sinless to help a brother remove some crouton's out of their eye.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/18/2002 08:41:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/18/2002 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon, Buddy, Cutie Pie, Dahhhlink, honey-bunny,
Please, pretty, pretty, please: CEASE and DESIST with the diminutive language. I don’t like it. I hear it as a put-down.
A number of men on this board have gotten in the occasional habit of addressing women with these terms: sweetie, Queenie, dear, dearie, sugar, honey, icky, ookie, etcetera. Although I assume they are well-intended and meant as endearments, or something like that, TO ME they are like fingernails on a blackboard. My closest friends in the world can call me such things, although those don’t tend to be the adjectives that come to mind when hanging out with me, and one withering look tends to eliminate the necessity of verbal… what shall I call it? … REBUKE. (Um, er, feedback, that is.)
There is one category of men who have special dispensation to talk to me like that, but unless you’re 85 years old with a gravelly voice and a Cuban cigar in one hand and a vodka in the other, leaning over to rasp, “Honey, you don’t know the places I’ve been…” you won’t qualify.
But on the other hand, I really liked it when you said you were in love with my brain.
PS, I realize that in the evangelical Christian community people are in the habit of addressing each other as “sister” and “brother” – but to tell you the truth, that doesn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy, either. I grew up Catholic and when you called someone sister they were usually wearing a habit.
And to anyone who thinks I’m being oversensitive and picayune, so be it. I can live with that.
CLARIFICATION – if you are writing a “joking” post, call me whatever you want. I can take a joke. I like a good laugh.
And you don’t need to globally apply this to all women on my account. I have no idea how most other women feel about it. I just know how I feel, so I thought I’d give some feedback. How’d I do?
By the way, how come you never call Greg “Hon” or “Dear”? He probably feels left out. In fact, if all the men using these terms would start addressing other men that way, I will take all this back, and join in.
As for the substance of your post, I’m not sure if you need to “unpack” anything. As I read it you’re making the same argument you made on the Christians and Politics thread, and the same argument you made on the Bonhoeffer thread, and I’m just not convinced.
On the particular topics of divorce and homosexuality I fail to see the distinction you are making. Jesus makes it clear that divorce and remarriage are “sexual sins.” Matthew 5.31, Jesus says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Adultery is a sexual sin, and sex in remarriage, according to Jesus, is the ongoing sexual sin of adultery.
I don’t point this out because I think we should take a harder stance on divorce and remarriage. I point it out because it seems inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst for Christians to ignore Jesus’ words on this, while taking a hard line on the particular “sexual sin” of homosexuality. By the way, homosexuality is described very differently in the bible compared to what we understand it to be today: the bible describes homosexuality either as violent rape – as in Sodom and Gomorrah – or as “lust run amok” – as if people simply had too much lust and weren’t satisfied with heterosexual sex, so they moved on to people of their own sex. It is also described as unnatural. But today we know that homosexuality is determined by a very early age (most psychologists say by the age of five) with heredity, biology, and possibly environment as factors. For the homosexual, it is heterosexual sex that is “unnatural.” Psychologists agree that homosexuality is rarely a “choice” made by an individual; it is their make-up from an early age. The very least that we can say is that the Biblical scriptures concerning homosexuality (which are very scant) do not line up with the scientific evidence. And yet Christians have no problem highlighting these scriptures, and asking the church to take a hard line.
When we look at divorce and remarriage, we have no such ambiguity in scriptural descriptions. Divorce in Biblical times was the same as divorce today. We all know what “remarriage” is; it’s the same now as it was then. And yet today we have no problem overlooking Jesus’ words on the “sin” inherent in remarriage. Why is that? I believe it’s because we all know a lot of divorced and remarried people and we can see with our own eyes that they are not any different from us, and there is nothing at all wrong with someone picking up the pieces of their life and doing the best they can. Some day the church will come to grips with the fact that homosexuals, like divorced people, are doing the best they can with a less than ideal situation. We don’t expect divorced people to remain chaste the rest of their lives (even though Jesus makes it clear that remarriage is adultery – a sexual sin) and yet we have no problem asking homosexuals to do so.
As an aside: because the scriptures don’t line up with the scientific evidence doesn’t mean that the scriptures are wrong. It just means that we may not be interpreting them correctly. We are confusing violent rape and obsessive promiscuity to be synonymous with homosexuality, which they are not. There was no concept of “homosexual” in Biblical times – there was no word for it. The descriptions are of heterosexuals who turn to homosexual sex out of excess of lust. When I read the handful of scriptures that have been interpreted to mean homosexuality, I see scriptures that are talking about rape, out-of-control promiscuity or sex-addiction, and homosexual prostitution. I think the bathhouses of the 1970’s, homosexual prostitution, pedophilia, and serial rape are all reasonably synonymous with those scriptures. But they have nothing at all in common with the average homosexual person who is looking for a lifelong monogamous relationship, just living their life.
When I say God “legitimized” divorce, I mean he “allowed” it, because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Which is really interesting, because if we look at it objectively, it would seem that people should have more control over whether or not they get divorced than they do over whether or not they are homosexual. Generally people don’t go into marriage being determined from the age of five that they will get divorced. So even though they in general could be said to have more responsibility for the condition of being divorced and/or remarried, we don’t force them to stay chaste for the rest of their life; but homosexuals, who have less responsibility for their condition (they didn’t ask to be made differently) are held to a higher standard – we ask them to remain chaste – or worse, get married to people to whom they have no sexual attraction. I have trouble seeing how that is not a hypocritical stance for Christians to take.
How do you reconcile what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage with your strong stand against sexual sin? Was the church right thirty years ago when they kicked people out for getting divorced? Have they gotten lax? If not, how do you handle the inconsistency?
Brandon said:
The point that I was trying to make is that the church as an institution should not revamp or over haul the traditional sexual ethic that it has had for centuries. Even with divorce, no body is calling for a "Towards a New Ethic of Divorce." Nobody is calling for a "Towards a New Ethic of Gluttony." Or unrighteous anger, gossip or what have you. No body is saying, "This is a good thing." Many Christians are OK, with divorce. As Mary Van Leeuwen stated in a Oct 4, 1999 CT article said,
"It's also important for evangelicals to be honest and confess that we have, in a sense, made peace with the larger sexual revolution. Evangelicals have made their peace with divorce: in fact, the accepted norm now of sexual license in the evangelical church is serial monogamy."
Semeia:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. “The church as an institution should not revamp or overhaul the traditional sexual ethic that it has had for centuries”? What do you mean? Radical changes have taken place during the last fifty years concerning divorce and remarriage. The church HAS ALREADY revamped the traditional sexual ethic it has had for centuries, as the quote from CT acknowledges. Until recently a person couldn’t receive the Eucharist if they were divorced. They were often excommunicated from the church. Very dramatic battles were fought in churches all over this country just in my lifetime. I grew up Catholic, and when my parents divorced suddenly we were all Lutherans. It took me a long time to discover that it wasn’t a coincidence – that we were persona non gratis at the church we had attended all our lives. At a traumatic time when our family could have used the support of the church we were rejected. I think even today in the Catholic Church you can’t get remarried in the church unless you get your first marriage annulled – which makes for some pretty interesting loophole jumping as people get “annulments” after fifteen years of marriage.
My husband grew up Church of Christ, and one of the churches his family attended split down the middle when a prominent member of the congregation got divorced. It split the church apart.
These battles were repeated again and again all over the country. It is untrue to say that the church has had the same sexual ethic for centuries. Divorced and remarried people used to be treated horrendously by the church. In some cases if a remarried person wanted to be allowed to take the Eucharist, they were forced to DIVORCE the person they had REMARRIED, so that they would not be transgressing the scripture I quoted above. Can you imagine that? They were forced to choose between the person they loved and the church. (And by the way, I know a lot of Catholics who believe that they are going straight to hell if they don’t take regular communion. This was not a silly little problem. This was a clear choice: if you want to be a part of this church and take communion, you must divorce the spouse you love and remain chaste the rest of your life. Ironically, this is the exact choice we give homosexuals today, and we refuse to see the hypocrisy in it.)
And there have been other battles. Until very recently (at least I think they allow it now) the Catholic Church didn’t allow contraception, because that would go against God’s mandate to “be fruitful and multiply” – an odd outlook in a world threatened by overpopulation. The same argument is made against homosexuality. And of course fertility technology and abortion are yet another front on which battles are being fought.
To describe all this as the same sexual ethic the church has had for centuries seems inaccurate to me.
Both on the Christians and Politics thread and the Bonhoeffer thread, you have stated that the church has a consensus on abortion and homosexuality and other moral issues. That really confuses me. What church are you talking about? If some churches ordain gays, and other churches don’t allow them to even be members of the church, how can you possibly say that the church has CONSENSUS on these issues? The church does NOT have consensus – which is why we end up foaming at the mouth here on boards like this one.
Brandon said:
"...flee from sexual immorality." Why? Because, "...all other sins a man commits are outside the body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." Paul is stating in no unambiguous terms that sexual sin is in a category of it's own and one that makes avoidance a matter of extra concern. Also, sexual sin is notable for its appearance in almost every list of vices ot avoid i.e. Acts 15:29. These other sins mentioned don't affect a person the way sexual sin does.
Semeia:
Okay – let’s say I was to agree for a moment (I don’t, but let’s pretend) that other sins don’t affect a person like sexual sin does. Then why in the world would we ignore Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage being adultery – another sexual sin that not only makes it onto all those sin lists, but also makes it into the Ten Commandments?
If sexual sin is the worst sin, why not force remarried people who originally divorced for the wrong reason (for example because their spouse was beating the tar out of them during every weekly drunken binge – remember, only unchastity is the exception) to get divorced again and be chaste? For hundreds of years THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CHURCH REQUIRED.
And as far as Paul’s statement – Paul also says that people should try to be chaste like him, and should only seek to be married if they find they can’t cut it at the chastity business. That kind of counteracts the “Be fruitful and multiply” argument – but it also reveals that we don’t weigh everything Paul said equally. Now he did mention that it was his own advice, not God’s – but nonetheless it again highlights how we evaluate what we read in a less than objective way. Outside of the priesthood, I don’t hear churches today recommending to young people that they should try to be chaste their entire lives, and only to get married if they can’t cut it as a lifelong virgin. (Which when you think about it is a rather unlovely view of marriage – as an outlet for uncontrollable lust – a failure of an attempt toward purity, as Paul describes it.)
You mention that divorce was not the “creational intent.” I haven’t heard anyone claim creational intent for homosexuality. But since all of us are fallen, none of us are the creational intent, are we? And here we are again, right back where we started, with the LOG and the SPECK.
And we keep on insisting that we just can’t “condone” the other guy’s speck. We’re divorced, or we’re obese, or we’re impatient, or we’re untruthful, or we’re addicted to the computer or to the tv or to video games, or we’re egotistical, or we’re unkind, or we’re full of hubris, or we cheat on our taxes, or we’re stingy with our time, or we’re having an affair, or we’re racist or chauvinist or misanthropic or greedy or hotheaded or know-it-all, or we haven’t done enough to help the people in our family or our neighborhood or our country or our world, or we drink too much or swear too much or tip too little, or we’re quick to anger and slow to praise, or we’re quick to show fault and slow to love and forgive, or we care more about our ideas and opinions than we do about people, or we like the bright people better than the not-so-bright people, or we like the beautiful people better than we like the not-so-beautiful people, or we like the people who look like they’re following the rules on the surface better than the people who mess up all the time, or we mistake earnestness for integrity, and judgment for action, and principles for love… and we’re all filled with an endless list of sins. We can’t measure up; we’re hopelessly flawed in a fallen world, and except for one act of immeasurable love and sacrifice on the cross of Calvary, we’re all lost – standing at the edge of the chasm that separates the fallen world from the perfection of God – all lost except for the love that God gives limitlessly, eternally, for free – and all he wants is for us to love him back and to love each other.
Thanks,
Semeia
PS, Brandon, this is an issue that I have a lot of intensity and passion about. But I don’t intend for that to spill over on you personally. If you felt that it did anywhere, then I said it wrong and I apologize.
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 06/18/2002 09:48:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/18/2002 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | BBBCanada:
Ooooo...a rather perfectionist view of the world. Something that Gordon Fee would disagree with here. No. One does not need to be sinless to help a brother remove some crouton's out of their eye.
Iconoclast:
Good point. A blind person who has learned to navigate some particular terrain can certainly help another blind person navigate the same terrain. It seems that as long as we remember we really are blind and don’t start thinking that we can see then we will actually be able to be helpful to others. I wonder if the biggest lesson we could give to others is that we need to first stop thinking that we can see? What with the big log in our eye and all.
John 9:39
Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/18/2002 09:53:57 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/18/2002 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW,
Thanks for that wonderful link!
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/18/2002 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi. I'm back.
I tried to read over all of the posts thoroughly but I'm sure I missed parts...one only has so much time to catch up, so I apologize in advance if I'm repetitive...
When I look at confrontation, rebuke, judgement(in the light of the scripture related to the log and the speck)and apply it to life experiences that have involved confronting others, being confronted, being the judge, or being judged by both those that love us, and by others that really have no place in our lives, I think this becomes pretty clear(at least in my mind).
I think we could all make a list of experiences when we have been confronted in "love" or not in love, by someone we didn't have a trusting relationship with, or by a person who didn't have a clue about the real story going on in our lives. I don't know about any of the rest of you but I have never had a lightbulb experience in those situations that brought me closer to the Lord when someone has felt the need to point out my sin. On the other hand when grace and love have been extended, and a helping hand has been offered, and someone says "hey I've been there too", that is when I have been truly given the hope that I can change. I am assuming that even those making the argument for the right to remove another's speck, as long as we acknowledge our log, that the reason for attempting to do it is to bring that person closer to the Lord...but does that really happen? Maybe the person will feel guilty at the moment and weep, but may feel angry later, or will just feel angry and violated right away. I just don't see that trying to remove the speck ever works unless it is an absolutely God ordained, Holy Spirit moment or that person invites us in and asks for help, guidance etc.
I am going to be painfully real here on my part and share a personal example: In the past I confronted a fellow Christian about a sexual sin(I am not referring to homosexuality here) that I was not struggling with. It was a sin that DID have consequences for his family. His sin even had monetary consequences for my husband and I. I did have a right to employ a stop action to the degree in which his sin was directly affecting us, as well as be upset about what he did. The part that was wrong on my part is that I thought I was the one "called" to confront his speck. I asked him how he could reconcile his lying and his cheating with his Christian faith, how could he victimize his wife and us the way he did etc. etc. Sure, I didn't claim to be sinless even while I was confronting him(I also acknowledged to him that I knew I wasn't perfect.) Later that day though, I was stung by the rubberband of self-righteousness. God held a mirror up to myself that day and I saw myself confronting this person. I was struck by how horrible I looked. I saw his childhood, his mom who died at a young age, his dad who decided when or if he would give him any attention even as an adult, and how he hungered for it and continually set himself up for disappointment. I saw how insecure he has felt his whole life in any relationship. I saw that his habitual lying was always there to cover up for the deep inadequecies he always felt and it had become so frequent that he didn't even know the truth anymore. His sexual sin was the RESULT of many complexities in his life, but I had been given much and much was required and what had I done with it? I had taken the liberty where the Lord had not asked me to go. It was an ugly realization. He was wrong and living in sin, but my sin looked uglier and more glaring than even his, and I believe it was. Needless to say his heart did not soften at my pointing out his sin.
I loved Iconoclast's description of someone with a log messily trying to remove someone's speck. I see the key to that being the willing participant, and the admission of the log, and working together to help both see a little better by going to Christ as the only one who truly sees, and bearing each other's burdens. This is where progress has been made in my life in areas that I have needed to change.
I think the point that BBB was making about the sexual sin being towards our own bodies and not outside of our bodies could mean that we should be very concerned about the choices we make for ourselves and be certain that we are aligned with God in that area, but I don't think that gives us any right to confront that speck more often than others or hold it higher than any other sin, that is a set up for self-righteousness, "at least I don't have THAT sin". Moreover as a believer it is our job to align ourselves with God, and a homosexual believer is in the same position and should work out their salvation with the Lord.(This was Semeia's point in not even trying to assess what is or is not a sin) As far as a homosexual non believer, we should be concerned with them knowing who the Lord is in the first place, not confronting what we view as their sin.
just my thoughts on the matter...
This thread also added interesting conversation to our weekend away with friends. Two of the husbands are AOG ministers(I used to be an AOG member as well). It was great because we actually grew even closer being able to discuss these issues and hear each other in love...it was great. Before this board I usually tried to steer clear of the controversial issues with those I knew would strongly disagree with me.
Shell
p.s. I didn't mean to get so long winded...oops.
Edited by - shell on 06/18/2002 9:25:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/18/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Brandon, Buddy, Cutie Pie, Dahhhlink, honey-bunny,
and
A number of men on this board have gotten in the occasional habit of addressing women with these terms: sweetie, Queenie, dear, dearie, sugar, honey, icky, ookie, etcetera. Although I assume they are well-intended and meant as endearments, or something like that, TO ME they are like fingernails on a blackboard.
and
Please, pretty, pretty, please: CEASE and DESIST with the diminutive language. I don’t like it. I hear it as a put-down.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black sergeant, lieutenant, capy-ton. Huh  How would you know whether I take what you just referred to me as a put down? All said in jest. Sorry for the offence. Anyhoo...
quote:
By the way, how come you never call Greg “Hon” or “Dear”? He probably feels left out. In fact, if all the men using these terms would start addressing other men that way, I will take all this back, and join in.
I usually refer to the opposite sex as "Hon" or "Dear???" Hello?? Not to people of the same sex? Cha?? I refer to alot of aquaintances that way as well. Especially to many of the female employees I drive back and forth to work. You know? In passing? They know where I'm coming from. It's coo...
Man, you need to lighten up on that. Don't take it so personallieeeee. It certainly isn't meant as a put down or condescension. Believe me Semeia, I don't referred to some of the people on these boards by their full screennames at times either. Why I just called Greg "Master Jedi," Mephi2k=Meph, Meph Man=in my mind SuperMan. I think I called writerdad, Pops or Daddy once. Listen, if Greg wants me to address him as "Hon" or "Dear"?? I-I-I-...(gulp), NOOOO!!! I CAN'T!! I CAN'T BRING MYSELF TO DO IT!!! Sorry babe. I mean...Semeia. Juuuuusssst joooooking!!!
Does this mean that I'm homophobic?
Sorry Semeia, for now (cause I gotta hit the hay), let me say that some of us here don't buy likening divorce and remarriage as "sexual sins". That's your interpretation. Jesus and Paul made consessions for divorce and remarriage. They did not make consessions for homosexuality or any other sexual sin. I don't think they made consessions for gluttony or unrighteous anger or gossip. So, when I hear you say,
quote:
When I say God “legitimized” divorce, I mean he “allowed” it, because of the hardness of people’s hearts.
I also hear you saying that he "allowed" for any other sexual sin or non-sexual sin.
For the most part, Protestants, even the more "liberal" ones like Mary Van Leeuwen (I think she rocks! She's hot! Course, I say the same thing about male theologians as well with the same intent and meaning. Equating that as "CAHT," as Empiress would say) and Campolo all say that homosexuality is a sin. Nobody disagrees with this. There is substantial argument and disagreement on divorce and remarriage. And for me that falls under Christian liberty and freedom. I will take it that my brother and sister and I will see differently on divorce and remarriage and therefore they are accountable to God in such matters. Something I will mention (liberty and freedom) in my piece on the Bonhoeffer thread. I will also be mentioning something about "Christian anarchism."
And because of my disagreement with likening sexual sin and divorce and remarriage together, I therefore disagree with equating the traditional sexual ethic to divorce and remarriage. Anyhoo...Gotta go. Again, I apologize for calling you "Hon" or "Dear." That's coo...I respect that.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/18/2002 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon said:
Listen, if Greg wants me to address him as "Hon" or "Dear"?? I-I-I-...(gulp), NOOOO!!! I CAN'T!! I CAN'T BRING MYSELF TO DO IT!!! Sorry babe. I mean...Semeia. Juuuuusssst joooooking!!!
Semeia:
 C'mon... Just once, for me?  He once offered to put on a dress and sing a song under Mephi's window...
It's the least you can do to make up for the grievous harm caused to my fragile psyche...
Brandon said:
let me say that some of us here don't buy likening divorce and remarriage as "sexual sins". That's your interpretation.
Semeia:
No, it isn't my interpretation. I don't think of divorce and remarriage as sexual sins, and I don't think of homosexuality as sexual sin. These are not things that even hit my radar screen - because all the divorced and remarried and homosexual people I know are just like everyone else, just trying to do the best they can.
But it IS Jesus' interpretation. And just as you point out Paul's words on sexual sin, it seems only fair to point out what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage. He said it is adultery. And it doesn't matter if all the protestants in the world think it is okay even if one of them is Tony Campolo. It still needs to be explained why Jesus' words calling divorce "adultery" are overlooked, while Paul's words on homosexuality are not.
And although Jesus didn't create a new law forbidding divorce, he explicitly stated that divorce and remarriage (except for reasons of unchastity) were a violation of the Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
How do you then say it is not a sexual sin?
What your argument boils down to, Brandon, is that because a certain segment of the Christian population that you happen to ally yourself with - conservative evangelicalism - happens to disagree about divorce, while agreeing about homosexuality - that therefore divorce gets the benefit of the doubt, while homosexuality is voted by the majority to be a worse sin. How convenient, considering that over half of all marriages end in divorce, while less than ten percent of the population is homosexual. So Christianity is really like a democratic government: majority rules? And OF COURSE the majority would vote in favor of ITS SIN being overlooked!!! Why wouldn't they?
So how do you interpret Jesus' words calling divorce and remarriage adultery? How is adultery not sexual sin?
What is so deeply ironic about all this is that this type of argument is EXACTLY what Jesus was trying to prevent by his words on it in the first place! In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus raises the bar over and over again, not because he's a brutal taskmaster but because he wanted to prove for all time that NONE OF US ESCAPE SIN - WE ARE ALL SINNERS IN NEED OF GOD'S GRACE. He said that about divorce because people were trying to rationalize how their sin was not as bad as the next guy. He said lust in your heart is the same as adultery so no one could rationalize their sin as less than another's. He said the angry thought was like murder, and saying "thou fool" put you in danger of hell fire SO THAT NO ONE COULD EVER AGAIN SAY THAT THEIR SIN WAS LESS THAN SOMEONE ELSE'S.
That is the MEANING of that entire section of the Sermon on the Mount.
On what grounds do you dismiss it? And I'm not asking for the results of a Christian poll - I'm asking for what scriptural basis do you have to weigh Paul's words as definitive on sexual sin, while dismissing Jesus words on the same topic?
Brandon said:
There is substantial argument and disagreement on divorce and remarriage. And for me that falls under Christian liberty and freedom.
Semeia:
If that were a valid argument it would support the church embracing homosexuals - because outside of the insulated conservative evangelical community you speak of there is MUCH MORE debate about homosexuality than there is about divorce - so I guess that would allow it to fall under Christian liberty and freedom.
Of course it's not a valid argument. Just because conservative Christians (half of whose marriages end in divorce) AGREE that homosexuality is a worse sin than divorce, and DISAGREE about whether or not divorce is okay, says absolutely nothing of value about whether their positions are true or not. Fifty years ago divorced people were in the same boat that homosexuals are in today: everyone AGREED that they were worse sinners than others. Which majority consensus is right: theirs or yours?
So all I ask is that you give me an argument for why Jesus' words on divorce being adultery should carry less weight than Paul's words on sexual sin in general (which of course INCLUDE adultery)?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 6/18/2002 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | First, mad encouragement to hand_carved for his willinging to discuss this issue and get disparaged and devalued by his brothers and sisters. Brother, you’ve raised an important issue, to which I’ll give a brief reply.
You ask, basically, “when do I confront another (christian) for her sin?” You’re looking for some rule or guidelines. My response is: the rule is that there isn’t a rule—you’re involved in a walk with Christ, not a legalistic ceremony. The Spirit leads and will sometimes lead you to confront someone. I suspect it will be much less often than the opportunity presents itself to your conscious mind.
Howver, the guidelines might be: can you express the rebuke or judgement in a loving way (here Boyd’s stuff is dead-on…except where he insinuates that confrontation and rebuke can never be loving by defintion)? Have you earned the right to involve yourself in that person’s life by how you treat them, and by talking to them about other things than the sin-to-be-confronted? Have you already spent a fair amount of time praying for them to feel convicted about this sin by the Holy Spirit? Have you even felt led by God to pray for them about their sin, or to pray for them in other ways (that is, why would God use you as an instrument of rebuke if He hasn’t moved you toward that person at all to show love in other forms… seems unlikely)? Have they asked you your opinion about it? Have you asked them how you can pray for them to see what is burdening their heart? Is it harming the witness of Christ to have them go around sinning this way while professing Christianity (e.g. Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson blaming the left for 9/11, homosexual priests abusing teen boys)? Are you ready to be confronted about your sin by this person? Are you a terse, verbally aggressive person by nature, such that you might offend them no matter how you approach it (btw: you seem quite winsome in your posts, so I post this more about myself and others than you)? Is the Bible clear about the nature of their sin (the "Christians shouldn't drink" example comes to mind)?
If you want, I can defend those guidelines scripturally, but see what you think of them from an inner-witness/verisimilitude perspective. Do they sound about right? What would you add to that list from your failures at rebuking? From your successes?
The Spirit does sometimes move me this way, but it’s rare. It’s usually with fairly close friends (or my wife!), and those folks probably already know some of my sins so they know I’m not coming from a high ‘n’ mighty posture.
Occasionally confrontation about sin is an evangelistic tool, but that’s another discussion since you asked about rebuke within the Family.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/18/2002 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Shell,
Welcome back. I really missed your soothing voice on this thread.
My experience has always led me to the same conclusion as your post - the vast majority of Christian confrontation, speaking the truth in love, is profoundly unhelpful. Because when we listen closely we discover that in most cases people are inwardly in deep struggle, and more than anything the truth they need is that they are loved.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/18/2002 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | It looks like it's going to turn into an essay on the Sermon on the Mount with a specific look at the passage on Judgement.... I began today.
I'm trying to be real careful with my wording so that I don't cause anyone to have to stumble into judgement of me...er, I mean, give me feedback.  (joking...)
"Feedback"... heh, I could really open up a can of worms with that whole idea, but there are other things more pressing. Perhaps we'll add that onto our list of topics to cover.
I'm sorry I've not been posting much lately. I've had no free time. I'm about to go crazy. Please pray for me on that if you all could. I'm far too busy and need a good break.
By the way, thanks for your post Terry and your encouragement.
I think I agree pretty much with all you said. I do find rebuking (in the sense of "You need to turn your life around, brother") a very unpleasant thing to think about myself doing. That is so contrary to my nature - especially in the evangelistic avenue. But I'll try to go into this more in my essay (good greif, I've talked about it so much now, you're going to be expecting something that could be published! Maybe I should take even longer to write it... hehe).
Shalom my friends.
Adam
Adam
"Distance does not decide who is your brother and who is not. The church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it's to have any meaning in this world--and stop being its apologist." - Bono | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 6/18/2002 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | What is worse...the judgemental Christian or those who whine about him...or those who whine about those who whine about him?
Sorry...I couldn't resist, that just made me chuckle incessantly.
----------------------
Actually, I wanted to commend everyone on the thread for this discussion. I think the question raised is absolutely essential for Christians to contemplate and I really appreciate reading the different perspectives. I personally agree with Semeia hook, line, and sinker; I just stay out of these particular discussions because they get too heated and emotionally charged for me. Thanks all.
Peace,
Empiress
P.S. Semeia...I sent you e-mail, did it make it to your inbox?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 6/18/2002 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
Thanks Hand_carved!
This is a great thread! I admire your graciousness.
So many people made so many good points!
I hope that I will have the time to get my two cents in before it's done. Course it would be really helpful if Meph would show up and summerize everyone for me quick.
Ya'll done good on this one.
Springs
ps: Mute, very funny.
Gilthoniel, A! Elberech!
-JRR Tolkien | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/18/2002 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
My email is all hosed up, along with my computer, so I didn't get your email. But I just sent you a different email address that will reach me.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/19/2002 4:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Springs,
Please DO add your thoughts...I'd love to hear them!
Semeia,
Thank you for the welcome back!
Adam,
I will say a prayer for you. Hang in there!
love,
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/19/2002 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok Semeia. You're gonna get it now. Listen up! Are you ready for this? I'm mad as all hooey  But...
I stand to be corrected.
Oh the shame 
I think you are on to something with regard to marriage and divorce and remarriage. Though I still think your "The Bible opposes homosexuality, but it is just one sin among many. There is no justification for singling it out as more serious than other sins castigated in the Bible" argument is stretching it still. Can I pursue this with ya in a couple of days? I want to put my post up on the Bonhoeffer thread today and that is gonna take me some time to straighten my notes out. And in the mean time I will put my a post together on the marriage and divorce and remarriage thingy. Thaaaaanks.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/20/2002 1:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lucia said:
Of course I also believe that God forgives the divorced (completely, as in the sea of forgetfulness type of forgiveness)if they repent. And He (out of love) can restore and heal them as individuals...they become a new creation, old things have passed away and all becomes new. And I believe they can remarry.
Semeia:
I agree that God forgives all of us if we repent. And I believe that he loves us all, even when we fall short of his ideal, which we constantly do. And of course I believe divorced people can remarry. But I don't think remarried people either do or should repent every time they have sex - even though Jesus makes it clear that it is adulterous sex. God allows us to fall short of his ideal, and he still loves us. God allows us to pick up the pieces and move forward in the most life-affirming way possible - even though that means, in the case of remarriage, (according to Jesus) that they are living in sin. Of course, we are ALL living in sin, ALL the time.
How would you read Jesus words about divorce and remarriage? Do you agree that he calls it adultery? The definition of adultery is sex outside of a sanctioned marriage. And yet he did not create a new law forbidding it. Why not, if it’s adultery?
It is not a one time deal that you can repent and start over. Remarriage is adulterous, according to Jesus.
Thanks,
Semeia
Ok, as a person who is divorced, I'm really curious about these comments. How is it that we can believe that remarriage is continual adultry, AND, at the same time ALSO believe that Jesus can forgive divorce?
This is especially confusing when Semeia said: "And of course I believe divorced people can remarry." Because isn't she also saying she believe that Christians (of course) can enter in to a constant "state" of adultry?!? (Semeia?)
I have been asking myself why would anyone want to do that?
As a Christian, I think of the verse "God cannot be mocked." Wouldn't we, (Christians entering a "life state" of sin) be "mocking" God with this full knowledge before remarrying?
When I enter in to this type of thinking I can't IMAGINE a Christian couple planning a wedding, getting excited about entering this covenant relationship with God, the two becoming "one flesh" etc...with this full knowledge that they are VOWING to sin continually together.
I also can't imagine a pastor marrying people INTO a constant state of ADULTRY...(what's up with that)
I have to ask myself "Why wouldn't the pastor just advise them to live together?" same difference, and a lot cheaper!
There goes my Friday night......
selah
"Lord, make me to know my end and [to appreciate] the measure of my days-what it is; let me know and realize how frail I am [how transient is my stay here]. 5 Behold, You have made my days as [short as] handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing in Your sight. Truly every man at his best is merely a breath!" selah (psalm 39:4-5) amplified
Edited by - Selah on 06/20/2002 5:15:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/20/2002 4:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: And although Jesus didn't create a new law forbidding divorce, he explicitly stated that divorce and remarriage (except for reasons of unchastity) were a violation of the Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Doc: I had a nice wonderful insightful piece on way I agreed with Semeia over against BBB on this, and then read on and found that BBB conceded. (by the way, BBB, very admirable admission. I appreciate the humble honesty.). Anyway, I have to say that I think this is Semeia’s strongest point. It is the one that has impacted me the most. I hadn’t noticed (we usually don’t) how much I had trained myself to "read around" Jesus’ words. I wouldn’t allow them to have their full force. When we set aside our presuppositions and just let the text talk, well, its pretty straight forward. The husband who divorces his wife "causes her to commit adultery." And yet, Jesus never revokes the permission to divorce – as though he came to intensify the social law of the OT. Rather, Jesus assumes the woman will remarry.
Terry B.: Boyd’s stuff is dead-on…except where he insinuates that confrontation and rebuke can never be loving by defintion
Doc: Sorry if I communicated this. My view is actually exactly what you wrote Terry. Confrontation and rebuke CAN be loving and helpful. But only when done in a certain context… the context which all the writing of the NT presupposes: believers closely knit together and living life as true comm-unity.
Selah: As a Christian, I think of the verse "God cannot be mocked." Wouldn't we,(Christians entering a "life state" of sin) be "mocking" God with this full knowledge before remarrying?
Doc: And yet God permits it. This is the point. It is sin. It misses the mark. Its not God’s ideal. And yet God ACCOMODATES HIMSELF to our situation. He does this throughout Scripture. Life long heterosexual monogamy was and is his ideal, but he allowed for (allows for? It was never explicitly repealed) polygamy, concubines, and divorce and remarriage. In fact, once he COMMANDED the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives, for the harm of remaining married was worse than the harm of divorce. INFACT, though its an accomodation, God construed polygammy as a BLESSING. God blesses us even in the process of accomodating himself to our sinful situation.
So too, remarriage is an accomodation. Yet it is also a blessing. God blesses a relationship that is, next to God’s ideal, adultery.
Apparently, God is not a legalist. His love reaches beyond his ethical ideals.
We see this most clearly on the cross where Christ BECOMES Sin (2 Cor 5:21). Far from being a prudish God who can’t be touched with any hint of compromise, God’s love led him to become what is opposite himself. For our sake, out of love, he experiences his antithesis. He becomes sin! Blows me AWAY. Talk about "accomodation."
Selah: I have to ask myself "Why wouldn't the pastor just advise them to live together?" same difference, and a lot cheaper!!
Doc: Here’s the thing Selah. I think it important to learn how to think in terms of DEGREES. We are to aspire toward God’s ideals, but loving work with the real. Just because the ideal isn’t attainable doesn’t mean that "anything should go." Its better to enter into a lifelong monogamous covenant and thus honor God’s institution of marriage than it is to just shirk the covenant altogether because the first time around it didn’t work. It’s not an all-or –nothing deal. It’s a "strive for the best amidst the reality of the fallen situatoin your in" deal.
Very stimulating conversation. Thanks all.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/20/2002 4:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I’d like to chew on the concept of IMPACT for a moment.
Some of us have argued that ordinarily individual confrontation should only occur in contexts where a person has "earned the right" (as BBB put it) to speak into the life of another. Only when we are "on the inside" of a person can we know what we are talking about and can we confront in a way that will be received non-judgmentally. The exception to this is when the behavior of a person is having an adverse impact on your own life or when it is impacting another to a degree that a "stop action" is necessary. So far as I can see – and here I agree with Terry B. – there is not set of rules that can stipulate exactly when this "stop action" is warranted or not. One has to follow the Spirit.
What I’m now wondering about is how this translates into confronting systemic sin: sin that structures society as a whole. (This touches on the Christian and Society thread that BBB started a while ago, and may get us off track here. But it seems pertinent). Let me illustrate with an example. I believe that American culture is racist. It is set up in a such a way that whites are advantaged from the start. In principle the society is set up to reward and punish certain behaviors (e.g working hard vs. being lazy), but it rewards whites more and punishes them less. I also believe that we are all socialized to see whites as superior to non-whites.
Now, I don’t right now want to discuss whether my belief is right or wrong. That is a topic for a different thread. What I’d like help thinking through is how I or someone who shares my belief (or any similar conviction about systemic sin – e.g. homophobia) could work to wake people up to this demonic system and not be judgmental? How can a person do their part in pointing out systemic racism – or any systemic sin – while yet holding to Jesus teaching that we aren’t in a position to find specks when you yet have logs in your own eye?
Any thoughts?
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/20/2002 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah said:
Ok, as a person who is divorced (and LOOKING) I'm really curious about these comments. How is it that we can believe that remarriage is continual adultry, AND, at the same time ALSO believe that Jesus can forgive divorce?
This is especially confusing when Semeia said: "And of course I believe divorced people can remarry." Because isn't she also saying she believe that Christians (of course) can enter in to a constant "state" of adultry!?!? (Semeia?)
Semeia:
Does Jesus forgive us for angry thoughts, careless thoughts, and lustful thoughts, which he equates to murder and adultery in terms of sinfulness?
The paradigm from which you ask your questions assumes a state of relative sinlessness right now. It also assumes that God will love us more based on our DOING, when in fact he loves us completely already in our BEING.
This paradigm operates out of the belief that we are on a sliding scale of sinfulness, which we can easily measure in ourselves and others.
This paradigm operates out of the belief that through our own knowledge of good and evil we can become someone whom God loves more than he does right now. That we can “try hard” to be “good” in order to please God.
Jesus Christ blows away this paradigm, in the Sermon on the Mount and on the Cross of Calvary.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus one by one closes all the loopholes. Anywhere we might try to see ourselves as more righteous than the next person Jesus blocks our path. Anywhere we might measure ourselves positively against our brother Jesus slams the door. He gives us the ratio: our sin is a LOG, our brother’s sin is a SPECK. He neither lets us off the hook for our sin, nor does he condemn us for it. He informs us that remarriage is adultery, but he makes no new law forbidding divorce and remarriage. He loves us even when we miss the mark and fail to live up to his ideal – even when it is a choice that affects us for our whole life. The point is not to condemn. The point is to stop us dead in our tracks: to stop us from sizing up and judging our brother’s sin as worse than our own. Why? Because more than anything else our constant judgment and assessing of sin prevents us from doing the one thing he asks us to do: to love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as our self. Judgment is the biggest stumbling block to love. It prevents us from seeing the true beautiful person of immeasurable worth before our very eyes. Only God who is omniscient and who IS love can judge.
On the cross Jesus BECAME sin. Did he mock God?
In Jesus’ paradigm, the question to ask about remarriage is not whether or not it is a sin (Jesus tells us that it is) – the question to ask is: will marrying again make it more possible to love, or less? In Jesus’ paradigm LOVE is the be all and end all of every decision we make – even when we know from the outset that we will not live up to God’s ideal. I think the point of much of the Sermon on the Mount is that NONE of us ever live up to God’s ideal – we all miss the mark all the time – and yet God loves us and shows us a path forward. If we insist on judging, it is a narrow path indeed (“be perfect, as my father in heaven is perfect”); but if we change our focus to loving we find ourselves swept up in the wideness of God’s mercy.
And if our focus is on loving, and we happened to have suffered through the pain and tragedy of a divorce, we pick ourselves up again and dust ourselves off, and try again to make the lifelong commitment to a person that leads to the most profound expression of true, deep love in our life.
And we take the same compassion and mercy and love with which God allows us to do this, and we start applying it to everyone we meet, whatever their situation. And we always assume that in comparison to them, our sin is a log, and theirs is a speck.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 6/20/2002 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia wrote (in response to Selah's post): quote:
Does Jesus forgive us for angry thoughts, careless thoughts, and lustful thoughts, which he equates to murder and adultery in terms of sinfulness?
Does the fact that we are forgiven for sin mean that we shouldn’t consciously avoid it? If we, as Christians, are to be constantly making an effort to be more like Christ, then are we not obligated to identify sin in our OWN lives, and choose to reject it? I don’t think Selah is asking here about judging others. She is asking about a personal decision about personal sin (assuming, of course (which I am not), that remarriage after divorce should be considered sin). All she’s saying is that if it’s sin, then as Christians, we shouldn’t do it. Right?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/20/2002 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Selah: As a Christian, I think of the verse "God cannot be mocked." Wouldn't we,(Christians entering a "life state" of sin) be "mocking" God with this full knowledge before remarrying?
Doc: And yet God permits it. This is the point. It is sin. It misses the mark. Its not God’s ideal. And yet God ACCOMODATES HIMSELF to our situation. He does this throughout Scripture. Life long heterosexual monogamy was and is his ideal, but he allowed for (allows for? It was never explicitly repealed) polygamy, concubines, and divorce and remarriage. In fact, once he COMMANDED the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives, for the harm of remaining married was worse than the harm of divorce. INFACT, though its an accomodation, God construed polygammy as a BLESSING. God blesses us even in the process of accomodating himself to our sinful situation.
So too, remarriage is an accomodation. Yet it is also a blessing. God blesses a relationship that is, next to God’s ideal, adultery.
Apparently, God is not a legalist. His love reaches beyond his ethical ideals.
We see this most clearly on the cross where Christ BECOMES Sin (2 Cor 5:21). Far from being a prudish God who can’t be touched with any hint of compromise, God’s love led him to become what is opposite himself. For our sake, out of love, he experiences his antithesis. He becomes sin! Blows me AWAY. Talk about "accomodation."
Selah: I have to ask myself "Why wouldn't the pastor just advise them to live together?" same difference, and a lot cheaper!!
Doc: Here’s the thing Selah. I think it important to learn how to think in terms of DEGREES. We are to aspire toward God’s ideals, but loving work with the real. Just because the ideal isn’t attainable doesn’t mean that "anything should go." Its better to enter into a lifelong monogamous covenant and thus honor God’s institution of marriage than it is to just shirk the covenant altogether because the first time around it didn’t work. It’s not an all-or –nothing deal. It’s a "strive for the best amidst the reality of the fallen situatoin your in" deal.
Very stimulating conversation. Thanks all.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Thanks for your reply Doc. For the sake of clarity, I really should have framed my post "hypothetically speaking" instead of trying to use my own experience. Especially since my ex was "unchaste" -my situation doesn't actually apply. Bad example. What I was trying to create (which I pretty much suck at) was a senerio that would be strong on the other side, in order to create a wide response...
I actually do agree with you and Semeia on many points of this issue and understand the importance of "degree" thinking. However, I am also aware of Christian's reading this thread who are engaged to be married. I am sensitive to the fact that they may have just found out what they are "choosing" to do is enter into continual sin together til death do them part.
Now, even if we think in degrees here, we have to include the degree of sin they would be AVOIDING if they would have just chosen to remain single.
I'm wanting to focus on the forgiveness piece and understand how that fits--please bear with me as I attempt another example:
Couldn't it be true that a woman who got married with the best of intentions (at age 21, completely saved, and in relationship with Jesus) ended up being beaten for 2 out of the three years they were married--decided to get a divorce (for fear of her life) and was completely forgiven (set free, washed white as snow, remembered no more, etc) from the entire choice to marry him in the first place?
I'm wonder about the application and choice of Jesus'/God's words, throughout the entire Bible on this.
In OUR dictionary "chaste" means:
quote:
Main Entry: chaste
Pronunciation: 'chAst
Function: adjective
1 : innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse
2 : CELIBATE
3 : pure in thought and act : MODEST
4 a : severely simple in design or execution : AUSTERE <chaste classicism> b : CLEAN, SPOTLESS
- chaste·ly adverb
- chaste·ness /'chAs(t)-n&s/ noun
synonyms CHASTE, PURE, MODEST, DECENT mean free from all taint of what is lewd or salacious. CHASTE primarily implies a refraining from acts or even thoughts or desires that are not virginal or not sanctioned by marriage vows
Also, consider this verse on divorce:
quote:
Mal 2:16
For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.
Now, what I find interesting is that many people (usually non-divorced people) say "God hates divorce" and only give two "acceptable" reasons to remarry (I think the other is abandonment) but they completely ignore the strength of this verse (and many like it)on violence. I think it is important to be sensitive (not that you aren't) to these situations and to include that only God knows the heart.
Trust me, I'm not trying to give more reasons to stamp approval on divorce. Instead, I'm calling into question God's character on this one. How is it JUST for God to consider it continual sin once the person is remarried? This would be an instance of continual sin the person could never repent from. A murderer can stop murdering, a theif can stop stealing, a gossip can stop gossiping, a glutton can stop eating too much, an abuser can stop abusing, a fornicator can stop fornicating etc... I'm totally lost on this one.
Lastly, I personally think motive, intention, and purity of heart before God (who is the only one who knows all the variables) is the deciding factor in remarriage. I could be wrong. But, if abandonment is also an "acceptable" reason for divorce/remarriage...I can't imagine how violence etc. isn't also completely forgiveable.
Ok, maybe I should shut up now, and actually "DO" the exegesis/hermeneutics on this myself.
I know I could be totally off.
Completely open to feedback,
love,
selah
Edited by - Selah on 06/20/2002 8:18:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/20/2002 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said:
What I’d like help thinking through is how I or someone who shares my belief (or any similar conviction about systemic sin – e.g. homophobia) could work to wake people up to this demonic system and not be judgmental? How can a person do their part in pointing out systemic racism – or any systemic sin – while yet holding to Jesus teaching that we aren’t in a position to find specks when you yet have logs in your own eye?
Semeia:
Systemic sin, because it generally operates and thrives “below” consciousness, is just as impervious to judgment as other kinds of sin. Accusation (for example: “you are a racist”) escalates and exacerbates the sin, because the person being accused must DEFEND against what feels unjust. Now they must rationalize their behavior to prove why they are NOT racist – and human beings are in general masters of rationalization – we all do this very well.
When we realize how truly ineffective judgment is at influencing human behavior it becomes much easier to give up (although we are going to have our private moments of despair). If racism or sexism or homophobia could be defeated through condemnation and accusation those battles would have been won, because there has been no shortage of either.
But people don’t change that way, because most of the thinking that produces such behavior takes place on the subconscious level. The people who experience those belief systems have no idea of how they got there. The racist statements that are made contain so many deletions and generalizations (NLP) that there is a great deal of work to be done just to get someone to admit the presuppositions behind them. And even more difficult is to get people to see how their presuppositions concerning people of another race, gender, or sexual orientation actually become self-fulfilling prophecies: they create the very behavior in people that they fear – their own presuppositions are in fact a very critical part of creating the reality. For example, it doesn’t take a lot of sexism in a system to get women to start behaving helplessly and dependently. If a woman is married to a person who believes that women are incompetent, unreliable, and inferior, it won’t take very long for the woman to start feeling and acting helpless. The presupposition rather quickly starts producing the behavior it “projects” – with absolutely no awareness by the person of their own participation in this process. (I think this is the real power of taking our thoughts “captive” to Christ: because what we believe eventually comes true, more often than not.)
This is one more reason why identifying sin in others is such a losing proposition.
With homosexuality, the condemnation that refuses to allow homosexuals to participate in church-sanctioned marriages far reduces the chance that a gay person will find a partner for life. Think how difficult it is for heterosexual marriages: even with the support of our church, family and society, over half of all marriages end in divorce. With gays we refuse to support their efforts to make a lifelong commitment to a partner, and then we condemn them for being promiscuous when they fail to do it on their own! And we refuse to admit our participation in their failure.
In order to make any inroads into the belief systems that produce systemic sin, we have to bring to light the unconscious thought processes that feed such systems, and we have to do it in a way that is not accusing. We have to keep in mind that people are not aware of how they got their beliefs in the first place, and they are not aware of the participation of their beliefs in producing the very behavior they fear or condemn.
With racism and homophobia I think the best chance of changing beliefs comes about when people become close enough to love each other in real relationships. Any type of segregation into subcultures feeds our suppositions and our judgments. Only when we live and love side by side does the reality of the experience of love begin to rewrite the unconscious messages that have been poisoning us. I think that is why love is the highest commandment, because love will push us toward the truth and toward God even when our conscious and unconscious reasoning fail us.
Of course we should have education about these mistaken thought-processes and beliefs, done in a safe, non-accusing way – but only in the experience of love will we find that the law is truly written in our hearts.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
| 160 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:38 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 |
|
|