 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/6/2002 5:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have seen that there is definately a sense in which we are called to "judge" in a way or "rebuke," but then theres Rom 13-15 that are saying that we should not judge our brothers but should show grace and love.
I've been seriously struggling in my understanding of when to boldly rebuke and when to remain silent in love. I'm working at Macaroni Grill where there are a lot of homosexuals (and being in the Bible belt, homosexuals who claim Christianity). I am leaning much more on the "love" and "tolerance" side than I am the "rebuke" side, although Tuesday I discussed the issue with one of my homosexual friends there, asking him how he reconciles Homosexuality with Christianity. I told him that I can't agree with his sin, but I can't agree with my own sin either.
Do you think I'm approaching this the right way? Should I be more bold and rebuke more? Or should I just love them and not say anything about it? I think I'm doing this right, but I would love to hear some of your ideas.
His.
Adam
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/6/2002 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Adam,
I've written thousands of words on this topic on this website, always coming down on the side of love. If you do a search on the word "homosexuality" you will find the many fervently argued threads on this topic. On page three of the Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery thread is an essay on the Sermon on the Mount that addresses the issue of judgment: Link.
But as you wrestle with this issue, try asking yourself these questions:
1)Who does Jesus rebuke?
Jesus surrounded himself with people of questionable reputations – tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. His treatment of the woman at the well is a perfect example of his attitude toward ordinary sinners. She was a Samaritan woman (Jews would normally never talk to any woman, much less a Samaritan one) who had been married five times, and was currently living out of wedlock. Jesus acknowledged her situation without a word of condemnation or judgment, shared with her the news of God’s everlasting love, and allowed her to help convert an entire town. He did not say, oh, and by the way, clean up your act. He allowed for the living spirit of God to do it’s own work in her life. His job was to offer her this living water, which would eternally quench her thirst. Bonhoeffer in Ethics makes the powerful point that to the extent that we believe that we must enforce the law is the extent to which we lack faith in the law to take effect by itself.
Jesus did, however, rebuke one group of people: the Pharisees, who were the religious “good people” of his day. The Pharisees knew scripture like the back of their hand, and didn’t hesitate to use it against people in judgment and condemnation. They were the obvious religious people, who made a big deal out of how people stacked up according to their understanding of scripture.
Why did Jesus reserve his harshest words for the religious people? Why did he call them a “brood of vipers”? Why didn’t he rebuke the obvious sinners? Why did he hang out with the obvious sinners?
2)If Jesus is the revelation of God incarnate, God made man, and our example of what living in the spirit looks like, how should we behave?
3)Was Jesus too easy on sinners? Do we need to improve on his methods?
4)How are you doing on sin in your life? In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes it clear that a lustful thought is the same as adultery, the angry thought the same as murder. He indicts us all. He says in the strongest possible language: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” He makes it crystal clear that none of us are sin-free, and thus none of us can stand in judgment of our brother.
If the lustful thought is the same as adultery, where can we ever find a platform from which we can rebuke our brother on his sin? If the angry thought and the careless thought put us in danger of hell-fire, how can we ever be in a position to correct our brother?
Jesus occasionally told someone (after healing them or ministering to them), “Go and sin no more.” But Jesus is the only person in the history of the planet who was without sin. How can any of us, who Jesus assures is riddled with sin, tell someone else to “Go and sin no more” if we ourselves are sinners? That is the definition of hypocrisy. And isn’t it the Pharisees’ hypocrisy that made Jesus so angry?
5)What is the visual Jesus gives to show the ratio between our sin and our brother’s? In the Sermon on the Mount he suggests that our sin is a log, and our brother’s sin is a speck. What should be of more concern to us, the log in our own eye, or the speck in our brother’s? Can you ever get to a point where you have become sin-free, so that you are qualified to correct your brother on his sin? Do you believe that you have less sin than the homosexuals you work with? (If you say yes to that – how can you tell? Do you know their innermost thoughts? Do you know what God knows about them and about you and about me? Wouldn’t you need to be omniscient to know if someone else had more or less sin than you? And if you don’t have less sin than them, do you think they should be confronting you on your sin?)
6)If the homosexuals you are working with are Christian, do you think that Christ has the power to work in their lives? Is it up to you, or any other Christian, to convict them on the sin of homosexuality? How about gluttonous people? The bible speaks strongly against gluttony; are we slacking off on our job as Christians if we fail to confront people on their constant overeating? Would it be effective if we did? Sixty percent of Americans are overweight; why waste your time on the small number of people who are homosexual? Why is it that Christians struggle over whether or not to confront gay people, but they have no similar compulsion to confront gluttony, anger, gossip, or the myriad of other sins which we all suffer from? The bible barely mentions homosexuality (Jesus himself never said a word about it) but it is rife with scripture on greed and anger. Why didn’t Jesus confront the woman at the well?
7)Why did Jesus say that the highest law was to “Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself”? Under what conditions is the most loving thing to do to confront? We know that for Jesus, the only situations that met those conditions had to do with the Pharisees – who were the “confrontational” religious people of the day! He confronted the people who were going around confronting other people on their sin! It gives one pause, doesn’t it?
8)How do you effectively love people (and follow God’s highest commandment) if you harbor judgment about their sin? Do you think homosexuals can tell when the people around them are judging the sinfulness of their homosexuality, even if nothing is said? If Jesus’ anger was reserved for situations of judgment (“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”) isn’t it the judgment in our own hearts that puts us in the gravest danger?
9)Is there any instance in the gospels where Jesus confronts someone for not coming down hard enough on someone else’s sin? For not being a good enough watchdog over others? Or does he constantly ask us to look inward, at our own shortcomings, so that we might recognize our total need of God’s outrageous mercy? And if God gives us mercy, in our abject sinfulness, on what basis can we believe that he does not give our homosexual brother the same mercy?
Adam, as you think about this, you might try a thought experiment. Try to picture God’s love for the people you work with – a love so great that he died on the cross for their sin, and your sin and my sin. Jesus’ response to sin was death on the cross. He took our sin on himself, and died an excruciating death, so that we might know the extent of God’s love for us. His judgment against us was to die for us. He came not to condemn, but to save. And he showed us that only love saves. And he loves us where we are at. He called out as he was being murdered, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” That is what the love of God looks like: calling out for mercy for your murderers, even while you are being murdered.
Love is a decision, from which feelings follow. Decide to see your co-workers as God sees them: as worth dying for. Make a decision to stop focusing on other people’s sin, and see where it leads. Forget that they are gay, for after all, that’s only one characteristic out of a billion things that make up who they are. Decide that there is only one lawgiver and judge – who has already given mercy to us all.
Be open to discovering their unsurpassable worth in God’s eyes. Practice love. Practice eliminating the constant assessments of others produced by internal dialogue. (I really have to work on this when I drive – I tend to constantly impugn the motives and driving ability of other drivers. Every once in a while, when I blurt out, “Jerk!” my kids are quick to point out, “Yeah, well, the other guy is saying the same thing about you!”)
Ask yourself, will concerning yourself with their sexuality, and your judgment of its sinfulness, result in your being more or less able to follow the highest commandment: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself? Or does that concern interfere with the highest commandment? Think of the people in your life whom you love the most: are their numerous sins in the forefront of your mind, or does the act of love cause their sins to recede into the background? When we look at people with love, don’t we look at them differently? Doesn’t love hide the multiplicity of sins?
Of course, if someone directly hurts you or harms you, by all means give them feedback or confront them as necessary. But that is not the situation you have described.
Jesus said that we should be known by our love for each other. Can any of us say that this is what we are known for? I know I’ve got my work cut out for me.
I hope this was helpful.
Thanks,
Semeia
PS, When you say “homosexuals who claim Christianity” – the wording of it implies that their “claim” is questionable. Is that what you intended to imply? I hear this phrase a lot, but I never hear people talk about divorced people who “claim” Christianity, or obese people who “claim” Christianity, or gossips who “claim” Christianity. Why would a particular sin throw a person’s Christianity into doubt? Are we not all sinners? Why not just say homosexual Christians?
Also, as you struggle with “tolerance” for their sexuality, realize that at the same time they are struggling with “tolerance” for your judgment concerning their sexuality, as well as any other sins of yours that they might be noticing. The only way out of the loop is to forget about it, and love with an outrageous kind of love, the kind that Jesus loves us with, the kind that begins and ends with mercy.
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 06/06/2002 2:18:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/6/2002 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | One can divorce under wrong pretenses, remarry, and find that they now, however, must repent for having divorced under wrong reasons--true repentance: to turn about face and go the other way. That God may or may not honor the second marriage is to be seen. I myself remarried having divorced my first wife under wrong pretenses. God did not honor my second marriage, and we had to divorce. It was hell, but I knew that I could not live in the sin of a marraige that God would not honor.
But no matter what sin is committed, there is forgiveness and, if the person truely repents, there is a fresh start. One CANNOT, under any circumstances, continue in sin--a sin they know to be sin--and stay very long in God's good graces. "Go and sin no more."
A Christian who both knows homosexuality is wrong but continues to practice it, is in sin and is asking for trouble; both in the heart of the homosexual and in view of the discipline that will follow. Yoiu cannot have you cake and eat it two. "You cannot serve both mammon and God." This applies to any sin. It's simple, basic Christianity.
So, do you rebuke the homosexual? No, I don't think rebuking is the issue. Love the person, BUT explain the truth; if the person continues in sin, there are consequences to pay. Please note: it is one thing to have sinned, to repent, and to struggle greatly with the sin down the road again. It is quite another thing to disregard the sin (if the sin is known to be sin). One simply cannot have it both ways.
Don't rebuke the people with whom you work. Simply tell them it's their own heart and life that they risk in not ceasing their sin. Same applies to all of us. If, however, they just don't believe it (homosexuality) is a sin, show them from the Word of God that it is. You've done what we are suppose to do, but you haven't "judged" them in an offensive and unjustly manner.
Everyone of us is called to stay out of sin. Everyone of us is to consider our own weaknesses: "Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." And everyone of us is to HELP fellow brothers and sisters in their walk. And those who don't care to listen, who like living in their sin, we are to avoid.
Hope this helps,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/6/2002 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
Thank you so much for your impassioned response. However, when I asked the question I had Paul's literature in mind when he spoke to Christians on exhortation and rebuke, church discipline, etc. For example 1 Cor 5.9-13:
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
(1) I think Paul's words on this matter are perhaps more applicable when speaking to brothers and sisters "in Christ," that is being under the blood of Christ, because Christ was not speaking to those "in Christ" but rather those under the Law. The Law was the revelation of God's will to man, and the Pharisees had much knowledge and were therefore held much more accountable for their arrogance and their lack of repentance for their own sin. I think that is why Christ rebuked them so severely. Even Paul isn't speaking of the rebuke of the lost, but rather of brothers.
(2) In regard to your fourth point, I acknowledged my own sin to my homosexual friend. The problem with my friend is not that he is a sinner but rather that he doesn't acknowledge homosexuality as being sin. Not only that but he doesn't seem to want to be confronted with the reality that it is.
(3) I think there is a difference between the plank parable and what I'm talking about. That, I think, is referring to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, as I understand it, is condemning someone and making them appear less "holy" than yourself for even though you do the same thing they are doing…but even more so. The situation I am speaking of is trying to help a brother see homosexuality as a sin.
(4) In your sixth point, again you are speaking of people who are not our brothers and sisters. Yes gluttony is a heinous sin in my estimation and I think it should be addressed to Christians.
(5) In regard to your eighth point: How, then, can God effectively love if He judges us of our sin? In my case, I'm seeing my friend live a seriously destructive lifestyle. What would be true love, to allow him continue in destruction without my saying a word, or to share with him the truth that leads to a more true life in Christ?
Starkman:
Thank you for your response as well. You basically described what I'm doing, and so I guess I just need to continue down that path. I don't like the idea of "coming down" on someone in a judgemental fashion. I detest it actually. I was just making sure that what I was doing is right. I have been trying to discuss the issue with him in a tender way, asking him how he reconciles this scripture or that with his homosexuality. It basically came down to him saying that he doesn't think that the Bible is inerrant and thus it doesn't really matter what the Bible says… Jesus told him it was okay.
Anyway, please continue to pray both for me and him (and there is another guy, but I haven't had time to really fellowship with him).
That passage from 1 Corinthians just kind of haunts me though. "Don't even eat with such a man." Eesh! That is exactly what I do with him when we hang out! How do you interpret that passage… anyone?
"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 | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/6/2002 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Adam said:
quote:
Thank you so much for your impassioned response. However, when I asked the question I had Paul's literature in mind when he spoke to Christians on exhortation and rebuke, church discipline, etc. For example 1 Cor 5.9-13:
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Semeia:
The specific example of sexual immorality that Paul is speaking about here is the case of a man who is having an incestuous sexual relationship with his stepmother, with full knowledge of the church body. This is of course destructive behavior that will destroy the family (obviously) as well as the church. I have known many homosexuals in the course of my lifetime, and although I have known some to be promiscuous and destructive in their relationships (just like some heterosexuals I have known) – the vast majority lead normal lives, searching for a partner to make a lifelong commitment to. The people I know who have found lifelong partners lead ordinary lives like everyone else, except for the burden of prejudice they face in their lives. They are in no way comparable to someone sleeping with their stepmother.
Adam said:
(1) I think Paul's words on this matter are perhaps more applicable when speaking to brothers and sisters "in Christ," that is being under the blood of Christ, because Christ was not speaking to those "in Christ" but rather those under the Law. The Law was the revelation of God's will to man, and the Pharisees had much knowledge and were therefore held much more accountable for their arrogance and their lack of repentance for their own sin. I think that is why Christ rebuked them so severely. Even Paul isn't speaking of the rebuke of the lost, but rather of brothers.
Semeia:
Let me see if I understand you. I hear you saying that we don’t need to listen to Jesus, because Christianity wasn’t formed until Jesus died on the cross, so therefore Paul’s words are more important, and speak more to us than Jesus’ words? Are you dispensationalist, by any chance? Because that’s pretty much what they believe.
Is that what you are saying?
Adam said:
(2) In regard to your fourth point, I acknowledged my own sin to my homosexual friend. The problem with my friend is not that he is a sinner but rather that he doesn't acknowledge homosexuality as being sin. Not only that but he doesn't seem to want to be confronted with the reality that it is.
Semeia:
Christians disagree about the meaning of many scriptures. Most of what the bible says about sexuality and cleanliness rules and cultural mores we no longer abide by: the subservience of women, polygamy, slavery, food laws, etc. Homosexuality was thought of as lust run amok, as if people were so oversexed that they would sleep with anyone. We know today that that is not the case, and that sexual orientation is formed at an early age, although it is not clear how much is heredity, how much biology, and how much environment. What we do know, however, is that it is not caused by an excess of lust – and so the bible passages that depict it as such are in error.
Why is it important to you to convict him on this particular sin? Is he a lifelong friend of yours, whose heart you think you know? If he has given his life to Christ, doesn’t Christ have the power to work in him? Do you think your own heart is laid bare before Christ, and before all the Christians in your life? Do you think you are aware of all of your own sinfulness – or do you think it is possible that you yourself are in denial about some of your own sin? What is it you are getting out of trying to prove to him that he is sinning in this particular way? Do you spend a lot of time trying to prove to aggressive women that they are sinning by not being subservient to the man’s headship? Isn’t there scripture about that? How about trying to prove to the greedy people in your life that they are greedy? How much time do you spend convicting people of their sin? And is that what love looks like?
What is special about homosexuality? Is it perhaps that it is one of the few sins you can be sure that you don’t have, so you can speak with special conviction? What other sins do you discuss with your co-workers?
Adam said:
(3) I think there is a difference between the plank parable and what I'm talking about. That, I think, is referring to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, as I understand it, is condemning someone and making them appear less "holy" than yourself for even though you do the same thing they are doing…but even more so. The situation I am speaking of is trying to help a brother see homosexuality as a sin.
Semeia:
So it’s only hypocrisy if you are doing the exactly same sin? Well no wonder you focus on the homosexual!
Again, you have dismissed Jesus words as if they don’t apply to you. Do you really want to do that? You are dismissing the core sermon of Jesus’ ministry. Is there anything that Jesus said that you feel does apply to you? When he said “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” he wasn’t talking to you?
Adam:
(4) In your sixth point, again you are speaking of people who are not our brothers and sisters. Yes gluttony is a heinous sin in my estimation and I think it should be addressed to Christians.
Semeia:
Why do you think I’m not talking about Christians? I am talking about Christians.
You think gluttony is a heinous sin? Really? Apparently you’ve never had a weight problem. So when is the last time you sat down with an overweight friend or co-worker and informed them of their sinful gluttony? Ever? And how did that work out for you? Were they appreciative of your loving concern for them? What exactly did you say?
And if you haven’t, why do you single out the sin of homosexuality to convict people of?
Adam said:
(5) In regard to your eighth point: How, then, can God effectively love if He judges us of our sin? In my case, I'm seeing my friend live a seriously destructive lifestyle. What would be true love, to allow him continue in destruction without my saying a word, or to share with him the truth that leads to a more true life in Christ?
Semeia:
Can you say specifically how his lifestyle is destructive? Is he wildly promiscuous? Is his life falling apart all around him? Or would you characterize all homosexuals as living a destructive lifestyle, by virtue of being homosexual?
When I think of a destructive lifestyle that calls for intervention and confrontation, I think of things like alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, pedophilia, and spouse abuse – all activities that have clear perpetrators and victims, and that if left unchecked leave ruin in their wake. I have known people in the grip of these things, and I’ve seen people hit bottom and seek help, and I’ve seen interventions, some that worked, some that didn’t. But I’ve known homosexuals for decades who lead productive happy lives, who are loving and kind and smart and funny, who leave no trail of destruction around them. It would be the height of absurdity for me to confront them on their homosexuality, as if it were my job to point out flaws in the people around me.
But what is amazing, and I don’t really expect you to understand this, but some of the homosexuals I love have become dear to me not in spite of their homosexuality, but in some cases because of it, to some degree. Gay men in particular sometimes have a kindness and vulnerability about them that is precious to me – and it is clear to me that there is nothing “perverse” about their being – they are absolutely beautiful to me, in a way that I treasure. And one way I know that they are not destructive is because when I am around them I feel happy and loved – they are behaving towards me in a loving way. The times in my life I’ve been around destructive people, it’s been pretty obvious, because it hurts to be around them. But the gay people I know are no more prone to be destructive than straight people are, and when they are it’s not necessarily behavior specific to homosexuality: sex addiction, promiscuity, drug addiction, etc.
Adam said:
quote:
Starkman:
Thank you for your response as well. You basically described what I'm doing, and so I guess I just need to continue down that path. I don't like the idea of "coming down" on someone in a judgemental fashion. I detest it actually. I was just making sure that what I was doing is right.
Semeia:
You asked for input on the struggle you were having, and you got my post which offered a different view, and Starkman’s post which validated your point of view, and based on that you have determined that you “just need to continue down that path.”
Are you really looking for input, or are you looking for validation? Are you struggling with this, or are you looking for confirmation of your behavior? And based on one person saying you’re doing the right thing, you need look no further? That doesn’t seem like much of a struggle.
Adam said:
I have been trying to discuss the issue with him in a tender way, asking him how he reconciles this scripture or that with his homosexuality. It basically came down to him saying that he doesn't think that the Bible is inerrant and thus it doesn't really matter what the Bible says… Jesus told him it was okay.
Semeia:
If he has given his life to Christ, who are you to judge how the spirit of God is moving in his life? People sometimes feel led by God to end a marriage – even though it isn’t the ideal that God hoped for them. Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt led to join the plot to assassinate Hitler, even though murder is a sin. Not everyone is called to chastity, and so it is perfectly conceivable that God might not call every homosexual in that direction.
But how can you ever know, from your limited position, how God is working in someone else’s life? How do you know Jesus hasn’t told him it was okay? Jesus who healed on the Sabbath? Jesus who allowed divorce, even though it meant adultery and therefore living in sin for the people involved? You’re counting on scripture to confront an individual, as if that had more power than the power of his relationship with Jesus Christ? Do you lack faith in Jesus’ ability to work in your co-worker’s life?
Adam said:
That passage from 1 Corinthians just kind of haunts me though. "Don't even eat with such a man." Eesh! That is exactly what I do with him when we hang out! How do you interpret that passage… anyone?
Semeia:
Do you consider pornography to be sexually immoral? Use of pornography is widespread, including among Christian men. Do you refuse to eat with men who use pornography?
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 6/6/2002 11:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia:
Thank you so much for your conversation. I'll try to respond briefly.
(1) You mentioned that the instance in 1 Cor is a sin because "This is of course destructive behavior that will destroy the family (obviously) as well as the church." But then you said that monogamous homosexuals are "in no way comparable to someone sleeping with their stepmother." But think of that carefully. A homosexual couple can never truly be a "family" (i.e., having kids) through natural means because of their decision to act sexually. And think about the ramifications on the church. The more homosexuals, the less people are born into Christian families; and if all were homosexual, there would likely be no church after a generation. Homosexuality is far more obviously not intended for God's plan than an incestuous affair. Incest still procreates; Homosexuality can never.
(2) Hehe, no I'm not dispensationalist. I did not say Jesus' words were not valuable. Jesus was not speaking directly to the Christian church as to how to operate and live. The Gospels are not epistles, although they were written with a certain audience in mind. Paul is writing specifically to Christians in the church, speaking to them of how they should live in Christ toward one another. This doesn't mean Jesus words are not valuable, they are just not as valuable in this specific instance. The book of Ruth is not as valuable a book to speak on the problem of evil as Job.
(3) Why is it important to me to show my brother what I understand the best to be the truth? First, because the truth sets us free. I have yet to totally dismissed the possibility that homosexuality may not be intrinsically sinful. That is one of the big reasons I asked him how he reconciles his faith with his lifestyle. When it came down to it, he couldn't without reducing the Bible to a buffet of theology: take what you like, leave the rest. I have a problem with that. Second, because I believe the Bible is inspired, I have to take seriously Paul's exhortation not to associate with sexually immoral people (I interpret that to mean those who sin sexually but don't seem to care or be sorry for it) that claim to be Christians. I have to consider its what it means in its context and be willing to do it.
No I don't only single out homosexuals to share what I understand to be the truth with. That would be silly. I discuss many other things with my co-workers, family, friends, etc. But I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting to me. Are you saying I should more boldly share the truth in love to every sin that I see every Christian brother commit? Or are you saying I just need to be quiet and not speak unless spoken to, being completely tolerant of all sin I see my brothers and sisters committing without saying a word? Or are you using reverse discrimination saying that because homosexuality is singled out by so many people that I should let it slide this time?
(4) Semeia, I love the sermon on the mount. I thought it such an incredible and powerful teaching that I memorized it entirely. However, I don't think that the four Gospels are the entire canon of Christian literature. In my original post I mentioned that my big question was how to you balance "Do not judge" found in both the Sermon and Rom 13-15 with 1 Cor 5? I don't want to do "Buffet theology." I want to look at the whole and see how it can work together. What you seem to be saying is that we should only read Jesus words and ignore the rest of the Christian canon. Is that what you're saying? I'm sure it's not, but you seem to be very narrowly focused on Jesus words.
(5) You asked, "when is the last time you sat down with an overweight friend or co-worker and informed them of their sinful gluttony?" Answer: earlier this week. Although I don't "inform" but rather "discuss." Don't you know that you can talk about sin without doing it in a threatening and condescending way? It's not like I just say, "Hey man, let's talk about your sin of homosexuality…." It came up in discussion. I've eaten with him a couple of times now before I brought it up. I didn't try to force the conversation. I don't try to do that when talking about anyone's shortcomings. I try to speak the truth in love. But sometimes the truth hurts and even though it is spoken in love, the hearer cowers back into the darkness because they hate the light.
But even if I did "single out the sin of homosexuality," I think that is one step closer to righteousness than being completely ambivalent to the destructive sin of a brother. Are you Methodist by any chance?
(6) Yes He is promiscuous. But how can he not be? If sex was ordained only for marriage and he is not married, how can he have sex and not fornicate?
(7) I'm looking for both input and validation. Starkman spoke more of what I was asking about. You chased many rabbits of inference and never acknowledged any kind of "rebuke" to be biblical, therefore you could not answer my question of how to deal with the tension of "rebuke" and not judging.
You said: "who are you to judge how the spirit of God is moving in his life?" I don't believe that the Spirit moves in contradiction to the Word that the Spirit inspired. That's ludicrous. Now, either I'm misinterpreting and the Bible is not saying that homosexuality is a sin, or the Spirit did not inspire the Bible. I have yet to see an even reasonable biblical argument for homosexuality. I'll change my perspective if I do hear a convincing argument for it (and please don't chase another inferential rabbit asking "have you ever changed a theological position on anything?" I'll save you the trouble by answering, "Yes. Many times."
All I did was ask him how he reconciles his faith and his acceptance of homosexuality as not sin. First he tried to say that the Bible never states that homosexuality is wrong. When I pointed out to him Rom 1, he became very abruptly defensive (so abruptly that he even acknowledged his abrupt defensiveness and apologized) and then just said that the Bible was wrong.
I think that anyone surveying the situation would see that he was not even willing to hear another person's perspective…especially when it was starting to make sense.
I do appreciate your input and for taking such time to give it. May God bless you for such a desire to share the truth as you understand it.
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 | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/7/2002 1:58 AM (GMT -6) | | There is a balance in confronting people who are in sin. It is not a matter of singleing out a sin or judging a person, but doing what is best for a person. If you look at Jesus' record he never failed to call a person to task as needed be. I certainly do not feel that it is productive to barge into a room of homosexuals and condemn them. However, there is a difference bewteen those who live their lives as children of God and are sinners and those who won't adknowledge their sin and live their lives as if they are not sinners.
As I have said before (and feel the need to say here because I feel the need to call a sin a sin, just as I would call lying adultery, etc. sins) homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes. And I do not believe there are Christian homosexuals who truly believe they are right in their sin just as I don't believe there are Christian adulterers or Christian liars who believe they are right in God's eyes. And A person who truly believes their sin is okay simply does not know God.
Semeia and I fundamentally disagree on this point and have discussed it before so I feel no need to go through that again, but, on the other hand, I feel this is an issue that should be spoken out again. Homosexuality is a very harmful activity for men specifically and society and general and I would against its practice regardless of whether or not the Bible condemns it. But the Bible strongly does condemn it, for it is a affront to the one sexual relationship God instilled in scripture, marriage between male and female.
For all interested, Straight and Narrow by Thomas Schimidt handles the issue in a loving AND biblical way.
Semeia: nice to see you're still reading the same passage (hahaha) Harold
PS. Semeia, try this thought experiment: imagine Adam has already pictured that God loves them enough to die for them and is confronting them about them about their homosexuality because that is what is best for them and because homosexuality is a sin they need to stop. It could happen...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/7/2002 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Adam said:
quote:
Semeia:
Thank you so much for your conversation. I'll try to respond briefly.
(1) You mentioned that the instance in 1 Cor is a sin because "This is of course destructive behavior that will destroy the family (obviously) as well as the church." But then you said that monogamous homosexuals are "in no way comparable to someone sleeping with their stepmother." But think of that carefully. A homosexual couple can never truly be a "family" (i.e., having kids) through natural means because of their decision to act sexually. And think about the ramifications on the church. The more homosexuals, the less people are born into Christian families; and if all were homosexual, there would likely be no church after a generation. Homosexuality is far more obviously not intended for God's plan than an incestuous affair. Incest still procreates; Homosexuality can never.
Semeia:
By this definition of family, infertile couples don’t qualify either. The childless couples I know would be very surprised to hear that they are not true “families.”
Paul says that people should be chaste and remain unmarried. If the church were as holy as Paul hoped for, the church would die out after a generation, as you say. So if we could live up to Paul’s ideal, and have that kind of will power, we would have the same problem.
"INCEST STILL PROCREATES"????????
Yes, and so does rape. What’s your point? That anything that results in a baby is better that something that doesn’t?
And homosexuality is not something that “spreads.” It occurs in the population at a fairly steady rate, so you needn’t worry about the extinction of the human race.
Adam said:
(2) Hehe, no I'm not dispensationalist. I did not say Jesus' words were not valuable. Jesus was not speaking directly to the Christian church as to how to operate and live. The Gospels are not epistles, although they were written with a certain audience in mind. Paul is writing specifically to Christians in the church, speaking to them of how they should live in Christ toward one another. This doesn't mean Jesus words are not valuable, they are just not as valuable in this specific instance. The book of Ruth is not as valuable a book to speak on the problem of evil as Job.
Semeia:
Here is the crux of our disagreement. You talk about the bible as if it is a book of equally important parts, that we pick and choose from based on the particular issue we are dealing with.
But Jesus Christ is the direct revelation of God on earth – and everything we read in the bible must be seen through the lens of that revelation, NOT Jesus looked at through the lens of the rest of the bible. Everything in the bible leads up to and away from the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. That is the center from which everything else must be viewed.
Jesus Christ is what God looks like. Jesus Christ is what perfect man looks like.
Paul is a fallen, imperfect human being, who started out as a murderer of Christians. Everything he said must be seen through the lens of Jesus Christ, not the other way around. And if anything he said seems to be in contradiction to what Jesus said, then we must seek to understand it in relation to Jesus – assuming that Jesus is what God looks like, and Jesus is our best hope of understanding anything else we might read in scripture. We would never want to interpret Jesus based on Paul; we always want to interpret Paul based on Jesus. If the Old Testament says, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” but Jesus says, “Love your enemy,” – then we know what we need to do: Jesus is the direct revelation of God, and it is his words we must follow, even when they appear to be in contradiction to other scripture.
Just because Paul came after Jesus does NOT mean that his words have more meaning to us than Jesus’ words. The bible has a center, and that is the life and death of Jesus Christ. Everything in it emanates from that center, and must be seen and understood in light of it.
Paul was speaking to a small group of people, intimately involved with each other’s lives in a house church. These were not casual acquaintances, people who just happened to work together. These were people bound together in an intimate, close setting like a family. The types of things he was admonishing them for were destructive behaviors that called for a “stop action,” such as serious alcoholism. This type of confrontation can ONLY be done by people who are intimately involved in the person’s life. Think about alcoholism for a moment: it would never be effective for a casual acquaintance to do an intervention on an alcoholic. Interventions are only done by people who themselves are seriously impacted by the negative behavior of the alcoholic. This is true of any serious problem – confrontation can only come from the people closely involved. And guess what: when it is done in love by people closely involved, it tends to look a lot different from a casual acquaintance pointing out someone else’s sin.
Now if you take that context, and look at it through the totality of Jesus’ life and words: how he himself dealt with sinners, how he rebuked only the most judgmental, not the most “sinful” in the ordinary sense, how he implored us to follow the greatest commandment, “Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself,” how he did NOT call attention or condemnation to obvious sins, how he RAGED against the exact type of behavior you are proposing here (spending effort to point out other people’s sinfulness), how again and again he called us to look into our own hearts at our own sinfulness, rather than assessing how our brother is doing – if you look at all that, how in the world do you come away with the idea that it is your job as a Christian to “fix” your brother? Jesus tells us what our main job is: love our brother with the same unsurpassable mercy, love and worth with which Jesus loves us.
Adam:
(3) Why is it important to me to show my brother what I understand the best to be the truth? First, because the truth sets us free.
Semeia:
Yes, and what is the truth that must be shared? That God loves us with an unsurpassable love, and forgives us with an unsurpassable mercy – so much so that Jesus Christ took our sin on himself and nailed it to the cross.
Again and again Jesus speaks against judgment. Again and again Jesus implores us to love and forgive, as we are loved and forgiven. He shows us what love looks like.
And what it doesn’t look like is taking it upon ourselves to go around poking our brother in the eye about his sin. That is what the Pharisees did – and it made Jesus furious.
Adam said:
I have yet to totally dismissed the possibility that homosexuality may not be intrinsically sinful. That is one of the big reasons I asked him how he reconciles his faith with his lifestyle. When it came down to it, he couldn't without reducing the Bible to a buffet of theology: take what you like, leave the rest. I have a problem with that.
Semeia:
But isn’t that what you are doing? So far you have dismissed Jesus’ words about judgment and hypocrisy from the Sermon on the Mount as not applying to you, and his words to the Pharisees as not applying to you – but Paul’s words to a small church body completely unlike the situation you describe is somehow relevant for your decision to confront an acquaintance on their sin. How is that not picking and choosing?
Adam:
Second, because I believe the Bible is inspired, I have to take seriously Paul's exhortation not to associate with sexually immoral people (I interpret that to mean those who sin sexually but don't seem to care or be sorry for it) that claim to be Christians. I have to consider its what it means in its context and be willing to do it.
No I don't only single out homosexuals to share what I understand to be the truth with. That would be silly. I discuss many other things with my co-workers, family, friends, etc. But I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting to me. Are you saying I should more boldly share the truth in love to every sin that I see every Christian brother commit? Or are you saying I just need to be quiet and not speak unless spoken to, being completely tolerant of all sin I see my brothers and sisters committing without saying a word? Or are you using reverse discrimination saying that because homosexuality is singled out by so many people that I should let it slide this time?
Semeia:
But you are singling out homosexuality – so much so that you felt driven to start a thread on it. You didn’t start a thread on confronting people on greed, anger, gluttony, or a hundred other sins. You didn’t start a thread on confronting divorced people who are remarried and therefore living in sin. (And by the way, there are many more divorced and remarried people than there are homosexuals. But we look at their sin differently, don’t we?) And for some reason, those other threads never get started. But again and again people feel the need to highlight homosexuality – even though there are many other sins that are more prevalent and more destructive in our society.
If you are truly concerned with taking Paul’s words seriously, why not be concerned with rooting out sexual immorality of all types? Pornography use is far more prevalent than homosexuality. Incest, rape, and pedophilia are far more damaging, because they involve unwilling victims – unlike homosexuality which is a mutual decision between adults. Or sado-masochism, or sex addiction, which are far more damaging to the people involved?
Since you, like most Christians, overlook these types of sexual immorality in public forums like this one, I conclude that yes, you are singling out homosexuality. The evidence is rather straightforward.
And the bible speaks out against masturbation. How often do you confront co-workers about that one? Let me see, let’s compare how much regular masturbation is going on compared to how much homosexual sex… I don’t have to think about it very long to have the answer to that one. It seems that if you are consistent with your application concerning sexual immorality as depicted by the bible, you will very quickly run out of lunch partners. (And if you say that the words about masturbation don’t apply today, how are you not picking and choosing?)
Adam said:
(4) Semeia, I love the sermon on the mount. I thought it such an incredible and powerful teaching that I memorized it entirely. However, I don't think that the four Gospels are the entire canon of Christian literature. In my original post I mentioned that my big question was how to you balance "Do not judge" found in both the Sermon and Rom 13-15 with 1 Cor 5? I don't want to do "Buffet theology." I want to look at the whole and see how it can work together. What you seem to be saying is that we should only read Jesus words and ignore the rest of the Christian canon. Is that what you're saying? I'm sure it's not, but you seem to be very narrowly focused on Jesus words.
Semeia:
I address this above, and I repeat: Jesus Christ is the direct revelation of God, God incarnate. Jesus is what God looks like; Jesus is what love looks like. Everything else in the bible must be understood in light of the direct revelation of God made man, not the other way around.
Adam, if you love the Sermon on the Mount, and you memorized it, why do you not think it applies to you? Did you memorize it so you could more effectively use it on your brother? On what basis do you reject the log and the speck as not applying to you? That is picking and choosing to the nth degree. Why do you not think Jesus is speaking to you? Do you think his words are just for the people in front of him at that time? But Paul’s words are somehow more timeless than those of the Son of God?
Adam said:
(5) You asked, "when is the last time you sat down with an overweight friend or co-worker and informed them of their sinful gluttony?" Answer: earlier this week. Although I don't "inform" but rather "discuss."
Semeia:
When you sat down with your overweight friend and "discussed" with them about their sin of gluttony, how did they react? Were they appreciative of your help? Was the one thing they were missing to get on the right track in life your judgment about their sinfulness? Did they say, “Wow, thank you. Now that I know it’s a sin I can get on with being a good, thin Christian?” I would guess that things aren’t as friendly as they were before your talk. I would guess that your friend was not overwhelmed by a feeling of your love for them.
Adam said:
Don't you know that you can talk about sin without doing it in a threatening and condescending way? It's not like I just say, "Hey man, let's talk about your sin of homosexuality…." It came up in discussion. I've eaten with him a couple of times now before I brought it up. I didn't try to force the conversation. I don't try to do that when talking about anyone's shortcomings. I try to speak the truth in love. But sometimes the truth hurts and even though it is spoken in love, the hearer cowers back into the darkness because they hate the light.
Semeia:
You start out saying, “Don’t you know that you can talk about sin without doing it in a threatening and condescending way?” but when you describe the reaction of the hearer you describe EXACTLY what happens when someone feels threatened and condescended to: “the hearer cowers back into the darkness because they hate the light.” When someone responds that way you have indisputable evidence that they feel attacked, and it is evidence that you are not speaking in truth out of love, but are in fact expressing judgment. The woman at the well did not cower from Jesus when he acknowledged her questionable lifestyle, because there wasn’t a hint of judgment or condemnation in his words. (The only people Jesus spoke to in an attacking way were the Pharisees, who were people that went around pointing out other people’s sins.)
The other interesting thing about your description: “the hearer cowers back into the darkness because they hate the light” is that it frames you as if you are God, and the bringer of light because you are calling attention to their sin. This is the exact mistake that brought about the fall of man: that our transgression in eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil sets us up as God – as if we are in a position to decide for ourselves and for our brother what is ultimately good or ultimately evil. You assume that what you are doing is “in the light” and what they are doing is “in the darkness” but the only person who is the lawgiver and judge is God himself –and you can’t ever have enough information about another person to make that determination.
The Pharisees thought that they were “in the light” and others who didn’t follow the particular rules they focused on were “in the darkness.” In fact, that is the very judgment that they made against Jesus Christ, for transgressing the law by healing on the Sabbath, and they killed him for it. They were blinded by their rigid adherence to scripture to the point where they could not recognize God himself before them. And they were right about what the scripture said! But they missed the spirit of the law, and forgot that the Sabbath is made for us, not us for the Sabbath.
From what position of omniscience can you say what is in the light, and what is in the darkness? Are you not as wretched a sinner as all humanity, for whom Christ died?
And you say you had lunch with him a couple times first, and that amount of contact qualifies you to confront someone on their sin? Do you not see the arrogance of such a position? Who made you lawgiver and judge?
Adam:
But even if I did "single out the sin of homosexuality," I think that is one step closer to righteousness than being completely ambivalent to the destructive sin of a brother. Are you Methodist by any chance?
Semeia:
Singling out someone else’s sin is not one step closer to righteousness; it’s one step closer to Phariseeism. It is one of the predominant themes of Jesus ministry – it’s what he spoke about most frequently – and it’s what made him the angriest. It is quite unbelievable that Christians can read the gospels and come away with the idea that their imperative as Christians is to go around fixing other people. Jesus’ message is the exact opposite of that: love God, your brother, yourself – I give you free grace and forgiveness – and all I ask is that you do the same for your brother. And look deep into your own heart to examine your own sin, because I love you so much I’m willing to take on that sin and die for you.
The imperative is to love – and the purpose of the law is to show that we all can never measure up. The law was never meant for us to apply to our brother: for there is only one lawgiver and judge.
Now if your brother is an alcoholic, and you need to do an intervention (without judgment and condemnation) then so be it. But we are not talking about that kind of situation here.
Adam:
(6) Yes He is promiscuous. But how can he not be? If sex was ordained only for marriage and he is not married, how can he have sex and not fornicate?
Semeia:
By your definition, as long as he is a practicing homosexual, even in a loving monogamous relationship, he can never be okay. Lucky for him, God is the lawgiver and judge, and not you.
Adam:
(7) I'm looking for both input and validation. Starkman spoke more of what I was asking about. You chased many rabbits of inference and never acknowledged any kind of "rebuke" to be biblical, therefore you could not answer my question of how to deal with the tension of "rebuke" and not judging.
Semeia:
I did speak to the question of rebuke; I put the Corinthians passage into context, and showed how Paul was speaking to a very different kind of group about a very different kind of situation. I also pointed out the kind of situation Jesus reserved his rebuke for.
Adam:
You said: "who are you to judge how the spirit of God is moving in his life?" I don't believe that the Spirit moves in contradiction to the Word that the Spirit inspired. That's ludicrous.
Semeia:
There are numerous instances throughout the bible of the Spirit moving in apparent contradiction to the Word. Jesus himself healed on the Sabbath in apparent contradiction to the Word. Peter had to be told in a dream, repeatedly, that it was okay to eat non-kosher food. Abraham was told by God to kill his own son, to violate the commandment! This sort of thing is throughout the bible.
Jesus says explicitly, in John 5:39 “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life… Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope.”
His warning is clear: do not put scriptures against or above the living God. If you live by the law (rigid adherence to scripture) you will die by the law (you will be judged by the same rigid standard you applied to others).
Adam:
Now, either I'm misinterpreting and the Bible is not saying that homosexuality is a sin, or the Spirit did not inspire the Bible. I have yet to see an even reasonable biblical argument for homosexuality. I'll change my perspective if I do hear a convincing argument for it (and please don't chase another inferential rabbit asking "have you ever changed a theological position on anything?" I'll save you the trouble by answering, "Yes. Many times."
Semeia:
The bible never uses the word homosexuality, because there was no such word. Many of the descriptions of homosexuality (like Sodom and Gomorrah – which are descriptions of violence and rape on a mass scale) have no relation to what we know of homosexuality today. There was no concept of the biological, psychological, developmental and inherited aspects of sexuality. Going to the bible to understand sexual development and behavior is like going to the bible to discover the age of the earth. Although you will find people who argue that the earth is 4,000 years old based on a literal interpretation of genesis, you pretty much have to throw out all of the scientific evidence of the last century to reconcile that view. If we were to list all of the views presented in the bible (including many by Paul) that the vast majority of Christians to not believe or live by it would be a very long list. The bible was never meant to be a rule book. It is meant to put us in a relationship with the living God, and there isn’t any rule that is more important than that goal.
I believe that the Christian focus on homosexuality is the biggest stumbling block to bringing gays into a relationship with Jesus Christ, or keeping them there.
The view of most Christians toward homosexuality is totally selective and arbitrary, and inconsistent with how they treat other parts of the bible, and many other sins. The actual scripture dealing with sex between the same gender (none of it reflecting what we know today about sexual development) is very limited, compared to many other issues that Christians never seem to focus on, like greed, anger and gossip. I was shocked when I looked into it how very little scripture there is, and how the little there is is so dated and different from what I see in homosexuals today.
Adam:
All I did was ask him how he reconciles his faith and his acceptance of homosexuality as not sin. First he tried to say that the Bible never states that homosexuality is wrong. When I pointed out to him Rom 1, he became very abruptly defensive (so abruptly that he even acknowledged his abrupt defensiveness and apologized) and then just said that the Bible was wrong.
I think that anyone surveying the situation would see that he was not even willing to hear another person's perspective…especially when it was starting to make sense.
Semeia:
Unless he invited you in, and asked for your advice in his life, it is simply not appropriate for you to offer it. Giving people unsolicited advice is a power move, and people feel it as an attack. Your description shows that that’s exactly how he received it. Unless you are in a long term familial or friendship or covenantal relationship with someone, and they have invited you in, you have no business going around informing people of their sins. And it is only the people who are deeply involved who are called in to do an intervention. Anything else is an attack and a humiliation – and it is the exact opposite of what Jesus and Paul ask us to do.
But what we are asked to do freely, toward everyone we come in contact with, is give people the unsurpassable worth that Jesus gives us, and love with the unsurpassable love that Jesus loves us with – as we are commanded to do, above all else.
Adam:
I do appreciate your input and for taking such time to give it. May God bless you for such a desire to share the truth as you understand it.
Semeia:
Thank you, Adam. And thanks to you as well.
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 06/07/2002 6:48:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 6/7/2002 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Very strong stuff, Semeia. Very strong. You broaden my spiritual understanding with every post on this subject. Thanks.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/7/2002 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | I just wanted to briefly add a few thoughts to this discussion.
I have yet to meet a gay person who does not know that Christians pretty much as a whole view homosexuality as a sin. I personally know homosexuals who have had EVERY kind of discussion possible with other Christians on the topic. My experience has been that those experiences for these indivduals have typically pushed them futher away from the gospel. The fact is it is the one topic that Christians feel very free and obligated to confront, discuss and encourage change in etc. If someone is fully convinced that it is a sin, why not do something unexpected? Judgement and obligatory confrontation are very much expected by gay people. Who wouldn't feel defensive when approached about reconciling their faith with their homosexuality when Christians in everyday life, and those in the media feel it is necessary and their "Christian" duty to to let them know what you are doing is wrong, sick, evil etc. They ALREADY know what Cristians think. By the time the homosexual person is an adult, you are not the first nor last person to try and confront the with the "truth". So why not be different? Why not love them with outrageous, nonjudgemental, TRUE love(not just loving them because we need to set an example and change them). Jesus was so radically opposite of the Pharisees. He drew sinners and those in need of healing to himself. That is exactly where we are ALL at, needing to be drawn to Jesus.
As far as I'm concerned we need to be more concerned about healing in the lives of gay people, than changing them. They have been despised, hurt and rejected by family, friends and Christians. Let them discover how truly loving a Christian can be for the first time in their life. I think any time a friendship or getting involved in a person's life is mainly motivated out of a desire to change a person or shed light on their sin, we are setting ourselvesup as a judge and operating out of the knowledge of good and evil. I believe if we are to be an influence in someone's life the Holy Spirit will open those doors as we are invited to share in the person's life, feelings, thoughts and dreams. This is where true openness and love can be shared.
Just my thoughts,
Shell
Edited by - shell on 06/07/2002 11:04:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/7/2002 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Brett, I really appreciate that.
And AMEN, Shell. Ditto, ditto, ditto.
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 6/7/2002 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | hand_carved,
I have a wild idea that might just work. And what the hey – why not just try something different from time to time just to learn? Definition of insanity: trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
Here is the idea: every time you interact with this person first totally associate into how much Jesus totally and completely loves you. In your mind’s eye picture Jesus looking at you with total and complete delight in his eyes. Picture him saying that he can’t wait to reveal the bright and shining future he has in store for you. Then, out of that place of total joy and wild abandon, pour out that same spirit to your friend – total and unconditional love. Do this for the next 7 interactions – or for 3 extra times after he comments on how amazing it is to see the spirit of Jesus in you. Tell us what happens.
Shell, I just read your post - looks like we are on the same page.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/7/2002 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast and Semeia...we are definitely on the same page...I just can't say it as eloquently as the two of you
I've thought a lot about the original question that began this thread about judgement and Christian rebuke. Regardless of one's view on whether homosexuality is a sin or not(I happen to lean towards Semeia's views on the biblical interpretations), the truth is that Jesus ministered to those living in sin. He ate with sinners and spent time at their homes. He drew them unto himself. After meeting Jesus they were set free, their burdens were lifted. I can imagine the smiles that must've stretched across their faces. They experienced the depth of the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ. They were changed. Then I look at my own life. I see the sin that I have lived in (and continue to live with) and the grace and mercy that I have experienced. I am continually amazed at Christ's mercy and love for ME. No matter what I've done he meets me. When I look for him he is there. I am changed in his presence.
What I've been thinking about is how can we be representing Christ if anyone leaves our company feeling judged, rejected, shamed, defensive or condemned? If we are truly representing the love of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, shouldn't the person feel drawn to a faith in Christ, feeling that their burdens were shared, that they can be real, open and honest? The Jesus I see in the bible drew all types of people unto himself. They experienced his love, mercy, and grace, and left his presence changed. If we were truly exuding the love and power of Christ wouldn't people be drawn to us(not recoiling in shame and defensiveness)and want to enter into the presence of the Lord and experience change? I am interested to hear what you all think about that.
Shell
Edited by - shell on 06/08/2002 12:18:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/7/2002 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | It is a mistake to think that just because a person confronts someone about something they are one, being judgmental and two, not being loving. So most of the premises that you guys are assuming is wrong because it takes an either/or attitude to a situation. A person confronts for many reasons, being judgmental and maniputative is only one. To assume that that is the only reason one would do so is, of course, hypocritical and doing what you accuse others of being wrong in doing. Walking a thin line, I'd say...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/8/2002 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Harold,
I hear myself and Semeia leaving a lot of room for offering Godly wisdom in the context of a true loving relationship. The problem as I see it is that Christians really enjoy talking about, and confronting particular sins. It is done in a context such as the one hand carved described in which he is not even sure he should be eating lunch with a person because of their sin. How can judgement and manipulation not be abounding in that situation? If we are truly operating in the belief that it is our duty to expose the sin around us then I am assuming Harold that you are a very busy man. I would be exhausted pointing out and exposing all of the sin around me(even out of love). It is just that Christians pick and choose which sins are worthy of rebuke and conversation. I should then be equally committed to pointing out ( in love of course) my neighbor's sin of glutony, my other neighbor's propensity to gossip, as well as the homosexual couple that lives down the street.
I have to leave right now and will try to come back to this later.
Shell
Edited by - shell on 06/08/2002 9:27:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/8/2002 9:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Harold said:
It is a mistake to think that just because a person confronts someone about something they are one, being judgmental and two, not being loving. So most of the premises that you guys are assuming is wrong because it takes an either/or attitude to a situation. A person confronts for many reasons, being judgmental and maniputative is only one. To assume that that is the only reason one would do so is, of course, hypocritical and doing what you accuse others of being wrong in doing. Walking a thin line, I'd say...
Semeia:
We have in no way taken an either/or attitude to the situation. We have simply drawn different parameters around when it is appropriate to confront in love and when it is not. And we have pointed out the hypocrisy in the way most Christians interpret and apply these scriptures.
Paul was talking to small church groups who were intimately involved with each other’s lives, living like extended families. He was not speaking to people casually acquainted with one another.
Furthermore, if we model ourselves after Jesus, the only people he took a harsh attitude toward were the Pharisees, who were the church-going, scripture-loving people of his day. Why is that? What does that tell us about what our central concern should be?
There are times in life when one needs to lovingly confront. When someone we are intimately close to is in the throes of addiction or delusion leading to destruction all around them, we are called upon to intervene with love, attempt to provide help, and even go so far as to disfellowship if they refuse to try to change. But we cannot depend upon the bible to tell us which situations call for this kind of action, for several reasons.
First, there are many “transgressions” in the bible that we no longer abide by – women not talking in church, strict observance of the Sabbath, food and cleanliness laws, etc. Our attitude toward different transgressions, such as divorce and remarriage, has also changed dramatically. Given this, we have to face the fact that fifty years from now our understanding of sexuality may profoundly change the church’s attitude toward homosexuality (as in fact it already has for many of us). If we are honest about what we believe and don’t believe about what we find in the bible, we find that is not the best source of information on many different topics.
Secondly, there are many problems that we face today that were not faced in biblical times: drug addiction, internet addiction, pornography, dehumanization brought about by technological progress, a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week, global commerce (kind of hard to abide by the Sabbath when you’re open on Sunday and all night – or responsible for satellites that circle the earth gathering information to protect against nuclear war – or running a subway or flying an airplane – etc., etc., etc.). The bible isn’t a handbook of rules, because it is forever and unchangeably set in a particular, ancient time and place, and locked into a certain ancient level of knowledge about science, biology, psychology, etc.
What does change with us, as we make our way forward through history, is our relationship with the living God, who implores us, in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, to abide in Him. Jesus told us that the law would be written on our own hearts – that we needed to look inward and abide in him to find the answers. Not only did he not present himself as an “expert on scripture” (although obviously he was) – but he reserved his angriest rebukes for those who presented themselves as such, and who took it upon themselves to rebuke others, and who relied on scriptures above the truth that was before their very eyes. Jesus himself refused to be the expert, and he often answered a question with a question, or told people to go figure it out for themselves. If Jesus himself is unwilling to offer advice, why should we be in such a hurry to set ourselves up as the experts on other people’s lives?
I find it interesting that although Jesus tells people, “Go and sin no more,” (and as the only sin-free human, he is the only one who can say that without hypocrisy) he refrains from specificity most of the time – he does not say to the prostitute, “Go and stop being a prostitute.” The implication is that if one is abiding in Christ, they will know what sin is, and what to refrain from. This is so different from how we humans normally behave. We love to tell people how to specifically change – in the fallen world it is what we seem made for – as we eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When Jesus is pressed, by the rich young ruler, for example, he does give specifics – but notice that is only after the ruler claims to have followed the Ten Commandments his whole life! If you are going to claim to be holy, Jesus will bring you low, but if you are an ordinary sinner Jesus seems to take a much gentler approach – radically different from how “church people” tend to treat each other. Don’t we tend to be “hands off” people who successfully present themselves as “holy” – and yet delight in correcting the average person just trying to make their way in the world, especially if they have a behavior that we think is an “obvious” sin (as long as it isn’t one that we ourselves suffer from)? Isn’t this the opposite of what Jesus did?
And a third reason we cannot rely on the bible for a high level of specificity about numerous behaviors, is because we Christians do not agree on what the bible tells us! If anyone doubts that, one need only look at the many different denominations that the Christian church is splintered into to have all the proof we need. Catholics do not agree with Lutherans who do not agree with Episcopalians who do not agree with Baptists who do not agree with Methodists who do not agree with Church of Christ who do not agree with United Church of Christ who do not agree with Assembly of God, and on and on. There are deep differences that divide Christians on very fundamental matters about different human behaviors and the practice of Christianity.
Given this divide, it is the height of arrogance to believe that wherever we happen to find ourselves is the one right way. Each of the churches I mention above has its share of deeply holy people, seeking after God’s heart and will, as well as its share of geniuses, as well as its share of blind followers, as well as its share of deluded people, as well as its share of Pharisees. Each of these churches vehemently disagrees with other churches on major issues of doctrine and behavior. Some churches ordain women and homosexuals – others don’t even allow homosexuals to be members of the congregation. And yet they are all Christian churches, and they all have some members who believe that anyone who doesn’t practice Christianity the way they practice it is going to hell.
If only intellectual prowess or proper adherence to the scriptures could save us. But alas we have set our greatest intellects to the task of combing through scripture, and they each emerge with a different answer. And we look to leaders of great discipline to guide us, but they each look quite different from one another. Where do we find the one, true church of Christ? Is it to be found in our rituals and our interpretations of the Word? Is it to be found in our doctrine or our good behavior? And if it is to be found in any of these things, how do we become the one body of Christ that Jesus has called us to be?
Anyone who believes, after two thousand years, that the various churches will somehow grow together on these different issues is seriously deluded. And anyone who believes that their church has come up with the right answer on all issues is equally deluded. So if we make our Christian life all about telling other people the “correct” way to behave, the “right” way to be a good Christian, we ensure the failure of Christ’s desire for us to be one body.
And we ignore the example of Christ himself.
Shell said:
What I've been thinking about is how can we be representing Christ if anyone leaves our company feeling judged, rejected, shamed, defensive or condemned? If we are truly representing the love of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, shouldn't the person feel drawn to a faith in Christ, feeling that their burdens were shared, that they can be real, open and honest? The Jesus I see in the bible drew all types of people unto himself. They experienced his love, mercy, and grace, and left his presence changed. If we were truly exuding the love and power of Christ wouldn't people be drawn to us (not recoiling in shame and defensiveness) and want to enter into the presence of the Lord and experience change?
Semeia:
Beautifully said. Amen.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/8/2002 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: the assumption that we cannot rely on the bible because for certain behaviors because they were cultural or because Christians disgree on how to interpret the verse is a highly flawed one. Would you say, for instance, that we cannot know anything about evolution or that it isn't true because people differ on what it means or how the data is interpreted? Of course not. The Bible contains truth. It is our job to find it?
Yes, there are many sins that are not contained in scripture. But ones that are, such as homosexuality should not be "moralized" by somehow saying it doesn't belong because that was of another time or other such nonsense. Destructive behaviors are sins, regardless of whether or not the Bible condemns them. They do not glofy God and they are harmful to human beings.
(Laughs). I like being classified as arrogant, though. I am sure Jesus would as well. By the way, "go and sin no more," while I believe it is scripture, is not contained in the earliest manuscripts, so I would suggest using other scriptures to support your arguments. Harold
FInally, I do believe you have been using an either/or argument. When you continue to use the word "judgment" when talking about confronting and, assuming as Shell does, when I talk about confronting that I mean to confront everyone around me when I did not ever say that, shows an either/or mentality to the discussion.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/8/2002 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Finally, on the nature of homosexuality, there really has been no disagreement. The church has always condemned it. It is only in our age have we erred...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/8/2002 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | FYI:I must add to my previous post that my Christian neighbors would also be VERY busy pointing out my sins and shortcomings as well.
Harold:
Could you please clarify the context in which you believe a confrontation should occur? What I have gathered from this conversation and my interpretation of what you are saying is that you think the context that Adam presented is an appropriate setting and relationship. Is that a correct interpretation? I strongly(as if anyone can't tell ) disagree with the psuedo-friendship relationship as the appropriate context for confronting in love.I fully believe that there is a time and place for helping someone work through an issue, and for accountability. This isn't one of them. If you find this appropriate, then my question is how do you pick and choose which sins to take on as your special projects? And how do you choose whom to confront and when...does it depend on how evil you view the sin to be? Is it based on which sin offends YOU the most? We are so SUBJECTIVE about this obligatory confrontation. And then when we see the person backing up and feeling defensive we want to let ourselves off the hook by saying "the truth hurts".
Jesus did not use truth as a weapon against those living in sin. How about starting with prayer where the REAL battle is fought anyway? Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. All of our actions and words need to be subject to the Lord, not based on our emotions, passions, feelings about a person or their sin(we all fail in this area, but shouldn't it be our aim?). I believe that before we put ourselves in the position of confronter in ANY situation about ANYTHING we need to pray for Godly wisdom. We need to ask the Lord to help us feel the burden of the other person. What is their history? What brought them to the point they are at in their life? What brings them joy? What brings them pain? What are their needs? Are they acting in survival mode? Is this their way of just making it through? What resources do they have as far as emotional and spiritual support? What do they see through their eyes? How does the Lord see them through his eyes? I ask the Lord what my motivation is? How does he ultimately want to work in this person's life? Am I truly motivated out of love for this person? Why am I seeing this speck in their eye? As I ask myself these questions and truly seek the Lord's revelation into this person's life I am always overwhelmed by a sense of wonder at how much the Lord loves this person and the wonder at how much he loves me. I am in awe of God's mercy and grace again and again.
So my response is...yes there is a time and place and relationship for loving confrontation, it's just not as frequent or in as many contexts as Christians seem to believe.
Shell
P.S. I FEEL like getting really fiesty about your comment on arrogance...but I'm sitting here trying to picture you as the Lord sees you right now, and my blood pressure seems to be going down...so I'll keep that to myself right now.(taking deep breaths). Blessings.
Edited by - shell on 06/08/2002 7:38:23 PM
Edited by - shell on 06/08/2002 7:44:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/8/2002 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Harold,
I apologize if you think my use of the word "arrogance" was directed at you. It was not. I was referring to the mindset that Christians frequently have that their particular church has a corner on the "one right way" to be a Christian. It seems to me that even a little bit of humility would cause one to think that, with all the different denominations out there, one might easily be mistaken on some issue or another.
But it does confuse me that you would like to be classified as arrogant, and it confuses me even more that you think Jesus would like that as well. Jesus is the embodiment of humility, to the point of excruciating death on the cross. Dying for the people you love is pretty much the ultimate in humility. He was born in a manger. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. And the people he was angriest with were the Pharisees, and what he was angry with them about was their arrogance and hypocrisy. So to say that Jesus would like to be thought of as arrogant is completely at odds with the picture of him that emerges from the gospels. Jesus brought a message of love and mercy, and arrogance or even the appearance of arrogance is a failure of both.
As for the question of the words, "Go and sin no more" not being in the earliest manuscripts: that would support my arguments, not refute them. If someone added those words later, because they thought Jesus should have said something about the person's sin - which wouldn't surprise me in the least, being totally in keeping with human nature - then it depicts an even more gentle and non-confrontive Jesus, at least concerning ordinary sinners of the non-Pharisee type. Do you know where I can find out about that?
Another thing that confuses me, about all these homosexuality threads, is why Christians fight so hard for this "right to confront" people. I wonder what would happen if everyone used all that energy to love people where they are at. It would be revolutionary. People would start turning up on our doorsteps, hearing rumors of love and hope and acceptance and mercy. And people who are yearning for community, and yearning for God, would not be turned away.
I guess I don't see the benefit or payoff of going around confronting people on their sins. Psychologically it is one of the least effective things you can do to bring about change. The only thing it has going for it is that it momentarily makes the person who's doing the confronting feel moderately better about themselves: at least they don't have that sin.
Jesus did not seek out or surround himself with the so-called "good people" of his day. He went out of his way to reach the spurned and the outcast. He repeatedly tried to get people to see that whenever they thought they were better than someone else, they were mistaken. He never came down on people for not fixing their brother, or for not confronting their brother - he always came down on them for judging their brother, and for not realizing their own sin.
Why do you think that is?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/9/2002 12:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Hand carved, I appreciate your desire to love people by doing and saying the right thing. I also really appreciate some of the thoughtful, honest interaction taking place on this thread. This issue is so central its almost impossible to over-emphasize.
I'd like to elaborate on two points already made. In fact, I'd like to offer a little sermon that picks up on these points (I am, after all, a preacher . I want to first talk about the centrality of love, and then offer a perspective on how this cashes out in "confronting" people.
Love is the All-Or-Nothing of the Christian Life
I believe that the single most important issue in the Church is for Christians to realize that our primary job in life is to love like God loves. In our interactions with gay people -- or any people -- if Christ-like love isn't communicated, nothing of value has been communicated. It just doesn't matter whether our interpretations of Scripture and our ethical opinions are right or wrong if the person we are engaging with doesn't first and foremost walk away convinced that we love them outrageously.
The main way people are supposed to come to believe that Jesus is for real is that see and experience the reality of his love in us and through us (Jn 17:20-26). "No one has ever seen God," John says, but if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us "(1Jn 4:12) People SEE the invisible God when they see his love in us. It is not by our ethical or theological opinions: its by us embodying God's own unconditional, unsurpassable love.
This was THE central command Jesus gave his disciples, and the central message the disciples gave their followers. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you," Jesus said (Jn 15:12, cf. Jn 13:14). "This is the message you have heard from the beginning," John says, "that we should love one another" (1Jn 3:11, cf. 1 Jn 3:23, 2 Jn 5).
And the kind of love we are supposed to exemplify is the same love Christ had for us. "We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another" (I Jn 3:16). We are to ascribe to all others the unconditional worth which God ascribes to us in dying for us on the cross. In every encounter with another we have, if the person doesn't above all know that we ascribe unsurpassable worth to them, we have failed.
This sort of love is not common in the world. In fact, it is outrageous, for it is unconditional. This is why it points to God. This outrageous, Christ-like love is the primary mark of the true disciple of Christ. "Whoever does not love," John writes, "does not know God, for God is love" (1John 4:8) "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love one another. Whoever does not love abides in death" (1Jn 3:14). "...love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (1Jn 4:7). "God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them" (1Jn 4:16).
If we love like this, everything else we need to gets done. For "the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’" (Gal. 5:14). And again, "the one who loves another has fulfilled the law… love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom 13:8, 10). For this reason, the commandment to love is called "the royal law" (Ja 2:8). Jesus taught us that everything in Scripture hinges on and is fulfilled by our loving God and loving our neigbhor as ourself (Matt 22:40).
Conversely, if we don't exemplify love, it doesn't matter at all what else we do. We can speak in tongues, prophecy, have faith that moves mountains, understand all theological mysteries, and do every kind of good work, Paul says. But if it isn't motivated by love, and if it doesn't express love, it is "a noisy gong" and "a clanging cymbol." (I Cor 13:1-3). It is altogether worthless.
Everything we do, Paul says, is to be "done in love" (I Cor 16:14).
This is why Paul also teaches us that we are to "live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph. 5:2). "Above all" we are to "love…" (Col. 3:14). "Above all," Peter says, we are to "maintain constant love" (I Pet 4:8). If its above all, the command to love has no competitors. It is impossible to be imbalanced on loving. it can't be balanced with any other competing value, belief or agenda.
So, the ultimate question we have to ask in any encounter we have with people, whether close friends, distant acquaintances, or strangers, is this: did they walk away from this encounter experiencing love? Whatever else we communicated, did they ABOVE ALL ELSE know they were loved?
Getting "on the Inside"
The second point I'd like to make is this: When we "confront" people from the outside of their life-story rather than from the inside, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to experience "above all" love. Unless we have been invited into a person's story, and unless we have done the self-sacrificial work and taken the time to learn about a person's life FROM THE INSIDE, to "get into their life-story" from THEIR perspective, we are not able to offer loving and wise advice to them, and they will not feel affirmed and understood when we offer this advice. This is why Semeia was absolutely right when she said that confronting rarely does any good.
There is a world of difference between relating to a person out of our knowledge of good and evil, and relating to a person out of love. When our knowledge of good and evil mediates our relationship to another, we view them in the categories of our judgment. We do not view them, or love them, simply as persons who have unsurpassable worth because they are created by God and because Jesus died for them. We are viewing them "through the spectacles" of our ethical opinions rather than "through the spectacles" of Calvary. We are in fact not really relating to them at all: we are relating to our own spectacles.
What is more, in relating to people out of our knowledge of good and evil, we are actually serving ourselves. We are meeting needs in our own life. As Semeia eloquently demonstrated, our ethical scales are always curved in our own self-interest. This is why we are ALWAYS selective in what sins we think need to be "confronted," and which ones can be overlooked. We simply can't love unconditionally and operate out of our knowledge of good and evil at the same time.
Since love is the principle thing humans were created to do, we can understand why the boundary God placed in the garden to distinguish himself from us was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." This is also why Jesus, and Paul and James emphatically teach that we must not judge others. We simply cannot love like we are supposed to love and judge at the same time.
To love another, therefore, we have to set aside our knowledge of good and evil. We know ahead of time that whoever we relate to contributed to the crucifixion of Christ, just as we did, but also that Christ died for them, just as he did for us. Knowing this, we can and must set aside our opinions about their relative goodness or evil and simply love.
Our task in life for the vast majority of people we come in contact with is to simply ascribe unsurpassable worth to them in our thoughts, words and deeds. We only can go beyond this if we are invited into a person's story and if we are willing to develop over time the sort of loving, intimate "incarnational" relationship where we know a person's world from their perspective. (This constituted the sort of "house-church" relationships of Christians in the first century which Semeia referred to).
Only when this has been accomplished are we in a position to offer feedback on a persons life. Only now do we know what we are talking. Even more importantly, only now do THEY know that we know what we are talking about. And most importantly, only now do they know that we love them and that our feedback is motivated not by our own need to be right, not by a desire to judge them, but only out of love. Now, regardless of what our opinion on a matter is, they will feel loved, affirmed, and understood. They will not feel like we are "over there" throwing confrontation stones at them out of our knowledge of good and evil. They will rather know that they are not alone in their world and in whatever struggle they invited us in on... even if they end up disagreeing with us.
We have to earn the right to speak into a persons life on an issue. And we earn this right when we love them as persons rather than our opinion of the issue. Any other approach places the issue above the person and can't possible communicate "above all" love.
Conclusion
So, how does this all apply to you, Hand Carved? I would offer three things to think about (and not just to Hand Carved, but to all of us, myself especially).
1) Make sure that you are getting ALL of your life -- your sense of worth, significance, love, etc. -- from Jesus Christ, and not from your views on theological and ethical matters. Are you meeting any need on any level by voicing your opinion on this matter? Only if you can see yourself having as much life in being wrong as in being right, only if you know that you have as much life in not speaking as in speaking, can you ever be right and speak your rightness in a healthy, Christ-like, way.
2) In all of your interactions, consistently attend to this one queston: Will what I say and do result in this person knowing I love them? Remembering, simply saying "I love you" doesn't do it. The experience of love comes from THE OVERALL context and character of an interaction. If it won't result in love being communicated, its worse to communicate it -- even if you're convinced you're right -- than to simply remain silent and smile.
3) If you are called to do so (for we can't do this with many people), and if the person you're engaging with invites you to do so, spend a year or two getting on the inside of this person's life-story and letting them get on the inside of yours. Develop a trusting, loving, incarnational relationship. Learn what its like not just to be gay, but FOR THIS PERSON to be gay. Empathetically learn about his or her experiences, perspectives, fears, struggles, ambitions, etc... Love them in their gayness -- as well as everything else about them.
When this relationship has been established (these sorts of relationships do not happen quickly or easily) the time may come when it is appropriate to take about homosexuality. But the talk will have a totally different feel to it than it has now. It will not be an abstract "whose right" sort of thing. It will be incarnated in real life. And now your feedback will possibly have some impact, and their feedback to you will possibly have some impact. You will BOTH know what you are talking about as you encourage an dchallenge one another.
Hope this helps. I know this sort of thinking has helped me immensely.
In his love
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 06/09/2002 05:19:14 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 6/9/2002 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | It was really good for me to have a good night's sleep and then come back to this topic...great sermon Doc...I need to hear that again and again.
I am very passionate about this topic because it is very close to my heart. I am on the inside of someone's life that is gay. I was already on the inside of their life when they revealed to me that they are gay. I already loved this person dearly. It gave a face, a life, feelings, true humanity to the word GAY. Instead of it just being a word that is tossed around in Christian communities, fought against, talked about as an insideous agenda creeping into our children's lives, it suddenly took on the face of someone that had my heart. It came to represent someone who has real pain, real joy, real love and someone who loves God. Initially we did talk about homosexuality, faith, relationships etc. in the context of our loving friendship. This person was fully aware of what born again believers feel and believe, and the LAST thing this person ever felt was love from Christians. There was a deep fear in even revealing this part of their life to anyone that professed to be a believer.
I truly believe that once you are inside of person's life that is gay the "need" for you to confront becomes very insignificant. Loving them, and leaving the rest that we don't understand up to God is the only conviction I feel in my heart concerning this person.
I am passionate about this topic because I have seen the pain, and destructiveness that Christians can bring about in their attempt to shed light on someone's sin.
Hand Carved, I hope that after wading through these very passionate responses, and asking the Lord for guidance, that you will know for yourself what the Lord is asking of you in this situation.
Blessings,
Love Shell
p.s. Harold...I apologize about the comment about you being a "busy man" confronting people...that wasn't necessary.
Edited by - shell on 06/09/2002 12:42:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 6/9/2002 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
I'm so sorry for the delay in responses. I haven't even been able to read all of these yet! I've been gone moving into a new apartment. But anyway, I'll get to what I can for now and try to finish later this evening. I only got to read Semeia's first response, and I thought that since it is directed to me I should respond. So here goes!
Homosexual couples and Infertile Families…
My dear sister, I spend a good deal of time trying to word things as best I can to avoid chasing too many rabbits, but I guess I don't try hard enough. You were making an argument that the incestuous relationship was evil because it destroyed both the family and the church. I was just saying that the same consequences occur in a homosexual relationship. Therefore, by your (not my) own definition of why the incestuous relationship was evil defines a homosexual relationship as evil.
SEMEIA:
"SINGLING OUT"
Semeia, it amazes me that you are so adamantly advocating that we not judge our brothers, and yet that is exactly what you are doing to me. I don't single homosexuality out. In fact, I've not spoken to anyone there about it for the four summers now that I've worked there. However, the only piece of the picture that you have seen is what has been revealed to you in this post. Yet you feel it is your place to judge and condemn me for judging and "singling out" homosexuality?
The heart of my post was not to open up a debate on homosexuality. If that had been my aim, I would have labled it "Christian Homosexuals" or something like that. If you read it again for what it actually says and not what you have on your own agenda of discussion, you can easily see that. Starkman did, it seemed. You wanted to chase the rabbit of homosexuality, and that is fine. If I "single" homosexuality out for any reason it is because I am sincerely baffled how Christians can honestly not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Seeing myself the finite being that I am, I wanted to ask my friend how he reconciles the two so that may be I could see what I haven't seen before.
But the heart of the post was not to chase the debate on homosexuality. I simply asked some people opinions on how to biblically balance Christian tolerance with Christian rebuke. The second paragraph on was a "For example." I have been wondering about it for some time, and this has been the most recent case I've had to deal with. I've only started posting recently, which is why this "for example" was written about and others haven't been.
If anything, I have "singled homosexuality out" for any reason, in order to determine whether or not it is indeed sin according to the Bible. I know that gluttony is a sin as well as fornication and other things, but evidentially homosexuality isn't seen as sin in some Christian's eyes. I would love to understand why, which is why I have chased this rabbit with you.
But seriously sister, I'm cracking about how much time you've spent responding to me, rebuking and judging me solely on the false assumption that I am singling out homosexuality. Therefore I will not waste time and respond to your many paragraphs based on that false assumption (although there is much I'd like to say). If I responded to every sentence written since I've been gone this weekend, I'd have a book! But bless you all for your interaction!
APPLYING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT:
Semeia, again, how on earth can you tell me that I don't apply the Sermon on the Mount and that I think it "doesn't apply" to me.
Also, I think you are seriously misinterpreting either me or the scriptures. Yes Jesus says, "Don't judge." But what does that mean? Paul says the exact same thing, however Paul also says that we ARE to judge. I don't think that Paul and Jesus are preaching two different gospels here any more than Paul and Paul are preaching two different Gospels. Obviously Paul (in Rom 13) doesn't mean "Don't make any kind of judgment whatsoever" because in 1 Corinthians he says:
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
6:1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
I am not picking and choosing, my dear sister. As I stated above, the reason for this post was so that I would NOT have to pick and choose but rather gain insight as to how the two could be reconciled.
SEMIEA SAID:
When someone responds that way you have indisputable evidence that they feel attacked, and it is evidence that you are not speaking in truth out of love, but are in fact expressing judgment.
ADAM:
Not always. One can speak the truth in love (or in my case, simply ask how he can see homosexuality as "not sin"), but if a person's conscience is convicting them they will respond as if I was unloving.
In regard to my situation: you only know what I've told you thus far (I will try to work on an exhaustive account for you so that you can better make your judgement and rebuke of me). But even as I stated before, he later apologized for his defensive reaction when he realized how uncalled for it was. [I write this next sentance in light of what I've read thus far of Boyd's post]. We went back to work for a dinner shift on very good terms, and afterwards he wanted to buy me Wendy's before I dropped him off at his house. We are still on very good terms. Everything was done out of love and in the image of love, a love that even he saw.
Oh, and I think you are overlooking something. The woman at the well did cower. In fact she tried to change the subject to "worship" instead of a discussion of her lifestyle.
SEMEIA SAID:
"If you live by the law (rigid adherence to scripture) you will die by the law (you will be judged by the same rigid standard you applied to others)."
The Law is not "rigid adherence to the scriptures." The Law (referred to here) is looking at salvation as a works-based thing as per the Mosaic Covenant.
SEMEIA SAID:
"The view of most Christians toward homosexuality is totally selective and arbitrary, and inconsistent with how they treat other parts of the bible, and many other sins. The actual scripture dealing with sex between the same gender (none of it reflecting what we know today about sexual development) is very limited, compared to many other issues that Christians never seem to focus on, like greed, anger and gossip. I was shocked when I looked into it how very little scripture there is, and how the little there is is so dated and different from what I see in homosexuals today."
ADAM:
YES!!! This is the kind of stuff I'm wanting to hear from you! Enough reading between the lines, Semeia. That gets us nowhere fast, and I shouldn't have to spend 2 pages at a time defending myself against the false accusations that you bring against me. Come now, is that love? I want to see more of this objective dialogue, your interpretation of the scriptures, how you came to that interpretation, etc. You condemn yourself with the countless paragraphs of vain rebuke. But praise God for His grace He gives to us all and through us all, Amen?
I will digest this (and the many posts since) so that I can respond to you. But I need to go to a church fellowship we are having.
Grace and Peace…
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
Edited by - hand_carved on 06/09/2002 3:09:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 6/9/2002 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Adam,
I apologize for coming across in an attacking way. That was not my intent.
Adam said:
I will try to work on an exhaustive account for you so that you can better make your judgement and rebuke of me.
Semeia:
I assume you’re joking, but in case you’re not – please don’t expend the energy. I am not capable of determining whether or not you specifically did the most loving thing with your co-worker. Only you and he know that. My interest was in confronting the issue you brought up: the position Christians take toward rebuking other Christians concerning sin. I believe that the position most Christians take on this issue places us squarely in the Fall – it is in essence eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The evidence is clear and compelling that the harm done to homosexuals (similar to the harm that was done in the past to divorced and remarried people) is not in keeping with the message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 6/9/2002 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: I can only speak for myself as a Christian, not for anyone else. I do not "fight" for my right to confront any more than I fight for my right not to. What I seek is balance. People only change through confrontations, when they confront their sins and seek to be changed by God. Life does not change without confrontation of some sort. The Corithians, for instance, never would have changed if Paul had not confronted them about their sins. Jesus confronted the Pharisees because they were, in that society, the ones who needed it. The "lower" people of the day did not need it because they had been repeatedly been put down by the religious people of the day. That did not mean that they were excused from their sins, nor that they were somehow righteous because they were victimized by others. It only means they were more receptive to Jesus because what they had gone through.
There are people who are victimized by society and need nothing more than a loving person to show them God's love. But there are also those who need to be told that what they are doing is wrong, harmful and God will judge them for it. Because that is the truth. Many people know God doesn't approve but will keep doing what are doing unless someone reminds them that they are wrong. We all need accountability for the lives we lead.
Finally, two points. As a man, I am appalled that people try and somehow equate homosexual relationships as somehow god ordained. I find it offensive that an act so harmful to men would somehow be compared to something God has ordained and consider holy: marriage. Homosexuality is extremely violent to male body. Anyone in the medical profession knows that. To uphold it somehow as equal to marriage horrible.
Second, I like the term arrogant because people confuse passion and arrogance. Anyone who holds strong views and are passionate about them is guilty of arrogance. Most of the people I know are arrogant in that sense because they believe passionately about something that the majority of people don't agree with (on many different sides of the spectrum). As such I like the company of arrogant people much more than the company of those who want to cool the fire of anything that they deem offensive and "out of touch" with what society deems appropiate. Give me a good arrogant person any day...
Edited by - writerdad on 06/09/2002 11:24:51 PM | | 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 1:42 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 |
|
|