Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

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

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

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 10/19/2001 9:30 AM (GMT -6)

Here at the "happy ra ra club" known as the University of Texas in Austin, our liberal paper, the DAILY TEXAN, prints the "Firing Line": a page where students submit their opinions. Recently homosexuality has been an issue discussed. The following is a Christian article submitted by a student (lets call her Student #1) and a highly sarcastic anti-Christian response that demeans women, homosexuality, and slavery using the Bible.

From Student #1:

"...First of all, the majority of Christians agree that homosexuality is a sin, or at least us 'radical extremists' who still believe in and follow the teachings of Christ. Also, it is not simply a 'Christian family value' to reject homosexuality. Check out the teachings of Judaism, Islam, and many other religions. It seems like gay activists specifically target Christianity as if we were all part of some fanatic group of gay-hating, gay-bashing people. Christians are followers of Christ who reject homosexuality because it is against God's plan and design, but we by no means hate people who are gay nor do we target gay people... Many people have in fact, by their own free choice, left their homosexual lifestyles and are currently happily married with children... I will continue to delight myself in the radically extreme love of Jesus Christ and share His love with others."

And the response:

"Student #1, Thank you for alerting us to the realities of God's natural plan. There are, however, a few components of that awesome plan about which I'd like to remind you. First, I hope when basking in the holy light of your savior in church that you shut up. 'Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.' (1 Cor. 14:34-35) Second, trying to help homosexuals is all wrong! Listen to the Bible... 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' (Lev. 20:13) None of this reparation therapy; what we need is a good, old-fashioned stoning for gays. And lastly, it is high time that we re-institute that grand tradition of slavery. After all, it's part of God's great plan. 'Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.' (Eph. 6:5)
Amen."

Any responses to this interpretation of scripture?

--Greg Burris, gburris.jewgrass@mail.utexas.edu

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/19/2001 9:36 AM (GMT -6)

The "call and response," basically shows that while many people "say" they believe everyone should be able to believe as they choose, they truly don't mean it. Second, the response person is typical of those who simply take verses out of context and don't take the time to understand what they mean and the context they were given in. Such answers are intellectuality dishonest. I am glad the student who provided the Christian response did a good job. I am saddened by the person who responded to the letter. It is typical of those who enspouse that point of view. They don't want to listen, they want to label...

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/19/2001 11:12 AM (GMT -6)

Help me to understand the difference between the church's stance on not condoning the sin of homosexuality, compared to the church's stance on the sin of divorced people (who were not divorced for the reasons stipulated by Jesus)who remarry. Jesus made it clear that if a divorced person (who was not divorced because of the infidelity of their spouse)remarried, they would be in an adulterous relationship. Is this "living in sin" fundamentally different from homosexuality? Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality.

Although sarcastic in tone, I think that is the point of response #2. It seems like a legitimate question.

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

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/19/2001 1:45 PM (GMT -6)

Speaking about divorce...Check out this link.ag.org/top/2001counciltoday/20010809_01_resolution.cfm
Simply it states that the AG is allowing divorcee's to become ordained ministers after remarriage if their divorce was before their salvation.

What is your opinion on that?

Mr I.

Sean
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18

Posted 10/19/2001 6:30 PM (GMT -6)

"Speaking about divorce...Check out this link.
http://ag.org/top/2001counciltoday/20010809_01_resolution.cfm
Simply it states that the AG is allowing divorcee's to become ordained ministers after remarriage if their divorce was before their salvation."

I personally feel that this is a step in a positive direction. After all, the Gospel teaches grace to the sinner, not condemnation. Since this person was forgiven that sin by Christ, I think we should forgive as well.

Note that I would also hold that people who divorce AFTER becoming saved would be a different matter altogether. I don't think they lose their salvation, but I would also question their credibility as good preachers of the word. What do y'all think?

Yours, In Christ,
Sean McNabb

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/19/2001 9:21 PM (GMT -6)

A couple more questions.

Sean, you said: "I would also question their credibility as good preachers of the word."

Do you think people stop sinning after they are saved? Do "good preachers of the word" have less sin than the rest of us? Are they more pure? Are they without sin?

What about the person who gets saved, and with the newfound power of God's love decides that getting the tar beat out of her every week by her abusive spouse need not be her future, and she gets divorced. She loves God, and decides to go into the ministry. Need she have stayed a victim to be considered eligible to be ordained?

Is sin something we can rid ourselves of, if we try hard enough?

Are Christians less sinful than non-believers? Or is the power of Christianity that it calls attention to our sin, and to our inability to ever overcome it completely, and therefore to our dependence on God's continual salvation?

And Greg B.-- you say that response #2 "demeans women, homosexuality, and slavery using the Bible." Actually, the sarcasm implies that Paul is being demeaning to women, and the bible is being demeaning to homosexuals. And the author's sarcasm is questioning the bible's support of slavery.

Writerdad-- what is intellectually dishonest about quoting scripture and questioning it?
Yes there is a context. But the writer is pointing out that if we dismiss THESE scriptures based on context, perhaps we should look more deeply at the context of other scriptures pertaining to this subject.

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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/20/2001 4:20 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia is raising some extremely good questions and making some powerful points. I hope she hasn't scared her fellow-participants away.

On the A/G stance -- seems to me they are STILL missing the point. Religious leaders in Jesus' day argued about how to interpret Moses' permission to divorce (Duet 22?). Some felt justified in divorcing their wives for just about any reason, others only for sexual sin. They wanted to get Jesus to side with one school or the other.

Jesus opted out of the discussion by bringing them back to Genesis 2. He was basically saying there is NO basis to feel justified in divorce. "What God has joined together, let no man..." All divorce involves sin. "It was because of the hardness of your heart that Moses' permitted..." God's ideal is for a man and woman to be bonded together for life, thus reflecting his own loving nature. Any break from this involves sin, "causes" people to break from God's ideal of having one sexual partner in life (hence getting involved in 'adultry"), and harming the social fabric.

Yet it happens. Jesus didn't "tighten the belt" on the Old Testament permission. His point was not to come up with new and tighter social or ecclesiastical rules. (As though he was recommending STONING people who THOUGHT about adultry or sad "racca" to another). His point was to reiteratedstrongly that the divorce permission was the result of our "hardness of heart" -- and thus we shouldn't be looking for a "righteous" cause for divorce.

(As I read it, the one "out" of this was when a person was unfaithful during the betrothal period -- the year or so before full marriage. Hence jesus says, "except [of course] for porneia").

Doc

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

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/20/2001 6:08 AM (GMT -6)

Doc
In the article, they are not trying to say that it is ok to get married and divorce any time you want. They see that and I believe addressed that issue. What they are saying on the other hand is that if divorce is part of our past, something that happened before we came to know christ, then we should not be condemned for all of eternity because of that. Didn't I read somewhere about Christs death on the cross cleansing away our sins? Wasn't that the point of His death in the first place? Should we deny membership to people who had a history before they came to know the saving grace of Christ?

Lets take this a step further... What about the people who had sex before they were married? As far as God is concerned, aren't you in effect marrying and divorcing each and every partner you ever had? If they later get married and come to know Christ, are they still living in sin since they have been married and divorced and married and divorce and married and divorced? What about all of our little gods that we have worshiped over the years? Our jobs, television, food, people we look up to, etc., aren't we in effect marrying and divorcing each and every on of them? Should we be condemned for these even after salvation.

Doc I do see what you are saying. At the same time, I see the need to differentiate between pre and post salvation sin. I see a difference and I am pretty sure that God probably does also. Call me a heritic, but that is the way I see it.

Reverend Boyd, I want your opinion on this since you are the pastor of a church yourself. Would you classify me living in sin if after being married and divorced, I got remarried. Oh yeah... I came to know Christ through the divorce process. According to your understanding of the bible, would this be wrong? Should I be be allowed to become a member in a church or to hold a leadership position within the church?

Mr I.

Edited by - mrindifference on 10/20/2001 12:08:59 PM

Sean
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18

Posted 10/20/2001 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia, you posed me with a couple of very good questions, which I will take some time to answer.

quote:

Sean, you said: "I would also question their credibility as good preachers of the word."
Do you think people stop sinning after they are saved? Do "good preachers of the word" have less sin than the rest of us? Are they more pure? Are they without sin?"

As my line of reasoning went, I didn't say that they were without sin; I merely said that they should be given a chance, for Jesus' blood DOES have sanctifying effects on the sinner. I do not, however, preclude the possibility of sin, which led me to my second point...

quote:

What about the person who gets saved, and with the newfound power of God's love decides that getting the tar beat out of her every week by her abusive spouse need not be her future, and she gets divorced. She loves God, and decides to go into the ministry. Need she have stayed a victim to be considered eligible to be ordained?

I often have a fault when I write, and that is that I tend to overgeneralize and oversimplify everything; for that, I apologize. When I wrote that rule, I was very much aware that there are extreme circumstances which must be taken into consideration when considering someone for ordination. Still, I believe the general rule holds for a couple reasons.

1) If someone knows that something is morally wrong, and does it, after (for all intents and purposes) saying that he wouldn't do it, that really brings the person's trustworthiness into character.

2) Even if he did repent, I really think it would be hard for the congregation to trust him in his leadership, knowing that he had committed this sin with the knowledge of the truth.

quote:

Is sin something we can rid ourselves of, if we try hard enough? Are Christians less sinful than non-believers? Or is the power of Christianity that it calls attention to our sin, and to our inability to ever overcome it completely, and therefore to our dependence on God's continual salvation?

Now this is also a very tough question, and very possibly it's beyond my current ability to answer it. Still, let me give it a shot. This question specifically relates to divorce, so I shall tackle it within that realm. I really think that Christ set us free from the bonds of sin, so that we, in theory, COULD go without sin. However, when Satan and the supernatural realm comes into the picture, things become more complicated, for he tempts us to do evil still. Now, when you are tempted on this level, it is easier to resist some sins than others (i.e. it is easier to resist the temptation to steal than to think a hateful thought). Again, I'm not the expert on this, so anyone please feel free to correct me. I hope my response was of some value. Take care, and God bless you.

Yours, in Christ,
Sean McNabb

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/20/2001 11:23 AM (GMT -6)

Mr. I, you said, "What about all of our little gods that we have worshiped over the years? Our jobs, television, food, people we look up to, etc., aren't we in effect marrying and divorcing each and every on of them? Should we be condemned for these even after salvation."

Are you saying that after a person is saved, if they continue to have problems with sin, they should be judged and/or condemned?

Do you think it is possible for a person to stop sinning after being saved?

Do you know anyone for whom that is true? Do you know anyone, saved or unsaved, who makes it through a month without sin? A week? A day?

For me I consider it a minute by minute struggle.

What did Jesus mean when he said that if you even say "thou fool" to your brother you are in danger of hell fire? Just the other day I said, "you jerk" when someone cut me off on the freeway. (My kids pointed out that the guy in the other car was probably saying the same thing about me - good point.) Is Jesus setting an impossible standard that ensures that we all end up in hell? Or is he reminding us that we can't judge others because we are all guilty of sin? That none of us make it out alive apart from God's grace. We all miss the mark all the time. We all sin. We all are human.

I apologize if my style is a little intense. If anyone feels threatened or attacked by my questions I totally apologize, because nothing could be further from my intent. I just want to dig into some of the presuppositions behind the thinking on this controversial topic. I also am fascinated by the distinction being made here about pre- and post- salvation. Not only have I never met anyone without sin, but I have never observed Christians in general to be less sinful than non-Christians. All the Christians I know hurt people at pretty much the same rate that non-Christians hurt people. They usually do not intend hurt (just as the fact that I didn't intend harm by my words here, nonetheless it is possible that I caused harm) but being a human being is a messy business, and we hurt each other all the time, in spite of our good intentions.

So if we cannot ever really be free of sin, then what is the difference between Christian and non-believer? The difference is that Christ brings our sinful nature into the light, into consciousness, not to judge or condemn us, but to show us very clearly how we need God. The humility we experience when we become aware of our flaws, that on our own we can never shed, puts us in the right position to recognize our need of God, to reach out to God, to get into a relationship with God. "My power is made perfect in weakness." "For when I am weak, then He is strong."

I would like to quote an extensive passage from a book called "Parables and the Enneagram” by Clarence Thomson. (The enneagram is a personality typing system, like the Myers-Briggs.) I apologize for the length, but it expresses beautifully the concepts I am aiming at here. I’m very interested in responses to the questions I posed in this post and the last. I HOPE I haven’t scared anyone away – truly that is not my intent.

Here’s the quote:

The word sin has been trivialized by contemporary usage…Even the reputable Baltimore Catechism said that for a sin to be worthwhile, the sinner had to give full consent and be in full control of his or her faculties (“free”), and that sin had to be a serious matter.

But even this definition somewhat trivializes sin because it implies that sin is an act that we can commit or not commit as we wish. It also says that we only sin when we are in full control of the situation. It asserts that sin is in direct proportion to freedom. It is no wonder that Catholics felt ashamed for confessing the same sin over and over. If people sin in proportion to the amount of free will they possess, then they should just stop being bad and start being good. But it doesn’t work that way.

Paul had a different notion of sin […he] maintain that sin is a power we can’t break, a destructive force over which we have little control. And it does us in: The wages (consequences) of sin are death. Paul writes:

I am carnal, sold under sin, I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate….For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.--Romans 7:14, 18

…Sin is a destructive force that dwells within us that has us do what we don’t want to do. When [one type of person] walks through life expecting hostility at every turn, the attitude is not a voluntary choice. When [another type of person] can see only what is wrong with the world, the viewpoint is painful and is not chosen voluntarily. When [another type of person] can only focus on what is wrong with her, that situation hurts.

So when Jesus said that he came to preach forgiveness of sins, he was taking on the task of breaking the habits of thought and action that keep us from acting in any way except the one that fits our distorted worldview. That’s why the New Testament uses the word, metanoia, meaning “to change one’s mind.” Faith is not a body of information; it is a worldview in which God is present, creating a whole universe in which we can nourish ourselves.

Now the approach of Jesus becomes more profound. It might make sense for Jesus to say “Your sins are forgiven,” if our sins were just a series of bad acts. But how is Jesus going to forgive a strategy rooted in a distorted worldview? By parables.

Parables don’t just announce the forgiveness of sins; they destroy the sinful perspective in their very telling. Parables were intended to convince Jesus’ followers that they didn’t have to respond the way they always had because the world was different than they had thought. The parables were unraveling devices, calculated to shatter their rigid, self-protecting habits of thought and action that were so self-destroying.

Perhaps another parable can make this clearer. We have heard it said that we should mend our ways, stop being bad, start being good, and get rid of our faults. Shape up. But Jesus says:

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?” He said to them, “An enemy has done this.” The servants said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he said, “No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at the harvest time I will tell the reapers, ‘Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”--Matthew 13:24—30

This is a parable, not advice on how to farm. […] At first Jesus sounds immoral here, allowing people to go on sinning instead of urging them to pull the weeds out of their gardens. Anyone who has been to therapy or has considered the moral dimension of religion seriously knows how urgently and frequently people are admonished to stop doing bad things. The price for moral improvement is a constant elimination of faults and a corresponding cultivation of virtues. Everyone but Jesus seems to know that. People make a living by being critics, therapists, teachers, and writers—all to help people pull out their weeds.

These admonitions and moral urgings—how effective are they? What is our reaction to someone giving us a sermon? How efficacious is nagging? When a parent or teacher or boss says, “I’ve told you a hundred times…”—shouldn’t it be apparent that advice given a hundred times simply isn’t working?

So Jesus refrains from moralizing or giving advice. Instead he tells us it is more important to accept ourselves than to change. Of course contemporary therapists would hasten to add that self-acceptance precedes an effective change [my emphasis]. It is possible that Jesus knew that. More important, knowing that we are acceptable to God makes it a lot easier to accept ourselves. Just talk to a divorced woman who wants to receive the Eucharist and is told she is not worthy. Ask her what it does to her self-esteem to be rejected by the Church in the name of God.

Parables operate differently than instruction books. A parable works by capturing your imagination. It lodges deep in your soul, and when you get ready to make a decision, the parable is there…

We let parables into our life and gradually we live according to their wisdom. Their moral contours become ours—and as that happens, we become free from our compulsions.

No one parable is going to magically untie all the neurotic strings that bind us all at once. Jesus told us in parable form that they wouldn’t. He said the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed (Luke 13:19): It starts out small and ends up being truly significant. The Jews listening to this parable were expecting a political and economic triumph from Yahweh, as the Lord had done against the enemies of David and the kings of old. The metaphor of the mustard seed would have contradicted all cultural expectations. The Jews wanted external political intervention, the parable told them divine intervention would be internal and moral, an experience of dynamic inner grace. The mustard seed is a metaphor for patience. Jesus is saying, in a way that will liberate our imagination, “Make small changes in your life.” He said the same thing in another parable:

To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.--Luke 13:20

Even the truest believer has a right to be suspicious of the radical conversions featured on certain television programs. To go from being a highly compulsive, stingy, deceptive, avaricious jerk to becoming an enlightened, self-giving, compassionate, self-actualized human being in the space of a single TV show is in direct violation of the laws of creation. And the author of creation is highly unlikely to suspend permanent laws for our temporary convenience. What usually happens—as any priest, minister, or therapist can tell you—is that the […] compulsion is simply redirected. Instead of being totally addicted to drugs or food or sex, the person is now equally rigidly addicted to a narrow range of religious words and behaviors.

So regardless of your [personality] style and your degree of health, if you want to make some steps toward the light, just remember that your development is like a mustard seed. It’s true. That’s the way the kingdom works.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks,
Semeia

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

Edited by - Semeia on 10/21/2001 12:44:07 AM

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/20/2001 12:42 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia

Context...
Truth lies in context. Your argument was a good argument, but it was out of context. You may want to go back and reread my last post and also read docs post that I was replying to. I was talking about the power of Grace and how according to the Bible, through salvation comes cleansing of our sins. No, that doesn't mean that that instant all our problems are solved, for if that was the case, everyone would be saved. Ah the wonders of pipe-dreams.

"It is not the number. It is the context; it is what is between the numbers." (paraphrased) - PI

Mr I.

Edited by - mrindifference on 10/20/2001 5:48:20 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/20/2001 2:10 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Context...
Truth lies in context. Your argument was a good argument, but it was out of context. You may want to go back and reread my last post and also read docs post that I was replying to. I was talking about the power of Grace and how according to the Bible, through salvation comes cleansing of our sins. No, that doesn't mean that that instant all our problems are solved, for if that was the case, everyone would be saved. Ah the wonders of pipe-dreams.
Mr I.

Mr. I, can you please clarify for me what you mean about my argument being out of context? I am not trying to be difficult--I did reread your post, and I still have the same questions I posed to you in the last post.

I'm confused by your response. Can you be more specific about what you think the difference is between your context and what you think I am saying? Thanks.
Semeia

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

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/20/2001 2:16 PM (GMT -6)

Sean,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to reply to a few things you said, but at the moment I have to take my kids out to get halloween costumes...first things first! But thanks, and I hope to get back to this soon.

Semeia

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

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/20/2001 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia and Doc
I think I should appologize. My postings today have been rather askew and the way I have been stating my opinions off kilter and unfair. Right now I feel as if I am loosing my rationality and objectivity. For this reason, I think I need to simply back away while I figure out what is going on and do alot of praying over some thing. I will be back, you can count on that, but until then, God bless you all and happy posting.

Mr I.

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/20/2001 7:11 PM (GMT -6)

Mr. I, No need to apologize. We're all a little bit intense. Just looking at the computer screen for a few hours can make one lose perspective! The issues that we're talking about have been argued about for centuries, and are particularly emotionally charged. Considering that, I think this discussion has been going pretty well!

I'm sorry for any part I played in your stress today. Take care,

Semeia

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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/21/2001 2:55 AM (GMT -6)

Mr. Indiff, I think you misread my earlier post. You're response defended the gift of remarriage -- as though I was denying it. The point of my post was the exact opposite. In my view, one of Jesus' primary goals was to expose the self-righteousness of people who felt justified adhering to certain external rules (e.g. "proper" grounds for divorce). He did this by showing how, next to God's holiness, we are all sinners. We all have hardness of heart, all commit adultry, all have murder in our heart, etc... He wasn't proposing new social legistlations -- like all who lust in their heart should be stoned, all who say "fool" should be executed or all that divorce and remarriage was now, in contrast to the Old Testament, impermissible. Rather, while allowing for God's grace to continually transform us, we should confess that we are sinners, abstain from judging others, and cling to the mercy of God.

I'm completely on the side of Semiea in holding that the pre and post conversion distinction is irrelevant.

As to what constitutes a good leader, if being divorced "disqualifies" a person, why not adultery in the mind? or stealing? or gossip? or greed? or hatred? or saying "fool"? etc... All leaders have been guilty of these, at least once, in their post-conversion life. I agree leaders are held to a higher standard, and thus must in their present state have the kind of characters that can be trusted, can withstand temptation, can avoid pettiness, etc... But we are as more examples of GOD"S GRACE in action than we are illustrations of PERFECT CHARACTERS.

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

Doc

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

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 10/21/2001 3:17 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

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

Fine. How about noncelibate monogamous GAY leaders? Riddle me this, riddle me that...

http://www.cathedralofhope.com

Largest Gay Church in the World.

http://www.soulforce.org

Mel White's organization for justice for "God's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Children"

MUCH more to say. Later...

Edited by - mephi2K on 10/21/2001 08:22:22 AM

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/21/2001 4:14 AM (GMT -6)

Doc
Believe it or not, that was the point I was trying to make.

Mr I.

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/21/2001 5:24 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia: when a person uses the words "shut up," towards another in a response, they are not interested in "questioning scripture." They are interested in labeling the other person in a certain way. Such an act is demeaning.
Personally, I welcome the questiong of scripture. Its how one draws closer to God. But simply posting scripture in a way to make your point is not questioning scripture, particularing when one takes several differenting scriptures out of context, makes no real comment on any of them, except to make a prior believed point. Regardless, I would be hard pressed to find a place for the term "shut up" in a debate. John 17:3 Harold

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/21/2001 3:36 PM (GMT -6)

Meph and Mr. I.
I said....

"...IF you surrender yourself to the Lord."

In my view, covenant breaking (divorce) is usually sinful, but it is not unforgivable and should not disqualify a person permanently from a ministry a person is gifted in and called to. If the belief is that a remarried person NOW is living in adultery, and will be so long as they are remarried, then the person who holds that view should not only bar remarried people from ministry, but from Church membership as well. Indeed, they should require that all remarried people get divorced.

NO ONE does this, which is why I regard the view that a remarried person be barred from ministry to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

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

Interesting discussion

Blessings

Doc

Fine. How about noncelibate monogamous GAY leaders? Riddle me this, riddle me that...

http://www.cathedralofhope.com

Largest Gay Church in the World.

http://www.soulforce.org

Mel White's organization for justice for "God's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Children"

MUCH more to say. Later...

Edited by - mephi2K on 10/21/2001 08:22:22 AM

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

Sean
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 18

Posted 10/21/2001 4:21 PM (GMT -6)

Hi, Greg. I hate butting in on discussions, but I think a couple points should be brought up in this discussion.

quote:

In my view, covenant breaking (divorce) is usually sinful, but it is not unforgivable and should not disqualify a person permanently from a ministry a person is gifted in and called to.

First, let me clarify one point; between legitimate and illegitimate divorce. I believe divorce is legitimate if there is unfaithfullness between the partners. Now, when people speak of this, they usually refer to adultery. However, I believe that the adultery command should be internalized as well. Also, there must be a distinction between the one divorcing and the one divorced (if it is not a mutual decision). Again, I'd have to say that even if one spouse filed for divorce, but was being abused by the other spouse, the other spouse is guilty of committing the divorce, because they have, in essence, divorced them in their hearts .

Having said that, it is true, it should not permanently disqualify someone, but it should disqualify them until they have shown signs of spiritual reform. I have no guidelines for determining this reform, and I personally feel that every local church/denomination should determine its own standard.

quote:

If the belief is that a remarried person NOW is living in adultery, and will be so long as they are remarried, then the person who holds that view should not only bar remarried people from ministry, but from Church membership as well. Indeed, they should require that all remarried people get divorced.
NO ONE does this, which is why I regard the view that a remarried person be barred from ministry to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst.

I personally hold that all remaried people after a divorce for illegitimate reasons should get divorced. But, even if I were hypocritical, it is very hard to see how this argument can counter the one about living in sin; just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean what they're saying isn't true (i.e. the Pharisees said a lot of true things, though they were hypocrites).

Well, I hope that you all have a great evening, and God bless you.

Yours, in Christ,
Sean McNabb

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/21/2001 5:57 PM (GMT -6)

Doc, you said:

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

Let's examine this, beginning with a. In the sermon on the mount, Matthew 5.31, Jesus says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Are you suggesting that anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery just once, and then they're over it, and are no longer "living in sin?" Why do you think Jesus says, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”? What do you think he means? My understanding of adultery has always been that it is about sex. A person doesn’t commit adultery when they marry, they commit adultery when they have sex outside of a sanctioned marriage. Jesus knows that. So are you suggesting that the person who remarries is only committing adultery the first time they have sex, and not every time after that? Or do you suggest that the remarried person never commits adultery? In either case, how do you square that with what Jesus says?

You also said:

quote:
If the belief is that a remarried person NOW is living in adultery, and will be so long as they are remarried, then the person who holds that view should not only bar remarried people from ministry, but from Church membership as well. Indeed, they should require that all remarried people get divorced.

I do not understand the logic here. I do indeed believe that a remarried person is now living in adultery. This is my understanding of what Jesus said. I do not however think we should bar them from the ministry or the church or anything else. I think Jesus died to save them from their sin - I think their sin is forgiven - and that staying together even though they are "living in sin" is the most life-affirming path forward. I think we are all living in sin and have been since we rebelled and stole the knowledge of good and evil for ourselves. There is no way that we can really stop living in sin - however God in his mercy allows us to go forward - forgiven yet continuing to live in sin. Isn't this what the parable of the man who sowed good seed means?

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?” He said to them, “An enemy has done this.” The servants said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he said, “No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at the harvest time I will tell the reapers, ‘Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”--Matthew 13:24—30

Now on to b. I don’t think the standard is or can possibly be whether a relationship is without sin. None are without sin. All relationships miss the mark and fall short of the ideal. My understanding is that God takes us where we are at and in his mercy allows us to go forward always encouraging us to take the most “life-affirming” path forward that is open. Why would God sanction divorce in the old testament? Clearly later we find out that this is not his ideal at all. He did it because of the hardness of their hearts. I understand this to mean that this was the most life-affirming path forward for those people at that time. Their options were limited because of the hardness of their hearts. Notice that it wasn’t because of their genetic make-up. It was because of the choices they had made earlier – their willing sinfulness - that resulted in their hardness of heart. Even in this situation – even when they did it to themselves – God finds and sanctions the most life-affirming path possible. Now under the assumption that being homosexual is based solely in one’s genetic make up I would like to ask what do you think God would sanction as the most life-affirming path possible?

Thanks,
Semeia

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

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 10/21/2001 7:20 PM (GMT -6)

Writerdad said:

quote:

Semeia: when a person uses the words "shut up," towards another in a response, they are not interested in "questioning scripture." They are interested in labeling the other person in a certain way. Such an act is demeaning.

I agree with you that the response was harsh and angry. I am assuming it came from someone who is gay, or has close loved ones who are gay. It's hard not to come across angry when you feel under attack. Many Christians don't feel they are attacking gays. To show that they are not attacking gays they say things like this:

quote:
Christians are followers of Christ who reject homosexuality because it is against God's plan and design, but we by no means hate people who are gay nor do we target gay people...

Christians think they are being loving when they make statements like this. Their intent is to be loving. Their impact on homosexuals, however, is quite the opposite. The reason that the impact is different from the intent is because homosexuals do not view their sexuality as separable from themselves. Nor do heterosexuals, for that matter. If you ask straight people if they "chose" to be straight--in other words, do straight people have thoughts of gay sex mixed in with thoughts of straight sex, and they have to "choose" straight sex, they would say no, of course not. Sexuality begins and ends in the brain, and has a complex biology that involves hormones, the nervous system, and the entire body. If you have any doubt that this is the case, do this simple mental exercise: imagine for one minute that it is gay sex that is condoned, and straight sex that is considered perverse. (And the ratios are reversed, straight sex is the minority.) Imagine that the world is repulsed by your being straight. Imagine that you are told that your feelings are against God’s plan and design. Even with all of that, could you “choose” to be gay, if you tried hard enough? Alternatively, could you choose to never have sex again? Is it possible you would be angry when people told you you were not part of God’s design?

Although overly harsh, the respondent was using the phrase “shut up” to describe what he heard Paul saying to women.

Thanks for considering this,
Semeia

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

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/21/2001 8:27 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the late-night-on-the-CVM discussion -board Semeia.

I feel the full force of the passage you sited where Jesus says that when a man divorces his wife "he causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her commits adultery." I agree with you that it is sin: it falls short of God's ideal. I also agree with you that, in this sense, the remarried people are "living in sin." It is not just adultery the first time, and after that fine. And I agree with your view that it is nevertheless allowed becaues it is the most "life-affirming path" for the people to take, given the situation we are in. It's interesting, but Jesus assumes the divorced woman would be remarried (the blame is on the man who "causes her" to commit adultery). Jesus never applies this teaching in a way that would take back the allowance God gave in the Old Testament -- as though our hearts are less "hard" than people in Old Testament times.

As I read it, Jesus was exposing the self-righteousness of the those who were trying to establish "justified grounds" for divorce. He held up God's pure ideal of one spouse and one sexual partner for life that "no man should put asunder" as a means of doing this. In this sense remarriage involves adultery. Indeed, in this sense lusting after someone who is not your spouse is adultery.

But must we not distinguish this falling short of God's ideal, either in the mind or in remarriage, from committing ACTUAL adultery (I don't know how else to express this distinction)? While neither of us has problems with (say) a pastor who has been remarried, would we not both have problems with a pastor who was married to someone but still having sex with someone else? Didn't Jesus himself tell the woman caught in the act of adultery to "go and sin no more" (Jn 8). Isn't "living in sin" different in these cases?

You're raising great questions! Thanks!

Doc

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

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 10/21/2001 10:25 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Semeia: imagine for one minute that it is gay sex that is condoned, and straight sex that is considered perverse. (And the ratios are reversed, straight sex is the minority.) Imagine that the world is repulsed by your being straight. Imagine that you are told that your feelings are against God’s plan and design. Even with all of that, could you “choose” to be gay, if you tried hard enough?

That makes so much sense to me. I had never tried this exercise before.

The topic of divorce and remarriage is an extremely sensitive topic for me right now in my life because this was one of the biggest things my Dad wrestled with before he died. You see, my parents were divorced several years ago and my dad ended up remarrying. When he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor a few months ago he started to really question where God stood in this area of divorce and remarriage. He wrestled with the question of whether God would forgive him for remarrying and whether he would go to heaven. In the end he had finally settled this and was assured of his salvation. He finally realized that Christ died for ALL sin (whether it be homosexuality, divorce, gossip, bearing false witness...) Grace is assured for those who repent.

Speaking about repenting, one verse that stands out for me is found in John 8 where Jesus tells the woman at the well to "go and sin no more." God forgives our sins, but God also does equip and empower us to become made more and more in His image as we grow. We will definitely sin throughout our lives (it's human nature) but some people I've known have used this almost as an excuse to live the way they wanted. If we repent we will stop going in the direction which leads to "death" and start striving toward the direction which brings "life". We are to move from milk to solid food.
Romans 6: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein"

I hope this makes sense since it's after 3:00 in the morning. I can't sleep and this topic was laying heavy on my mind, especially in light of the fact that this was what my Dad had wrestled with before he died.
trosie

Edited by - trosie on 10/22/2001 03:32:43 AM

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

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:28 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual